Hannell, Application for Set Aside [2025] PBSA 57 (15 August 2025) [2025] PBSA 57
[1]This is an application by Hannell (the Applicant) to set aside the decision not to direct his release. The decision was made by a panel after an oral hearing on 20 June 2025. This is an eligible decision.[2]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the dossier consisting of 324 pages, the oral hearing decision dated 20 June 2025 and the application for set aside dated 29 July 2025. Background[3]On 24 November 2021, the Applicant received an extended sentence of 6 years comprising 3 years custody and 3 years extended licence following conviction for harassment. His sentence expires in June 2027.[4]The Applicant was aged 27 at the time of sentencing. He is now 31 years old.[5]He was automatically released on licence on 6 June 2024. His licence was revoked on 16 July 2024, and he was returned to custody two days later. This is his first recall on this sentence, and his first parole review since recall. Application for Set Aside[6]The application for set aside has been drafted and submitted by Solicitors acting for the Applicant.[7]It submits that there has been errors of fact in the panel’s consideration of the case. Current parole review[8]The Applicant’s case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) to consider whether to direct his release.[9]The case proceeded to an oral hearing on 20 June 2024. The application is incorrect in stating that the hearing was before a three member panel as it was before a single member panel. The panel heard evidence from the Applicant, his Prison Offender Manager ( POM ) and his Community Offender Manager ( COM ). The Applicant was legally represented throughout the hearing.[10]The panel did not direct the Applicant’s release. The Relevant Law 11.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.[12]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)). 13.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[14]The Respondent has offered no representations in response to this application . Discussion[15]It is argued on behalf of the Applicant that there were errors of fact in the decision. The application however, does not identify any error of fact, submitting rather that the panel has placed too much weight on certain information and did not give sufficient consideration to the Applicant’s own evidence. The Applicant disagrees with his assessment as being of high risk of serious harm to the public and the assumption of his being violent in a relationship. Finally, the Applicant submits that the recall was based on incorrect facts and assumption.[16]None of the matters raised by the Applicant amount to errors of fact. They are rather disagreements with the panel’s analysis and conclusions. The decision is clearly reasoned and fairly set out. The application repeats the Applicant’s position for example with regard to attending the plea hearing by video link. The panel correctly records the Applicant’s position which is repeated in the application. There was no error in its consideration which came down in favour of the Applicant’s account despite the application submitting that the panel did not give enough consideration to the Applicant’s account.[17]The application challenges the assessment of risk. The panel has considered risk as identified by OASys and taking into account the Applicant’s history of offending the conclusion reached was the only appropriate conclusion open to the panel. No errors are identified in the application but rather a disagreement with the panel conclusion which is unarguable.[18]The submission that the recall was based on incorrect facts does not provide the Applicant with a basis for set aside. The panel member considered the circumstances of the recall and concluded that the Applicant should not have been returned to custody. The Applicant’s remedy in respect of the facts on which that conclusion was based was to persuade the panel member that he should not remain in custody. The Applicant presented evidence to the panel which when considered with all the other evidence presented, the panel did not find could lead to his re-release. That was a carefully, fairly and fully considered decision and whilst the Applicant may be disappointed with it, it does not afford him a ground for raising it again under the set aside provisions.[19]None of the matters raised in the application identifies an error of fact or law for consideration. Decision[20]The application for set aside is refused. Barbara Mensah 15 August 2025