BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

The Parole Board for England and Wales


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Parole Board for England and Wales >> Adams, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 103 (16 May 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/PBRA/2025/103.html
Cite as: [2025] PBRA 103

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

 

 

[2025] PBRA 103

 

 

 

Application for Reconsideration by Adams

 

Application

 

1.   This is an application by Adams (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing dated 2 April 2025 not to direct release.

 

2.   Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended by the Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2024) (the Parole Board Rules) provides that applications for reconsideration may be made in eligible cases (as set out in rule 28(2)) either on the basis (a) that the decision contains an error of law, (b) that it is irrational and/or (c) that it is procedurally unfair. This is an eligible case, and the application was made in time.

 

3.   I have considered the application on the papers. These are the oral hearing decision, the dossier consisting of 494 pages and the application for reconsideration.

 

Request for Reconsideration

 

4.   The application for reconsideration is dated 23 April 2025. It has been drafted by legal representatives on behalf of the Applicant. It submits that the decision is irrational in that it went against the recommendations of the professional witnesses without sufficient explanation or balance and without taking full account of the evidence given at the hearing.

 

5.   The submission is supplemented by written arguments to which reference will be made in the Discussion section below.

Background

 

6.   On 4 July 2007 the Applicant received a sentence of imprisonment for public protection following conviction for wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Her tariff was set at 3 years. During the course of the sentence she was released in 2015 and recalled in March 2020, she was released again in December 2020 and recalled in December 2023.

 

7.   The Applicant was 25 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 42 years old.

 

Current Parole Review

 

8.   The Applicant’s case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) in January 2024 to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct her release. If the Board did not consider it appropriate to direct release, it was invited to advise the Respondent whether the Applicant could be transferred to open conditions.

 

9.   The case proceeded to an oral hearing via videoconference on 7 January 2025. The panel consisted of three independent members. It heard oral evidence from the Applicant, together with her Prison Offender Manager, Community Offender Manager and a prison appointed psychologist. The Applicant was legally represented throughout the hearing. The Respondent was not represented by an advocate.

 

The Relevant Law

 

10.The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter dated 2 April 2025 the test for release and the issues to be addressed in making a recommendation to the Secretary of State for a progressive move to open conditions.

 

Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)

 

11.Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules provides the types of decision which are eligible for reconsideration. Decisions concerning whether the prisoner is or is not suitable for release on licence are eligible for reconsideration 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)). Decisions concerning the termination, amendment, or dismissal of an IPP licence are also eligible for reconsideration (rule 31(6) or rule 31(6A)).

12.Rule 28(2) of the Parole Board Rules provides the sentence types which are eligible for reconsideration. These are indeterminate sentences (rule 28(2)(a)), extended sentences (rule 28(2)(b)), certain types of determinate sentence subject to initial release by the Parole Board (rule 28(2)(c)) and serious terrorism sentences (rule 28(2)(d)).

 

13.A decision to recommend or not to recommend a move to open conditions is not eligible for reconsideration under rule 28. This has been confirmed by the decision on the previous reconsideration application in Barclay [2019] PBRA 6.

Irrationality

 

14.The power of the courts to interfere with a decision of a competent tribunal on the ground of irrationality was defined in Associated Provincial Houses ltd -v- Wednesbury Corporation 1948 1 KB 223 by Lord Greene in these words “if a decision on a competent matter is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it, then the courts can interfere”. The same test applies to a reconsideration panel when determining an application on the basis of irrationality.

 

15.In R(DSD and others) -v- the Parole Board 2018 EWHC 694 (Admin) a Divisional Court applied this test to parole board hearings in these words at para 116 “the issue is whether the release decision was so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.”

 

16.In R(on the application of Wells) -v- Parole Board 2019 EWHC 2710 (Admin) Saini J set out what he described as a more nuanced approach in modern public law which was “to test the decision maker’s ultimate conclusion against the evidence before it and to ask whether the conclusion can (with due deference and with regard to the panel’s expertise) be safely justified on the basis of that evidence, particularly in a context where anxious scrutiny needs to be applied)”. This test was adopted by a Divisional Court in the case of R(on the application of the Secretary of State for Justice) -v- the Parole Board 2022 EWHC 1282(Admin).

 

17.As was made clear by Saini J this is not a different test to the Wednesbury test. The interpretation of and application of the Wednesbury test in Parole hearings as explained in DSD was binding on Saini J.

 

18.It follows from those principles that in considering an application for reconsideration the reconsideration panel will not substitute its view of the evidence for that of the panel who heard the witnesses.

 

19.Further while the views of the professional witnesses must be properly considered by a panel deciding on release, the panel is not bound to accept their assessment. The panel must however make clear in its reasons why it is disagreeing with the assessment of the witnesses.

The reply on behalf of the Secretary of State

 

20.The Respondent has submitted no representations in response to this application.

 

Discussion

 

21.The Applicant states that there is a factual error in the recitation of facts, which were taken from an earlier hearing. She says it was only her grandfather who was sexually abusive of her and that her mother did not facilitate that conduct as reported. The application does not suggest that affects the decision in any way.

 

22.The application submits that the panel’s decision that warning signs would not be picked up went against the evidence. The submissions as set out amount to a disagreement with the panel’s conclusions and fail to identify any irrationality in those conclusions which are fully explained. The panel’s view was that the Applicant lacked the internal controls to manage alcohol, drugs and other risk factors. The panel assessment was that the Applicant frequently minimised her alcohol consumption maintaining she had drank less than she had. That lack of openness, together with her association with negative peers undermined the conclusion that her risk was identifiable. This was a conclusion reasoned and open to the panel on the evidence submitted and does not meet the test for irrationality.

 

23.The second ground submits that the panel failed to place adequate weight on the evidence of the professionals. The submission goes on to detail many aspects of the Applicant’s evidence where the Applicant disagrees with the panel and submits that all the professionals were supportive of re-release and saw no tangible benefit in a move to a period in open conditions.

 

24.It is a matter for the panel who saw and heard from the witnesses, what weight they attach to any particular part of the evidence and to make its own risk assessment based on all the evidence presented including that from the Applicant. The panel gave supportable reasons for the conclusion that the risk management plan was not sufficiently robust to manage the Applicant’s risks in the community. The panel found that the Applicant lacked the “necessary coping strategies to manage her key risks” which included her anger and triggers to alcohol and drugs. Her custodial behaviour showed that her emotional instability remained active. The panel’s conclusion was based on the Applicant’s lack of internal controls to manage alcohol and drug use, emotional instability, negative associations and being in risky situations. The conclusions were clear, thorough and logical and far short of being considered unreasonable or irrational.

 

Decision

 

25.For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused.

 

 

 

Barbara Mensah

16 May 2025

 

 

 

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010