Williams, Application for Set Aside by the Secretary of State for Justice [2026] PBSA 6 (12 February 2026) [2026] PBSA 6
[1]This is an application by the Secretary of State for Justice (the Applicant) to set aside the decision to direct Mr Williams' (the Respondent's) release. The decision was made by a panel after an oral hearing on 31 October 2025. This is an eligible decision.[2]I have considered the application on the papers. These are the dossier, the oral hearing decision dated 4 January 2026, the application for set aside dated 28 January 2026, the views of the current Prison Offender Manager ( POM ) and his Community Offender Manager ( COM ), and the representations by the Respondent's legal adviser. Background[3]On 19 May 2022, the Respondent was sentenced in relation to offences relating to conspiracy to supply controlled class A drugs. The length of sentence was four years and six months.[4]The Respondent was aged 29 at the time of sentencing. He was 32 years old at the date of the oral hearing.[5]He was automatically released on licence on 2 April 2024. His licence was revoked on 12 September 2024, and he was returned to custody on 18 September 2024. He was rereleased on the 14 October 2024 and recalled on the second occasion on the 19 November 2024. This is therefore his second recall on this sentence, and his first parole review since the second recall. Application for Set Aside[6]The application for set aside has been drafted and submitted by the Applicant.[7]It submits that there has been new information. Details of the application are set out below. Current parole review[8]The Respondent's case was referred to the Parole Board by the Applicant to consider whether to direct release.[9]The case proceeded to an oral hearing on 31 October 2025 before a two member panel. The panel heard evidence from the Respondent, the POM and the COM. The Respondent gave evidence himself and was legally represented throughout the hearing.[10]The panel directed the Respondent's release. The Relevant Law[11]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.[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 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[14]The Respondent has offered representations through his current POM. The Respondent's legal adviser has also made representations in response to this application . Discussion[15]It is argued on behalf of the Applicant that there has been new information. Background[16]A panel of the Parole Board conducted a hearing in relation to the Respondent's case and issued a decision on 5 January 2026.[17]Following that decision, it became apparent that the Respondent had been returned from the open prison that he occupied to a closed prison. The reasons for the transfer were that he was found to be in possession of a mobile phone. He was also alleged to be using ketamine and was also allegedly abusive and argumentative towards staff. There are two pending adjudications.[18]The report from the prison officers who dealt with the matter on 23 January 2026 was that the Respondent admitted to them that he had used ketamine. In addition, an identification card associated with the Respondent was found at the time to be covered in a white powder.[19]The Respondent's COM was contacted by the prison and provided a report to say that drug use and non-compliance are directly linked to the risk of serious harm. The COM indicated that, had he known about the use of drugs, and the issues relating to non-compliance prior to the oral hearing he would not have supported release back into the community as he took the view that risk of serious harm could not be managed.[20]The Parole Board have also received representations from the Respondent's legal adviser. The Parole Board have also ensured that the Respondent himself was spoken to at the closed prison and a report by his current POM was made available to the Parole Board set aside team and to me.[21]The Respondent's legal adviser submits that the issues relating to the Respondent do not amount to a voluntary relapse into substance misuse or an escalation of risk. It is submitted, on behalf of the Respondent, that the responsibility for the issues relating to the Respondent lay with the unsafe custodial environment where the Respondent was subject to coercion and was not effectively safeguarded.[22]The Respondent's legal adviser indicates that over some months the Respondent had become socially isolated and vulnerable to targeting by others as he was the last remaining Mancunian on the wing. He had indicated to his legal adviser that he was repeatedly under pressure from prisoners to hold items on their behalf and felt unable to refuse due to credible fears of his personal safety. The Respondent's legal adviser indicates that the incident was not sudden or unforeseeable and that the Respondent had repeatedly communicated to staff that he felt unsafe and requested to move his location. It is argued that no meaningful safeguarding measures were implemented.[23]It is also submitted that the mobile phone which was recovered from his cell did not belong to the Respondent and he was being pressured to hold it for others. It is therefore argued that the incidents which have led to the Respondent being transferred back to a closed prison would not have changed the decision of the panel even if they had been aware of the incidents. It is argued that the incidents demonstrate vulnerability within custody, rather than an increased risk to the public. It is further submitted that the Respondent would have been in an atmosphere of greater stability when in the community under structured licence conditions and supervision.[24]I have also considered the dossier which was before the panel at the oral hearing. It is of note that although the Respondent's legal adviser indicates that "[The Respondent] had repeatedly communicated to staff that he felt unsafe" and that he had been approached by safer custody and security staff in relation to "pressure being placed upon him" . These issues are not referenced in any way in the security report in the dossier. The issues were not raised by the Respondent himself or (it appears) by his legal adviser during the course of the oral hearing. Discussion[25]So far as the factual matters are concerned, I have considered whether there is sufficient evidence on the balance of probabilities to support the factual allegations. In the light of the fact that the report by the prison service was made contemporaneously and does not appear to be entirely rejected by the Respondent, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent admitted to prison officers that he had taken the drug ketamine, that a white powder residue was found upon an identification document associated with the Respondent, that there was a mobile telephone in his accommodation which was a breach of the prison rules and that he became confrontational with staff.[26]I acknowledge that there may be explanations that the Respondent would wish to give (and has given) for these findings. Whilst there may be some credibility to the argument that the Respondent was being asked to take care of a mobile phone on behalf of others, I am not persuaded that the ingestion of ketamine or the confrontational behaviour by the Respondent can be attributed directly to any issue of pressure from other prisoners.[27]I also note that the representations indicate that the issues relating to pressure to retain illicit mobile phones by other prisoners had been ongoing for "some months." That submission implies that, at the time of the oral hearing, the Respondent was fully aware of these issues. On a reading of the oral hearing panel decision there appears to be no mention of negative issues. The Respondent told the panel that he was keen to prepare for the parole review and had specifically not applied to undertake Release on Temporary Licence's (ROTL's) in order to give him more time to prepare. There is also a note on the panel decision that the Respondent's POM had undertaken a lengthy conversation in October 2025, and the Respondent had presented as open and honest, accepting responsibility for his recall and discussing behaviour in historical relationships. There appeared to have been no discussion or disclosure about the serious issues which the Respondent reports were affecting his daily life in the open prison and which meant that he was breaching prison rules in various ways.[28]It is clear to me that the panel decision was based upon positive reports and assessments from both the Respondent's COM and POM. Those assessments were also based upon the Respondent himself presenting as a person who was settled and preparing for release and on the basis that he was being open and honest about his current circumstances. This was clearly not the case.[29]It is quite apparent, from instructions given by the Respondent to his legal adviser subsequently, that the impression of current stability and full understanding of the risk in relation to drugs and associates, given at the hearing, was misleading. It appears that the Respondent failed to present an open and honest account of his current circumstances to either the panel or the professionals who were preparing reports about him.[30]Having considered the oral hearing panel decision, the representations from the Respondent's legal adviser, and the representations by the Respondent himself to his current POM as well as the views of the COM following the incidents listed above, I have considered the test to be applied in relation to set aside. I am satisfied that a direction for release would not have been given, if information (set out above) that had not been available to the Board had been available. I am also satisfied that a direction for release would not have been given, if the change in circumstances relating to the prisoner after the direction was given had occurred before it was given.[31]This is because the decision of the oral hearing panel was clearly based on the premise that the Respondent was not accessing illicit drugs. That he was stable in the open prison and was not negatively involved with antisocial associates and therefore that the Respondent's risk could be safely managed in the community. This conclusion would not have been reached by the panel if they were aware that illicit drugs were being taken and that the Respondent was involved with negative associates and failing to address the difficulties with negative associates through his POM and COM.[32]The added issue in this case was the fact that the panel noted that the Respondent will be subject to probation reset. This effectively meant that there would be no direct supervision in the community and therefore the Respondent's risk of serious harm had to be measured against the limited risk management plan which would be available to manage that risk in the community.[33]I am satisfied that the panel would not have directed release had they been aware of the issues which have been noted above despite the explanation given by the Respondent of the pressures which he felt he was under. Decision[34]The application for set aside is accepted. HH S Dawson 12 February 2026