Callard, Application for Set Aside by the Secretary of State for Justice [2025] PBSA 51 (28 July 2025) [2025] PBSA 51
[1]This is an application by the Secretary of State for Justice (the Applicant) to set aside the decision of a Panel of the Parole Board to direct the release of Callard (the Respondent). This is an eligible decision.[2]I have considered the application on the papers. These are: a) the dossier now paginated to 162 pages; b) the decision dated 1 April 2025; and c) the application for set aside dated 30 June 2025 Background[3]On 11 December 2023 the Respondent was sentenced, upon his guilty pleas, to a total of three years imprisonment for offences of engaging in controlling and coercive behaviour within an intimate relationship, battery and criminal damage. The Sentence Expiry Date is given as June 2026.[4]The victim was aged 18 and was over 10 years younger than the Respondent when they first met online. During a relationship which lasted nearly two years she was subjected to a catalogue of physically and psychologically abusive behaviours which included exercising control over her phone; access to social media and her finances; alienating her from her family; determining her appearance, behaviour and intimate care; regularly threatening her with violence; punching her, pulling her hair, biting her left upper arm causing injuries and breaking her finger; and threatening to disclose private sexual images to her family members.[5]The Trial Judge described the Respondent as a bully with a warped sense of his own importance and dominance who treated the victim as no woman should be treated.[6]The Respondent had a record of previous convictions for five counts of rape of a female child under 13 and two counts of sexual assault upon a female child under 13. He had also committed three offences of battery and one of harassment in relation to previous intimate partners.[7]The Respondent was aged 33 at the time of sentencing and is now 34 years old.[8]He was released automatically on licence on 23 December 2024. He was recalled on 31 December 2024 following an allegation by the victim of the index offences that he had sent her an email using an assumed name, thus placing him in breach of his licence conditions and a Restraining Order (RO). The content of the email included an apology and a request for contact.[9]He was returned to custody on 1 January 2025 and, following a Crown Court trial on 28 February 2025, he was acquitted of three counts of breaching a RO.[10]This was the first review since his recall to prison. Application for Set Aside[11]The application for set aside has been drafted and submitted by the Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS) acting on behalf of the Applicant.[12]The application for set aside submits that the decision for release would not have been made if information, constituting a significant change in circumstances impacting the professional risk management assessment, had been available when the Panel made the decision to direct the Respondent’s release.[13]The content of the application will be considered in the Discussion section below. Current parole review[14]The Respondent’s case was referred to the Parole Board by the Applicant to consider whether to direct his release.[15]A single member of the Parole Board considered the case at member case assessment and on the basis of the papers alone directed the Respondent’s release. The Relevant Law[16]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.[17]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)).[18]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[19]The solicitor for the Respondent requested an extension of time to file representations on his behalf in response to the application. This request was granted and I have carefully considered those written representations and refer to them in the Discussion section below. Discussion[20]The application states that the Community Offender Manager (“COM”) has received information that the victim of the index offences has received a letter, apparently from the Respondent (although unsigned), referring to their previous relationship, blaming her for his convictions and recall and making a number of threats.[21]By both a RO and a proposed licence condition the Respondent is prohibited from communicating with the victim.[22]The threats include that the Respondent will send intimate videos of the victim to her family and will upload them to the Internet.[23]The letter also contains threats towards another male with whom the Respondent previously shared a cell, indicating that the Respondent has already made arrangements for him to be dealt with.[24]The COM has also received intelligence from the prison where the Respondent is currently located that the Respondent has been attempting to contact the victim in other ways and also asking fellow prisoners to do so on his behalf and he has received a warning letter for this.[25]The Respondent apparently denies sending the letter which has been referred to the police for appropriate testing.[26]The Respondent’s behaviour in custody is described as “mostly positive.” However, he has recently been involved in a fight with another prisoner although the adjudication was not proceeded with. Since then, he is reported to be “struggling” and has recently disclosed to the COM that he has resumed using spice and subutex, drug use which is said to be out of character for him.[27]There are professional concerns that the letter to the victim indicates an ongoing preoccupation with her, and it is the view of the COM that the proposed risk management plan is no longer suitably robust or capable of managing his risk and she does not believe that the Respondent has any intention of complying with licence conditions if released from custody. There are also concerns that he may have manipulated another individual into writing the letter.[28]The Respondent, through his solicitors, submits that the new allegations mirror those which led to his recall and to the charges of which he was, in due course, acquitted and that they are also deliberate and malicious, made with the aim of ensuring that the Respondent remains in custody. It is further submitted that there is no evidence provided to substantiate these allegations; however, this is to misunderstand the test to be applied in a set aside application.[29]The solicitors concede that this is new information which was not available to the panel which directed release and it is also clear that the information is not confined to the disputed letter but extends to a range of other concerns relating to violence, acknowledged drug use and attempts by the Respondent to contact the victim via third parties.[30]The Respondent’s risk of causing serious harm to a known adult has been raised to Very High and Probation have concerns that the risk to the victim if he is released could include serious physical harm.[31]It is submitted that the proposed risk management plan is insufficient and that the Respondent’s risk of causing serious harm is no longer manageable in the community.[32]In consequence of this new information and change in circumstances the Applicant submits that the release decision should be set aside.[33]I have carefully considered the documentation placed before me and the new information provided and am in no doubt that, on the evidence before me, there is fresh information, relevant to the Respondent’s risk, which raises issues which require careful investigation and that the Panel would not have given a direction for release if this information had been before it at the relevant time.[34]I confirm that I am satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for the Panel's decision to be set aside . Decision[35]The application for set aside is granted. PETER H.F.JONES 28 July 2025