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 >> Carr, Application for Reconsideration [2025] PBRA 98 (13 May 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/PBRA/2025/98.html
Cite as: [2025] PBRA 98

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

 

[2025] PBRA 98

 

 

Application for Reconsideration by Carr

 

Application

 

1.   This is an application by Carr (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision dated 1 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 381 numbered pages), and the application for reconsideration.

 

Background

 

4.   On 23 September 2019 the Applicant received an extended sentence each comprising imprisonment for 99 months with an extension period of 36 months following conviction for attempt to cause grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. On the same occasion, he also received a concurrent six month and nine month determinate sentences for two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

 

5.   Key dates relevant to his sentence are reported to be:

 

a)   Parole eligibility date: November 2024;

b)   Conditional release date: August 2027; and

c)   Sentence expiry date: August 2030.

 

6.   The Applicant was 28 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 34 years old.

 

Request for Reconsideration

 

7.   The application for reconsideration is undated 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.

 

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

 

Current Parole Review

 

9.   The Applicant’s case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) in February 2024 to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release. This is the Applicant’s first parole review.

 

10.The case proceeded to an oral hearing on 27 March 2025, before a three-member panel including a psychologist specialist member. The panel took oral evidence from the Applicant, the Prison Offender Manager (POM), an HMPPS-commissioned forensic psychologist, and the Community Offender Manager (COM). The Applicant was legally represented throughout the hearing.

 

11.In the professional opinions of the POM, COM, and psychologist, the Applicant was suitable for release. The panel did not direct the Applicant’s release.

 

The Relevant Law

 

12.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)

 

13.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)).

 

14.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)).

 

15.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

 

16.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.

 

17.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.”

 

18.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).

 

19.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.

 

20.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.

 

21.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

 

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

 

Discussion

 

23.The Applicant seeks reconsideration on the sole ground of irrationality. It is submitted that the panel gave undue weight to the Applicant’s history of intimate partner violence (IPV) and failed to accord appropriate weight to the evidence of change, particularly his completion of the Kaizen programme and the professional support for release. It is further submitted that the panel failed to acknowledge that the proposed risk management plan was capable of safely managing any residual risk.

 

24.The panel’s decision, however, demonstrates a detailed and structured analysis of the available evidence. The panel identified the relevant statutory test and applied that test to a comprehensive assessment of both static and dynamic risk factors.

 

25.The panel was not bound to accept the recommendations of the professionals. Its function is to complete an independent assessment of risk, provided that it does so on the basis of the evidence and in a way that is rationally defensible. In this case, the panel gave reasons for departing from the consensus view, and those reasons were firmly based in the evidence before it.

 

26.The panel placed significant weight on the history of sequential, escalating intimate partner violence, which included highly concerning behaviours such as suffocation, strangulation, and threats to children. The offending, as described both by the sentencing judge and in the oral evidence, involved calculated and coercive conduct that suggested not only impulsivity or emotional dysregulation but also an entrenched pattern of control and dominance. The panel considered whether the Applicant had fully engaged with this aspect of his risk and concluded that he had not. In particular, they noted that while the Applicant had participated in an accredited programme and other interventions, his account still involved elements of minimisation, inconsistency, and some degree of victim-blaming. These were not merely isolated remarks but were patterns identified through his oral evidence and pre-sentence interviews.

 

27.While the application submits that the Applicant showed remorse and accepted responsibility, the panel did not ignore this. Rather, it concluded that the Applicant’s insight was still partial, especially in relation to his capacity for coercive behaviour and the specific risks posed in intimate relationships. The panel referred to the need for further work, including formal psychological reassessment and consolidation of learning from the accredited programme. That was not an unreasonable position, especially given the gravity and nature of the index offences.

 

28.It is also argued that the panel failed properly to assess the strength of the release plan and the safeguards available in the community. The panel did consider the proposed risk management plan and recognised that it included substantial protective features, such as placement at designated accommodation, GPS monitoring, exclusion zones, and oversight by the Probation Service. However, the panel did not consider the risk plan to be sufficient in itself, given its concerns about the Applicant’s internal controls, self-awareness, and the potential for manipulation. They highlighted that much of the success of the plan would rely on his transparency and willingness to engage. Given his past manipulative behaviour, the panel was entitled to place weight on this.

 

29.Although the professionals’ views were in favour of release, their opinions were not unequivocal. The psychologist described the Applicant’s IPV-related risk as being likely to increase in future relationships and indicated that the risk of serious harm remained high in certain scenarios. The COM’s support for release was qualified by the need for continued support and careful monitoring. The panel took these nuances into account and reached a conclusion that was open to it on the evidence.

 

Decision

 

30.Having carefully reviewed the original decision, the dossier, and the Applicant’s representations, I am not satisfied that the panel’s decision was irrational. The panel’s conclusion that it remained necessary for the protection of the public that the Applicant should remain confined was reasonably open to it on the evidence. There was no flaw in reasoning, nor any conclusion that fell outside the range of outcomes reasonably available to the panel. The application for reconsideration is therefore refused.

 

Stefan Fafinski

13 May 2025

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