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 >> Todd, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 109 (20 May 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/PBRA/2025/109.html
Cite as: [2025] PBRA 109

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

 

 

[2025] PBRA 109

 

 

 

Application for Reconsideration by Todd

(Prison Number: NV9337)

 

Application

 

1.   This is an application by Todd (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision dated 11 April 2025 not to direct his release. The decision was made by a panel following an oral hearing.

 

2.   Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended) (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.

 

3.   I have considered the application on the papers. These are the decision, the dossier (consisting of 466 numbered pages), and the application for reconsideration.

 

Background

 

4.   On 3 May 2007, the Applicant received a sentence of imprisonment for public protection following conviction for robbery to which he pleaded guilty. The tariff was set as 39 months and expired in August 2010. On the same occasion, he received a concurrent five-month determinate sentence for possession of a handgun.

 

5.   He has been released and recalled twice on this sentence.

 

6.   He was first released in August 2013 and recalled in May 2014 after being charged with burglary, violent disorder and possession of a knife following an altercation outside a nightclub. He received a four-year sentence in 2014. He did not disclose to his Community Offender Manager (COM) that he had been arrested for violent disorder, and he remained unlawfully at large, during which time he committed the burglary offence.

 

7.   He was most recently released on licence in August 2018 following an oral hearing before the Parole Board but recalled in January 2020. The Applicant had been charged with causing death by dangerous driving in the early hours of New Year’s Day 2020. He drove a vehicle at excessive speed while under the influence of alcohol. He collided with a taxi, killing the driver and seriously injuring four passengers. He had hired the vehicle in another person's name and was therefore not insured. He was subsequently convicted and received a nine-year determinate sentence. The conditional release date on this sentence passed in August 2024.

 

8.   The Applicant was 22 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 40 years old.

 

Request for Reconsideration

 

9.   The application for reconsideration is dated 3 May 2025 and has been drafted by solicitors on behalf of the Applicant. It submits that the decision was irrational. No submissions were made regarding procedural unfairness or error of law.

 

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

 

Current Parole Review

 

11.The Applicant’s case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) in November 2023 to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release. This is the Applicant’s eighth parole review.

 

12.The case proceeded to an oral hearing on 12 March 2025, before a two-member panel. The panel took oral evidence from the Applicant, the Prison Offender Manager (POM), the COM and a forensic psychologist commissioned by HMPPS. The Applicant was legally represented throughout the hearing.

 

13.The hearing was adjourned for further information regarding the availability of psychologically-informed designated accommodation (PIPE) and other potential support services. The adjournment note indicates that the POM considered that a PIPE (and additional wraparound psychological support) would be necessary, and he would support release if (and only if) this was available. The psychologist supported the provision of a PIPE, but did not consider it to be necessary.

 

14.Following the adjournment, the COM confirmed that a PIPE would be more suitable for the Applicant, but that further psychological support would be voluntary, In the professional opinion of the COM, a PIPE would be most suitable if the panel directed release, but concluded that the Applicant should remain in custody to complete a further period of consolidation.

 

15.In short, the professional opinions of the witnesses were:

 

a.   POM: supporting release, but only to a PIPE;

b.   Psychologist: supporting release, regardless of PIPE availability; and

c.    COM: not supporting release.

 

16.The panel did not direct the Applicant’s release. It concluded that he continues to lack insight into the risks posed by his ongoing substance misuse, and that he remains non-compliant with rules unless he deems them personally justified. In light of concerns about his inability to abstain from alcohol, his positive attitude towards drug use, and doubts about his future compliance with licence conditions, the panel was not satisfied that the risk he poses could be safely managed in the community.

 

The Relevant Law

 

17.The Parole Board will direct release if it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined.

 

Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)

 

18.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)).

 

19.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)).

 

20.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

 

21.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 (CA) 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.

 

22.In R(DSD and others) v Parole Board [2018] EWHC 694 (Admin) the Divisional Court applied this test to Parole Board hearings in these words (at [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.”

 

23.In R(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 the Divisional Court in R(Secretary of State for Justice) v Parole Board [2022] EWHC 1282(Admin).

 

24.As was made clear by Saini J in Wells, 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.

 

25.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.

 

26.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 Respondent

 

27.The Respondent has advised that no representations will be submitted in response to this application.

 

Discussion

 

28.The Applicant seeks reconsideration on the sole ground of irrationality, arguing that the panel placed too much weight on non-compliance concerns and had not taken into account the views of professionals.

 

29.In particular, it is submitted that the Applicant stated he would explore “organic sleeping medication” as an alternative to cannabis upon release. While he is acknowledged to have described some of his proposed licence conditions as “a bit much”, it is argued that this did not indicate an unwillingness to comply with them in practice. The representations also contend that the panel failed to give adequate weight to the robustness of the proposed risk management plan, including the additional support available through the Applicant’s acceptance onto Integrated Offender Management (IOM). It is argued that the Applicant posed no more than a minimal risk of serious harm and that the panel adopted an overly precautionary approach, placing undue emphasis on his cannabis use and his comments regarding the licence conditions.

 

30.These arguments have been carefully considered in the context of the panel’s written decision. That decision was detailed and structured, demonstrating a thorough engagement with the relevant evidence and an application of the codified public protection test. The panel summarised the Applicant’s custodial behaviour, the oral and written evidence, professional assessments, and the terms of the proposed risk management plan. It also clearly stated its reasoning in relation to each element.

 

31.The application seeks to downplay the Applicant’s custodial non-compliance. However, the panel did not rely on isolated incidents, nor did it overinterpret any single event. The decision referred to a pattern of behaviour, including two refusals to submit to mandatory drug testing in 2024, regular cannabis use in custody, non-attendance at work appointments, and adjudications for exposing himself and obstructing observation panels. These were not treated as discrete lapses but rather as indicators of a broader attitude that the Applicant complies with rules only when he personally considers them to be reasonable. This conclusion was explicitly supported by the Applicant’s own evidence, including his comment that “it’s got to make sense to me, otherwise sometimes I won’t follow the rules.” In that context, the panel was entitled to give weight to his comment that some proposed licence conditions were “a bit much” and to consider that such an attitude might present challenges to future compliance.

 

32.The panel did not ignore or mischaracterise the Applicant’s stated intention to consider alternatives to cannabis use. The decision records his evidence that he would explore “organic options” post-release but found that his plan was insufficiently formulated and lacked any practical detail. The panel further noted that the Applicant continued to misuse cannabis in custody, remained unwilling to address this behaviour while confined, and expressed no belief that his cannabis use was linked to risk. Those findings were open to the panel on the evidence before it. They were also consistent with the concerns expressed by professional witnesses, including the COM, who regarded the Applicant’s position as indicative of insufficient insight and a risk factor that had not been addressed.

 

33.In relation to the professional evidence, the panel’s approach was neither dismissive nor selective. It is correct that both the POM and the psychologist expressed support for release, subject to specific conditions and additional support, including placement in a PIPE. However, the panel was entitled to weigh those views in the context of the full evidence. The COM did not support release and maintained that position following the adjournment, despite confirmation that a PIPE placement would be available. The panel gave due consideration to all professional opinions, and explained why, notwithstanding some support for release, it was not satisfied that the Applicant's risk had been reduced to a level compatible with safe management in the community.

 

34.The representations also suggest that the panel failed to acknowledge the protective factors and risk management strategies in place. In fact, the decision expressly noted the Applicant’s previous compliance on licence, his employment history, and his stated intention to abstain from alcohol. It also recorded the elements of the proposed risk management plan, including the IOM support, the alcohol abstinence tag, and the PIPE. However, the panel concluded that the effectiveness of that plan was undermined by the Applicant’s lack of insight, his unresolved substance misuse, and his apparent unwillingness to comply with conditions he disagreed with. The panel also noted that the risk management plan relied heavily on self-reporting and cooperation, which had previously proven insufficient to prevent serious further offending. These were legitimate, rational, and well-reasoned concerns.

 

35.Overall, the decision was clearly within the range of reasonable responses open to the panel on the evidence before it.

 

Decision

 

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

 

Stefan Fafinski

20 May 2025

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