Morse, Application to Set Aside, [2025] PBSA 86 (18 November 2025) [2025] PBSA 86

PBSA

Morse, Application to Set Aside, [2025] PBSA 86 (18 November 2025)

[2025] PBSA 86 · 2025-10-21

[1]This is an application by the above-named Morse (the Applicant) to set aside a decision not to direct his release. The decision dated 21 October 2025 was made by a panel after an oral hearing of 15 October 2025.

[2]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the dossier originally consisting of 323 pages, and now of some 345 pages, the oral hearing decision above-mentioned (the Decision), and the application for set aside received on 10 November 2025 (the Application). I have also seen an email dated 10 November 2025 from the Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS) on behalf of the respondent, the Secretary of State (the Respondent) declining to make submissions on behalf of the Respondent. Background

[3]On 25 February 2020, the Applicant received a sentence of nine years following conviction for a number of offences including aggravated burglary of a dwelling, possession of a bladed article in public, and making false representation for gain, to which he pleaded guilty on the first day of the trial.

[4]The Applicant was aged 31 at the time of sentencing. He is now 37 years old.

[5]He was automatically released on licence on 22 August 2024. His licence was revoked on 10 December 2024, and he was returned to custody on 27 December 2024. He did not contest his recall, and, in any event, the panel found it appropriate. This is his first recall on this sentence, and his first parole review since recall. His sentence expiry date (SED) is in March 2029. Application for Set Aside

[6]The Application has been drafted and submitted on his behalf by his legal representatives.

[7]The grounds (the Grounds) upon which the Application was made was " on the grounds of errors of law/fact ".

[8]So far as the substantive parts of the Application itself was concerned it is unclear what errors of law are alleged; certainly, none are spelt out clearly beyond assertions of unfairness or irrationality. What, emerges is a broad attempt to re-argue the case on the basis of disagreement with the findings based on what are said to be " numerous errors of fact " within the Decision. These are, however, expressly limited to three: a) First, an alleged disproportionate weight given to an allegation against the Applicant of grievous bodily harm said to have occurred in December 2024 in circumstances contributing to his recall (the December Incident). b) Second, an allegation that call logs (or more accurately police call out logs) presented or referred to within the dossier had not been reviewed or seen by the Applicant's current Community Offender Manager ( COM ) prior to the panel hearing (the Call Logs). c) Third, failing to place sufficient weight on the professional witnesses' recommendation for release (the Professionals). Current parole review

[9]The Applicant's case was duly referred to the Parole Board by the Respondent to consider whether to release him following his recall.

[10]The case proceeded to an oral hearing on 15 October 2025 before a two-member panel of independent members. The panel heard evidence from the Applicant, a Prison Offender Manager ( POM ), and his current COM. The Applicant was legally represented throughout the hearing by the same representatives as now advance the Application. In addition, the panel had the dossier and written representations from the Applicant's legal representatives following the hearing.

[11]As stated above 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 2024) (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)). Hence this application falls within these criteria.

[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 [relevant to this case], 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]As noted above, the Respondent (via the PPCS) has offered no representations in response to this application . Discussion

[16]Before, however, addressing each of the above Grounds on which the Application is based, it may be helpful to set out a little more background and context. The Panel's Findings

[17]Despite being an army veteran apparently from the age of 17 (an experience which the panel noted left him with " significant challenges " including, it appears, PTSD, for which he has been prescribed medication), the panel noted that the Applicant has managed to acquire a long running criminal history going back to 2009 with 15 convictions representing 25 offences, a history of non-compliance of orders and licence conditions, failing to surrender into custody, to attend drug tests, misuse of alcohol and drugs, and a history of violence (including intimate partner violence (IPV)), assault, harassment and robbery.

[18]The panel noted a number of risk factors: a consistent and " entrenched " history of general and intimate partner violence, willingness to resort to violence (often involving alcohol and drugs misuse), the use of weapons, lack of victim empathy, problems managing emotions and consequential thinking, association with negative peers, poor attitudes to compliance with important external controls and occasional propensity to take himself off his prescribed PTSD medication. The panel also found he had, following his automatic release, quickly breached several important licence conditions, returned to drug use, resided where he should not have, removed his GPS monitoring tab and started a relationship with a previous victim of IPV without the knowledge of probation. All this as well as the December Incident referred to above and dealt with in more detail below. The panel also concluded, on a careful and reasoned analysis of the evidence the assessed medium risk of violent reoffending (OVP) and the spousal risk assessment (SARA) were likely to have been understated and further concluded (again carefully evidence based) that the Applicant posed a high risk of serious harm to a known adult (the Victim identified as such in the December Incident below).

[19]The panel also noted some positive matters: his motivation, offer of employment, enhanced status on the IEP scheme, his improved relationship with and support from his current COM (again see further below), the absence of negative entries, only one adjudication (sanction suspended), and no further conduct issues plus some relatively minor security entries which the panel expressly disregarded. They also accepted his evidence that he had completed a Thinking Skills programme despite the lack of records though no substantial accredited offender behaviour work had apparently been completed since his recall or " potentially " since 2014 (the " potentially " was presumably based on the lack of records).

[20]Despite the recommendations of current professionals (again, see below), the panel noted the Applicant had outstanding treatment needs relating to general violence and IPV which was unlikely to be met through the completion of non-accredited work alone. For these and a number of reasons, all carefully set out in a well-constructed, careful and reasoned decision, the panel declined to direct release.

[21]I therefore turn in more detail to the Grounds. The December Incident

[22]The panel dealt carefully and at length with this incident in the Decision. It can be briefly summarised as follows: a) In December 2024 (following the Applicant's automatic release) police learned of a stabbing of a male individual (the Victim) who was treated in hospital for a puncture wound to his left side. He had discharged himself without identifying the person or people responsible. b) CCTV of the relevant area on the day in question showed the Victim walking down a road approached by a woman (the Assailant) who swung her arm at the Victim who could then be seen holding his abdomen. The Assailant was then seen getting into a taxi and the Applicant trying to get into the same taxi which drove off, leaving him behind. c) It later emerged that on the same day, the Applicant and another male had appeared at a flat at which the Victim was residing, with the Applicant kicking in the flat door. d) Evidence obtained by the police and the panel suggested that the Victim had been stabbed over relationships and associations he had had or has with the Applicant and the Assailant. e) It also emerged that the Applicant admitted previously sending a threatening text message intended for the Victim (but somehow ending up with the police), including the words " I'm going to chop you ". He admitted to the panel that he had kicked the door of the flat but had no intention of causing violence. He also admitted walking towards the taxi above-mentioned and saw the Assailant getting into the taxi which then drove off without him. f) When the police sought him out some days later, he threatened the police, denied being involved in the above incident, but was arrested without further resistance. g) The Applicant was subsequently further convicted for burglary (no doubt connected with his entry to the flat) but not for the wounding (it appears this was not proceeded with by the police) and sentenced to eight months custody. h) The panel applied the guidelines and principles set out in R (Pearce) v Parole Board

[2023] UKSC 13

to this incident and concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, in a careful reasoned passage, the Applicant intended violence to the Victim on account of his relationship with the Assailant but accepted that there was no evidence that he himself had stabbed the Victim.

[23]In the representations made in the Application, the alleged error of fact became an allegation of unfairness based on undue weight being given to an allegation against the Applicant of grievous bodily harm (presumably his alleged involvement in the stabbing) based, in turn, on the fact that the police did not proceed with the wounding allegation against him, that he himself denied it, and the panel found, on the balance of probabilities, that he had not stabbed the Victim.

[24]This, in my judgment, is a complete misreading of the Decision. There were no errors of fact or law. The panel, rightly in my judgment, conducted a careful analysis of the material before them relating to the December Incident and concluded, justifiably on the evidence, that the Applicant had not himself stabbed the Victim, but was involved to the extent that he was threatening the Victim with violence, acted in a violent manner (kicking the door), all consistent with his " entrenched " behaviour pattern of violence. They were perfectly entitled to place weight on this conclusion in assessing the Applicant's risk and thus whether he should be released. The Call Logs

[25]As to the call logs, these were recorded by the panel (in great detail) as contained in the OASys (and, as the Application accepts, were contained in the dossier and discussed during the hearing) documenting reports of a series of violent and abusive incidents against ex-partners including verbal arguments and involving a number of police call outs. The panel questioned the Applicant about the reports some of which involved unproven allegations of violence but which the panel again carefully (and in my judgment) again rightly considered in accordance with the principles set out in Pearce (above) but upon which the panel felt (in a careful reasoned passage) unable to make a finding beyond noting that there was at least a serious possibility that the allegations might be true and accordingly upon which they placed weight (see especially, Pearce at paras. 65, 72-73, 87).

[26]The Application, however, now alleges that the Applicant's current COM has since the hearing confirmed that she had not had sight of these call logs prior to attending the hearing. She did indeed tell the panel she had only been the Applicant's COM for some four weeks prior to the hearing but was able to make an "i nformed " recommendation supporting his release. I have seen no corroborative statement from the COM to this effect, but what is telling is that she was able to tell the panel she was able to make the " informed " recommendation, did not, it would appear, mention she had not seen the call logs before or at the hearing, and no application was made for an adjournment or time to consider them if thought important enough to warrant her more detailed consideration of them.

[27]Again, the submission is essentially that the panel should not have placed weight on this evidence. Certainly, no error of fact or law is or seems to be alleged or submitted based on this point. But in any event, the panel's treatment of this evidence was perfectly correct, in line with the Pearce principles, and it was a matter for them what weight they placed on them having regard to the evidence as a whole. The Professionals

[28]As to the professionals, the panel noted that the Applicant's previous professionals (two of his previous COM's) did not support his release until he had completed further work in custody to reduce his risk. Against that, his current POM gave evidence that he had been assessed as suitable for the Building Choices (BC) programme but this could only (in terms of priority) be done in the community following release and given his release date was not due until his SED in April 2029, she consequently supported his release to complete the BC course in the community. His current COM (the third) had only been his COM for about four weeks by the time of the hearing but also supported his release as noted above.

[29]Again, the Application on this aspect points to no error of fact or law beyond an assertion that in failing to attach sufficient weight to the evidence of the Applicant's current professionals the panel reached a wrong conclusion in refusing to direct release. I disagree. The panel was bound to, and it seems to me did, carefully consider and take into account all the evidence before them. No doubt they afforded the views and recommendations of the professionals the respect and consideration due to professional experts in their field, but the panel's task was to consider the evidence as a whole. They were not, however, bound to accept the views of the professionals faced as they were with good reasons (duly set out in the Decision) for so doing. Again, in so concluding the panel made no error of fact or law. Decision

[30]Standing back and looking at the Decision as a whole, notwithstanding the representations and submissions made in the Application, I can detect no error of fact, nor any of law. There was more than ample material to justify the panel in reaching the conclusion and decision they did. The Decision was, as I have indicated, in my judgment, at all stages carefully set out, logical, clear and reasoned in the conclusions reached. The Application does not begin to say how or why, but for the alleged errors the panel's conclusions would have been any different and does not, but for assertions and submissions that the panel reached the wrong, unfair, or irrational conclusions, seek to say how it would be in the interests of justice to set aside the Decision.

[31]The application for set aside is accordingly refused. HH Roger Kaye KC 18 November 2025