The Parole Board for England and Wales

 

[2025] PBSA 27

 

 

Application for Set Aside by Eames

 

Application

 

1.   This is an application by Eames (the Applicant) to set aside the decision not to direct his release. The decision was made by a panel after a paper hearing on 3 March 2025. This is an eligible decision.

 

2.   I have considered the application on the papers. These are:

 

·       the dossier now paginated to 277 pages;

·       the decision letter (DL) dated 3 March 2025;

·       an undated letter from the Applicant to his solicitor enclosing a sworn statement and a “Form-setting aside pack”

 

Background

 

3.   On 17 May 2024 the Applicant was sentenced, upon his guilty pleas, to a total of 18 months imprisonment for breach of a sexual harm prevention order, 3 counts of breaching the notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the commission of a further offence during the operational period of a suspended sentence order.

 

4.   The Applicant has numerous previous convictions for possession of indecent images of children and failure to comply with notification requirements.

 

5.   The Applicant was aged 33 at the time of sentencing. He is now 34 years old.

 

6.   He was automatically released on licence on 17 October 2024. His licence was revoked on 30 December 2024, and he was returned to custody on 2 January 2025. This is his first recall on this sentence and his first parole review since recall.

 

Application for Set Aside

 

7.   The application for set aside appears to have been drafted and submitted by the Applicant himself.

 

8.   He submits that there has been an error of law or fact and that the Panel made a decision based on information that was incorrect as confirmed in his sworn statement.

 

Current parole review

 

9.   The Applicant’s case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) to consider whether to direct his release.

 

10.The case proceeded to a paper hearing on 3 March 2025 before a single member panel.

 

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

 

The Relevant Law

 

12.Rule 28A(1)(a) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended by the Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2022) (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.

 

13.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)).

 

14.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 the 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

 

15.By email dated 14 April 2025 the Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS) on behalf of the Respondent confirmed that no representations are offered in response to this application.

 

Discussion

 

16.The Panel had the power to deal with the review on the papers in accordance with r.19 Parole Board Rules.

 

17.The Panel made clear that it “has considered the principles set out in the case of Osborn, Booth and Reilly (2013) UKSC 61 concerning oral hearings. It considers that an oral hearing is appropriate in this case. Unfortunately, however, as the Sentence Expiry Date [SED] is on … July 2025 the Parole Board is unable to convene an oral hearing before automatic release on that date. As in practice it is impossible to arrange an oral hearing in this case, and there is no significant further information outstanding which requires a further delay to obtain, the panel has gone on to consider the codified public protection test on the papers before it.”

 

18.In concluding the review in this way, the panel was applying the guidance provided in the Parole Board Member Case Assessment (MCA) Member Guidance of January 2025 (v.3.0) which at para. 21(2) deals with determinate sentence prisoners with less than 26 weeks until SED. In the Applicant’s case this is July 2025 and therefore, when the panel came to consider the review, there were only 20 weeks outstanding on his sentence until SED.

 

19.The panel gave careful consideration to all the evidence filed by, and representations made on behalf of, the Applicant and also considered whether an adjournment for further information would be appropriate but concluded that, as oral evidence and questioning would still be required, a delay for that purpose was neither proportionate nor necessary.

 

20.The panel would also have directed an oral hearing (OH) to examine the risk management plan (which required more detailed examination) but repeated its conclusion that, although an OH was necessary, there was insufficient time to convene this before the SED and found that there were no grounds for prioritising or expediting the review.

 

21.The decision not to direct release was initially provisional. As is made clear in the DL, the Applicant was entitled to apply for an OH to determine the case pursuant to r.20 Parole Board Rules within 28 days of the date on which the decision was sent to him.

 

22.An application for an OH was made by the Applicant’s solicitor in the form of undated representations with substantial supporting documentation. This was dealt with by a Duty Member of the Parole Board and refused on 25 March 2025. The Duty Member gave detailed reasons for refusing the application and finding that there were no grounds for expediting an OH.

 

23.The decision of the panel therefore became final and the Applicant now seeks an order for set aside.

 

24.I have carefully considered all that the Applicant says on his own behalf but, in reality, what he seeks to do is to “appeal” the decision of the panel and in doing so relies upon information and submissions which he has advanced previously although I note that in his undated letter, apparently to his solicitor, he states, “I understand the parole board have stated that there is not enough time for an oral hearing, and I somewhat accept this…..”

 

25.In addition, as the Duty Member noted and is acknowledged in the DL, an initial error in relation to the assessment of the Applicant’s risk of serious harm to the public was corrected in a later report.

 

26.I find that the Panel concluded that this was not a case in which release could be justified on the basis of the dossier alone and, having considered the principles set out in the case of Osborn, Booth and Reilly (2013) UKSC 61 concerning oral hearings, found that there should be an OH so that all issues could be explored fully in oral evidence.

 

27.However, although the Panel considered that an OH was appropriate, given the Applicant’s SED and in accordance with current Board Guidance, it concluded that it was not practicable to convene an OH (as the Applicant appears to concede) before the Applicant would be automatically released at SED.

 

28.The Panel then went on to consider whether it would be appropriate to adjourn the review to obtain further information but, for the same reasons, the Panel found that it would not, given that there would still, in its view, be a need for oral evidence.

 

29.The Panel considered the test for release on the basis of the papers before it, being, it appears, satisfied that it had sufficient information to do so. I find that the decision to do so was a matter for the Panel in its discretion and was an exercise of judgement which was pre-eminently for the Panel to make.

 

30.The Panel then sets out in some detail clear reasons for its decision not to direct release for the purposes of public protection and, again, I find that this involved an exercise of judgement in which I can discern no errors of fact or law but for which the decision not to direct release would not have been made. The issue of new information, of course, relates only to a direction for release.

 

31.While acknowledging the obvious frustration of the Applicant, I find that this application (made, it seems, without the benefit of legal advice) has been drawn up without consideration being given to the relevant provisions of the setting aside procedure and without reference to any specific errors of fact or law but for which the decision not to direct release would not have been made.

 

Decision

 

32.I have carefully considered the application. I can find no errors of law or fact made by the panel but for which the decision not to direct release would not have been made and, for the reasons I have given, I find that that the application to set aside is misconceived and without merit and it is refused.

 

 

Peter H. F. Jones

06 May 2025