Peters, Application for Set Aside by the Secretary of State for Justice [2025] PBSA 88 (11 April 2025) [2025] PBSA 88
[1]This is an application by the Secretary of State for Justice (the Applicant) to set aside the decision of a panel of the Parole Board to direct the release of Peters (the Respondent). This is an eligible decision.[2]I have considered the application on the papers. These are: A) The dossier now containing 339 numbered pages; B) The decision dated 5 August 2025; C) The application for set aside dated 17 November 2025; and D) Representations on behalf of the Respondent from his solicitors dated 20 November 2025. Background[3]On 23 January 2009 the Respondent, following a trial, was ordered to be detained during Her Majesty's Pleasure for an offence of murder, committed with a co-defendant, which involved the stabbing to death of the 15 year old victim in May 2008. The minimum term was set at 12 years less time already served and the Sentence Expiry Date is given as 9 May 2020.[4]The Respondent was aged 17 at the time of sentencing and is now 34 years old.[5]In 2011 he was sentenced to 12 months detention for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm committed, with several others, against another prisoner in a Young Offender establishment.[6]This was the third review of his case by the Parole Board. Application for Set Aside[7]The application for set aside has been drafted and submitted by the Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS) acting on behalf of the Applicant.[8]The application for set aside submits that, the decision for release would not have been made if new information had been available when the Panel made the decision to direct the Respondent's release.[9]The content of the application will be considered in the Discussion section below. Current parole review[10]The Respondent's case was referred to the Parole Board by the Applicant to consider whether to direct his release.[11]A panel of the Parole Board consisting of two independent members (one of whom acted as the Chair) considered the case at an oral hearing on 9 July 2025 at which the Respondent was legally represented. The panel considered the dossier and heard oral evidence from the Respondent, the Community Offender Manager ("COM") and the Prison Offender Manager ("POM"). 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's solicitors have provided detailed representations opposing the application which are also considered in the Discussion section below. Discussion[16]The application for set aside centres on an incident which took place in prison on 28 August 2025 where it is alleged that the Respondent was involved in a serious assault upon another prisoner resulting in the victim receiving hospital treatment for a stab wound.[17]It is said that the Respondent is captured on CCTV footage entering the relevant wing of the prison with gloves on and thereafter the alleged victim is seen leaving the wing with injuries. The Respondent was placed on report and downgraded to Basic IEP status. The matter is considered sufficiently serious to be referred to the police, but no indication is provided as to the outcome of their investigation.[18]The COM has confirmed that, had this incident happened prior to the hearing, the professionals' recommendation for release would not have been made.[19]The Applicant submits that this information represents a significant change in circumstances with implications for the management of the Respondent's risk in the community on life licence, particularly given the parallels between this new alleged offence and the index offence.[20]Through his solicitors the Respondent provides a detailed reply to the application, stating that the incident took place on 27 August 2025 (not 28 August 2025 as alleged) at which time he was a Violence Reduction Representative ("VRR") in prison, a position he had held for approximately four years.[21]The Respondent says that he was asked to speak to a prisoner (K) who occupied the cell opposite to him in his capacity as a VRR due to problems K was experiencing with other prisoners.[22]The Respondent accepts that CCTV footage will show him briefly entering K's cell just after 8 a.m on 27 August and that, when an argument broke out between other prisoners and K, he intervened to try to calm the situation, leaving the cell about 5 minutes later.[23]The Respondent goes on to suggest that the victim did not report any injuries until after 9 a.m and that he understands that several other prisoners were going in and out of K's cell that morning.[24]The Respondent says that he was put under pressure by the prison authorities to provide information about who was involved but refused to do so and for this reason he was then kept in segregation for five days. He says that he filed a complaint and a discrimination incident report and was then transferred to another prison establishment.[25]The Respondent acknowledges that the police are investigating the matter but suggests that this is not in relation to any involvement by him.[26]The present position with regard to any disciplinary proceedings in prison is unclear.[27]Put shortly, the Respondent vigorously denies any involvement in an incident of violence and poses the question as to why, on the day he says he was notified of the decision directing his release, he would act as alleged having not displayed any violence for a considerable period of time.[28]In consequence of this new information, the Applicant submits that the release decision should be set aside.[29]I am satisfied that this is new information which was not available to the panel on 5 August 2025 and the further question for me is, therefore, had it been available would the panel have given a decision for release?[30]The Respondent's solicitors properly submit that, had this incident occurred before the oral hearing took place, the Panel would have thoroughly considered and explored the matter at that hearing and given the Applicant the opportunity to explain how he had tried to help K and was not involved in, or a witness to, the assault and the solicitors stress that it is crucial that the facts are presented correctly.[31]I agree with the solicitors' submissions. The Respondent is serving a life sentence for an offence of murder described by the Trial Judge as involving a vicious attack with knives and it is now alleged that he has become involved in an incident of violence, for which relevant CCTV footage is available, which resulted in the victim requiring hospital treatment for a stab wound.[32]I am conscious that the Respondent vigorously denies any involvement in the incident but I am satisfied that, on the evidence before me, had the panel been aware of the fresh information, it would have found that these matters required further investigation and detailed consideration and that it would not have given the direction for release on 5 August 2025.[33]I confirm that I am satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for the panel's decision to be set aside . Decision[34]The application for set aside is granted. PETER H.F.JONES 27 November 2025