Saillet, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 98 (06 May 2026) [2026] PBRA 98

PBRA
Saillet, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 98 (06 May 2026)
[2026] PBRA 98 · 2026-03-12
[1]This is an application by Saillet ('the Applicant') who is serving an extended determinate sentence ('EDS'). His application is for reconsideration of the decision of a panel of the Parole Board ('the Board') which on 12 March 2026 issued a decision not to direct his release on licence. Background and history of the case[2]The Applicant is aged 73. On 11 May 2017 he received an EDS for sexual offences against four elderly women. His sentence was made up of a custodial period of eight years and an extended licence period of two years. His parole eligibility date was 23 July 2022. In July 2023 his case was considered at an oral hearing by a panel of the Board who decided not to direct his early release. He therefore remained in prison until 20 March 2025 when he was automatically released on licence. His sentence will expire in March 2027.[3]He was recalled to prison on 2 May 2025 for breaches of his licence conditions. The Secretary of State for Justice has referred the case to the Board to decide whether he should be re-released on licence.[4]The case was directed to proceed to an oral hearing. It was allocated to a panel comprising an independent chair and another independent member. The hearing took place on 12 February 2026. The Applicant was legally represented. The panel had read all the documents in the dossier provided by the Secretary of State, which contained 369 numbered pages. Oral evidence was given by the Applicant himself, the Prison Offender Manager ('POM') and the Community Offender Manager ('COM'). The professional witnesses recommended the Applicant's release on licence.[5]After the hearing one additional document (the report of an intervention) was added to the dossier.[6]The panel's decision was not issued until 12 March 2026; this was because of the panel chair's indisposition. The decision was that the Applicant should not be released on licence.[7]On 2 April 2026 an application for reconsideration of the panel's decision was made by the Applicant's solicitors on his behalf. I am one of the members authorised to make decisions on such applications and this application has been allocated to me. The Relevant Law The test for release on licence[8]Under the codified public protection test the panel could only direct the Applicant's release on licence if they were satisfied that his continued confinement in prison was no longer necessary for the protection of the public, and they could only be so satisfied if they considered that (if the prisoner were to be no longer confined in prison) there would be no more than a minimal risk of his committing a further offence so serious that it might result in serious harm to somebody else. The rules relating to reconsideration of decisions[9]Under Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended) a decision is eligible for reconsideration if (but only if) it is a decision that the prisoner is or is not suitable for release on licence.[10]The grounds on which an application may be made are(a) error of law,(b) irrationality or(c) procedural unfairness.[11]The application in this case is made on the ground of irrationality.[12]A decision that a prisoner is or is not suitable for release on licence is eligible for reconsideration whether it is made by:(i) a paper panel (Rule 19(1)(a) or (b)) or(ii) an oral hearing panel after an oral hearing, as in this case (Rule 25(1)) or(iii) an oral hearing panel which makes a decision on the papers (Rule 21(7)). The definition of irrationality[13]The power of the courts to interfere with a decision of a competent public authority on the ground of irrationality was defined in Associated Provincial Houses Ltd -v- Wednesbury Corporation 1948 1 KB 223 by Lord Greene as follows:
"if a decision on a competent matter is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it, then the courts can interfere"
. The Parole Board is a public authority for that purpose, and the Wednesbury test therefore applies to applications to the High Court for judicial review of a panel's decision. It also applies to applications to reconsideration panels of the Board for reconsideration of a panel's decision on the ground of irrationality.[14]In R (DSD and others) -v- the Parole Board 2018 EWHC 694 (Admin) ('the Worboys case') a Divisional Court applied this test to Parole Board decisions in these words:
" the issue is whether the release decision was so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it ."
The same test of course applies to 'no release' decisions.[15]In R (on the application of Wells) -v- Parole Board 2019 EWHC 2710 (Admin) Mr Justice Saini set out what he described as a more nuanced approach in modern public law. This approach is " to test the decision maker's ultimate conclusion against the evidence before it and to ask whether the conclusion can (with due deference and with regard to the panel's expertise) be safely justified on the basis of that evidence, particularly in a context where anxious scrutiny needs to be applied ". This formulation of the test was adopted by a Divisional Court in the case of R (on the application of the Secretary of State for Justice) -v- the Parole Board 2022 EWHC 1282 (Admin) .[16]As was made clear by Mr Justice Saini, this is not a different test from the Wednesbury test. The interpretation of (and application of) the Wednesbury test in parole hearings (as explained in the Wednesbury and DSD cases) was of course binding on Mr Justice Saini. It is similarly binding on reconsideration panels.[17]It follows from these principles that in considering an application for reconsideration a reconsideration panel cannot substitute its own view of the evidence for that of the panel who heard the witnesses and were able to assess their reliability. The reconsideration panel will only direct reconsideration on the ground of irrationality if the Wednesbury test is satisfied. Disagreement with the professional witnesses[18]In this case the panel rejected the unanimous recommendations of the professional witnesses. A panel of the Board is not bound by the recommendations of professional witnesses, even if they are unanimous; its task is to make its own assessment of the prisoner's risk of serious harm to the public and its manageability on licence. It is however well established that, if the panel rejects the unanimous recommendations of the professionals, it must provide reasons for doing so and those reasons must stand up to close examination. If they do not, that may be a ground for a finding of procedural unfairness or irrationality. The application[19]As noted above the application in this case is made on the ground of irrationality. The specific criticisms of the panel's decision will be discussed below. The Secretary of State's position[20]The Secretary of State is the Respondent to this application and would be entitled to make any representations for or against this application. The Reconsideration and High Court Referral Section, within the Public Protection Group of the Ministry of Justice, have stated on his behalf that he offers no representations. Documents considered[21]I have considered the following documents for the purpose of this application: i) the dossier provided by PPCS for the Applicant's case, which now runs to numbered page 430 and includes a copy of the panel's decision; and ii) the representations submitted by the Applicant's solicitors in support of this application. Discussion[22]The grounds advanced by the solicitor are as follows and I have set them out in turn and added my comments. Ground 1: The panel placed insufficient weight on the evidence of the professional witnesses both of whom recommended release.[23]This is a case in which reasonable views could be held about the Applicant's risk of serious harm to the public. The professional witnesses' views were not unreasonable but I am satisfied that the panel's views were not unreasonable either.[24]At the conclusion of their decision the panel summarised as follows the reasons for their decision. "4.3.1 [The Applicant] minimises his behaviour and the panel are not confident he fully understands or takes responsibility for his offending. The panel are concerned that the behaviour that led to recall is offence paralleling. The panel considers his explanation for seeking out females over 65 to be implausible. "4.3.2 There is outstanding risk reduction work to address the risk factors in this case. The panel consider this work essential to risk reduction and the ability of [the Applicant] to self-manage risk. The panel do not agree with Professionals that risk can be safely managed while he completes this work in the community. His offending took place despite seeking and completing counselling for his sexual preoccupation and interest in elderly women. He was recalled when he was unable to accept the end of a relationship and engaged in behaviour that could be considered to be harassment. "4.3.3 Having considered all the evidence available and [the Applicant's] account of the index offences, his relationships and the use of the dating website the panel does not share the confidence of the professional witnesses that [the Applicant] is always open and honest. He wants to present himself in a good light and criticises a range of professionals who are charged with protecting the public. The panel consider this is hampering the exploration of all the reasons for offending and that this in turn hampers effective risk reduction and risk management. "4.3.4 At this point the panel could not be satisfied that [the Applicant] is able to recognise and self-manage risk when the external risk management measures reduce and stop. "4.3.5 The risk of a further sexual offence and risk of causing serious harm remains high while the reasons for offending have not been fully addressed. "4.3.6 Given the level of risk identified, [the Applicant's] limited insight and the outstanding risk reduction work the panel could not be satisfied the risk of a further sexual offence which would cause serious harm is no more than minimal."[25]The panel had the advantage of being able to observe and evaluate the Applicant's response to questions. I can see no reason to question any of the above comments on his presentation.[26]The panel also had the opportunity to observe and evaluate the evidence given by the professional witnesses. It is apparent from the panel's recital of the evidence that their evidence was not entirely favourable to the Applicant. The following points arose:
"2.4 The POM considers [the Applicant] needs to complete work on how to have a healthy relationship. He has completed some work on his thinking skills. He is assessed as being suitable for the moderate intensity Building Choices programme. "2.5 [He] has not completed an accredited offending behaviour programme to address the factors which drove his offending. "2.7 The POM considered Building Choices could be completed in the community and risk can be managed with the risk management plan. The POM considered it would be beneficial for [the Applicant] to have some supervision in the community before the end of his sentence. "2.8 The POM considered [the Applicant] pre-planned his index offending and he persisted in trying to contact, then find Ms LS. He needs female company, he has a fear of rejection and being alone. "2.10 The COM has managed the case since 1 Dec 2025 and completed the Part C report. In meetings since that time, [the Applicant] has presented as open and honest. However, he is reluctant to discuss any sexual element to his offending. The COM considered he has to complete work to address the drivers to address his sexual offending and that the offending is not fully understood. He prefers to focus on deficits in his thinking and solving problems which involve emotions and the impact of his behaviour on others. The COM is concerned about this but did not consider it to be driven by a desire to deceive. This could be due to shame and denial. "2.11 Whilst he has improved his ability to be open about his problems, elements of [the Applicant's] custodial behaviour suggests he still has issues accepting the views of others. The [ Programme Needs Assessment] concluded that he would benefit from developing his insight into how his behaviour is perceived by others and considering why he is unable to consistently apply the skills he has to solve practical problems. "2.13...The COM was not confident [the Applicant] has a good understanding of what a Healthy Relationship is and how to manage one; there are issues with his reaction to the end of a relationship. The COM agrees he is driven by the need to be in a relationship. The panel has limited confidence [the Applicant] can manage a relationship appropriately if released now. "2.14...The COM considers the risk of a further sexual offence is high. The COM considers the risk management plan mitigates risk as long as [the Applicant] complies and engages and learns from the proposed intervention. The COM was not confident he currently has those self-management skills."
[27]In the light of all this evidence I cannot find any fault in the panel's decision to reject the evidence of the professionals and to prefer their own views. Ground 2: The panel placed insufficient weight on the robustness of the risk management plan which included residence at Approved Premises and trail monitoring .[28]The risk management plan was certainly robust but for the reasons discussed above the panel was entitled to conclude that it was insufficient to be effective to ensure that the Applicant's risk was no more than minimal. Ground 3: The panel placed insufficient weight on the fact that no further offences were alleged and that no formal complaint appears to have been made about [the Applicant].[29]It is correct that no further offences were alleged and no formal complaint was made. However, that does not mean that there was not evidence, as the panel found there was, that the Applicant posed a more than minimal risk of serious harm to the public and in particular to elderly women. Ground 4: The panel suggested that the behaviour resulting in recall could be considered harassment. However there is no evidence that that is the case.[30]I believe that the Applicant's behaviour could properly be characterised as harassment. Even if it was not, the other points made by the panel were sufficient to justify their decision. Decision[31]As I have stated above this is a case in which different views could reasonably be reached. I understand the desire of the professionals for the Applicant to have a period of supervision in the community before the expiry of his sentence but I do not think that can outweigh the fact, as the panel reasonably concluded, that his risk would be more than minimal if he were to be released from prison at this stage. I must therefore refuse this application. I very much hope that during the remainder of his sentence the Applicant will be able to gain a better understanding of his risks and that he will not find himself in prison again for any further offences. Jeremy Roberts 6 May 2026