The Parole Board for England and Wales

 

 

[2025] PBRA 62

 

 

 

Application for Reconsideration by Mahajan

 

 

Application

 

1.   This is an application by Mahajan (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision on the papers dated 14 February 2025 not to terminate his IPP licence.

 

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 decision, the dossier consisting of 94 pages and the application for reconsideration with 5 accompanying documents attached referred to below.

 

Request for Reconsideration

 

4.   The application for reconsideration is dated 6 March 2025 and has been drafted and submitted by the Applicant himself. It submits that the decision contained an error of law, was procedurally unfair and was irrational.

 

5.   Submitted with the application are (1) additional grounds supporting the reconsideration application (2) a copy of an application with grounds to the Court of Appeal Civil Division in respect of a case against the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), this 44 page document is dated 22 December 2024, (3) A document containing further grounds in the application to the Court of Appeal, undated but date stamped as having been received by the Court of Appeal on 7 February 2025, (4) an undated statement in the case involving the CCRC, (4) an undated, untitled, unreferenced document of 70 pages appearing to quote from a criminal trial. 

 

6.   The submission for reconsideration is supplemented by written arguments to which reference will be made in the Discussion section below.

 

Background

7.   On 17 December 2009 the Applicant received a sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) for three offences of grievous bodily harm. His tariff was set at 5 years.

 

8.   The Applicant was 55 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 70 years old.

 

Current parole review

 

9.   The Applicant’s case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) in January 2025 to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to terminate his IPP licence. If the Board did not consider it appropriate to terminate the licence it was invited to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to suspend the supervisory elements of the licence or to add, amend or vary any additional conditions in the licence. 

 

The Relevant Law

 

10.The panel correctly sets out in its decision letter dated 14 February 2025 the test for termination.

 

Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)

 

11.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)).

12.[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)).]

 

Irrationality

 

13.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 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.

 

14.In R(DSD and others) -v- the Parole Board 2018 EWHC 694 (Admin) a Divisional Court applied this test to parole board hearings in these words at para 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.”

 

15.In R(on the application of 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 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).

 

16.As was made clear by Saini J 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.

 

17.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.

 

18.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.

Procedural unfairness

 

19. 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.

 

20. 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.

 

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

 

Error of law

 

22.An administrative decision is unlawful under the broad heading of illegality if the panel:

a)   misinterprets a legal instrument relevant to the function being performed;

b)   has no legal authority to make the decision;

c)   fails to fulfil a legal duty;

d)   exercises discretionary power for an extraneous purpose;

e)   takes into account irrelevant considerations or fails to take account of relevant considerations; and/or

f)    improperly delegates decision-making power.

 

23.The task in evaluating whether a decision is illegal is essentially one of construing the content and scope of the instrument conferring the duty or power upon the panel. The instrument will normally be the Parole Board Rules, but it may also be an enunciated policy, or some other common law power.

 

The reply on behalf of the Secretary of State

 

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

 

Discussion

 

25.The application submits that there is systematic corruption and racism in the Parole Board, that its staff use dirty ploys to obstruct justice and falsify evidence. The Applicant submits that a 300 page document he submitted to the probation officer was not added to the dossier, that the offender manager was wrong to record that the contents of the report had been discussed with him and that the panel’s decision was irrational in failing to examine the underlying facts of his criminal case.

 

26.The Applicant’s submissions are all based on his criminal case, the verdict of which he does not accept. The voluminous amount of material submitted to his probation officer, some of which appears attached to his reconsideration application, are in respect of the criminal case. His complaints against the Parole Board members and staff are without any basis or substance. The Judge’s sentencing remark that the Applicant has an “obsessional hatred of the Legal system” is reflected in his physical attack on members of the legal profession during his appeal in the High Court. That obsession has historically been transferred by him to the organisation that most recently rules against him. That is the case in respect of this referral.

 

27.The panel did not need the 300 page document to consider the licence termination referral. The details of his case and his response were all clearly before the panel. The panel considered the offender manager’s report and a very detailed OASys assessment setting out a full history of the Applicant’s progress through the criminal justice and parole process. The Applicant fails to identify what further matters the panel should have had before it that would have made a difference to the conclusion. There is no error in law in failing to consider material that is not submitted, not relevant and not considered by the panel.

 

28.Despite the claim of the Applicant that the contents of the report were not discussed with him, he has signed the termination report dated 27 January 2025. In that report the offender manager correctly records his views and supports, as he does, the termination of the licence. There is nothing further the Applicant identifies that the probation officer could and should, but failed to, put before the panel. There is no evidence of the panel adopting a procedure that was unfair. The ground of procedural unfairness must relate to unfairness in respect of the proceedings. It does not, and this ground must therefore fail.

 

29.The Applicant is clearly frustrated by the outcome of his original case. His continued frustration at the failure of his appeal against his representatives, his violent and dangerous outburst in a courtroom throwing acid at members of the legal profession in court which he believes to be a stitch up by the authorities are matters which have snowballed his obsessiveness and are of great public concern. His “obsessional hatred of the Legal System and … also Doctors” noted by the Judge as long ago as 2009 has not abated. The offender manager notes that the Applicant’s “paranoid personality, grievance-driven thinking, and history of vexatious litigation” still poses a risk. As the panel records in its decision letter, the offender manager reported that the Applicant’s “entrenched beliefs and mental health condition will require continued monitoring to ensure the risk of serious harm remains manageable”. In the light of that conclusion, the only rational decision open to the panel was to not direct the termination of the licence.

 

30.Having regard to the test set out above there is no irrationality in the panel’s decision and this ground must fail.

 

Decision

 

31.For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision contained any error of law, was irrational or procedurally unfair and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused.

 

 

 

Barbara Mensah

03 April 2025