Preston, Application for Set Aside [2025] PBSA 64 (01 September 2025) [2025] PBSA 64
[1]This is an application by Preston (the Applicant) to set aside the decision not to direct his release. The decision was made by a panel after an oral hearing on 17 July 2025. This is an eligible decision.[2]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the dossier, the oral hearing decision dated 28 July 2025, and the application for set aside dated 22 August 2025. Background[3]On 6 October 2014, the Applicant received a determinate sentence following his conviction for a number of sexual offences against children, including attempted rape and rape. The Applicant was 30 years old when he was sentenced and is now 41 years old. His sentence ends in January 2028.[4]The Applicant was automatically released on licence on 23 April 2021. His licence was revoked on 13 May 2022, and he returned to custody on 16 May 2022. This was his first recall on this sentence and the panel’s review was the second review of his case by the Parole Board since his return to custody.[5]The panel considered the Applicant’s case at an oral hearing on 17 July 2025 and heard evidence from the Applicant, the Community Offender Manager, the Prison Offender Manager and a Prison Forensic Psychologist.[6]The panel noted that the Applicant had not been considered suitable for further accredited offending behaviour work. He had previously completed the Thinking Skills Programme and an earlier assessment in 2023 identified a need for consolidation work to be completed with the Prison Offender Manager or Community Offender Manager.[7]The panel noted that witnesses supported the Applicant’s release at the oral hearing. The panel referred to consolidation work completed with the Community Offender Manager utilising the Skills for Relationships course. The panel noted that the first session between the Applicant and the Community Offender Manager had been challenging, ‘but after that [the Applicant] was more open and was able to engage more as the course progressed…’.[8]The Community Offender Manager had planned to complete further work with the Applicant but believed that he could be released and safely managed in the community while the work was completed. The panel disagreed and concluded that further work needed to be completed before the Applicant could be re-released. It set out its reasoning for this and it was a view it was entitled to reach based on the available evidence and its need to complete an independent assessment of the Applicant’s risk. Application for Set Aside[9]The application for set aside has been drafted and submitted by the Applicant’s legal representative. It submits that there have been ‘ numerous errors of fact…’ .[10]The Applicant submits that consolidation work was also completed with his Prison Offender Manager and that this was not considered by the panel in its written decision.[11]It is submitted that all professional witnesses at the oral hearing concurred that there was no outstanding work to complete in custody. The Applicant points out that he is not eligible for further courses in custody and that although it was confirmed further work would be required, this was not necessary for him to complete in custody.[12]The Applicant questions ‘… what further work is required within a custodial setting … and how he would complete this prior to his next review …’. The Relevant Law[13]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.[14]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)).[15]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 Secretary of State (the Respondent)[16]In an email dated 28 August 2025, the Respondent has confirmed that she will not be making any representations in response to this application . Discussion[17]It is reasonable to note that the Applicant completed work with both his Prison Offender Manager and his Community Offender Manager. The panel’s decision refers to the work with the Community Offender Manager and its assessment of that work.[18]It may have been helpful if the panel had referred to the work with the Prison Offender Manager in its written decision, however, it was not fatal to its decision not to re-release the Applicant nor was it evidence of an error of fact.[19]The Prison Offender Manager responded to the Applicant’s legal representative after the oral hearing and stated that ‘… it is more important as to what he has done with his [Community Offender Manager] as that is what is needed …’ . It is perhaps not surprising therefore that the work with the Community Offender Manager was the focus of the panel’s assessment of further work completed in custody.[20]The Applicant is correct to note that his release was supported in oral evidence and that witnesses did not believe he needed to complete further work in custody. However, the panel disagreed with him and with the witnesses. It was entitled to do so, and this was not an error of fact. The panel made its own independent assessment of risk and set out why it disagreed and why it believed further work needed to be completed in custody prior to any safe release.[21]The Applicant questions what the work would be and how it would be completed in custody. That is a question he should raise with those responsible for sentence planning. It is not for the Parole Board to determine. The panel identified the need for further work and the reasons for this. It is for others to implement a sentence plan pathway.[22]The Applicant may disagree with the panel’s assessment and may believe that he should be released. That does not mean that there was an error of fact. It is not in the interests of justice to set aside the panel’s decision, and I can find no error of fact. Decision[23]The application for set aside is refused. Robert McKeon 01 September 2025