Shoyemi, Application for Set Aside [2025] PBSA 66 (09 September 2025) [2025] PBSA 66
[1]This is an application by Shoyemi (the Applicant) to set aside the decision not to direct his release. The decision was made by a panel after an oral hearing on 5 February 2025 and then a paper review on 8 August 2025. This is an eligible decision.[2]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the dossier, the oral hearing decision dated 11 August 2025, and the application for set aside dated 18 August 2025. Background[3]On 31 March 2022, the Applicant received a total of 54 months’ imprisonment following conviction for six offences relating to publishing and distributing recordings likely to stir up racial hatred, to which he pleaded not guilty.[4]The Applicant was aged 45 at the time of sentencing. He is now 49 years old.[5]He was automatically released on licence on 11 March 2024. His licence was revoked on 17 May 2024, and he was returned to custody on 18 May 2024. 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 the Applicant.[7]It submits that there has been an error of fact and/or an error of law. The Applicant submits: a) A Police report dated 28 February 2025 relied upon by the Parole Board panel contained incorrect information. b) A video which was said to relate to the reasons for his recall was not published in April 2024 as alleged by the Probation Service and was in fact published in 2019. 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 re-release.[9]The case proceeded to an oral hearing on 5 February 2025, but was adjourned on the day in order to obtain further information. At that hearing, the Applicant was legally represented. The oral hearing was due to resume on 9 June 2025 but instead, a case conference was held on that date due to further developments in the case. By that stage, the Applicant had new legal representation. Following that case conference, the Panel Chair issued directions including one under Rule 21 of the Parole Board Rules for representations as to whether the matter could now be concluded on the papers rather than reconvened at a further hearing. Following information received after that case conference, the panel reconvened to discuss the case. The Applicant was now no longer legally represented and indicated that he did not wish to be so. Further directions were made to enable the Applicant to provide any further written representations, which he had been doing throughout the review. His final submissions were received and then a decision was made by the panel on the papers, which had included numerous reports from the Applicant’s Prison Offender Manager ( POM ), his Community Offender Manager ( COM ), and a psychologist.[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 confirmed that they have no representations to make in response to this application . Discussion[15]It is argued by the Applicant that there has been an error of fact and/or an error of law. The Applicant raises two issues where he submits there has been an error, which I will deal with in turn.[16]The first issue relates to a Police report provided to the panel. The Applicant submits that the panel’s reliance on what he says is an incorrect report is a mistake of fact and/or law. The Applicant has provided what he refers to as an ‘abridged report’ from a professional standards Police Officer which he relies upon in submitting that the alleged author of the Police report in the dossier has denied she submitted a report on 28 February 2025. The Applicant goes on to submit that his reading of the response to his complaint to the Police reveals that the author of the Police report has stated she was coerced into doing so by a member of the team from the Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS) who act on behalf of the Respondent. The Applicant submits that the author was told exactly what to say and was told it would not be disclosed to anyone including the Parole Board.[17]It is important to note here that the Applicant has already submitted this same argument to the Parole Board panel when it was considering his case. The Applicant sent a letter dated 25 July 2025 which in effect contained written submissions he wished for the panel to consider. This letter is in the dossier. Within that letter he made the exact same submission regarding this Police report/letter and included the same extracts from his complaint to the Police (the ‘abridged report’ ). The panel therefore had this information when it made its decision and had an opportunity to consider it. The panel references within its decision that it considered all of the representations made by the Applicant. A panel of the Parole Board is entitled to reject a submission made by a prisoner and that rejection does not then become a mistake of fact or law. I am therefore not satisfied there has been any form of mistake made by the panel.[18]In any event, it is clear from the conclusion section of the panel’s decision that the panel had far greater concerns about the Applicant than what was contained in the information from the Police and so it cannot be said that, but for this report, the panel would have made a different decision.[19]The second issue the Applicant raises relates to video evidence considered by the panel. The Applicant submits that he was not allowed to view the three hour video and was only offered the opportunity to view 30 seconds, which he refused to do. He further submits that the video material pre-dates his trial and was published in 2019, not in 2024 as alleged by the Probation Service.[20]I can see from the dossier and decision that the panel had received video material as part of this review and had directed that the Applicant be shown that material within the Panel Chair Directions dated 3 July 2025. In response to that direction, the panel received a detailed further report from the POM regarding arrangements which had been made to enable the Applicant to view the footage. The POM reported that the Applicant was given two opportunities to view the footage but failed to do so. The POM stated that the Applicant claimed he had gout and therefore could not attend to view the footage in the relevant part of the prison and asked that it be brought to him. The POM reported that there is no evidence that the Applicant had gout and she had seen the Applicant walking with no difficulties. The POM confirmed in the report that due to security reasons and time constraints, she could not facilitate the Applicant viewing the footage. The panel accepted the POM’s evidence in this regard as it was entitled to do so, as referenced within paragraph 1.13 where the panel concluded the Applicant had put up barriers to viewing the footage.[21]In any event, the Applicant has again submitted a matter which he had already put before the panel. This issue is raised in full in his final handwritten representations dated 30 July 2025. The panel stated within its decision at paragraph 1.12 that the Applicant had argued the video footage pre-dated his conviction and that he had denied social media use in the community. The panel rejected this assertion from the Applicant, and went on to describe the different pieces of evidence it had which led it to conclude there had been social media use during the Applicant’s time in the community in breach of his licence. The panel specifically concluded that the Applicant’s denial of using social media carried no weight in its view. The panel therefore went on to conclude that the recall was appropriate.[22]Again, as with the first point, it cannot be said to be a mistake of fact just because the panel rejected an argument made by the Applicant during his review. An application to set aside a decision is not an opportunity for a second bite at the cherry.[23]Finally, in addition to the above, the Applicant raises the fact that he was ‘wrongly convicted of the index matter’ . It is important to highlight that this is not a matter for the Parole Board and therefore cannot form part of an application to set aside a decision. Decision[24]The application for set aside is therefore refused. Cassie Williams 9 September 2025