Hopkins, Application for Set Aside [2025] PBSA 55 (07 August 2025) [2025] PBSA 55
[1]This is an application by Hopkins (the Applicant) to set aside the decision not to direct his release. The decision was made by a panel following an oral hearing . This is an eligible decision.[2]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the dossier (consisting of 329 numbered pages), the decision (dated 14 July 2025), and the application for set aside (dated 28 July 2025). Background[3]On 23 November 2018, the Applicant was convicted of seven counts of indecent assault on a female under 16. He pleaded guilty to all charges. He received a sentence of 54 months’ imprisonment, two consecutive sentences of 33 months each, two concurrent sentences of 33 months each, and two concurrent sentences of 20 months each. This gave an effective total determinate sentence of 120 months.[4]The index offences concerned incidents of digital penetration, enforced masturbation and oral sex committed against the Applicant’s step-nieces whilst babysitting them alone over a period of several years.[5]The Applicant was 35 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 42 years old.[6]He was automatically released on licence on 23 November 2023. His licence was revoked on 29 October 2024, and he was returned to custody the following day.[7]The Applicant was recalled to custody due to a pattern of concealment, deception, and non-compliance that raised concerns about escalating risk. He failed to disclose a developing relationship with a vulnerable woman (SH), who had two daughters, despite repeated opportunities during supervision. When stopped by police, he was found with a birthday card and gift for the woman’s daughter, suggesting further undisclosed contact.[8]Professionals described his engagement as superficial and evasive, with limited insight into risk. Taken together, these factors led to a professional assessment that his risk could no longer be managed in the community, and he was recalled to custody.[9]The Applicant’s sentence ends in November 2028. Application for Set Aside[10]The application for set aside has been drafted and submitted by solicitors on behalf of the Applicant and although the introduction submits that the panel’s decision was based upon “ errors of fact and law ”, the remainder of the application is only argued on the basis of error of fact. Current Parole Review[11]The Applicant’s case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) to consider whether to direct his release.[12]The review proceeded to an oral hearing on 8 July 2025 before a single-member panel. The panel heard evidence from the Applicant, a stand-in Prison Offender Manager (POM) and the Community Offender Manager (COM). The Applicant was legally represented throughout the hearing. The Applicant raised no objection to the attendance and evidence of the stand-in POM, and the decision records that they were “ fully briefed, had a thorough knowledge of the case, and provided up to date and new information”.[13]In the professional opinion of the stand-in POM and the COM, the Applicant could not be safely managed in the community. The panel did not direct the Applicant’s release. The Relevant Law[14]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.[15]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)).[16]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[17]The Respondent has indicated that no representations will be made in response to this application. Discussion[18]The Applicant first argues that the panel was wrong to conclude that his risk had escalated, pointing to the absence of a sexual relationship, the lack of any complaint from SH, and the fact that no new offences were alleged. However, these points do not reveal any factual inaccuracy in the decision. The panel did not base its decision on the existence of a sexual relationship or the presence of a formal complaint. Instead, it assessed risk on the basis of the Applicant’s concealment of the relationship, his deceptive and manipulative behaviour and his persistent contact with a vulnerable woman who ultimately sought to end communication. These concerns were supported by recorded phone calls and professional evidence. The panel’s findings on risk represent an evaluative judgment, not a factual error.[19]The Applicant also highlights what he sees as an inconsistency in the panel’s observation that the relationship could have been discussed in supervision. He suggests that this implies the recall was avoidable. However, the panel was clear that, while earlier openness might have allowed for safeguarding measures, by the time of recall the pattern of deception, emotional instability, and failure to engage with supervision had already undermined confidence in the Applicant’s risk management. The panel was entitled to conclude that alternatives to recall were no longer viable and that the recall was appropriate. This does not amount to a mistake of fact.[20]Finally, the Applicant challenges the panel’s reference to him being “ challenging ” during supervision, arguing that this was not the issue that led to his recall. However, the panel did not cite this as a standalone reason for the decision. It formed part of a broader, evidenced concern about superficial engagement and limited insight. This again is a matter of interpretation, not a factual inaccuracy.[21]In short, the application does not argue with anything other than the panel’s evaluation of the evidence and appears confused as to the fundamental distinction between fact and opinion. Decision[22]For the reasons set out above, the application for set aside is refused. Stefan Fafinski 07 August 2025