Price, Application for Set Aside [2025] PBSA 74 (13 October 2025) [2025] PBSA 74
[1]This is an application by Price (the Applicant) to set aside a decision not to direct his release. The decision was made by a single member panel after an oral hearing on 22 September 2025. This is an eligible decision.[2]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the dossier, the oral hearing decision, and the application for set aside dated 26 September 2025. Background[3]On 5 January 2021, the Applicant was sentenced to 66 months imprisonment following a conviction for offences of robbery and possessing a bladed article in a public place.[4]The Applicant was aged 42 years at the time of sentencing. He is now 47 years old.[5]He was automatically released on licence on 12 July 2023. His licence was revoked on 23 January 2025, and he was returned to custody on 23 January 2025. 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 his legal adviser.[7]It submits that there has been an error of law. The details of the application are set out below 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 release.[9]The case proceeded to an oral hearing on 22 September 2025 before a single member panel. The panel heard evidence from the Applicant, his Prison Offender Manager ( POM ) and his Community Offender Manager ( COM ). 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 would not have been given or made but for an error of law or fact , The reply on behalf of the Respondent[14]The Respondent has offered no representations in response to this application . Grounds[15]So far as the grounds of this application are concerned, it appears to me that the substantive ground that is argued by the Applicant’s legal adviser is as follows “ The unlawful nature of the Panel's decision is that too much emphasis has been placed on the past and no proper consideration given to [the Applicant’s] recent compliant conduct in the community whilst on licence evidencing that with proper support he can control his own behaviour.” Discussion[16]The role of a parole board panel is to respond to the referral by the Respondent, to assess the entirety of the evidence, to apply the relevant test and to explain their reasons in their decision. The panel was entitled to take account of both historical evidence and more recent evidence in reaching its conclusion. I am not persuaded that it can be argued that the panel acted in any way unlawfully in assessing the evidence (both past and future) and reaching its conclusion. In my determination the panel fulfilled their legal duty which was to make an assessment of the evidence in response to the referral, apply the correct legal test and to explain the reasons for their decision. For these reasons I do not find that the panel acted unlawfully and do not find that this matter is appropriate for an order to set aside.[17]In addition to a reference to the panel acting unlawfully in reaching their conclusion, the Applicants legal adviser has listed a number of matters which were no doubt raised during the hearing itself and which it is argued by the Applicant’s legal adviser are relevant to set aside. These points in brief are: · There had been no mental health diagnosis of the Applicant. · There had been a failure to diagnose the Applicant in relation to his memory and personality. · The Applicant had not been charged with possessing a particular implement in a public place. · Following the applicants recall he was convicted of assault, it is submitted by the Applicants legal adviser that the nature of the assault was creating an apprehension of physical force in the victim rather than applying physical force. · The Applicant, it is submitted, can be offered mental health support from various charities and their support was not considered by the panel. · The Applicant should be assessed for dementia (the Applicant’s legal adviser suggests that this is the case because of his presentation at the panel hearing). · Not enough account was taken of the Applicant’s completion of a thinking skills course and the panel failed to take account of the recommendations of the COM and the POM.[18]I have considered the points listed above by the Applicant’s legal adviser. I do not find that these points can be characterised as errors of fact or law. They are evidential issues upon which the panel were entitled to reach a conclusion, or they are matters which are beyond the remit of the parole board and therefore set aside is not engaged.[19]The submissions on behalf of the Applicant amount to criticisms of the determination and findings of the panel, rather than an error of law. In the circumstances therefore I find there is no error of law in this case.[20]Accordingly, as I find no error of law, it follows that the decision made by the panel not to direct release is not impacted by any error of law and cannot therefore be said to be a decision which the panel would not have made. Decision[21]The application for set aside is refused. HH Stephen Dawson 13 October 2025