The Parole Board for England and Wales

 

[2025] PBRA 57

 

 

 

Application for Reconsideration by the Secretary of State for Justice

in the case of Steele

 

 

 

Introduction

 

1.   This is an application by the Secretary of State for Justice (‘the Applicant’) for reconsideration of a decision of a panel of the Parole Board (‘the Board’) directing the release on licence of Steele (‘the Respondent’). That decision was issued in February 2025 after several oral hearings (see below for the history).

 

2.   The Respondent is serving three life sentences for the murder of three men on the same occasion. His sentences were imposed on 4 March 1998. His minimum term (‘tariff’) was eventually set by the High Court as 23 years less the time which he spent in custody on remand. It expired in May 2019.

 

Application

 

3.   Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended by the Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2024) provides that applications for reconsideration of panel decisions may be made, either by the prisoner or by the Secretary of State for Justice, in eligible cases.

 

4.   Rule 28(2) specifies the types of cases in which reconsideration applications may be made. They include cases, like the Applicant’s, where the prisoner is serving an indeterminate sentence.

 

5.   A reconsideration application may be made on the ground:

         (a) that the panel’s decision contained an error of law; and/or                                   

         (b) that it was irrational; and/or  

         (c) that it was procedurally unfair.

 

6.   In this case an application for reconsideration has been made by Applicant’s counsel on her behalf. It is made on the ground of irrationality.

 

7.   The application has been made within the prescribed time limit and is therefore an eligible case.

 

8.   I am one of the members of the Board who are authorised (as ‘Reconsideration Panels’) to make decisions on reconsideration applications, and this case has been allocated to me. I have not found it necessary to receive any oral evidence and I have considered the application on the papers.

 

9.   The documents which have been provided to me and which I have considered for the purposes of this application are:

 

(a) The dossier of papers, now running to 1106, which was provided by the Applicant for the Respondent’s hearing;  

(b) The representations made by the Applicant’s counsel in support of this appeal; and

(c) The representations made by the Respondent’s solicitor opposing this appeal.

 

10.The dossier includes the Panel Chair’s decision as well as voluminous representations made on behalf of the parties in the course of the proceedings.

 

Background and history of the case

 

11.The Respondent is now aged 82. In his younger days he was a professional criminal and was involved in the importation and supply of drugs. The victims of the three murders were themselves drug dealers. The prosecution case, accepted by the jury, was that the murders were committed by the Respondent and another man. The Respondent was said to have been the prime mover. The victims were lured to a remote farmhouse where they were shot.

 

12.The Respondent has always denied any involvement in the murders. He says that the killing was organised by another criminal and a corrupt police officer. In March 1999 the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal against his conviction. In January 2006 the Court of Appeal again upheld the conviction on a reference from the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The Respondent has made a further application to the Commission, which has been under consideration for some while. As the Respondent is aware, unless and until his conviction is quashed by the Court of Appeal the Board is obliged by law to proceed on the basis that the jury’s verdicts were correct: it has no authority or resources to reinvestigate the case.

 

13.The Respondent has remained in Category A (i.e. maximum security) prisons throughout his sentence. The prison authorities have repeatedly rejected his applications to be recategorized and moved to less secure conditions. His behaviour has been generally good, and in recent times has been described as exemplary. He has on many occasions made complaints of one kind or another which have no doubt not endeared him to the prison authorities. His denial has created difficulties in the way of his undertaking the usual risk reduction programmes (a topic which will be discussed below).

 

14.In 2019 the Respondent’s case was referred by the then Secretary of State to the Board to decide whether to direct his release on licence and, if not, to advise the Applicant about his suitability for a move to an open prison. The panel to which the case was allocated decided, after an oral hearing, not to direct his release on licence and not to advise the Applicant that he was suitable for transfer to an open prison. That panel stated:

 

‘None of the professionals giving evidence to the panel considered that your risk had reduced to a level where you could be safely managed under this risk management plan. They all considered that you need to make progress in risk reduction work first. Whether that work is to involve accredited programmes, or, as [an Independent Psychologist called at his request] put it, ‘intervention in respect of your personality functioning which directly relates to risk management’, their view was that the work needs to be done.  

 

The professionals are agreed that your risk is too high for you to be safely managed either in the community or in open conditions, and the plan is for you to remain in a closed prison where it is hoped you can engage in risk reduction work.

 

‘As noted previously, the view of psychologists, offender supervisor and offender manager is that you do not require conditions of high security, and many more options for appropriate interventions could be available to you outside Category A.

 

‘Although not in open conditions. It is not necessary for you to abandon your stance of innocence, but you would need to focus on meaningful risk reduction, which requires that you develop trust and better relationships with professionals. That could be achieved in your present location.’   

 

15.Unfortunately, from the point of view not only of the Respondent but also of the professional witnesses working with him, the prison authorities have not agreed with the unanimous views of the professionals and have insisted on the Respondent remaining in maximum security conditions. In March 2020 they transferred him to a different Category A Prison.

 

16.On 27 November 2020 the case was again referred to the Board for a further review. A Member Case Assessment member of the Board directed that the case should proceed to an oral hearing. The case was then allocated to a panel comprising a Judicial Chair, a Psychologist Member and an Independent Member.

 

17.A report by the Respondent’s Prison Offender Manager (‘POM’) in September 2021 summarised the Respondent’s behaviour since his arrival at his current establishment as follows:

 

‘[The Respondent] is currently enhanced under the incentives and earned privileges scheme and has been since 2013. He has only ever had two proven adjudications on this sentence, the most recent one being in January 2021 for having an [un]authorized item in his possession, a kettle for which he was given a caution. His custodial behaviour is almost always compliant and he is not problematic to the general smooth running of the establishment. He was given one negative entry in this reporting period over something trivial. The establishment’s Security department inform me that they have no current concerns over [the Respondent]’.

 

18.For a variety of reasons (into which I need not go) there has been a very long delay in the conclusion of this review by the Board, and it was necessary for the Judicial Chair to be replaced by another Judicial Member.

 

19.The first hearing was held on 10 and 11 May 2023. It was adjourned for further evidence to be obtained. It was not resumed until 9 May 2024 when it was again adjourned for further evidence. The oral evidence was completed on 12 November 2024 when the panel adjourned the case for further written evidence to be obtained to enable them to make a decision on the papers.

 

20.On 13 December 2024 the panel convened and made their decision. They realised that it would take longer than usual to draft the decision in this exceptionally complex case. They anticipated being able to issue it on 8 January 2025, but the Panel Chair was then indisposed, and the decision could not be issued until February 2025. The decision is dated 3 February 2025, but it was not actually issued until 13 February 2025.

 

21.The Panel Chair apologised for this latest delay. The Respondent seems to have borne all the many delays well, which is a credit to him and an indication that he is able to manage difficult situations well.

 

22.The evidence considered by the panel comprised the written evidence provided by the Applicant in the dossier and oral evidence given by (a) the Respondent’s POMs (Mr H until October 2023 and Ms S from then on); (b) his Community Offender Manager (‘COM’) (Ms B); a Prison Psychologist (Ms U); and an Independent Psychologist (Dr C). The Respondent was represented by his solicitor (Mr K) and the Applicant by her counsel (Mr C) with Ms L assisting him.                                                                                  

The Relevant Law

 

The test for release on licence

 

23.The test for release on licence is whether the Applicant’s continued confinement in prison is necessary for the protection of the public.

The rules relating to reconsideration of decisions

 

24.Under Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended in 2022) a decision is eligible for reconsideration if (but only if) it is a decision that the prisoner is or is not suitable for release on licence. The grounds on which an application may be made are as set out above (error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness). As noted above the application in this case is made on the ground of irrationality. A decision not to recommend a move to an open prison, if that had arisen, would not have been eligible for reconsideration.

 

25.A decision that a prisoner is or is not suitable for release on licence is eligible for reconsideration whether it is made by:

(i) A paper panel (Rule 19(1)(a) or (b)) or

(ii) An oral hearing panel after an oral hearing, as in this case (Rule 25(1)) or

(iii) An oral hearing panel which makes the decision on the papers (Rule 21(7)).

 

Irrationality

 

26.The power of the courts to interfere with a decision of a competent public authority on the ground of irrationality was defined in Associated Provincial Houses Ltd -v- Wednesbury Corporation 1948 1 KB 223 by Lord Greene as follows: “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 Parole Board is a public authority for that purpose, and the Wednesbury test therefore applies to applications to the High Court for judicial review of a panel’s decision. It also applies to applications to Reconsideration Panels of the Board for reconsideration of a panel’s decision on the ground of irrationality.

 

27.In R (DSD and others) -v- the Parole Board 2018 EWHC 694 (Admin) (‘the Worboys case’) a Divisional Court applied this test to Parole Board decisions in these words: “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.” The same test of course applies to ‘no release’ decisions.

 

28.In R (on the application of Wells) -v- Parole Board 2019 EWHC 2710 (Admin) Mr Justice Saini set out what he described as a more nuanced approach in modern public law. This approach is: “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 formulation of the test was adopted by a Divisional Court in the case of R (on the application of the Secretary of State for Justice) -v- the Parole Board 2022 EWHC 1282(Admin).

 

29.As was made clear by Mr Justice Saini, this is not a different test from the Wednesbury test. The interpretation of (and application of) the Wednesbury test in parole hearings (as explained in the Wednesbury and DSD cases) was of course binding on Mr Justice Saini. It is similarly binding on Reconsideration Panels.

 

30.It follows from these principles that in considering an application for reconsideration a Reconsideration Panel cannot substitute its own view of the evidence for that of the panel who heard the witnesses and were able to assess their reliability. The Reconsideration Panel will only direct reconsideration on the ground of irrationality if the Wednesbury test is satisfied.

Request for Reconsideration

 

31.As noted above this application was submitted on 6 March 2025 by the Applicant’s counsel on her behalf. The grounds advanced by counsel will be discussed below.

Discussion

 

32.In order to make an assessment of counsel’s submission that the panel’s decision was irrational I need to start by examining the panel’s reasons for their decision.

 

33.Towards the end of their decision the panel helpfully set out the competing arguments as follows:

 

‘[The Applicant] in opposing release emphasises the assessment of a continuing High Risk of Serious Harm to the public in the community. The [Applicant’s] counsel summarised his concerns thus:

 

a. The level and the nature of [the Respondent’s] current risk is significant and cannot be safely managed in the community;

 

b. [The Respondent] has declined to address his risk factors in prison through

offending behaviour work. This is concerning in terms of future risk but also brings into question how well he would comply with interventions in the community;

 

c. [The Respondent] remains a Category A prisoner and therefore has not been assessed in a less restrictive environment; and

 

d. [The Respondent’s] litigious and difficult relationship with professionals is concerning either as being indicative of a revenge mentality or as evidence that he will disengage from professionals that he disagrees with. This impacts the viability of his community supervision and management’.

 

‘[The Respondent’s solicitor] in support of release summarised his key points thus:

 

§  Agreement his risk of future serious harm presents only in very specific circumstances;

 

§  Those specific circumstances amount to a conscious decision on his part to revert to a criminal lifestyle;

 

§  [The Respondent] is an intelligent individual and does not require any risk reduction work/OPD work to assist him to make decisions not to get involved in criminal behaviour or with criminal associates;

 

§  Lack of evidence to suggest he would return to a criminal lifestyle, given his age, the protective factors and his evidence;

 

§  Lack of imminence to risk;

 

§  Previous limited history of violence either in the community or custody;

 

§  The dynamic RSR assessment of 0.18%, which equates to a 99.82% of no further serious recidivism, which reinforces he is only a risk is very specific circumstances’.

 

34.The panel then summarised their conclusions as follows:

 

‘The panel considered all of the evidence and information before them. It had regard to the written submissions of [the Applicant] and [the Respondent’s] legal representative.

 

‘The panel had regard to the seriousness of the index offending and the prior pattern of criminal offending. [The Respondent] at the time of the index murders was a career criminal. It accepted the submission of [the Applicant] that [the Respondent] had shown himself to be a sophisticated offender with a propensity to commit violence (or organise violence) of the utmost severity and that the index offences were particularly grievous involving numerous victims who were lured to a remote farmhouse by [the Respondent] indicating a predatory motivation linked to drug dealing and money. The severe impact on the victims’ families is well documented.

 

‘Nonetheless the panel had to consider whether [the Respondent’s] risk was now sufficiently reduced after so many years in custody to allow safe release into the community. The panel was mindful throughout of the statutory test for release with its emphasis on the protection of the public.

 

‘The panel was mindful that no risk reduction work has been completed by [the Respondent] but noted that the only work now being suggested as necessary to be completed in custody was OPD [Offender Personality Disorder] work or like psychology work to address [the Respondent’s] personality traits.

 

‘The panel considered that a [Personality Disorder] diagnosis could be relevant to the decision it had to make on release, only if it was demonstrated to have a direct link to his current risk of serious harm, as distinct from his index offending. The panel accepted that [the Respondent’s] personality traits did have a link to his index offending but accepted [Dr C’s] assessment that these traits were not linked to his current risk. The panel was mindful of her experience in this field identified by [the Respondent’s solicitor].

 

‘The panel accepted that [the Respondent] may well be problematic to manage but considered that [the Risk Management Plan discussed earlier in the decision] was well able to manage that risk. [The Respondent] may well lack full insight into his risks but the panel did not consider that this was a bar to his being managed under this plan. He is now 82 years of age and is well aware of the consequences if he were to attempt to return to a criminal lifestyle which is the key risk scenario in this case. The panel considered he would be motivated to comply and to engage with professionals if only because he patently has no wish to return to prison but in any event any non-compliance would in the panel’s view be identified well before risk was elevated to a level incompatible with public protection.

 

‘The panel accepted [Dr C’s] assessment that [the Respondent’s] current risk of physical violence in the community was low. There had been no evidence of immediate risks in custody in recent years and no evidence of grievance thinking in recent years. He has been engaging with the professionals.

 

‘The panel concluded that [the Respondent’s] risk was manageable in the community under the [Risk Management Plan].

 

‘The panel accordingly concluded that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public that [the Respondent] remain confined.’

 

35.I can now examine the grounds advanced by the Applicant’s counsel. I will consider each in turn.

 

Ground 1: ‘The panel applied inappropriate weight to the opinion of the psychologist commissioned by the Respondent [Dr C]’.

 

36.Counsel makes a number of criticisms of Dr C and her evidence. I am afraid I do not find any of those criticisms convincing and I am satisfied that the panel was fully entitled to prefer the evidence of Dr C to that of the Prison Psychologist Ms U. 

 

37.This case hinged to a large extent on the resolution of the conflict of opinion between psychologists. There were many psychological risk assessments in the dossier, written between 2019 and 2024. Some were by Prison Psychologists and others by Independent Psychologists. The Respondent’s solicitor had initially wanted four Independent Psychologists to give oral evidence at the hearing to support the Respondent’s case but the panel had decided that it would be sufficient to hear oral evidence from one psychologist on each side. It had therefore been agreed that Dr C should be the one to give oral evidence for the Respondent while Ms U should give evidence for the Applicant. 

 

38.The panel had clearly read and considered the reports of all the psychologists.  Counsel in his reconsideration representations placed reliance on the reports of an Independent Psychologist (Dr P) in 2019 and the reports of a Prison Psychologist (Ms R) in 2021. He omitted to mention the evidence of the three Independent Psychologists whose reports supported Dr C’s opinion on the key issues in the case and who had been prepared to give oral evidence at the hearing.

 

39.The most important issue was whether the Respondent needed to undertake any risk reduction work in prison before he could be safely released into the community. 

 

40.The panel summarised the main points in the evidence of Ms U and Dr C as follows:

 

‘[Ms U] did not recommend release. [She] shared the view of [the prison psychologist in 2021] that personality traits appear to have been a factor in offending and are relevant to future risk. She identified an overall problem with insight as being present and highly relevant to future violent risk. She considered that [the Respondent] should be referred to the OPD pathway or undertake some specific psychological work relating to developing his understanding of his problematic personality traits.

 

‘[Dr C] recommended release. She assessed [the Respondent] as posing a low risk of physical violence if he were in the community. She considered that any personality traits were moderate and had been aggravated by [the Respondent’s] time in high security and would be ameliorated by release into the community. She did not consider any OPD pathway work was necessary or that [the Respondent] required or would benefit from any specific psychological intervention.’

 

41.I have examined the reports in which Dr C had explained her opinions about the Respondent’s personality traits and Ms U’s suggestion that he should undertake work of some kind on those traits. Assessments carried out by professionals had shown that the Respondent did not meet the criteria for a diagnosis of personality disorder or psychopathy though he did have some unhelpful personality traits. It was those traits which Ms U believed needed to be the subject of some form of psychological work. The traits in question were of the narcissistic type and possibly of the anti-social type.

 

42.Dr C agreed that the Respondent does have some mild narcissistic traits. She thought that they might have been more marked at the time of the murders. She was of the view that, as is often the case, these traits will have mellowed with maturity and age, and that they are now directed in pro-social ways (such as pride in his abilities) or in justifiable challenges to authority. She was confident that any narcissistic traits do not come close to ‘diagnostic severity’. She totally rejected the view of Ms R that the Respondent suffers from ‘late onset narcissistic personality disorder’.

 

43.She agreed that the Respondent has a mild tendency to irritability and to suspicion of the motives of those in authority, but she believed that that tendency was ‘context specific’, i.e. that it resulted from the frustrations associated with maintaining his innocence within the prison system, and is not indicative of pervasive personality problems.

 

44.She agreed with the views expressed by Ms R and Dr B in 2019 that the Respondent could not have met the criteria for a diagnosis of anti-social personality disorder, but at the time of murders he did present with some anti-social traits. She noted, however, that there had been no evidence of anti-social behaviour in prison on this sentence for very many years.

 

45.She pointed out that the three psychologists who the Respondent’s solicitor had wanted to give evidence in the Respondent’s favour all agreed with her assessment of his personality. One of them is, like Dr C herself, a specialist in personality problems.

 

46.She considered what interventions might be available to address any personality difficulties which the Respondent had. She said that there are some evidence-based therapies (such as schema-focused therapy for a period of a year) but those are designed for individuals whose problematic traits are pervasive and manifest in frequent problems in their daily lives, which is not the case for the Respondent.

 

47.She pointed out that, although programmes of that kind can be used with those over 75, that is highly unusual as it is not usually considered necessary, appropriate, or in the best interests of the individual. She also pointed out that there is no published or clinical evidence for the efficacy of work designed to enable an individual to develop an understanding of his or her problematic personality traits.

 

48.She was of the firm view that none of the available therapies were appropriate in the Respondent’s case and that he has no outstanding risk reduction needs.

 

49.The Respondent’s solicitor points out in his reconsideration representations that the Applicant’s counsel did not challenge any of Dr C’s evidence at the hearing when he had the opportunity to. 

 

50.Counsel submits that ‘The panel has not identified why it deferred to the “experience” of Dr C and not to the prison psychologist who came to the opposite conclusion. Importantly, the prison psychologist’s opinion about [the Respondent’s] personality traits were supported by his POM and COM. The panel has also not explained why it was not “mindful” of these professionals’ experience.’

 

51.The panel was fully entitled to take into account the considerable experience of Dr C who is an acknowledged expert in this field. As the Respondent’s solicitor pointed out to the panel, Dr C is highly experienced in the management of high risk and often severely personality disordered offenders in the community as well as in prison whereas Ms U has not worked outside the prison estate. Dr C was able to explain in detail the reasons for her views on this case. 

 

52.The POM and COM would not have had the same experience of this field as Dr C. At the last hearing both of them told the panel that in forming their own views they had relied on the evidence of Ms U. It is entirely natural that they should have done so but that does rather detract from the independence of their views. Moreover the COM told the panel that OPD work would be ‘beneficial rather than necessary’, which of course means that the Respondent did not need to complete it in prison.

 

53.It is worth pointing out that one of the panel members was herself a very experienced forensic psychologist who would have been expected to identify any flaws in Dr C’s evidence if there had been any.

 

54.Counsel accuses Dr C of ‘an appearance of bias’ because she commented that she would not be surprised if the Criminal Cases Review Commission found problems with the Respondent’s conviction, and she supported his account of the adjudication that he received for disobeying a lawful order. I do not think that those matters are evidence of bias or that they have any bearing on the reliability of Dr C’s expert evidence on the key issues in the case.

 

55.All in all, I cannot find any reason for finding the panel’s acceptance of Dr C’s evidence to have been irrational so I cannot find that this ground is made out.

 

Ground 2: ‘The panel accepted [the Respondent’s] own evidence on a key aspect of the case without assessing its accuracy. As a result, it did not evaluate how his inaccurate reporting impacts his level of risk.’

 

56.The ‘key aspect of the case’, as counsel described it, was the fact that the Respondent had not undertaken any risk reduction work in prison. Counsel complained that the panel ‘accepted the Respondent’s evidence about interventions without seeking to confirm its accuracy’. This complaint needs to be examined carefully.

 

57.One thing which the Respondent told the panel and which was certainly correct was that he had been assessed for some accredited risk reduction programmes but had been assessed as unsuitable for them (because of his denial of the murders and/or his low risk scores). It is now accepted by the prison authorities and all professional witnesses that there is no accredited programme for him to undertake in prison.

 

58.Ms U’s suggestion is that instead of an accredited programme the Respondent should undertake ‘’specific psychological work relating to developing his understanding of his problematic personality traits’ (her words). 

 

59.It was suggested in 2022 that he should engage in a programme (the Motivation and Engagement Programme) which is not a risk reduction programme. It is explained as follows in a brochure which was included in the dossier:

 

‘The Motivation & Engagement programme is a motivational intervention designed to support individuals to reflect on their life and goals using the framework of the Good Lives Model. The Good Lives Model works on the premise that as human beings we seek to achieve a level of contentment with a number of primary goods. For the purpose of M&E these goods are referred to as themes. The Good Lives Model encourages a strengths-based approach to reflecting on how an individual as sought to obtain these goods and how these can be obtained moving forward. The Motivation & Engagement programme consists of 11 one-hour sessions run on an individual basis. The component aims to motivate participants to choose to constructively engage in treatment. It also aims to help build respectful and collaborative working relationships between staff and prisoners’.

 

60.The Respondent agreed to engage in this programme though he was doubtful about its value to him. He completed all 11 sessions of the programme, and the report of his progress was generally very positive. He had been polite and seems to have built quite a good rapport with the facilitator. However, as was perhaps to be expected because of his denial, he felt that he would not benefit from any psychological risk reduction work, and he declined to attend the Post Programme Review meeting.

 

61.It could be said that, in the light of Dr C’s evidence that there is in fact no specific psychological work which the Respondent could have been expected to undertake in prison, or which would have been of any real value in terms of reducing his risk, the Respondent had been right in his scepticism about the value of the M&E programme. His scepticism might also be regarded as having been justified by the fact that at no stage do the Respondent’s officials appear to have identified any specific work of the kind proposed by Ms U (or offered it to him). However, if nothing else, engaging in the M&E programme certainly demonstrated his ability to engage politely and constructively with professionals.

 

62.There was some conflict in the evidence as to whether the Respondent had at any stage or stages refused to undertake risk reduction work. Reports in the dossier suggested that he had. The Respondent insisted that he had not and that the reports were inaccurate. He pointed out that on arrival at his present prison he had expressed a willingness to undertake a particular accredited programme but had been told that it was not available at that prison. 

 

63.I am not sure that it is correct to say, as counsel does, that the panel ‘accepted’ the Respondent’s side of the story where there were any disputes. It would be more accurate to say that the panel did not make any finding of fact about those particular issues. That must have been because they felt there was no need to resolve the conflicts (which would probably not have been possible anyway). What they had to focus on was whether there was a risk of the Respondent reverting to a criminal lifestyle and whether his risk would be manageable with the proposed risk management plan in place. Whether or not he had at some time or times in the past been reluctant to engage in programmes has little if any relevance to those issues.

 

64.The Respondent said in his evidence that although he did not want to undertake any psychological work in prison he would be prepared to do it in the community. Counsel suggests that, if the Respondent had in the past refused to undertake risk reduction work which was being offered to him, that might be an indication that if released on licence he would renege on his evidence to the panel. I do not find that convincing. He now has a much better relationship with professionals, has engaged positively in the M&E programme and is an intelligent man who would be most unlikely be foolish enough to run the risk of recall by breaching the condition of his licence requiring him to ‘comply with any requirements specified by your supervising officer for the purpose of ensuring that you address your offending behaviour problems.’

 

65.For these reasons I cannot accept that this ground is made out.

Ground 3: ‘The panel did not explain its complete divergence from the 2019 Parole Board decision’.

 

66.As noted above, none of the witnesses giving evidence to the 2019 panel considered that the Respondent’s risk had reduced to a level where he could be safely managed under the proposed risk management plan. They all considered that he needed to make progress in risk reduction work first. That panel contemplated that that work might be in accredited programmes or in some intervention in respect of the Respondent’s personality functioning. It is now clear that no accredited programme was available to the Respondent and there is now evidence from Dr C which shows that no intervention in respect of the Respondent’s personality functioning has been available or necessary. Furthermore, in contrast to the position at the 2019 review there are now four Independent Psychologists supporting the application for release on licence.

 

67.The 2019 panel told the Respondent: ‘It is not necessary for you to abandon your stance of innocence, but you would need to focus on meaningful risk reduction, which requires that you develop trust and better relationships with professionals.’ The evidence shows that the Respondent has now demonstrated that he has been able to develop excellent relationships with all professionals even if he disagrees with their recommendations.  

 

68.It is clear, therefore, that this ground is misconceived.

Ground 4: ‘The panel failed to reach a conclusion about what risk factors [the Respondent] has. Alternatively, if no risk factors were found, the panel has failed to state this or give reasons for that conclusion. Having not reached a conclusion about [the Respondent’s] risk factors, the panel was unable properly to consider how his risk could be managed in the community.’

 

69.It is good practice for a panel to identify the prisoner’s risk factors as they were at the time of his offending and those which are currently active. It can also be helpful specifically to identify those which might re-emerge in the future. 

 

70.The Respondent’s risk factors present at the time of his offending had been listed in the decision of the 2019 panel. The present panel repeated that list. The factors listed were: (a) dishonesty; (b) lack of respect for rules; (c) pro-criminal lifestyle; (d) association with negative peers; (e) involvement in drug trafficking; (f) a need to maintain status, respect or power; (g) a need for dominance and control; (h) access to firearms and a propensity to use and carry weapons; (i) thrill seeking; and (j) greed. 

 

71.Ms U identified three factors which she believed were currently active. These were:                                                                                                           

a)   grievance thinking;

b)   lack of insight into risk situations and relapse prevention strategies; and

c)   not engaging with professionals.

 

72.Dr C did not agree that any of those factors were currently active and the panel was fully entitled to agree with her view. There had been no evidence of grievance thinking in recent times. The professionals all agreed that the only likely risk situation was a return to criminal activity, and the Respondent’s current attitude was that he was determined to avoid that. He was now engaging well with professionals.

 

73.In that connection it is useful to quote the following passage from the Respondent’s solicitor’s reconsideration representations:

 

‘The panel observed that grievance thinking and not engaging with professionals were both put to the test given the passage of time the review took. There is no escaping [the fact that] the reasons for the adjournments were directly attributable to the National Probation Service and provided an opportunity to test the presence of these risk factors. [Dr C] in her evidence said [the Respondent] has a “strong capacity to get on with people who he fundamentally disagrees with”. The evidence from the POM and COM was clear that he had continued to engage with them without any issues and there was no evidence of any grievance thinking. If there was a credible basis to suggest these [risk factors] remain live then the [Applicant’s counsel] would no doubt have tested this within oral evidence but did not do so.’

 

74.As regards the future Ms C did not specify which of the Respondent’s previous risk factors might re-emerge in the event of a return to criminal activity but they did not need to do that. It was obvious that several of those factors might re-emerge.

 

75.It follows from the above that I cannot accept this ground.

Ground 5: ‘The panel did not address the fact that [the Respondent] is a Category A prisoner who is not deemed safe enough to manage in a less secure environment.’

 

76.There is a significant difference between the function of the prison authorities and that of the Parole Board. As the Respondent’s solicitor points out, that difference is recognised in the Applicant’s own framework for the categorisation of prisoners.

 

77.It is the duty of the Parole Board to make its own assessment of a prisoner’s risk of serious harm to the public if released into the community, and to decide whether that risk can be managed safely under the proposed risk management plan. If the panel concludes that the test for release is met, it must direct release irrespective of the views of the prison authorities. There have been a number of cases where the Board has correctly done just that.

 

78.The Respondent has, perhaps unsurprisingly given that all professional witnesses have expressed the view that he has met the Applicant’s own test for re-categorisation, expressed a suspicion that the actions of the prison authorities in rejecting all his applications for re-categorization were deliberately designed to keep him in prison and to prevent him from progressing through the system and being released into the community. I do not think that can be the case but the Respondent’s suspicion is not altogether unreasonable.

 

79.At all events this ground is without any substance.

Decision

 

80.It will be apparent from the above discussion that I have not felt it possible to uphold any of the grounds advanced by counsel on behalf of the Applicant. This is a complex and difficult case on which views could reasonably differ. That is what has happened here. The panel was fully entitled to come to the conclusions which it did. It cannot be said that the Wednesbury test for irrationality has been satisfied, and I must therefore dismiss this application.

 

Jeremy Roberts

         02 April 2025