Cecil, Application to Set Aside, [2025] PBSA 96 (15 December 2025) [2025] PBSA 96
[1]This is an application by Cecil (the Applicant) to set aside the decision not to direct his release. The decision was made by a panel at an oral hearing on 29 September 2025. This is an eligible decision.[2]I have considered the application on the papers. These are: · The dossier now comprising 262 numbered pages; · The decision (DL) dated 6 October 2025; · Decision dated 11 November 2025 refusing an application for reconsideration (the reconsideration decision); and · The application for set aside dated 18 November 2025 Background[3]On 16 March 2023, the Applicant was convicted of meeting a girl under 16 years of age following grooming to which he pleaded guilty. He received an extended sentence comprising four years imprisonment with a two year period on extended licence. On the same occasion he was further convicted of three counts of breaching a sexual harm prevention order, engaging in sexual communication with a child and engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child aged under 16. He received four concurrent determinate 12 month sentences and one concurrent eight month determinate sentence.[4]The Conditional Release Date is in November 2026, and the Sentence Expiry Date is in November 2028.[5]The Applicant is 37 years of age and was aged 34 at the time of sentencing for the index offences.[6]T his was his second review. Application for Set Aside[7]The application for set aside has been submitted by the Applicant who seeks to rely on a number of errors of law. I will deal with these matters in detail in the Discussion section of my decision . Current parole review[8]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.[9]The case proceeded to an oral hearing on 29 September 2025 before a two-member panel. The panel heard oral evidence from the Applicant, the Prison Offender Manager (POM) and the Community Offender Manager (COM). The Applicant was legally represented throughout the hearing. There was no professional support for release.[10]The panel did not direct the Applicant's release. The Relevant Law[11]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.[12]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)).[13]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[14]PPCS on behalf of the Respondent confirmed by email dated 28 November 2025 that no representations are offered in response to the application . Discussion[15]I have carefully considered the papers from which it is apparent that, unfortunately, without, it seems, the benefit of legal advice, the Applicant has not appreciated that the set aside procedure is not an appeal from either the decision of the panel or the reconsideration decision but requires specific grounds to be made out for a successful application.[16]In this case the Applicant suggests that errors of law have been made but a comparison with the reconsideration decision shows that the Applicant has simply repeated most, but not all, of the arguments which he made under the headings of irrationality and procedural unfairness in support of that application (none of which were successful) and which he now re-designates as "errors of law".[17]Indeed, the Applicant's continued reliance on "irrationality" and "Wednesday unreasonable" indicate that he has not considered the grounds required for a set aside application.[18]His arguments based on the case of Gill and in relation to the victim personal statement were considered in detail and dismissed in the reconsideration decision as were those relating to the availability of risk reduction work which the panel, in its judgement, found to be necessary for the Applicant to complete in custody . I can see no reason to depart from the findings and reasons given in that decision when applying the criteria relevant to a set aside application.[19]I find that the panel, having read the dossier and heard the relevant evidence including from the Applicant, set out its findings with considerable clarity and appropriate detail, having come to its own judgement in relation to risk-related issues, which is, of course, a matter pre-eminently for the panel. Decision[20]I have carefully considered this application. I find that it discloses no errors of 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 entirely without merit and it is refused. PETER H. F. JONES 15 December 2025