[2025] PBSA 16
Application for Set Aside by Jakupi
Application
1. This is an application by Jakupi (the Applicant) to set aside the decision not to direct his release. The decision was made by a panel on the papers. This is an eligible decision.
2. I have considered the application on the papers. These are the dossier (consisting of 351 numbered pages), the decision (dated 11 February 2025), and the application for set aside (dated 19 February 2025).
Background
3. On 6 July 2016, the Applicant received a determinate sentence of 102 months and seven days following conviction after trial for aggravated burglary in a dwelling. He also received a consecutive six month sentence for obstructing the course of public justice.
4. The Applicant was 20 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 29 years old.
5. He has been recalled three times on this sentence. He was most recently released on 11 March 2024 following an oral hearing. His licence was revoked 17 days later on 28 March 2024, but he remained unlawfully at large until 10 May 2024. He had previously spent a period unlawfully at large following his second recall.
6. His sentence ends in October 2025.
Application for Set Aside
7. The application for set aside has been drafted and submitted by solicitors on behalf of the Applicant and submits that the panel’s decision was based on a “procedural error of law”.
Current Parole Review
8. The Applicant’s case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release.
9. On 7 August 2024, his case was directed to an oral hearing and on 9 December 2024, the appointed panel chair confirmed that the case was ready to proceed to an oral hearing, listed for 14 January 2025.
10.On 10 January 2025, the Respondent advised the panel that further information may be submitted. The panel adjourned the hearing to allow the Respondent time to submit this information.
11.On 13 January 2025, the Parole Board was notified that the Applicant had “confirmed via the Wing Officer he is not being [legally] represented and ‘doesn’t need anyone’”.
12.On 24 January 2025, the panel was informed that the police were investigating an allegation of rape against the Applicant, with the investigation ongoing and the file to be submitted to the CPS for a charging decision. The Applicant had provided a no comment interview.
13.On 27 January 2025, the Panel Chair issued further directions in the light of this new information, putting parties on notice that the panel was considering concluding the matter on the papers. Representations from both parties were invited. The directions noted that the Applicant did not appear to be legally represented and directed his Prison Offender Manager (POM) to advise the Applicant of the panel’s intentions and convey any representations he wished to make.
14.With no representations from either party having been received after 14 days, the panel concluded the review on the papers, making no direction for release.
The Relevant Law
15.Rule 28A(1)(a) of the Parole Board Rules provides that a prisoner or the Secretary of State may apply to the Parole Board to set aside certain final decisions. Similarly, under rule 28A(1)(b), the Parole Board may seek to set aside certain final decisions on its own initiative.
16.The types of decisions eligible for set aside are set out in rule 28A(1). Decisions concerning whether the prisoner is or is not suitable for release on licence are eligible for set aside 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)).
17.A final decision may be set aside if it is in the interests of justice to do so (rule 28A(3)(a)) and either (rule 28A(4)):
a) a direction for release (or a decision not to direct release) would not have been given or made but for an error of law or fact, or
b) a direction for release would not have been given if information that had not been available to Board had been available, or
c) a direction for release would not have been given if a change in circumstances relating to the prisoner after the direction was given had occurred before it was given.
The reply on behalf of the Respondent
18.The Respondent has indicated that no representations will be made in response to this application.
Discussion
19.The application argues that there was a procedural error when the hearing was adjourned and that it was not in the interests of justice to adjourn in response to the new information being provided by the police.
20.The decision not to proceed to an oral hearing was not made at the time of the adjournment. If the panel considered that, in response to the new police information, that an oral hearing was no longer necessary, then it had the right to follow the procedure set out in rule 21. It did so meticulously and without error.
21.No representations were received and the panel proceeded based on the available evidence.
22.The Applicant argues that the prison incorrectly informed his legal representatives that he did not wish to speak to them. Even if this is so, it cannot amount to an error of law on the part of the panel. The panel followed and applied the rules based on the evidence before it.
23.The final argument advanced on behalf of the Applicant argues that it is unfair to adjourn a case when an investigation is ongoing. This argument is based on procedural unfairness which is not a basis for set aside. It is also argued that it could not be in the interests of justice to adjourn “a case like this”. Rule 21 allows such adjournments, and the Applicant (for whatever reason) did not object.
24.There being no error of law, the application must fail.
Decision
25.For the reasons set out above, the application for set aside is refused.
11 March 2025