Samson, Application for Set Aside [2025] PBSA 68 (09 September 2025) [2025] PBSA 68
PBSA
Samson, Application for Set Aside [2025] PBSA 68 (09 September 2025)
[2025] PBSA 68 · 2025-07-03
[1]This is an application by Samson (the Applicant) to set aside the decision not to direct his release. The decision was made by a panel after an oral hearing on 3 July 2025. This is an eligible decision.[2]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the dossier consisting of 616 pages, the oral hearing decision dated 8 July 2025, and the application for set aside dated 15 August 2025 with an addendum dated 18 August 2025. Background[3]On 11 January 2012, the Applicant received a sentence of imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term specified of two years and 280 days for two offences of possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life.[4]The Applicant was aged 28 at the time of sentencing. He is now 42 years old.[5]He was released on licence in November 2016 following a Parole Board hearing but recalled in April 2022. He was re-released in April 2023 and recalled in February 2024. This is his first parole review since his latest recall. Application for Set Aside[6]The application for set aside has been drafted and submitted by legal representatives acting for the Applicant.[7]It submits that there have been errors of fact made by the panel in their consideration of the case. It further submits that the risk assessment was unfair and not in the interest of justice as the police officer attending the hearing was not sufficiently versed on matters for which the officer was directed to give evidence. The further representations submit that the police officer had relevant evidence on a body worn camera which was not all presented to the panel. 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 or recommend a transfer to open conditions.[9]The case proceeded to an oral hearing on 3 July 2025 before a three member panel of independent members. The panel heard evidence from the Applicant, his Prison Offender Manager ( POM ), his Community Offender Manager ( COM ), an HMPPS psychologist and a police witness. 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 are errors of fact, inadequacy of police evidence and omission of complete evidence in the decision but for which the decision not to direct his release would not have been made. I have had careful regard to the matters raised in the application, but I am not satisfied that even if these submissions were accepted, they would have made a difference to the final decision.[16]With regard to the errors of fact, the Applicant submits that the panel made an error in referencing a statement in a police report which references a Ms H instead of a Ms W. It is also submitted that the panel wrongly stated that Ms EM was interviewed when she was never interviewed by the police.[17]The police report provides details of the incident of 5 February 2025. The panel does not purport to rely on any particular statement in the report, and the Applicant does not deny that there was a report and that there was an assault on Ms EM. The evidence of Ms W, even if relied on in court and supportive of the Applicant’s position did not undermine the conclusion that there was an assault on Ms EM. The Applicant gave his account to the panel and for the reasons given the panel found it to lack credibility and to demonstrate poor insight. An alternative attribution of the witness statements would not have altered the panel’s conclusion regarding the assault which did not place reliance on the statements alone.[18]With regard to the assault on Ms EM, even if she was not interviewed the incident is said to have occurred in public and involved the intervention of a member of the public. The dossier is said to have contained images of her injuries. If she was not interviewed and if she did not make any additional allegations against the Applicant as recorded in the decision, the incident described was sufficient to justify the panel’s concerns. There is no evidence that the panel took into account or placed any weight on the additional allegations which were said to have been made in the interview which the Applicant states did not take place. Therefore, even if there was an error of fact, it was not one that made any difference to the panel’s conclusions.[19]The Applicant denies that he accused Ms EM of “weaponising recall” , claiming that the reason for his recall was not related to the incident. Having had regard to the Part A report, the COM records the reason for recall as relating to the incident concerned. The panel had regard to that report. The attributed statement was not the basis for or determinative of that conclusion regarding his recall.[20]With regard to the DHL incident the Applicant’s submissions are an attempt to re-argue matters of weight that have been properly and fairly considered by the panel. The panel did not ignore the positive factors in the Applicant’s favour, noting in particular his enhanced IEP status. Similarly with regard to the finding of lack of openness and Ms EM being in a distressed state, the panel has given clear and reasoned conclusions, and the Applicant raises no error but rather seeks to re-argue points already properly dealt with by the panel.[21]The Applicant was represented throughout the hearing. Any errors or omissions in the account of the police witness were open to challenge by his representative. With respect to matters which did not form the basis for a charge the panel carefully analysed the allegations, applied the correct principles in doing so (Pearce [2023] UKSC 13 ) and came to conclusions which were reasoned and sound.[22]Finally, the Applicant submits that he has been informed by his probation officer (no name given) that the police did not provide the panel with all the evidence in their possession. In particular it is said that there was full Body Warn Camera (BWC) footage of the incident between the Applicant and Ms EM. The Applicant does not indicate what further evidence was withheld which would have made a material difference to the decision. The fact remains that the Applicant was convicted of an assault on Ms EM and even if the additional evidence in the BWC footage led to the conclusion that less weight should be attached to that assault, nevertheless there were other additional reasons why the panel concluded that the test for release had not been met. Those additional reasons included the panel’s concern about the Applicant’s current risk factors, lack of insight, outstanding treatment needs and lack of openness. None of the matters raised by the Applicant outweighed those serious concerns which were reasons for not directing release.[23]I am satisfied that none of the claimed errors of fact nor the remainder of the BWC footage would have made a difference to the panel’s conclusion and further satisfied that it would not be in the interests of justice to set aside this carefully considered and properly reasoned decision. Decision[24]For all the reasons set out above the application for set aside is refused. Barbara Mensah 9 September 2025