Wilson, Application for Set Aside [2025] PBSA 48 (15 July 2025) [2025] PBSA 48

PBSA
Wilson, Application for Set Aside [2025] PBSA 48 (15 July 2025)
[2025] PBSA 48 · 2024-08-22
[1]This is an application initiated by the Chair of the Parole Board (the Applicant) to set aside the decision to direct release. The decision was made by a panel after an oral hearing on 22 August 2024 . This is an eligible decision.[2]I have considered the application on the papers. These are: · The dossier now paginated to 2518 pages; · The oral hearing decision dated 17 March 2025 (DL); · Stakeholder Response Forms (SHRFs) from the new Community Offender Manager (COM) dated(a) 19 March 2025 (containing a response from the solicitor for Mr Wilson (the Respondent) dated 11 May 2025) and(b) 17 April 2025; · Email from the panel Chair dated 2 June 2025; · Email dated 6 June 2025 confirming the Applicant's decision to initiate a Set Aside application. Background[3]On 30 November 2006 the Respondent was sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty's Pleasure for an offence of murder committed when he was 13 years old in company with his father. The minimum term was set at 9 years less time spent in custodial remand and the Tariff Expiry Date is given as 10 January 2015.[4]The index offence related to a prolonged and vicious attack involving the use of weapons upon a 38 year old female neighbour. The Respondent was also sentenced to 18 months detention for an offence of arson involving setting fire to the property in an effort to destroy forensic evidence.[5]The Respondent was aged 14 at the time of sentencing and is now aged 32.[6]The Respondent was directed for release by a panel of the Parole Board in December 2020. He was recalled to custody in October 2022 on suspicion of having an offensive weapon, rape, GBH and being coercive and controlling in his relationship. He was charged with one count of coercive and controlling behaviour but was acquitted on 12 May 2023 when no evidence was offered by the Crown Prosecution Service.[7]This was the second review following his recall to prison. Current parole review[8]The Respondent's case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release or, in the alternative, to recommend that he be transferred to open prison conditions.[9]The case proceeded to an oral hearing on 22 August 2024 before a 3-member panel, which included a psychologist and two independent members, one of whom acted as the Chair of the hearing.[10]The panel heard evidence from the Respondent, his Prison Offender Manager (POM), the previous COM, an HMPPS psychologist and a psychologist commissioned on behalf of the Respondent, who was legally represented throughout the hearing.[11]Following an adjournment for further information, the panel directed the Respondent's release. Application for Set Aside[12]In a SHRF dated 19 March 2025 the Respondent's COM (who had not been present at the hearing in August 2024) drew attention to para 3.19 of the DL and, in particular, to:
"The panel considered the risk management plan capable of managing risk as long as [the Respondent] is able to complete the work identified by [the HMPPS psychologist] with his COM and supported by the OPD service."
[13]The COM then goes on to say:
"........further to dialogue with [the HMPPS psychologist], I am advised that the work she advocates is of a specialist nature and could / should only be undertaken by a Psychologist. I am not a Psychologist, and the OPD Service is not resourced to deliver the advocated work. I request that the Parole Board is invited to consider this position."
[14]The Respondent's solicitor responded on 11 May 2025.[15]In a further SHRF dated 17 April 2025 the COM, having reiterated the contents of the initial SHRF states:
"I have discussed the issue with my Head of Service and with the OPD Service: The following is the contents of an e-mail from [the relevant Strategic Lead for the OPD Pathway]. Thanks for your email. I'm happy to confirm that OPD would not get involved in the work requested in the decision letter for a number reasons, mainly to do with resource capacity and a lack of specialist knowledge and expertise within the team. I completely support your decision to take the request back to the parole board for review. The following is comment from my Head of Service, in relation to the matter : Given the confirmation above, I endorse the concern raised by [the COM] as it is very clear the specified work outlined in the original Parole Board decision is not available to [the Respondent] in the community. ...I continue to request that the Parole Board is invited to consider this position ."
[16]This information was communicated to the panel and the panel Chair replied by email on 2 June 2025.[17]The salient portions of the email appear to be: · "This is a complex case with both prison and independent psychological risk assessments using different assessment tools with opposing conclusions. · Outstanding treatment needs have been identified. At the time of the oral hearing the panel were advised this work could be completed by the COM and a Forensic psychologist in the community. · On 2 May the panel received two SHRF from the Case Manager dated 19 March 2025 and 17 April 2025. The panel had not previously received those documents and they had not been sent to the Representative for comment. · On 2 May the panel chair asked the Case Manager to forward those SHRF to the Representative for comment. · The panel chair asked the Case Manager to establish whether a Set Aside application was being made. PPCS confirmed it was not making a Set Aside application. · The implications of the new information/change of circumstances were discussed by the 3 member panel on 30 May 2025 (the earliest date all panel members were available). · The panel have decided that it would not have made the same decision if it had known about the new information at the time of the hearing. · The panel consider that the new information has implications for risk management and public safety".[18]In an email dated 6 June 2025 the Applicant approved the initiation of this application.[19]The Application for set aside is made on the basis that the direction for release would not have been given if the new information now available to the panel had been available at the time of its decision to direct release.[20]The Secretary of State has chosen not to make an application for set aside. The Relevant Law[21]Rule 28A(1)(a) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended by the Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2022) (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.[22]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)).[23]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 the 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[24]The solicitor for the Respondent has provided helpful representations in response to the application (which is opposed) dated 4 July 2025.[25]The Secretary of State has offered no representations in response to this application . Discussion[26]The application is made pursuant rule 28A(1)(b) of the Parole Board Rules. The first question for me is whether there is new information that was not available to the panel when the direction for release was given.[27]I find that there is. The panel made clear in the DL its view that the risk management plan (RMP) was capable of managing risk provided that the Respondent was able to complete identified work in the community. It is now apparent that the work, which the panel found to be necessary so that the Respondent's risk could be safely managed, cannot, in fact, be carried out as the panel envisaged.[28]The next question is whether the panel would not have given a direction for release if that information had been available to it. I find that there is ample evidence of this being the case, particularly since the panel has had the opportunity to consider the new information and has itself come to this conclusion for reasons of risk management and public safety.[29]Finally, I am satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to grant the application for set aside in the light of the views of the panel, which considered a substantial written dossier and the oral evidence of the Respondent and the professional witnesses, and since to do otherwise would result in the Respondent being released subject to an RMP which the panel no longer considers to be adequate. Decision[30]The application for set aside is granted . PETER H. F. JONES 15 July 2025