[2025] PBRA 111
Application for Reconsideration by Morrison
Application
1. This is an application by Morrison (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision on the papers by a panel dated the 10 March 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 paper hearing decision, the dossier consisting of 227 pages and the application for reconsideration.
Request for Reconsideration
4. The application for reconsideration is dated 30 April 2025. It has been drafted by representatives on behalf of the Applicant. It submits that the decision is procedurally unfair as it was made without taking into account representations made on behalf of the Applicant.
Background
5. The Applicant received an extended sentence of 16 years for two offences of wounding and a robbery. He was sentenced at the same time for possession of an offensive weapon, theft and two assaults. The sentence was made up of a custodial element of 12 years and an extended licence of 4 years.
6. The Applicant was 21 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 30 years old.
Current parole review
7. The Applicant’s case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) in October 2024 to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release.
8. On 10 March 2025 a single member panel of the Board considered the referral and decided not to direct release. The member considered a dossier containing 213 pages.
The Relevant Law
9. The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter dated 10 March 2025 the test for release.
Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)
10.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)).
11.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)).
Procedural unfairness
12.Procedural unfairness means that there was some procedural impropriety or unfairness resulting in the proceedings being fundamentally flawed and therefore, producing a manifestly unfair, flawed, or unjust result. These issues (which focus on how the decision was made) are entirely separate to the issue of irrationality which focusses on the actual decision.
13.In summary an Applicant seeking to complain of procedural unfairness under rule 28 must satisfy me that either:
(a) express procedures laid down by law were not followed in the making of the relevant decision;
(b) they were not given a fair hearing;
(c) they were not properly informed of the case against them;
(d) they were prevented from putting their case properly;
(e) the panel did not properly record the reasons for any findings or conclusion; and/or
(f) the panel was not impartial.
14.The overriding objective is to ensure that the Applicant’s case was dealt with justly.
The reply on behalf of the Secretary of State
15.The Respondent has submitted no representations in response to the application.
Discussion
16.The application states that the panel failed to consider the legal representations submitted on 7 March 2025, the panel stating in the decision letter that there were no representations and that the dossier being considered was 213 pages.
17.What the application fails to mention is that the representations were submitted late and that no explanation was put forward for the lateness nor request for the application to be considered out of time. The application submits that the representations should nevertheless have been considered as part of the appeal process.
18.Information requested from the Case Manager as to the chronology and dates of submissions produced the following response.
“10/01/25 Legal Rep was asked to provide reps by 07/02/25.
27/01/25 Legal Rep asked for an extension of 21/02/25 in which to provide reps, this was granted.
07/03/25 Reps were provided late.
07/03/25 The case manager went back to the Legal Rep explaining that the case had already been panelled and that they could send a query to the member to see if they would like to still consider the reps. In order to do that, they would need a reason from the Legal Rep as to why the reps were submitted outside of the deadline”
There was no further response from the representative.
19.Despite seeking an extension to 07/02/25, the representative did not meet their own requested deadline, did not seek a further extension and did not provide any explanation for the lateness. By 7 March the case was already with the panel member. There was no explanation from the representatives as to why the representations were being submitted outside the deadline and no submissions requesting that they be considered outside the deadline.
20.Deadlines are in place to ensure the integrity, manageability and fairness of the process. In order for a large organisation to operate effectively, efficiently and fairly there must be adherence to a process. In this case the representations were not submitted on time and it is not for the Parole Board to make assumptions as to what should happen to applications that are made late without explanation. There was no unfairness in the Board failing to do so.
21.The panel did not fail to follow legal procedures, the Applicant was not denied a fair consideration of his case, he was properly informed of the case against him, he was not prevented from putting his case properly by the scheduled date, the panel properly recorded the reasons for its findings and conclusions including the positive aspects of his case reported in the dossier. There are no further details of his representations to the panel set out in his reconsideration to indicate why the initial application was submitted late or the nature of the representations the Applicant sought to bring to the panel’s attention.
22.I can see no procedural unfairness in a process which is governed by time scales to which the Applicant did not adhere and for which he has provided no reason for them to be extended or disapplied.
Decision
23.For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was procedurally unfair and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused.
Barbara Mensah
23 May 2025