Faraj, Application for Set Aside [2026] PBSA 20 (06 July 2026) [2026] PBSA 20
[1]This is an application by Faraj (the Applicant) to set aside the decision by a Parole Board panel not to direct the Applicant's release. The decision is dated 13 December 2024 and was made by a panel after an oral hearing on 4 December 2024. This is an eligible decision.[2]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the dossier as it is at today's date, the oral hearing decision, and the application for set aside. Background[3]On 1 December 2017, the Applicant was sentenced to a determinate sentence of 13 years six months imprisonment for offences of rape, child cruelty and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.[4]The Respondent was aged 38 at the time of sentencing. He is now 46 years old.[5]He was automatically released on licence on 14 December 2023 and recalled on 5 April 2024 for his behaviour at his approved hostel. Application for Set Aside[6]The application for set aside was drafted and submitted by the Applicant's legal representative at the time. The contents have been adopted by his present legal advisor.[7]The application submits that mistakes of fact were made in the decision and that there is information to support that. Current parole review[8]The Applicant's case was referred to the Parole Board to consider whether to release the Applicant.[9]The case proceeded to an oral hearing on 4 December 2024 before a single member panel. The panel heard evidence from the Applicant, his former Prison Offender Manager ( POM ) and his Community Offender Manager ( COM ). The Applicant was legally represented throughout the hearing.[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) 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 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 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.[14]In Jones [2025] EWHC (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 question is whether the new information or change of circumstances means that the original panel would have directed release. 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[15]The Respondent has offered no representations in response to this application . Discussion[16]This application has a considerable history. The Parole Board refused to accept the application to set aside initially. It was out of time. The Board decided that it had no power to allow the application to be made by extending time limits retrospectively. The High Court found that the Board was wrong and it had the power to extend the time. It was remitted to me to consider whether to extend time. I did extend time and I am now considering the set aside application. I have issued a judgment setting out my reasons for extending time.[17]Following amendments to the Parole Board rules this application would not be eligible now but it was eligible at the time, and it is the time that the application was made which is material. In my judgment I should therefore consider the application.[18]The Applicant's case has moved on since the original application was made and that does cause difficulties. A further parole hearing is imminent when all the issues surrounding the possible release of the Applicant will be considered. The dossier that I am considering contains information that is different from the dossier that was available at the time of this hearing.[19]Rule 28A provides a discretion to set aside a decision. It reads "The Board may set aside a final decision" . The aim of a set aside application would be a re-hearing. A further parole hearing is going to take place in July so it would achieve nothing but a possible multiplicity of hearings to set aside this decision.[20]Accordingly in the exercise of my discretion, I would not set aside this decision even if I decided that it had sufficient merit. Also, a decision can only be set aside if it is in the interests of justice to do so. A successful application could result in two hearings considering the same issues. I do not consider that would be in the interests of justice. In fairness to the Applicant, I will set out my observations on the application in case they are considered helpful to put before the new panel.[21]The way the application is expressed is not helpful. The author describes as findings made by the panel, recitations by the panel of the evidence it heard.[22]There is a reference in the application to the incorrect suggestion that the Applicant made 40 calls in a day to a woman with whom he had a relationship. It is suggested that this " may have unduly swayed the Panel in reaching a finding with regard to the applicant's attitude to women and relationships generally" . There is no basis for that suggestion at all. It was made clear in the decision that it was considered that that suggestion was incorrect.[23]At the hearing, the Applicant told the panel that he was now in a relationship with a different woman and that it was continuing. In the dossier, at the time of the hearing according to the application it is said that probation had said that that relationship had ended. In her evidence the COM said that she was unaware that the relationship was continuing.[24]I have seen that there are notes in the dossier currently concerning communications between the Applicant and probation about the relationship. I do not believe they were in the dossier at the time of the previous hearing.[25]Because the index offences included two rapes of the Applicant's wife, potential violence in a relationship would be a focus of the panel's attention. The panel found that the Applicant minimised and justified his controlling behaviours and found he was evasive when discussing his relationships with the two women mentioned above.[26]While there may be new evidence about what the Applicant told probation about his relationship and whether the COM was mistaken in her understanding that the relationship with the second woman was over, I do not consider that this application meets the high bar set by the High Court in Jones (see above).[27]Accordingly, I would have not allowed the application for set aside even if I had not exercised my discretion to allow it. Decision[28]The application for set aside is refused. John Saunders 6 July 2026