Wince, Application for Set Aside [2025] PBSA 72 (06 October 2025) [2025] PBSA 72
[1]This is an application by Wince (the Applicant) to set aside the decision not to direct his release. The decision was made by a panel after an oral hearing on 28 August 2025. This is an eligible decision.[2]I have considered the application on the papers. These are: · The dossier now paginated to 509 pages; · The decision (DL) dated 5 September 2025; and · The application dated 22 September 2025 Background[3]On 25 October 2012, the Applicant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to six years imprisonment. On 12 February 2014 he was convicted of conspiracy to commit burglary, an offence committed whilst on bail for the robbery offence and sentenced to a term of eight years imprisonment to be served consecutively. The sentences total 14 years imprisonment and the Sentence Expiry Date is given as October 2026.[4]In relation to the robbery offence, the Applicant, together with an accomplice, attacked a security van which was collecting cash from a restaurant. Both were wearing crash helmets having arrived on a motorcycle and the Applicant threatened the security officer with a metal pole. The officer dropped the container which contained over £15,000 and the offenders made off with it.[5]The burglary offence was committed during the period March to July 2012 when the Applicant was part of a criminal gang carrying out burglaries of residences and commercial premises. The trial judge found that the Applicant was one of the two ringleaders and the total value of the property stolen was estimated to be in the region of £333,000.[6]The Applicant has numerous other convictions for possession of drugs, burglary, theft and driving matters and has a history of poor compliance.[7]The Applicant was aged 22 at the time of the initial sentence and is now 35 years old.[8]Having initially been released on licence in November 2019 the Applicant has been recalled on 2 occasions (more recently in November 2024) when he engaged in harassing, threatening and intimidating behaviours causing considerable distress to his previous partner DM, their daughter and his two stepchildren.[9]On 6 December 2021 for threatening to commit criminal damage (the first recall offence), the Applicant was fined and received a restraining order and on the 24 March 2025 for two counts of criminal damage, resisting a police officer and pursuing a course of conduct which amounted to harassment (the second recall offences) he was sentenced to two weeks imprisonment and again received a restraining order which expires in March 2027.[10]T his was his first review since his more recent recall. Application for Set Aside[11]The application for set aside has been drafted and submitted on his own behalf by the Applicant. It submits that the DL contains a number of errors of fact. I will deal with these matters in detail in the discussion section of my decision . Current parole review[12]The Applicant’s case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release.[13]The case proceeded to an oral hearing on 28 August 2025 before a three member panel of the Parole Board comprising two independent members and a specialist psychologist.[14]The panel heard oral evidence from the Prison Offender Manager (POM), the Community Offender Manager (COM) and the Applicant who was legally represented throughout.[15]The panel did not direct the Applicant’s release. The Relevant Law[16]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.[17]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)).[18]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[19]The Respondent has not submitted any representations in response to this application. Discussion[20]I appreciate that the Applicant appears to have prepared this application himself without the benefit of legal advice and assistance, but, for the most part, the application does not focus on errors of fact but for which the decision not to direct release would not have been made but relates to the Applicant’s unhappiness at having to remain in prison and repeats his view of events and the arguments for his release which were, no doubt, made to the panel during the oral hearing, all set against a backdrop of the serious allegation that, “My COM and POM have both misled the parole board and told numerous, false and incorrect information, their accounts of me are not credible neither have they acted professionally by lying numerous amounts of times.” I have endeavoured to identify and address specific errors upon which the Applicant relies: a) The Applicant submits that it is incorrect to suggest that he does not want to participate in programmes. However, the panel was aware that this was his position (and records this at DL para. 2.18), going on to note his evidence that he questioned whether his risk scores justified doing the programme in question and making it clear that, if he was assessed as suitable for it, he would not do this in a group setting. Having heard all the relevant evidence the panel concluded that the Applicant had not shown eagerness to commit to any programme during his time in custody and noted that the programmes team were unable to assess his suitability until he demonstrated stable custodial behaviour, given his threats to self-harm and refuse food. b) The refusal to eat relates to the Applicant’s denial that he threatened to go on a hunger strike when a professional was not recommending release. However, the panel notes the Applicant’s evidence to them admitting that he threatened to kill himself and stop eating when he was moved to a different wing where he suggested drugs were being used and he did not like to be around his fellow prisoners. He also said that he had refused food two weeks prior to the” laptop ” incident (see below) as he had had enough of prison but after the incident he decided to resume eating. c) The panel accepted that the Applicant did not throw a laptop (DL 2.10) and his solicitors in closing written submissions assert that CCTV footage would have confirmed this. d) The Applicant complains that the panel were misled by a statement from the COM that “ there were no employer’s details to discuss my accommodation and employment” and that this affected his risk scores. In fact the panel makes no reference to such a statement and, indeed, their finding that the Applicant poses a Very High risk of serious harm to a known adult (DM) and children (primarily psychological in the context of domestic disputes), a High risk to the public and a High risk to staff is based on a number of other factors.[21]The panel analysed the evidence before it and set out in detail its findings leading to the conclusion that the Applicant did not meet the test for release and, in particular, it found that; a) The Applicant had not yet completed any formal risk reduction work; b) The Applicant needs to develop his thinking skills and internal controls in relation to managing and understanding his risk in relationships and conflict management; c) The Applicant fails to appreciate the severity of the impact of his behaviour and offending against DM and his children and to take any responsibility for this offending; d) Since his return to custody, the Applicant has struggled with his wellbeing and has difficulties in accepting his recall; e) The Applicant feels that he has been treated unfairly by the POM and COM.[22]I find that the Applicant is, naturally, disappointed at the outcome of the oral hearing and he is, to a great extent, seeking by this application to make further submissions in support of a direction for release and, in so doing, to challenge some of the findings made by the panel which are matters pre-eminently for them, having read and heard the evidence in the case.[23]In relation to the specific matters raised by the Applicant, for the reasons I have given, I can find no errors of fact relied on but for which the decision not to direct release would not have been made. Decision[24]I have given careful and anxious consideration to this application. The panel exercised its judgement in this case, and I can find no errors of fact but for which the decision not to direct release would not have been made and, for the reasons I have given, I find that the application to set aside is without merit and it is refused. PETER H. F. JONES 6 October 2025