Ward, Application for Set Aside [2025] PBSA 79 (04 November 2025) [2025] PBSA 79
[1]This is an application by Ward (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 6 August 2025. This is an eligible decision.[2]I have considered the application on the papers. These are: · The dossier now comprising 156 numbered pages; · The decision (DL) dated 6 August 2025; and · The application for set aside dated 23 October 2025. Background[3]On 6 June 2023 the Applicant was sentenced, following a trial, to an extended determinate sentence of imprisonment comprising a custodial term of four years and a licence period of one year for an offence of assault by penetration of a child under 13 years of age, the victim being his six year old niece.[4]The parole eligibility date is given as January 2026 and the conditional release date is in May 2027 with a sentence expiry date in May 2028.[5]The Applicant had no previous convictions.[6]T his was his first review. 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 and law. 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 an 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 24 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 and law.[17]The Applicant seeks to take issue with the panel's finding that “there is evidence in the dossier of several factors in the applicant's life which increased his risk of reoffending and causing serious harm. ”[18]The first of these factors relates to drug misuse. On his own account, the Applicant grew cannabis and sold and used cocaine whilst in employment some years ago, accruing a drug debt of £5000.[19]The Applicant is recorded as stating that drug misuse is no longer an issue for him; however, in April 2025 he received a proven adjudication for possession of three tablets of a drug which was not prescribed to him and which were concealed in his cell.[20]It is a matter of some concern that the Applicant’s solicitors in their submissions, misleadingly, state, “ This is the sole example of substance misuse - if it can even be defined as such - since [the Applicant’s] imprisonment” .[21]The Applicant had informed his Community Offender Manager (“COM”) of the result of a mandatory drug test in May 2025 about which “ he is confident this will come back from confirmation testing as negative.”[22]However, it appears from the application made by the solicitors for an oral hearing dated 1 September 2025 that they were well aware that the Applicant had received an adjudication for a positive drugs test and that he had informed the solicitors that he had used spice over a period of one week alongside codeine which he had obtained from another prisoner. This had led to him now working with the prison substance misuse team with whom he had previously declined to engage.[23]Whilst the panel was, of course, unaware of the outcome of the confirmation drug testing which was pending at the time of the COM’s report and of the Applicant’s subsequent admissions to his solicitors, these subsequent developments go to reinforce the panel's conclusion that drug misuse remains an active risk factor for the Applicant.[24]The effects of his traumatic experiences as a child are acknowledged by the Applicant and he is reported to attribute his recent relapse into drug misuse to his mental health instability. The COM’s report of June 2025 indicated that the Applicant was an open case to the mental health team and that he was in the process of receiving counselling.[25]Taken together with the information which the Applicant himself had provided to the author of the pre-sentence report, I cannot see how it can be argued that the panel has made any errors of fact in its analysis of the “ several factors in the applicant's life which increase his risk of reoffending and causing serious harm”, particularly since, in relation to the matters of greatest concern, they clearly remained active at the time of the panel's decision.[26]The Applicant then suggests that the panel’s finding that, if released with the current risk management plan, the Applicant would be solely reliant on external controls to manage his risk factors.[27]I find there is no substance in this submission. The reality is that the Applicant has not undertaken any work (whether defined as “ core risk reduction ” or otherwise) which can be said to have reduced the risk which he poses, particularly to young children which is assessed as High with the risk of direct contact sexual reoffending also falling into the High category.[28]The panel acknowledged that the Applicant, who continues to deny his guilt, is willing to undertake any appropriate risk reduction intervention but the availability and/or his suitability or otherwise for such work is not a matter within the panel’s control.[29]Therefore, although i t can be assumed that “ there is some degree of offence-related sexual interests given that he has targeted a child” (Per COM report at dossier p.59), the reality is, as the panel found, that professionals are, as yet, unclear as to the triggers for, and reasons behind, the Applicant’s sexual offending against a six year old relative and that his lifestyle prior to custody requires further exploration and that relevant work is needed in custody prior to any release.[30]Accordingly, I find that the panel’s findings in relation to a current lack of understanding of the Applicant’s risk factors and the absence of any risk reduction work are amply justified by the evidence and do not involve any errors of fact.[31]Finally, the application suggests that there have been errors of law made by the panel, but I can find none relied upon in the solicitors’ submissions nor is any reference made to the interests of justice test which must also be applied since the setting aside of a decision is a discretionary remedy . Decision[32]I have carefully considered this application. I can find no errors of fact or law 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 4 November 2025