Newton, Application to Set Aside, [2025] PBSA 91 (01 December 2025) [2025] PBSA 91
[1]This is an application by Newton (the Applicant) to set aside the decision not to direct his release. The decision was made by a panel following an oral hearing . This is an eligible decision.[2]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the dossier (consisting of 480 numbered pages), the decision (dated 30 October 2025), and the application for set aside (dated 24 November 2025). I have also reviewed the timetable issued in advance of the hearing. Background[3]On 6 March 2015, the Applicant was convicted of kidnap/false imprisonment with intent to commit a relevant sexual offence to which he pleaded guilty. He received an extended sentence with a custodial period of 12 years with an eight year extension period, later varied on appeal to 10 years imprisonment with an eight year extension. He was also convicted of two counts of breaching a sexual offences prevention order, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and voyeurism, receiving a concurrent 18 month determinate sentence on each, and battery, receiving a further four months concurrent. He pleaded guilty to the additional charges.[4]The Applicant was 26 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 37 years old.[5]He was automatically released on licence on 30 July 2024. His licence was revoked on 6 August 2024, and he was returned to custody on 8 August 2024.[6]The Applicant's sentence ends in July 2032. Application for Set Aside[7]The application for set aside has been drafted and submitted by solicitors on behalf of the Applicant and argues that the panel made an error of fact.[8]These grounds are supplemented by written arguments to which reference will be made in the Discussion section below. Current Parole Review[9]The Applicant's case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) to consider whether to direct his release.[10]The review proceeded to an oral hearing on 10 October 2025 before a three-member panel including a psychologist specialist member. The panel heard evidence from the Applicant, his Prison Offender Manager (POM), his Community Offender Manager (COM) and a forensic psychologist commissioned by HMPPS. The Applicant was legally represented throughout the hearing.[11]Neither the COM nor the psychologist supported the Applicant's re-release. The POM was not trained to provide a professional opinion on suitability for release. The panel did not direct the Applicant's release. The Relevant Law[12]Rule 28A(1)(a) of 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 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 indicated that no representations will be made in response to this application. Discussion[16]The application submits that the panel relied upon matters that are factually inaccurate when concluding that further risk reduction work remained outstanding and further asserts that a psychologist member should have been present at the hearing. The documentation shows otherwise. The decision and timetable confirm the attendance of a psychologist specialist member, together with oral evidence from a reporting forensic psychologist. The Applicant was legally represented, no objection to the panel's composition, expertise or suitability was raised during the hearing, and no request for a different panel appears to have been advanced either contemporaneously or through written closing submissions.[17]The submissions do not point to a fact contained within the decision that is inaccurate or unsupported by the evidence before the panel. The question of whether any further work is required is inherently an evaluative topic that the panel was entitled to determine on the basis of professional evidence available at the time. Disagreement with the panel's assessment does not convert that assessment into a factual mistake that could have affected the overall outcome of the hearing. Even if there had been such an error of fact, nothing in the submissions persuades me that the panel's decision would have been different. Moreover, the application identifies no matter that would make it unjust for the decision to stand.[18]For these reasons, no identifiable error of fact has been established. Decision[19]There being no error of fact, the application for set aside is refused. Stefan Fafinski 01 December 2025