Watts, Application for Set Aside [2025] PBSA 78 (22 October 2025) [2025] PBSA 78
[1]This is an application by Watts (the Applicant) to set aside the decision not to direct his release. The decision was made on the papers on 6 October 2025. This is an eligible decision.[2]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the dossier consisting of 230 pages, the paper decision dated 6 October 2025 and the application for set aside dated 7 October 2025. Background[3]On 15 February 2023, the Applicant received a determinate sentence of 4 years imprisonment for being concerned in the supply of class A drugs to which he pleaded guilty.[4]The Applicant was aged 24 at the time of sentencing. He is now 27 years old.[5]He was automatically released on licence on 10 October 2024, but his licence was revoked the following day following poor behaviour and breaches of licence conditions. He was returned to custody on 17 October 2024. 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 representatives acting for the Applicant.[7]It submits that there have been errors of fact but for which the decision not to release the Applicant would not have been made. Current parole review[8]The Applicant’s case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) in an undated referral notice, to consider whether to direct his release.[9]The case was scheduled to take place as an oral hearing on 2 October 2025. The Panel Chair in directions dated 1 September 2025 invited further representations on behalf of the Applicant and observed that “ The Chair notes that [the Applicant] is due to start the High Intensity Building Choices programme in January 2026. Whilst not in any way pre-judging this case as oral evidence has been deemed necessary to complete a full risk assessment, the Chair simply observes that if [the Applicant] were to successfully complete the Building Choices programme and demonstrate he has absorbed and put into practice any learning, that may strengthen his case for release at a future Parole Board hearing if the case were referred back to the Board by PPCS ”.[10]By way of a Stake Holder Response Form (SHRF) the representative requested a deferral of the Applicant’s hearing “to allow sufficient time for him to complete High Intensity Building Choices programme ”. The reply in the SHRF on behalf of the Panel Chair states “ I have spoken with the Panel Chair about this, and they have agreed to the deferral request. All parties are therefore stood down from the hearing planned on 02/10/2025 and a formal direction will follow ”. However, the decision letter records that, “ On 12/09/2025 [the Applicant’s] legal representative applied in writing for a decision on the papers as [the Applicant] recognises he has outstanding core risk reduction work to complete to reduce his risk ”.[11]The Applicant’s case was considered on the papers. The panel did not direct his 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]The Respondent has offered no representations in response to this application . Discussion[16]It is argued on behalf of the Applicant that there has been an error of fact in two respects, namely that the representative had not applied for a decision on the papers and that the Building Better Choices programme recommended by the Probation Service was not due to commence in January 2026. Decision on the papers[17]Having carefully considered the dossier and chronology it is clear that there has been a failure of communication between the panel and Parole Board administration. There was an application for deferment on behalf of the Applicant, whatever the communication between the panel and administration the SHRF does not appear to have been added to the dossier by the date of the paper decision nor to reflect that which is set out in the decision letter. The decision letter records considering a dossier comprising 216 pages (that would not have included the SHRF). I am satisfied that the decision was based on an error of fact. However, I am not satisfied that the decision not to release would not have been made but for that error or that it is in the interests of justice to set aside the decision. This is partly because with respect to the interlinked second ground, I do not find there to have been an error of law and partly because of parole board guidance as to length of time for deferrals and adjournments. Commencement of Programme[18]The grounds submit that emails from the Probation Service indicate that the Applicant was being assessed to start the programme in October 2025 to complete in February 2026 (a duration of 4 months) it is submitted that the panel was incorrect in stating the commencement of the programme as being January 2026. The grounds submit that consideration of an earlier start date would have enabled the panel to consider a period for a deferral request. No further details of the emails, such as date or name of recipient are given. There were no emails included in the dossier for the panel’s consideration. Having considered the dossier I have been unable to find any reference to an earlier start date for the programme. The latest report of the Community Offender Manager (COM), August 2025, stresses the importance of “key risk reduction work outstanding which needs to be completed in custody to afford any confidence that the risk posed can be managed safely in the community . ” The COM confirms in his report that the work is due to start in January 2026, that date is repeated in the report. There is no reference to the work being started earlier. I am satisfied that there was no error of fact in the panel’s statement of the commencement date of the programme.[19]Parole Board guidance states that adjournments and deferrals should not exceed four months from the date of the panel unless there are exceptional circumstances. The application for a deferral was to enable the Applicant to complete the course. In this case the deferral would have exceeded four months for the programme to be completed, risk re-assessed, and risk management plan and licence conditions re-formulated in further COM and OASys reports. The deferral would have been in excessive of the four months recommended in the Parole Board guidance and there are no exceptional circumstances to consider a longer deferral in this case.[20]Therefore, while through no fault of the panel there was an error in concluding that the representative had applied for a decision on the papers, I do not find that it would have changed the panel’s decision not to direct release.[21]The panel considered the Applicant’s recall, that he accepted responsibility for the recall and that he accepted that he had relapsed into alcohol misuse. The panel noted that since his recall the Applicant had been subject to several adjudications. The panel noted that his risk of causing serious harm to known adults and members of the public is high with a very high probability of committing violent reoffending. The panel also found, and the Applicant did not dispute, that the Applicant accepts that core risk reduction work needs to be completed and that would be done in the High Intensity Building Choices Accredited programme. The panel concluded this case on the basis of all the material in the dossier and there was nothing to indicate that oral evidence would have assisted the panel in resolving any disputes of fact or providing information that might mitigate the apparent level of risk presented or enable clarification of any points materially relevant to the assessment of risk Decision[22]The application for set aside is refused. Barbara Mensah 22 October 2025