Seddon, Application for Set Aside [2025] PBSA 77 (22 October 2025) [2025] PBSA 77

PBSA

Seddon, Application for Set Aside [2025] PBSA 77 (22 October 2025)

[2025] PBSA 77 · 2025-09-02

[1]This is an application by Seddon (the Applicant) to set aside the decision not to direct his release. The decision was made by a panel upon consideration of the papers on 2 September 2025. This is an eligible decision.

[2]I have considered the application on the papers. These are: · The dossier now comprising 154 numbered pages; · The decision (DL) dated 2 September 2025; and · The application for set aside dated 3 October 2025 Background

[3]On 6 September 2019 the Applicant was sentenced, following a trial, to six years and nine months imprisonment for possession of a sawn-off shotgun which is a prohibited weapon and orders for forfeiture were made in relation to the gun and ammunition. The Sentence Expiry Date (SED) is given as 29 October 2025.

[4]The Applicant has a history of offending dating back to 2003, with convictions for weapon possession, common assault, battery, criminal damage, drug possession and malicious communication. He is considered as a domestic violence perpetrator.

[5]The Applicant was released automatically on licence in June 2022 but recalled in January 2025 when the police informed Probation that he had been arrested in connection with a domestic incident involving his partner. Police had attended the address on 16 January 2025, removed the Applicant and advised him to stay away from the property. However, he was reported to have attended again on 20 January 2025 when it was alleged, he took items from a shed, damaged the garden and poured an apparently flammable liquid onto the door of the property.

[6]T his was his first review since his recall. Application for Set Aside

[7]The application for set aside has been drafted on behalf of the Applicant by his solicitors.

[8]It submits that the DL contains errors of fact. I will deal with these matters in detail in the Discussion section of my decision . Current parole review

[9]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 the Applicant’s release.

[10]The case was considered on the basis of the papers alone by a MCA (Member Case Assessment) member of the Parole Board.

[11]The panel did not direct the Applicant’s release. The Relevant Law

[12]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.

[13]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)).

[14]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

[15]PPCS on behalf of the Respondent confirmed by email dated 7 October 2025 that no representations are offered in response to the application . Discussion

[16]It is argued on behalf of the Applicant that the Panel made errors of fact. I find that the only submission of substance is that it is recorded in the DL (1.4) that “ Allegations of further offending on licence (he was bailed for threats to kill, harassment, threats to commit criminal damage, controlling/coercive behaviour and criminal damage) have not progressed…..” and later (DL 4.1) that “ Although [the Applicant] is expecting a Police investigation to conclude with no charges, the Parole Board has not been informed of such an outcome.”

[17]In fact the representations made on behalf of the Applicant by his solicitors on 10 April 2025 exhibit an e-mail (presumably to the solicitors) dated 9 March 2025 (dossier p.86) from a police officer confirming that, upon review, the decision had been taken that the evidential threshold to proceed with charging had not been met and no further action was to be taken against the Applicant.

[18]Also in a brief, undated document (dossier p.72) headed “ NOTE TO PAROLE BOARD” from Probation it is confirmed that the police “have taken no further action on the outstanding matters.”

[19]Thus, it would appear that it was an error to state that the Parole Board was unaware of the fact that no further action was to be taken.

[20]It is important, however, to consider how this mistake came about.

[21]As is customary, the review of the Applicant’s case was the subject of a MCA review which was conducted on 29 April 2025 although not by the author of the DL.

[22]The MCA member was aware that the police were taking no further action (NFA) but was clearly concerned that t here was no information as to why this decision had been taken or whether the Applicant’s re-release was now supported by the Community Offender Manager (COM), particularly in light of the contents of the e-mail sent by the complainant to the Applicant’s solicitors on 31 March 2025 and also exhibited to their representations (dossier p.88).

[23]Understandably, since in carrying out its assessment and, irrespective of the decision of the police, the Board is under a duty to investigate all matters relevant to risk, the MCA member made detailed and pertinent directions for the provision by the police by 13 May 2025 of a full report into their investigation of the five offences alleged against the Applicant.

[24]Put shortly, this information was never provided by the police despite the strenuous efforts made by the Board to obtain it over a period of some months. This omission also resulted in the COM being unable to provide a recommendation regarding release since, without the further information from the police, her assessment of risk remained unchanged.

[25]Having found that there was an error of fact, the further question for me is whether the decision not to direct release would not have been made but for the error of fact.

[26]The answer to that question is obvious. Even had it been appreciated that the police had made a NFA decision, the panel would still have needed to carry out its risk assessment and, in particular, consider the reliability or otherwise of the allegations made against the Applicant in January 2025, directing itself in accordance with the Board’s Guidance on Allegations (September 2023 (v2.0)) and the leading case of Pearce

[2023] UKSC 13

[27]The allegations made were relevant to risk and would have needed to be explored at an oral hearing with, if justified, findings of fact being made.

[28]That, indeed, was the decision of the panel which found that, “ if the option of an oral hearing were available, this would have been directed and it only hasn’t been due to the approaching SED ”, and that “The panel has completed a conclusion on the papers as there is not enough time remaining on the sentence for an oral hearing to be an option.”

[29]Accordingly, other than noting that some form of incident had taken place which led to the police being called, the panel held that it could not make any findings and that this was a case which should not be concluded on the papers and should be directed to an oral hearing. However, as there was insufficient time for an oral hearing to take place before the SED, the panel concluded the review in line with s.21 (5) MCA Member Guidance .

[30]I find therefore that, although an error of fact was made, the decision not to direct release for the protection of the public in line with the relevant Guidance would still have been made.

[31]For the sake of completeness, I note that it is suggested that the inclusion of the word “ Unspecified ” in the standard form template amounts to a relevant error of fact. This is an unsustainable submission, particularly as, on the following page of the DL, the panel notes that the application is for release, a fact of which the panel was, therefore, well aware.

[32]Finally, the setting aside of a decision is a discretionary remedy and I must be satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so.

[33]Even had I found that the panel had made an error of fact but for which the decision not to direct release would not have been made, I would not have granted this application for set aside since the date upon which the Applicant will, in any event, be released from prison is 29 October 2025 and, therefore, even at the date of the application of 3 October 2025, there would have been no time available to arrange for the oral hearing which would have been necessary in this case had the application for set aside been granted. Decision

[34]I have carefully considered this application. I can find no error 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 22 October 2025