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 >> Haakanson, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 107 (22 May 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/PBRA/2025/107.html
Cite as: [2025] PBRA 107

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

 

 

[2025] PBRA 107

 

 

Application for Reconsideration by Haakanson

 

 

Application

 

1.   This is an application by Haakanson (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision dated 17 March 2025 of a panel of the Parole Board (the Panel) following an oral hearing held remotely by video on 11 March 2025. The Panel decided not to direct the Applicant’s release and not to make a recommendation for his transfer to open conditions.

 

2.   Rule 28(1) of The Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended in 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 that: (a) the decision contains an error of law; (b) the decision is irrational; and/or (c) the decision 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 papers are:

 

·          a dossier of 473 pages;

·          the Panel’s decision dated 17 March 2025 (decision); and

·          an application for reconsideration dated 5 April 2025 submitted by the Applicant (the application). The application is made up of several documents, and I have described these in paragraph 4 below.

 

Request for Reconsideration

 

4.   The application consists of a prisoner application form signed by the Applicant, seven pages of ‘additional information’ which includes what the Applicant refers to as a submission from his daughter and son-in-law which ends with a list of the names and telephone numbers of people who are said to support the submission, and a handwritten letter consisting of 11 pages seeking reconsideration and setting out detailed information relating to the Applicant’s recall. I noted that there was a marked difference in writing style between the typed part of the application and the handwritten letter.

 

5.   The Applicant submits that the decision was procedurally unfair and irrational. The Applicant also disputes the appropriateness of the decision to recall him and, by implication, the Panel’s finding that the decision to recall him was appropriate.

 

6.   Procedural unfairness: the Applicant does not explain why he believes that the Panel’s decision was procedurally unfair. In my view, the application does not reveal any grounds for procedural unfairness. The Applicant mentions procedural unfairness in the context of being ‘punished’ for failing to complete the Building Better Relationships programme (BBR). I do not consider this to be a valid ground for procedural unfairness. However, I have looked at BBR-related submissions as a ground for irrationality.

 

7.   Irrationality: the Applicant submits that the decision was irrational for several reasons. I have summarised the main arguments below.

 

a.       He submits that his recall was unjust because it was based on allegations that were unfounded. He states that the Crown Prosecution Service did not proceed with a charge of stalking/harassment made against him, and that he was found not guilty of a public order offence. He states that he has been unjustly detained for nearly two years which has “caused significant harm to my freedom, reputation, and rehabilitative progress. It has also inflicted severe psychological stress and negatively impacted my self-esteem, as the uncertainty and stigma surrounding my continued incarceration have placed an undue emotional burden on me.” His handwritten letter of 11 pages describes the events leading to the Applicant’s recall in great detail.

 

b.       He submits that the decision not to direct release “does not meet the legal threshold established by the public protection test”. He refers to: (i) his low risk of reoffending scores; (ii) his “exemplary conduct” during his sentence including being in a trusted red band position, completing numerous courses to address emotional regulation, coping strategies, and stress management, and his “consistent compliance with prison rules and proactive engagement in rehabilitative work” which he states “further underscores my reduced risk level”; and (iii) the comprehensive risk management plan which “provides an additional layer of safety, ensuring all risks are mitigated and public protection is maintained.”

 

c.        He submits that he showed “exemplary conduct” during the recall incident. He claims that his actions showed his ability to manage challenging situations in a pro-social way which is “an essential factor in assessing my readiness for release.” He states that he handed himself in to the police which showed that he proactively addressed the situation as well as his accountability and cooperation with the criminal justice system. He submits that the probation service and the Parole Board have failed to recognise his recent progress and responsible behaviour, and have focused disproportionately on his past convictions.

 

d.       He claims that the allegations that led to his recall were made by someone who had a history of making allegations against him and that several were withdrawn, dropped or dismissed raising questions about her credibility and the reliability of her claims. He submits that the Panel should take account of these matters and that charges were discontinued and that he was found not guilty when considering the circumstances surrounding his recall.

 

e.       He states that the Panel emphasised the importance of completing BBR as a condition to release. He states that he had not been told during his sentence that completion of BBR was a requirement of his release and access to it had not been facilitated. The Applicant submits that his previous community offender manager (COM) had confirmed that BBR or its equivalent could be completed in the community and that the risk management plan would ensure public safety while allowing him to complete rehabilitative work outside custody. The Applicant argues that on this basis, remaining in custody “solely to complete BBR is both unnecessary and disproportionately punitive.”

 

f.        He submits that licence conditions proposed by the probation service are “stringent, comprehensive, and tailored to mitigate any potential risk” and can manage him effectively in the community. He submits that it is not reasonable for the Panel to assert that he cannot be managed in the community.

 

g.       He submits that he has a strong support network, a commitment from his family to provide him with support, and employment which is a protective factor.

 

h.       He submits that his custodial behaviour has been “exemplary” reflecting his readiness to make the transition to the community and his determination to lead a law abiding and constructive life, largely repeating his submission in paragraph (b) above.

 

8.   In a final conclusion, the Applicant repeats many of the arguments he has already advanced. He refers to several professional witnesses, including his previous COM, acknowledging his significant progress and recognising a shift in his attitudes. He states that his previous COM expressed confidence in his ability to continue rehabilitation in the community and that BBR could be completed in the community. The Applicant ends by submitting that “Releasing me under proposed licence conditions strikes the appropriate balance between ensuring public safety and respecting my right to liberty. It provides a pathway for me to rebuild my life, complete any outstanding rehabilitative work in a practical and constructive manner, and demonstrate my commitment to positive change. Persisting with my confinement is both irrational and counterproductive...”

 

9.   The Applicant’s submission contains what he refers to as a submission from his daughter and son-in-law. Rule 28(1) provides that only a party may apply to the Parole Board for a case to be reconsidered. The Applicant’s daughter and son-in-law do not have any right to apply for a reconsideration of the decision. Nonetheless, I have read their submission to determine if it reveals any additional arguments of benefit to the Applicant. The submission either repeats the arguments already advanced by the Applicant, or focuses on highlighting perceived failures by the probation service which are not relevant to a reconsideration of the decision. It is worth noting that the submission contains an entirely erroneous allegation that a member of the Panel admitted to not having had time to review the case. The decision makes it clear in paragraph 2.28 that it was the Applicant’s former COM who had not read the dossier in detail and not a member of the Panel.

 

The reply on behalf of the Secretary of State

 

10.The Secretary of State did not make any submissions in response to the application.

 

Background

 

11.In 2007, at the age of 37 years, the Applicant was given a life sentence for offences of rape and attempted murder. He was also convicted of making threats to kill and false imprisonment. A minimum term of four years less time spent in custody on remand was imposed which expired in 2010.

 

12.The victim of the index offences was the Applicant’s former partner, and the offences were committed following the breakdown of their relationship which the Applicant was unable to accept. The index offences were preceded by stalking and harassment of the victim. This was not the first time the Applicant had reacted with violence to the breakdown of an intimate relationship. The Applicant’s history showed a developing pattern of offending against former partners which had escalated significantly and was linked to poor emotion management.

 

13.The Applicant was first released in December 2019 from open conditions. He was recalled in February 2021 after failing to disclose a developing intimate relationship with a female (SM) and concerns about his behaviour towards her including contacting her after being told not to. He was released for a second time in November 2021 and recalled in April 2023 following an alleged breach of a no contact licence condition in relation to SM and allegations made by SM of stalking/harassment and of the commission of a public order offence. The Applicant denied the allegations and challenged the appropriateness of the probation service’s decision to recall him.

 

Current parole review

 

14.The Secretary of State referred the Applicant’s case to the Parole Board in April 2023. The case was directed to an oral hearing in September 2023. The case was due to be heard in February 2024 but was adjourned before the hearing after the Applicant’s legal representative advised the Parole Board that the Applicant was being tried in April 2024 for offences of stalking/harassment and public order. Further adjournments were directed because of changes to the trial dates. Eventually, the stalking/harassment charge was not pursued and the Applicant was found not guilty of the public order offence.

 

15.The hearing took place on 11 March 2025. The Applicant was 55 years old. The Panel comprised two independent members. The Applicant was seeking his release. Evidence was taken from the Applicant’s prison offender manager (POM), his current COM, and two previous COMs. The Applicant also gave evidence to the Panel.

 

The Relevant Law

 

16.The Panel correctly sets out in its decision letter dated 17 March 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

 

17.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)).

 

18.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)).

 

19.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

 

20.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.

 

21.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 paragraph 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.”

 

22.In R(on the application of Wells) v Parole Board 2019 EWHC 2710 (Admin), Saini J sets 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).

 

Discussion

 

23.The Applicant submits that the decision is irrational, and I have set out a summary of his arguments in paragraphs 7 and 8 above. In considering those arguments, I have taken account of the matters set out below.

 

(a)     The reconsideration mechanism is not a process by which the judgment of the Panel when assessing risk can be interfered with lightly. It is also not a means by which the member carrying out the reconsideration is entitled to substitute his or her view of the facts for the view of the Panel, unless, of course, it is manifestly obvious that there was an error of fact of an egregious nature which can be shown to have directly contributed to the conclusion arrived at by the Panel.

 

(b)     When deciding whether the Panel’s decision was irrational, due deference has to be given to the expertise of the Panel in making decisions relating to parole.

 

(c)     Where the Panel arrives at a conclusion, exercising its judgment based on the evidence before it and having regard to the fact that it saw and heard the witnesses, it would be inappropriate to direct that the decision be reconsidered unless it is manifestly obvious that there are compelling reasons for interfering with the decision of the Panel.

 

(d)     When considering whether to order reconsideration, appropriate weight must be given to the views of the professional witnesses, but reconsideration cannot be ordered if the Panel has put forward adequate reasons for not following the views of the professional witnesses.

 

24.The Applicant’s first submission is that his recall and his continued detention after the stalking/harassment charge was dropped and he was found not guilty of a public order offence are unjust. The Panel found that the Applicant’s recall was appropriate. The Panel’s finding is not eligible for reconsideration, and therefore I cannot consider whether the Panel had sufficient grounds to make that finding. However, I am able to consider the circumstances of the recall to the extent that they relate to the nature and level of the Applicant’s risks and his ability to manage his risks.

 

25.Whether the Applicant meets the test for release is an entirely separate matter to the recall. The fact that the Applicant was not convicted of any new offences while on licence does not mean that the Panel must direct his release. The Panel must still assess the current risk of the Applicant and determine whether he meets the codified public protection test.

 

26.I have decided to consider the Applicant’s remaining submissions together as some overlap and others are duplicated.

 

27.The Applicant points to the following factors in support of his argument that the decision not to direct his release is irrational: his low risk of reoffending; his positive custodial conduct; his completion of courses in custody to address risk; his progress generally; his compliance with prison rules; a recognition by one of the professionals that there has been a shift in attitude by him; the pro-social way he claims he managed the circumstances leading to his recall; the availability of BBR or its equivalent in the community; his strong support network; and the proposed licence conditions which will manage his risk.

 

28.The Panel sets out its main reasons for concluding that the Applicant does not meet the test for release in paragraph 4.2 of the decision. The Panel states, “The panel had limited evidence [the Applicant] is currently able to self-manage the risk he poses to intimate partners in the longer term. The panel is not confident he would disclose at the earliest opportunity and considered risk management would largely rely on external monitoring. The Building Better Relationships programme (or its replacement) is considered essential to address the risk of intimate partner violence. Having considered the opinion of the professional witnesses and [the Applicant’s] own evidence, the panel concluded he must complete core risk reduction work of an appropriate intensity, and that this work needed to be completed before risk was deemed manageable in the community.”

 

29.The Panel was diligent in hearing evidence from three COMs: the Applicant’s current COM and two previous COMs. One of the previous COMs had managed the Applicant for approximately 20 months from January 2023 to September 2024 (COM A) and had been his COM when he was recalled in April 2023. The other previous COM had managed the Applicant for five months from September 2024 to February 2025 (COM B). The Applicant’s current COM appeared to have been allocated the Applicant’s case in February 2025 and had not spoken to him.

 

30.The current COM agreed that the Applicant needed to complete further work on relationships but could not comment on whether the work should be completed in custody. The current COM did not feel able to make a recommendation about whether the Applicant met the test for release to the Panel.

 

31.Two of the Applicant’s submissions focus on his pro-social behaviour at the time of the recall, and SM’s history of making unfounded allegations against him. However, the Panel heard evidence from COM A that after he was released in November 2021, the Applicant had persistently asked to have contact with SM including after his licence was varied to prohibit contact with her. In addition, the offender personality disorder pathway team expressed concerns about him minimising his behaviour, his attitudes about the end of relationships, and rumination having completed six one-to-one sessions with him before his recall. The decision also refers to the Applicant engaging in victim blaming, and being unable to consider the victim’s perspective or identify the impact of his behaviour on his victims and others. The Applicant does not address this evidence which is at odds with the picture he presents, and I consider that some of the concerns raised by the Panel are reflected in the tone and content of his submissions.

 

32.The Applicant submits that several of the professional witnesses, including COM B, acknowledged his significant progress and recognised a shift in his attitudes. He adds that COM B expressed confidence in his ability to continue rehabilitative work in the community and that BBR could be completed in the community while he was being managed by robust licence conditions.

 

33.The decision records COM B’s view that there was a shift in the Applicant’s attitude towards contact with SM and the use of escort services. It also records COM B’s view that the Applicant needed to complete BBR or the Building Choices programme to identify healthy relationships and have a fulfilling intimate relationship. COM B’s evidence was that ideally BBR should be completed in custody but if it was not available, the Applicant could be managed while it was completed in the community. The POM agreed with COM B that work on relationships could be completed in the community. In contrast, COM A’s view was that the Applicant had not changed his attitudes, and was expressing the same negative thoughts as before. COM A considered that it was essential that the Applicant should complete BBR in custody and she considered the work to be core risk reduction work.

 

34.Using its expertise and exercising its judgement, the Panel preferred the evidence of COM A to the evidence of COM B. It is a matter for the Panel to determine whose opinion it prefers but it must provide reasons. I consider that the Panel adequately explained why it placed less weight on COM B’s evidence. The Panel pointed out her had limited evidence that the Applicant could manage his risk, her admission that she had not read the dossier in detail, her limited contact with him, and the fact that she had not discussed the index offences or his previous convictions with him. COM B had managed the Applicant for five months and was no longer managing him. The Applicant does not refer to COM A’s view in the application and does not seek to explain why COM B’s view should be preferred particularly given her limited knowledge of him and of the dossier.

 

35.The Applicant claims that he was not aware that the probation service required him to complete BBR. However, as early as December 2023, COM A stated in a report that the Applicant would benefit from further core risk reduction work in the form of BBR to address deficits in his thinking and behaviour in the context of relationships. She also stated that she had contacted his then POM to ask about the timing of completing BBR. In October 2024, COM B stated in a report that given his ongoing fixation with SM and the clear deficits in his thinking around women and sexual relationships, the Applicant was unsafe to be managed in the community and required further intervention in the form of BBR. It seems to me unlikely that the Applicant would not have been aware that the probation service wished him to undertake further work even if there were practical issues in identifying a prison where he could undertake BBR or a similar programme.

 

36.The Applicant highlights his positive custodial behaviour and this is acknowledged by the Panel in the decision. Positive custodial conduct is an important factor in assessing risk but it is only one factor, and has to be viewed, in the Applicant’s case, in the context of a restrictive prison regime. The Panel had to consider whether his positive behaviour in custody would continue in the community, and the Panel was not confident that the Applicant would disclose a developing intimate relationship and considered that the professionals managing his risk would be heavily reliant on external risk management measures.

 

37.The Applicant highlights the comprehensive set of licence conditions proposed as part of the risk management plan, but he does not address the Panel’s concerns about his limited insight into his risk in relationships, the deficits in his thinking and behaviour, his ability to manage his risk in the community, and his ability to recall and apply his learning. The Panel makes references to these concerns throughout the decision:

·         he had retracted some of what he had previously accepted during the Healthy Relationships Programme which the Panel considered undermined the treatment gains he had made;

·         he had completed work on coping, mood management, managing stress, healthy living, and healthy lifestyle but was not able to identify the learning which was relevant to risk;

·         he engaged in victim blaming including stating that SM suffered a lot with paranoia

·         he was mainly focused on the impact of his behaviour on himself and his family rather than on his victims;

·         he was unable to explain what a healthy relationship was and focused on how others would help him to monitor and manage his behaviour;

·         he provided limited evidence about how he would manage in a new intimate relationship. His main strategy was to avoid relationships which was generally considered to be unrealistic by the professional witnesses and the Panel; and

·         he was unable to make the link between his negative attitudes to women and his use of sex workers.

 

38.The Panel considered that the Applicant’s risk could not be managed in the community until he had completed further work on relationships and his thinking in custody. The Panel’s principal concern was his risk of serious harm to intimate partners which it did not assess the Applicant could manage. In my view, the Panel provided sound reasons for its decision, and I can see no basis on which the decision could be seen as irrational.

 

Decision

 

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

 

 

H Emrys

22 May 2025

 

 

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