Zenshen, Application for Set Aside by the Secretary of State for Justice [2026] PBSA 3 (28 January 2026) [2026] PBSA 3
[1]This is an application by the Secretary of State for Justice (the Applicant) to set aside the decision of a panel of the Parole Board to direct the release of Zenshen (the Respondent). The decision was made by a panel after an oral hearing on 21 October 2025. This is an eligible decision.[2]I have considered the application on the papers. These are: a) The dossier now containing 692 numbered pages; b) The decision dated 30 October 2025; c) The application by the Applicant for reconsideration of the decision to direct release which was refused on 8 January 2026; d) The application for set aside dated 8 January 2026; and e) Representations on behalf of the Respondent from his solicitors dated 13 January 2026. Background[3]In July 1991, following a trial, the Respondent was convicted of murder and on the same occasion he pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm, a sawn-off shotgun and 73 cartridges. He was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment for murder and to two years' imprisonment for the firearms offences.[4]The minimum term was eventually set at 30 years, and the Tariff Expiry Date was in July 2021.[5]On 3 February 1990 the Respondent murdered the victim, who was a stranger to him, in his own home in a savage and brutal fashion. The Respondent was a violent man with a hatred of authority who had formed an avowed intention to murder a police officer.[6]The Respondent was aged 26 at the time of sentencing and is now 61 years old.[7]This was the fourth review of his case by the Parole Board. Application for Set Aside[8]The application for set aside has been drafted and submitted by the Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS) acting on behalf of the Applicant.[9]The application for set aside submits that the decision for release would not have been made if new information had been available when the Panel made the decision to direct the Respondent's release.[10]The content of the application will be considered in the Discussion section below. Current parole review[11]The Respondent's case was referred to the Parole Board by the Applicant to consider whether to direct his release.[12]A panel of the Parole Board consisting of two independent members (one of whom acted as the Chair), and a psychologist member considered the case at an oral hearing on 21 October 2025 at which the Respondent was legally represented.[13]The panel considered the dossier and heard oral evidence from the Respondent, two Community Offender Managers ("COM"), the Prison Offender Manager ("POM") and a Prison psychologist.[14]There was unanimous professional support for release which was directed by the panel. The Relevant Law[15]Rule 28A(1)(a) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended by the Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2025) (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.[16]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)).[17]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 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. The reply on behalf of the Respondent[18]The Respondent through his solicitors has offered succinct representations inviting me to apply the statutory test. Discussion[19]The Respondent was transferred to open prison conditions in November 2023 and had been working outside the prison for over a year when, on 3 December 2025, he was caught stealing at his place of employment.[20]The Respondent had stolen shower wash, a room freshener and some toys from the shop totalling around £30 in value, even though he has a considerable amount of money in savings.[21]He was subsequently spoken to and was unable to explain why he stole the items. He was very upset with himself and put it down to a moment of madness. He was very remorseful and felt that he had let everyone down.[22]He is described as taking a calculated risk that he would not get caught after he saw an open box of toys and thought that he would get some Christmas presents for a young relative.[23]He was dealt with under prison disciplinary procedures by having some privileges removed and his permission to spend time outside the prison temporarily suspended.[24]Crucially, the professional judgement is that this behaviour does not indicate an increase in his risk of causing harm and it is not argued on behalf of the Applicant that there has been a change of circumstances such that the new information affects the risk management assessment.[25]Nevertheless, i n consequence of this new information, the Applicant submits that the release decision should be set aside.[26]I am satisfied that this is new information which was not available to the panel on 21 October 2025 and, therefore, the further question for me is whether, had it been available, the panel would not have given a decision for release.[27]The Respondent has not demonstrated overt violence against staff or prisoners since 1999 and, during his many years in prison, he has evidenced s ignificant, sustained improvement in behaviour, has achieved all sentence objectives, engaged with professionals, and completed many treatments, programmes and risk-reduction interventions.[28]On all relevant criteria he is assessed as posing a low risk of further offending and the prison psychologist assessed there to be a low risk of violence if he is released with low imminence.[29]The panel found that the Respondent's risk of reoffending in a manner likely to cause serious harm was not imminent, that he had been properly tested in the community, where he attends a religious centre regularly, and that his risks could be effectively managed in the community on the basis of a robust risk management plan.[30]The application for set aside must therefore be considered against the background of these findings and the written and oral evidence before the panel and, in my view, crucially, the way in which the Respondent's behaviour has been dealt with by the prison authorities, in particular, the decision not to remove him from open prison conditions and the professional judgement that his behaviour does not indicate an increase in risk of harm.[31]I do not criticise the decision to bring this new information to the attention of the Board and, as the COM notes, it will be necessary " to ponder" the Respondent's motivation for his behaviour which will no doubt be further considered with him while under supervision in the community, but, in all the circumstances, I am very far from satisfied that, had the panel been aware of this incident, it would not have given a direction for release.[32]Given this finding it is not necessary for me to consider the question of the interests of justice. Decision[33]I have carefully considered the application and the relevant documentation and, for the reasons I have given, the application for set aside is refused. PETER H F JONES 28 January 2026