Hirst, Application for Set Aside by the Secretary of State for Justice [2026] PBSA 13 (22 April 2026) [2026] PBSA 13

PBSA

Hirst, Application for Set Aside by the Secretary of State for Justice [2026] PBSA 13 (22 April 2026)

[2026] PBSA 13 · 2026-02-27

[1]This is an application by the Secretary of State for Justice (the Applicant) to set aside the decision to direct the release of Hirst (the Respondent). 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 (now consisting of 465 numbered pages), the decision (dated 27 February 2026), and the application for set aside (dated 9 April 2026). Background

[3]On 7 April 2020, the Respondent was convicted after trial of false imprisonment and wounding/inflicting grievous bodily harm. He received an extended sentence, consisting of nine years in custody with three years on extended licence for the false imprisonment, and a concurrent 42 month determinate sentence for the wounding offence.

[4]The Respondent was 29 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 35 years old. Application for Set Aside

[5]The application for set aside has been drafted and submitted by the Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS) acting on behalf of the Applicant.

[6]The application for set aside submits there is new information available such that the direction given by the Board " may not have been given" if the new information was available prior to the direction being given.

[7]The content of the application will be considered in the Discussion section below. Current Parole Review

[8]The Respondent's case was referred to the Parole Board by the Applicant to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release.

[9]The matter proceeded to an oral hearing before a three-member panel, including a psychologist specialist member. The panel heard evidence from the Respondent's Prison Offender Manager (POM), two previous POMs, a forensic psychologist instructed by HMPPS, the Community Offender Manager (COM) and the Respondent. The Respondent was legally represented throughout the hearing.

[10]The panel considered the serious nature of the index offences, his history of violent behaviour linked to alcohol and substance misuse, and the identified risk factors including poor emotional regulation, distorted thinking relating to intimate partner relationships, pro-criminal associations, and a pattern of placing himself in high-risk situations. Whilst the panel accepted that the Respondent continues to present a risk of serious harm, particularly in the context of conflict, substance use, or intimate relationships, it concluded that there was no evidence of imminent risk and that the identified risks were capable of being managed in the community.

[11]The panel placed significant weight on evidence of change during the sentence. The Respondent had completed offence-focused work including the Thinking Skills Programme and additional consolidation work, demonstrated developing consequential thinking skills, and engaged positively with substance misuse services, maintaining abstinence supported by negative drug testing. He had progressed to open conditions where he completed multiple Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL) periods, including overnight releases, without incident and with positive engagement with staff at his designated accommodation. Professionals considered that he had matured, developed insight into his offending behaviour, and demonstrated motivation to desist. Although there had been intelligence reports suggesting possible misconduct in custody, these were largely assessed as low reliability and unsupported by evidence, and the panel placed limited weight on them.

[12]All professional witnesses supported release and assessed that the Respondent's risk could be managed through a structured risk management plan involving release initially to Approved Premises, Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) oversight, engagement with psychologically informed services, and robust licence conditions addressing substance use, relationships, supervision, and monitoring. The panel accepted that any escalation in risk would likely be gradual and identifiable through observable warning signs, allowing timely intervention by supervising professionals. Weighing the positive evidence of change against the remaining risk factors, the panel concluded that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the Respondent remain confined and that his risk could be safely managed in the community under the proposed arrangements. The panel directed the Respondent's release. The Relevant Law

[13]Rule 28A(1)(a) of the Parole Board Rules (as amended by the Parole Board (Amendment) Rule 2025 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.

[14]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)).

[15]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 would not have been given if information that had not been available to the Board when the direction was given had been available, or b) 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.

[16]In R(Umar Jones) v Parole Board

[2025] EWHC 3216 (Admin)

the High Court held that the words " would not have been given " within rule 28A(4) had their natural and ordinary meaning, not qualified by probability or likelihood. The court held that, in deciding whether or not a direction would have been given, the decision-maker is required to consider the evidence relied upon in the set aside application in the context of the evidence before the panel which made the release direction, giving sufficient consideration to its nature, relevance, reliability and cogency in the light of the facts of the particular case. The reply on behalf of the Respondent

[17]The Respondent submitted representations in response to the application which will also be referred to in the Discussion section below. Discussion

[18]The application for setting aside relies on asserted new information arising after the panel directed release, specifically an incident reported on 19 March 2026 in which the Respondent is alleged to have made inappropriate and threatening comments to a female healthcare member of staff within his establishment. It is submitted that the comments suggested a degree of fixation and possessiveness, including statements indicating that he would seek the staff member out following release, which caused the staff member to feel fearful given the nature of the Respondent's index offence involving false imprisonment. It is argued that this behaviour represents concerning non-compliance and raises questions regarding the Respondent's attitudes towards women and boundaries with professionals.

[19]The Applicant further relies on the views of the COM, who is said to have expressed significant concern about the Respondent's manageability in the community in light of this behaviour. It is submitted that the alleged conduct reflects the type of warning signs identified by the panel in its original decision as potentially indicative of increasing risk, including difficulties in relationships, lack of perspective-taking, and non-compliance with professional boundaries. It is argued that the behaviour demonstrates that the relevant risk factors may now be actively present and therefore requires reassessment by a panel before release proceeds.

[20]Accordingly, it is submitted that had this information been available at the time of the hearing, the panel may not have directed release. The application invites the Board to conclude that the alleged behaviour represents a material change in circumstances relevant to risk and to set aside the release decision so that the Respondent's suitability for release can be reconsidered in light of the new information and the concerns expressed by the COM.

[21]Submissions on behalf of the Respondent argue that the alleged incident of 19 March 2026 does not amount to new information for the purposes of rule 28A. It is submitted that the account relies on a single intelligence report which is disputed by the Respondent. It is further submitted that the allegation remains untested and that limited weight should be placed upon it, particularly given the panel's previous consideration of intelligence material of varying reliability.

[22]The Respondent further argues that the alleged comments, even if taken at their highest, fall squarely within the type of relational and attitudinal risk factors already identified and considered by the panel when directing release. It is submitted that the panel was fully aware of the Respondent's history of problematic attitudes towards intimate partners and authority figures and nevertheless concluded that risk could be managed through a robust risk management plan. Consequently, it is argued that the allegation does not demonstrate escalation to imminent risk or any material change in the Respondent's risk profile.

[23]It is therefore submitted that the information relied upon does not undermine the panel's reasoning or establish that the decision would have been different had the information been available at the time. The representatives also argue that it would not be in the interests of justice to set aside the release decision on the basis of disputed and limited material which does not materially alter the panel's assessment that the Respondent's risk can be managed safely in the community.

[24]The first matter is whether the report constitutes information that had not been available to the Board when the direction was given. It was reported on 19 March 2026, which was after the panel's decision was made. It could not therefore have been before the panel at the time of the decision. I am not persuaded by the Respondent's argument that this is not 'new information'. While I accept that the information has limited detail and that the matter has not been adjudicated, it is certainly new.

[25]The Respondent next disputes the accuracy of the report. This is not determinative of the application. Setting aside the decision would give the Respondent the opportunity to dispute the report of the incident and for the panel to decide how much weight to give the allegation.

[26]It is next argued that the panel would not have changed its decision had it known of the report. Following Jones, there is a high threshold of 'would not' rather than 'might not' or 'may not'. The Applicant expressly submits that the direction given by the Board " may not have been given" if the new information was available prior to the release direction being given.

[27]The application therefore relies on a mis-stated formulation of the statutory test (as clarified in Jones ). Nonetheless, I shall proceed to consider whether the test is met on the material relied upon.

[28]I am required to consider the evidence relied upon in the set aside application in the context of the evidence before the panel which made the release direction, giving sufficient consideration to its nature, relevance, reliability and cogency in the light of the facts of the particular case.

[29]I am not persuaded that the panel would have made a different decision.

[30]The panel's decision demonstrates that it was fully aware of the Respondent's risk factors relating to attitudes towards women, difficulties in intimate relationships, emotional regulation and hostility in the context of perceived rejection or challenge. These matters were expressly identified as part of the Respondent's risk profile. The panel nevertheless concluded that those risks were capable of being safely managed in the community. The panel's reasoning therefore demonstrates that relational boundary difficulties were expressly anticipated within the risk formulation.

[31]The alleged comments, taken at their highest, are consistent with the type of relational and attitudinal concerns already identified by the panel. They do not introduce a new category of risk. Nor do they materially alter the evidential picture considered by the panel when concluding that the Respondent's risk was manageable in the community.

[32]The information relied upon consists of a single unverified report, with no adjudication finding or witness statement. The material is limited in detail and remains disputed by the Respondent. While the allegation is concerning and properly capable of consideration, its evidential weight is presently unclear.

[33]The panel expressly anticipated the possibility of imperfect behaviour and recognised that risk may manifest through difficulties in interpersonal relationships or attitudes towards others. The panel's reasoning indicates that any escalation in risk was considered likely to be observable through behaviour capable of being managed through supervision and monitoring in the community. The risk management plan was structured to identify and respond to such warning signs.

[34]In those circumstances, I am not satisfied that the information relied upon demonstrates a material change in circumstances or provides evidence of imminent escalation in risk such that the panel would not have directed release had the information been available at the time of the hearing.

[35]Consequently, I am not satisfied that the statutory threshold for setting aside the decision is met. Decision

[36]For the reasons set out above, the application for set aside is refused. Stefan Fafinski 22 April 2026