Matharu, Application for Set Aside by the Secretary of State for Justice [2025] PBSA 28 (06 May 2025) [2025] PBSA 28
[1]This is an application by the Secretary of State for Justice (the Applicant) to set aside the decision to direct the release of Matharu (the Respondent). The decision was made by a panel on the papers . This is an eligible decision.[2]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the dossier (consisting of 146 numbered pages), the decision (dated 10 April 2025), and the application for set aside (dated 22 April 2025). Background[3]On 1 March 2024, the Respondent received determinate sentences of imprisonment totalling 21 months following conviction for intentional strangulation (12 months), wounding/inflicting grievous bodily harm (nine months consecutive) and battery (one month concurrent). The Respondent pleaded guilty to all charges.[4]The Applicant was 32 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 33 years old.[5]He was automatically released on licence on 22 August 2024. His licence was revoked on 6 December 2024, and he was returned to custody on 7 February 2025 after a period unlawfully at large.[6]His sentence ends in November 2025. Application for Set Aside[7]The application for set aside has been drafted and submitted by the Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS) acting on behalf of the Applicant.[8]The application for set aside submits there is further information constituting a change in circumstances which came to light after the panel made its decision. It is argued that the panel would not have reached the same decision had this new information been known.[9]The content of the application will be considered in the Discussion section below. Current Parole Review[10]The Respondent’s case was referred to the Parole Board by the Applicant to consider whether to direct his release.[11]On 10 April 2025, a single-member panel directed the Respondent’s release on the papers. The Relevant Law[12]Rule 28A(1)(a) of the Parole Board Rules provides that a prisoner or the Secretary of State may apply to the Parole Board to set aside certain final decisions. Similarly, under rule 28A(1)(b), the Parole Board may seek to set aside certain final decisions on its own initiative.[13]The types of decisions eligible for set aside are set out in rule 28A(1) . Decisions concerning whether the prisoner is or is not suitable for release on licence are eligible for set aside whether made by a paper panel (rule 19(1)(a) or (b)) or by an oral hearing panel after an oral hearing (rule 25(1)) or by an oral hearing panel which makes the decision on the papers (rule 21(7)).[14]A final decision may be set aside if it is in the interests of justice to do so (rule 28A(3)(a)) and either (rule 28A(4)): a) a direction for release (or a decision not to direct release) would not have been given or made but for an error of law or fact, or b) a direction for release would not have been given if information that had not been available to Board had been available, or c) a direction for release would not have been given if a change in circumstances relating to the prisoner after the direction was given had occurred before it was given. The reply on behalf of the Respondent[15]The Respondent has submitted no representations in response to the application and the deadline for representations has now passed . Discussion[16]The application for set aside is grounded in the refusal of a referral to designated accommodation. This development arose after the panel made its decision and has since been confirmed as final following an unsuccessful appeal by the Probation Service. It is accepted that, as a result, there will be no designated bed space available for the Respondent upon release.[17]The Central Referral Unit’s rationale was that the Respondent’s risks could be managed without residence in designated accommodation through the use of GPS and/or alcohol monitoring tags, supported by family oversight. However, the Respondent’s supervising officer has expressed doubt that his father’s address (where the Respondent resided prior to breach and recall) would be sufficiently protective. Further, the supervising officer noted the need to consult with the previous practitioner and withheld support for release to any setting other than designated accommodation. This concern is underscored by the Senior Probation Officer’s view within the Part B report (25 February 2025) that designated accommodation was necessary to “ add an extra layer of monitoring .”[18]This clearly constitutes a material change in circumstances relating to the prisoner.[19]I must next assess whether the release direction would have been made had this information been available at the time of the decision. The answer lies in the original panel’s reasoning.[20]The necessity of designated accommodation was not peripheral but central to the panel’s conclusion that the statutory public protection test was met. The panel explicitly directed release “ to reside at [designated accommodation] when a place becomes available ,” and stated unequivocally that “ Release is subject to the initial period in [designated accommodation] ”. These are not conditions which imply discretion: they are clearly framed as prerequisites.[21]In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the panel would not have directed release had it known that no placement at designated accommodation would be forthcoming. The proposed risk management plan, central to the panel’s reasoning, cannot now be delivered in the form envisaged. Whilst GPS monitoring and family support remain theoretically available, they were considered supplementary to, not substitutes for, the controls provided by residence in designated accommodation.[22]Finally, I turn to the overarching question of whether it is in the interests of justice to set aside the decision. I am satisfied that it would not be in the interests of justice for a prisoner convicted of serious violent offences to be released in a manner materially inconsistent with the risk management plan that the Parole Board found necessary for the protection of the public. Decision[23]For the reasons set out above, the application for set aside is granted. Stefan Fafinski 06 May 2025