The Parole Board for England and Wales

 

 

 

[2025] PBRA 47

 

 

 

Application for Reconsideration by Mitchell

 

Application

 

1.   This is an application by Mitchell (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing panel dated 29 January 2025 not to direct his 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 dossier consisting of 383 pages including the oral hearing decision and the application for reconsideration.

 

Request for Reconsideration

 

4.   The application for reconsideration is dated 08 February 2025. It has been drafted by the Applicant. It submits that the decision was procedurally unfair.

 

5.   The grounds for seeking a reconsideration are that the Prison Offender Manager (POM) gave evidence that was inaccurate or untrue. Reference will be made in the Discussion section below to the details set out in the written argument.

 

Background

 

6.   On 6 July 2020 the Applicant received an extended sentence of 7 years 3 months comprising a custodial term of 5 years 3 months and an extended licence period of 2 years for an offence of robbery.

 

7.   The Applicant was 23 years old at the time of sentence and is now 27 years old. 

 

Current parole review

 

8.   The Applicant’s case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) in January 2023 to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release.

 

9.   The case proceeded to an oral hearing via videoconference on 21 January 2025. The panel consisted of a judicial member, a psychologist member and an independent member. It heard oral evidence from the Applicant together with the POM, the Community Offender Manager (COM) and a Prison Officer. The Applicant was not legally represented and was content to proceed without representation. The Respondent was not represented by an advocate.

 

10.The panel did not direct the Applicant’s release.

 

The Relevant Law

 

11.The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter of 29 January 2025 the test for release.

 

Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)

 

12.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)).

13.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

 

14. 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.

 

15. 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.

 

16. The overriding objective is to ensure that the Applicant’s case was dealt with justly.

 

The reply on behalf of the Secretary of State

 

17.The Respondent has submitted no representations in response to this application.

 

Discussion

 

18.The Applicant in very immoderate language disputes the evidence of the POM and questions her motives. He submits that she has lied with regard to accusing him of behaving badly and taking drugs. He submits that she has a grudge against him which transferred to the panel and as a consequence, he was not treated fairly. He challenges her evidence that he has no family ties or support in the community. He complains about the manner in which the POM gave him the parole decision, a photocopied document without the appeal documentation. He complains that the POM tried to portray him in a bad light and that having spoken to other probation officers they had told him that they would have recommended his release.

 

19.Drug taking and poor behaviour - in considering the evidence regarding behaviour and drug taking the panel considered not only the evidence of the POM but also the evidence of the Applicant and the documentation in the dossier which included the security report, the panel noted three proven adjudications, the panel also heard evidence from a prison officer who is said to have known the Applicant for two years and attended the hearing at short notice and gave evidence that did not support the Applicant’s claim regarding behaviour. In addition, the panel had the evidence of the Applicant absconding from custody and his use of illegal drugs before return to custody. The Applicant himself appeared to accept that there was room for improvement regarding his behaviour, telling the panel that he “could try being nicer” and try to work with staff. The complaint against the POM on the question of behaviour was therefore unfounded and did not lead to any question of unfairness on the part of the panel.

 

20.With regard to the complaint of drug taking, it is not clear if the Applicant’s complaint is that it is suggested that he is currently taking drugs. He had been unlawfully at large from 21 July 2023 to 4 August 2023 and had disclosed to his POM that he had taken crack cocaine whilst at large. He had also identified drug use as one of his main motivations for acquisitive offending. The panel identified one of his risk factors to be drug use. There is no evidence that the panel concluded that he was currently using drugs, in fact the panel clearly stated that there is no recent evidence of drug use. The panel noted the security entries, noted also that to his credit the Applicant had engaged with the substance misuse team. It is clear that whatever the POM may have said or whatever the Applicant thought she said or meant, the panel nevertheless gave the issue of drug taking thorough, careful and fair consideration.

 

21.There is no evidence on the face of the papers that the POM held a grudge against the Applicant or that she wanted “to make it hard” for him to be released, nor that if she had those sentiments they were transferred to the panel. The very thorough panel decision was based on evidence carefully considered and very fairly analysed. The matters of which the Applicant complained were not held against him by the panel and cannot be said to have resulted in any procedural unfairness.

 

22.No family ties - there is no basis for this claim. Even if the POM considered that the Applicant did not speak to his mother, the panel heard evidence from the Applicant himself and from the COM that the Applicant has a good relationship with his mother and sister.

 

23.The application is in effect a complaint against the POM and a disagreement with the panel decision. Having carefully considered the decision I am satisfied that there was no procedural irregularity or unfairness in the panel’s decision. The matters on which the Applicant makes complaint were not solely relied on in the panel’s conclusion. The panel clearly accepts his evidence regarding not using drugs in custody and the closeness of the relationship between him and his mother. The panel took into account the evidence from the COM as well as the Applicant’s own evidence and in a fully reasoned decision explains why he does not meet the test for release set out above.

 

24.The Applicant’s further complaints do not come within the ambit of the reconsideration procedure. The Applicant clearly received the panel decision in whatever form it was given and he managed to obtain the correct form to submit his application for reconsideration in time. Whatever other POMs may have said about his chances of release is irrelevant and cannot be relied upon as they are not the POM who undertook interviews, obtained documentation, analysed information and would not be in the best position with all the evidence before them to draw conclusions about his progress in custody and his risk and likelihood of compliance in the community.

 

Decision

 

25.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

03 March 2025