Chambers, Application for Set Aside [2025] PBSA 76 (20 October 2025) [2025] PBSA 76
[1]This is an application dated 5 October 2025 (the Application) by the above-name Chambers (the Applicant) that the decision made on the papers by a single member panel dated 24 September 2025 (the Decision) not to direct his release “ be reconsidered and set aside ”. Given the Decision clearly (and correctly) stated that the case was not eligible for reconsideration it has been treated as an eligible application for set aside under rule 28A Parole Board Rules 2019 as amended (see below).[2]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the dossier (as it was before the single member panel (the Panel) on 24 September 2025, consisting of some 285 pages and before me 297), the Decision, and the Application. I have also seen an email from the Public Protection Casework Section on behalf of the Respondent, the Secretary of State, to the effect that the Respondent declines to make any representations with respect to this case. Background[3]On 29 July 2022 the Applicant received a determinate sentence of almost 6 years following his conviction for a number of offences involving and including theft of vehicles, dangerous driving, resisting or obstructing a constable, assault of an emergency worker and criminal damage to which he pleaded guilty.[4]The Applicant was aged 27 at the time of sentencing. He is now 30 years old.[5]He was automatically released on licence on 10 September 2024, but his licence was revoked, and he was returned to custody on 31 January 2025 following breach of his licence conditions and his being charged with a number of further offences whilst on licence including offences of burglary and attempted burglary, fraud, possession of cannabis and taking a vehicle without consent. This is his first recall on this sentence, and his first parole review since recall.[6]The parole review was initiated prior to the new charges being dealt with leading to inevitable adjournments. The matter was finally settled on 17 March 2025 when it appears from the Decision and dossier that the Applicant was sentenced to a term of 22 months’ imprisonment. It also appears from the same sources that the Applicant’s sentence expiry date is March 2027, and his earliest release date (subject to confirmation) is now February 2026.[7]The actual source of the latter dates appears in the dossier in the form of a note from the probation service including an expression of the need for possible confirmation of the earliest release date.[8]This uncertainty has some considerable bearing in this case.[9]When the matter first came before a parole board panel member for assessment as previously indicated the hearing was adjourned to await the outcome of the then outstanding fresh charges. At these initial assessment stages, the then panels indicated the possibility of an oral hearing. It was also expressly pointed out first, that the Applicant appeared unrepresented, second, that the implication of the earliest eligible release date now being February 2026 with no possibility of release before that date (and accordingly unlikely on the present review) and third, that in the circumstances it seemed the matter could be speedily disposed of on the papers. Representations were specifically invited before the deadline set for the determination, but no such representations were made in any form whatsoever either by the Applicant or on his behalf.[10]Inevitably, as a result, the Panel found the recall appropriate and whilst fully and properly setting out the background, the risk assessments, some negative as well as positive aspects of the Applicant’s history and current progress in custody, expressly concluded that in view of the earliest release date being February 2026 the Applicant could not have been released before then even if the Panel was minded to direct his release and accordingly the Panel had not evaluated the risk management plan and declined to direct his release. Application for Set Aside[11]Only late in the day and after the Decision, the Applicant appears to have consulted solicitors resulting in their presentation of the present Application on his behalf.[12]So far as relevant the basis of the Application appears to be that there were incorrect references in the Decision to the Applicant’s being at Prison A (whereas he is now at Prison B) and to his sentence “ coming to an end in February 2026 ” (whereas he received “ a 22 month sentence with a reduction awarded by the court ” with the result that his sentence “ comes to an end in December 2025 ”). No other details were or are forthcoming save that some additional representations are made as to the Applicant’s positive progress in custody since recall. The Relevant Law[13]Rule 28A(1)(a) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended) 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]As noted, the Respondent has offered no representations in response to this Application . Discussion[17]As to the first alleged error of fact, namely the identity of the prison in the custody of which the Applicant is currently contained, it appears from the papers in the dossier that initially the Applicant was indeed at Prison A but then moved to Prison B. It is entirely correct that the Decision records on its face the Applicant as being at Location A. However, not for one moment do I believe that but for this error the Decision would have been any different.[18]As to the second specifically alleged error in relation to the sentence expiry or release dates, the Panel had expressly identified and referred to the noted eligible release date of February 2026 and, unsurprisingly given that date was then some 4-5 months off (and much might happen in the meantime) nevertheless invited representations. None were forthcoming. None were forthcoming with the Application to make the matter any clearer. The Applicant’s sentence did not and does not come to an end in February 2026 and nowhere in the dossier is it so suggested. The sole relevance of the February date is whether this date is the earliest he could be eligible for release. What the “ reduction awarded by the court” was and how the date of December 2025 as being the date on which the Applicant’s sentence comes to an end is justified is not even attempted nor explained beyond the alleged “ reduction ”. No documentary evidence in support has been lodged.[19]Rightly every opportunity to make representations (both as regards the eligible release date of February 2026 and resolving the parole review on the papers) was afforded to the Applicant, but reasonable deadlines for the making of those representations were set and were not complied with (indeed, no complaint is made in that regard). In such circumstances ultimately a panel has to do its best on the material presented and did so and reached a Decision which is, in my judgment, perfectly understandable and justifiable.[20]As to the progress of the Applicant this had already been touched on in the Decision and the Panel again specifically drew attention to this as amongst the information likely to assist a future panel.[21]Additionally, I see, in the above circumstances, nothing unjust about the Decision and not one to be set aside. Decision[22]The Application is accordingly refused. HH Roger Kaye KC 20 October 2025