Moore, Application for Set Aside by the Secretary of State for Justice [2026] PBSA 5 (04 February 2026) [2026] PBSA 5
[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 Moore (the Respondent). The decision was made by a panel after an oral hearing on 8 December 2025. This is an eligible decision.[2]I have considered the application on the papers. These are: a) The dossier now containing 410 numbered pages; b) The decision dated 19 December 2025; c) The application for set aside dated 22 January 2026 with attached prison reports; and d) Representations on behalf of the Respondent from his solicitors by email dated 29 January 2026. Background[3]On 9 December 2016, the Respondent was sentenced to an extended determinate term of detention comprising a custodial element of nine years and an extended licence period of four years for an offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm. On the same occasion he received concurrent determinate sentences of detention for two counts of possession of a knife in a public place.[4]The Parole Eligibility Date was in September 2023, the Conditional Release Date is in June 2026, and the Sentence Expiry Date is in November 2029.[5]The Respondent attacked the female victim and attempted to snatch her bag. A scuffle ensued and he produced a knife and stabbed the victim in the stomach, inflicting three wounds, one of which caused an injury to her spleen which had to be removed. The Respondent has since acknowledged that the offence occurred when he was drug dealing and intending to sell class A drugs to the victim.[6]The Respondent was aged 18 at the time of sentencing and is now 27 years old.[7]The Respondent committed further offences during this sentence including assaults upon another prisoner and a prison officer.[8]This was his second review. Application for Set Aside[9]The application for set aside has been drafted and submitted by the Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS) acting on behalf of the Applicant.[10]The application for set aside submits that the decision for release would not have been made if the change in circumstances relied on had occurred before the direction was given.[11]The content of the application and the Respondent's representations in reply will be considered in the Discussion section below. Current parole review[12]The Respondent's case was referred to the Parole Board by the Applicant to consider whether to direct his release.[13]The case proceeded to an oral hearing on 8 December 2025, before a 3-member panel consisting of two independent members (one of whom acted as the Chair) and a psychologist, at which the Respondent was legally represented.[14]The panel considered the dossier and heard oral evidence from the Respondent, the Community Offender Manager ("COM"), the Prison Offender Manager ("POM"), a Prison psychologist, a clinical psychologist, and the Respondent's keyworker.[15]The Panel directed the Respondent's release. The Relevant Law[16]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.[17]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)).[18]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[19]The Respondent through his solicitors has offered representations and invites me to refuse the application. Discussion[20]It is argued on behalf of the Applicant that 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 .[21]It is submitted that the Respondent has grown increasingly complacent and that, since receiving the Parole Board's decision, his behaviour has deteriorated considerably with his recent conduct strongly resembling the behavioural patterns associated with his index offending.[22]The Applicant relies on prison reports derived from information provided by prison officers who witnessed the incidents.[23]A Case Note of 3 January 2026 describes the Respondent as behaving in a highly inappropriate and aggressive fashion towards another prisoner and that this was not an isolated incident but part of a pattern of escalating conduct. He was overheard using abusive and threatening language towards the other prisoner while returning to his own cell and he subsequently approached the other man's cell and issued further threats, attempting to provoke a physical confrontation. The Respondent received a Final Warning.[24]On 8 January 2026 the Respondent repeatedly refused to comply with instructions from staff to turn down the excessively loud music he was playing, and he then became verbally abusive and threatening towards staff, challenging them and using threatening language. He was observed to be visibly angry, verbally threatening and aggressive. The incident lasted some time with the Respondent refusing to comply and repeatedly stating that he did not care about the situation as he was going home in a few days.[25]On 10 January 2026 the Respondent was seen to throw something into another prisoner's cell in an attempt to hit him. The Respondent was told by staff to stop and return to his cell. However, the Respondent shouted abuse towards the other prisoner, appeared ready to fight him, and "baited" him to come towards him. The Respondent was escorted back to his cell and secured behind his door.[26]Case notes highlight that the Respondent is currently unable to manage his emotional triggers and his behaviour escalates quickly to become aggressive, causing concern to his clinical psychologist and POM.[27]The Respondent has been suspended from his trusted Red Band duties which further reflects his pattern of deteriorating behaviours.[28]The professional view is that the Respondent is no longer considered to be manageable in the community and needs to undertake further structured work prior to release.[29]Of particular concern, in my view, is that, although his acceptance into a PIPE AP (Psychologically Informed Planned Environment Approved Premises), formed the basis of the COM's support for release, the Respondent's PIPE suitability has been subsequently reviewed and he has been found to be no longer suitable, thus undermining a key element of the proposed Risk Management Plan (RMP) for release.[30]In consequence of this new information, the Applicant submits that the release decision should be set aside.[31]I have carefully considered the succinct representations provided on behalf of the Respondent by his solicitor who focuses on the incidents on 8 and 10 January 2026 and, while not denying the behaviour displayed, emphasises that no actual physical violence took place and suggests that these were isolated incidents. However, the representations do not address the fact that the Respondent is no longer suitable for a PIPE AP and therefore a critical aspect of the RMP is no longer in place.[32]I am satisfied that there has been a change in circumstances after the direction for release was given and the further question for me is, therefore, would the direction for release not have been given if this change had occurred before it was given?[33]I find that the reported deterioration in the Respondent's behaviour and his evident lack of stability are clearly relevant to the Respondent's risk of causing serious harm which the panel assessed to be high to the public should he reoffend.[34]In its decision the panel found that the Respondent had a record of general anti-social and violent behaviour as a young man and an unenviable record of violent custodial behaviour, attracting four further convictions during this sentence and accruing a large number of behavioural sanctions with the majority involving violence or threats towards staff or other prisoners.[35]The panel , however, acknowledged the Respondent's improved stability and the vast improvement in his custodial behaviour since June 2024, describing it as excellent, with the professionals managing him agreeing that he had made significant progress and supporting his release on licence.[36]Nevertheless, the panel was clearly disturbed by two incidents which had taken place in 2025 during which the Respondent had displayed an emotional response and been involved in arguments, noting that he has never lived in the community as an independent adult, and so will face significant challenges, and expressing concern as to how similar responses on his part would translate into a community setting.[37]In my view, the most crucial change in circumstances is the withdrawal of the PIPE AP placement which was obviously a fundamental element of the proposed RMP.[38]In her evidence to the panel the prison psychologist confirmed that she had considered the RMP, especially the elements of initial PIPE AP and Offender Personality Disorder (OPD) Pathway support which would provide for initial, increased monitoring and control for a period of up to six months and allow for further skills consolidation.[39]Finally, it was the panel's finding that a place at a PIPE AP was a necessary ingredient of an effective RMP and the panel specifically directed the Respondent's release to reside at the PIPE AP in line with the proposed RMP.[40]I am in no doubt that, had the panel been aware of the changes in circumstances which have taken place since making their decision to direct release, including the behaviours reported by members of the prison staff, the Respondent's loss of Red Band status and, most crucially, the non-availability of a placement at a PIPE AP and the revised professional view that his risk is not currently manageable in the community, the panel would not have given a decision for release.[41]I confirm that I am also satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for the Panel's decision to be set aside . Decision[42]The application for set aside is granted. PETER H. F. JONES 04 February 2026