Peacock, Application for Set Aside by the Secretary of State for Justice [2025] PBSA 70 (23 September 2025) [2025] PBSA 70
[1]This is an application by the Secretary of State for Justice (the Applicant) to set aside the decision of a panel of the Parole Board to direct the release of Peacock (the Respondent). This is an eligible decision.[2]I have considered the application on the papers. These are: a) The dossier now containing 643 numbered pages; b) The decision dated 12 August 2025; c) The application for set aside which is undated but was apparently received by the Board on 11 September 2025; and d) Representations on behalf of the Respondent from his solicitors dated 18 September 2025. Background[3]On 27 July 2007 the Respondent received, upon his guilty pleas, sentences of imprisonment for public protection for what the Trial Judge described as the systematic and devastating sexual abuse of his stepdaughter. Six counts related to the period when she was aged between 12 and 16 and two counts to the period when she was aged 16/17. The minimum term was set at six years less time spent on remand in custody and the Sentence Expiry Date is given as 3 March 2013.[4]The Respondent was aged 42 at the time of sentencing and is now 61 years old.[5]Since conviction, the Respondent has retracted his admissions of guilt, asserting that the only sexual activity with his stepdaughter occurred between the ages of 16 and 18 and that this was consensual.[6]The Respondent was released on licence in November 2019 and recalled to prison in July 2021 when a neighbour reported that he had been stalking her for over one year. He was interviewed by the police, denied the allegations and no charges were brought.[7]This was the second review since his recall to prison. Application for Set Aside[8]The application for set aside has been drafted and submitted by the Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS) acting on behalf of the Applicant.[9]The application for set aside submits that the decision for release would not have been made if new information had been available when the Panel made the decision to direct the Respondent's release.[10]The content of the application will be considered in the Discussion section below. Current parole review[11]The Respondent's case was referred to the Parole Board by the Applicant to consider whether to direct his release or, in the alternative, to advise whether he should be transferred to open prison conditions.[12]A three-member panel of the Parole Board consisting of two independent members (one of whom acted as the Chair) and a psychologist member considered the case at an oral hearing on 5 August 2025 at which the Respondent was legally represented. The panel considered the dossier and heard oral evidence from the Respondent, the Community Offender Manager (COM), the Prison Offender Manager (POM) and a prison psychologist. 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 Respondent[16]The Respondent's Solicitors have provided representations opposing the application which are also considered in the Discussion section below. Discussion[17]The application for set aside centres on new information provided by the POM who reports an interview with a prisoner, who identifies as female, on 7 August 2025 who disclosed that around February 2025 she had, on more than one occasion, performed oral sex on the Respondent in his cell following them getting to know one another and having coffee together. The prisoner stated that on one occasion they were in the Respondent's cell when he started to kiss her and she then performed oral sex on him. She provided the Respondent's name, description and cell number.[18]This information was apparently provided during a wider internal investigation into an increase in inappropriate prisoner relationships and some of the information which the prisoner provided has been corroborated.[19]It is the position of the Probation Service, having considered this information, that release would not have been supported at the hearing had this information been available. It is considered that the Respondent can no longer be managed safely in the community, and the addition of further licence conditions will not mitigate the risk.[20]The new information is said to evidence a lack of honesty and openness on the Respondent's part, a degree of disguised compliance and continued sexual preoccupation.[21]In consequence of this new information, the Applicant submits that the release decision should be set aside.[22]I am satisfied that this is new information which was not available to the panel on 5 August 2025 and the further question for me is, therefore, had it been available would the panel have given a decision for release?[23]The panel found that the Respondent's risk factors included sexual preoccupation, and it noted that he stated in his oral evidence that he was not interested in sex and had no sexual thoughts. He also said he was scared to get involved with anyone in case he was accused of something and acknowledged the importance of being more open with professionals. The panel was also of the view that the Respondent's internal controls needed further development.[24]The application for set aside is opposed by the Respondent who is said to strongly deny the allegations made against him, instructing his solicitors that, whilst he had formed a friendship with the prisoner in question, no sexual activity ever took place, although he does not offer an opinion as to why such false allegations were made.[25]I am conscious that the allegations are of some age and were made by a prisoner who is said to have been non-compliant with medication at the time. However, I am satisfied that, on the evidence before me, had the panel been aware of the fresh information and the withdrawal of Probation support for release, it would have found that these matters required further investigation and consideration and that it would not have given the direction for release on 12 August 2025.[26]I confirm that I am satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for the panel's decision to be set aside . Decision[27]The application for set aside is granted. PETER H.F.JONES 23 September 2025