O'Conner, Application to Set Aside, [2025] PBSA 89 (28 November 2025) [2025] PBSA 89
PBSA
O'Conner, Application to Set Aside, [2025] PBSA 89 (28 November 2025)
[2025] PBSA 89 · 2025-10-23
[1]This is an application by O'Conner, (the Applicant) to set aside a direction not to release made following an oral hearing of the Parole Board on 23 October 2025.[2]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the oral hearing decision (dated 27 October 2025), the dossier, and the application for set aside (dated 11 November 2025), and an email from Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS) on behalf of the Secretary of State (the Respondent) stating that submissions will not be provided, dated 18 November 2025. Background[3]The Applicant was sentenced to a determinate sentence of three years imprisonment on the 6 November 2023 for the offences of intentional strangulation, threats to kill, dangerous driving and battery. The index offences were committed within a domestic setting against the Applicant's ex-partner. The Applicant has other relevant matters recorded against him, including multiple other offences for violence, including other allegations within a domestic setting. The Applicant's sentence end date is shown to be in April 2026.[4]The Applicant was released automatically on the 10 September 2024 and has been back in prison since his return to custody on the 30 January 2025 following his arrest for further alleged offending, including an alleged assault of his current partner. This allegation did not result in a prosecution although the Applicant was convicted of two matters of assault on an emergency worker and a section 4 public order matter for which he received a further four weeks imprisonment. The Applicant has been back in prison since that date on standard recall. Application for Set Aside[5]The application for set aside has been provided by the Applicant and was served on the Parole Board by email on the 17 November 2025.[6]The Applicant makes the application on the grounds that the decision not to release the Applicant would not have been made but for an error of fact (s). In particular the Applicant states that the panel incorrectly placed weight on an alleged allegation of assault against his son which was not accurate, and that it failed to place sufficient weight on factual evidence pertaining to work the Applicant has completed in prison, including work to address mental health issues. Current Parole Review[7]The Applicant's case was referred to the Parole Board by the Respondent to consider whether to direct release.[8]The case was considered by a panel of the Parole Board at an oral hearing on the 23 October 2025. At that time, a comprehensive risk assessment was completed by a three-member panel of the Parole Board which included a specialist Psychologist Member. At the end of this review the panel concluded that the Applicant did not meet the statutory test for release. At the time of the hearing in October 2025 all report writers recommended release, however, the panel remained concerned about the Applicant's insight into his offending and evidence of offence paralleling behaviour when last in the community on licence.[9]The decision was provided on the 29 October 2025.[10]The panel held the Applicant's recall to be appropriate.[11]The Applicant was legally represented throughout and closing legal submissions were given careful consideration. 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 rules 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 made if information that had not been available to the Board had been available, or c) A direction for release would not have been made 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 confirmed over email on the 18 November 2025 that no submissions would be provided. Eligibility[16]The application concerns a panel's decision not to direct the Applicant's release following an oral hearing under rule 25(1). The Applicant argues that the condition in (a)(ii) has been met under Parole Board rule 28A. The test for set aside 17.In determining the application for set aside, I must consider whether the decision not to release the Applicant would not have been made but for an error of law or fact.[18]The Applicant states that the panel erred in that it placed weight on allegations which were 'not facts,' including an allegation that the Applicant assaulted his son.[19]The Applicant further submits that there are other errors of fact in the decision, including an error that the panel erroneously referred to courses as being 'non-accredited' when they were.[20]The Applicant also submits that the decision includes inaccurate information about the Applicant's engagement and progress with the prison's In Reach Service. Discussion[21]In my assessment the Applicant's submissions lack clarity and are inherently vague, but for the allegation made against the Applicant's son.[22]With regards to the allegation about the Applicant's son, this alleged incident is well documented within the Applicant's parole dossier, it is referred to in the OASys report, and in my estimation the panel is entitled to refer to the matter in its decision. This alleged behaviour is relevant to the panel's risk assessment and forms part of the Applicant's antecedent history. Furthermore, the Applicant was legally represented throughout his parole review and there is no evidence that the Applicant, or those instructed, raised any concerns about this purported error prior, during, or after the hearing. Finally, even if the panel did err with regards to the alleged assault, (which I find they did not) having reviewed the panel's conclusion at paragraphs 4.1-4.15 of the decision, it is clear to me that this matter was not a primary consideration when forming its judgment, in any event.[23]The panel makes reference to certain other allegations within its decision, however, again I find no evidence that the information relied upon includes any errors of fact. When referring to alleged matters, the panel follows relevant legal guidance throughout (Pearce [2003] UKSC 13) and states in terms what weight, if any, it places on the alleged matters.[24]With regards to the other purported errors of fact, specifically that the panel erred when it stated that the Applicant has not completed accredited programmes, again I can find no evidence to support the submission that the panel did err in this regard. Whilst the Applicant has completed courses in prison all report writers agree that this is not accredited work (paragraphs 2.45, 2.49, 2.66). This information is corroborated in the Applicant's parole dossier. In the absence of any further evidence to rebut the panel's finding, I do not accept the Applicant's submissions on this point.[25]With regards to the Applicant's engagement with the prison's Mental Health Services, and the Applicant's submission that the panel erred in fact by not providing accurate information about the Applicant's engagement with Mental Health Services, again I do not find the Applicant's submissions to be compelling. In my estimation the panel carefully scrutinised the impact of the Applicant's past, present, and future mental health issues when making its risk assessment. This is evidenced in the decision at paragraphs 1.20, 2.34. 2.35, 2.70, and 3.10. Furthermore, the Applicant has not provided any additional evidence to rebut the panel's findings.[26]As such I find that there are insufficient grounds for the decision made by the Panel on the 27 October 2025 to be set aside and it is not in the interests of justice to do so. Decision[27]For the reasons I have given, the application is not granted, and the decision of the panel dated 27 October 2025 must stand. Heidi Leavesley 28 November 2025