Allanson Application for Reconsideration of Release Decision

| | [Home ]
[Databases ]
[World Law ]
[Multidatabase Search ]
[Help ]
[Feedback ]
[DONATE ] | |
| # The Parole Board for England and Wales | | |
| You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Parole Board for England and Wales >>

  Allanson, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 59 (16 March 2026)

URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/PBRA/2026/59.html
Cite as:
[2026] PBRA 59 | | |
[New search ]

[Printable PDF version ]

[Help ]

[2026] PBRA 59

Application for Reconsideration by Allanson

---

---

Application

---

1. This is an application by Allanson (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision of an oral hearing panel dated the 4 February 2026 not to direct release.

2. Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended by the Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2025) (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 oral hearing decision, the dossier consisting of 620 pages and the application for reconsideration.

---

Request for Reconsideration

1. The application for reconsideration is dated 24 February 2026. It has been drafted by legal representatives on behalf of the Applicant. It submits that the decision was irrational and legally flawed. It is submitted that the panel failed to give explanation or sufficient reasons for its conclusions and relied upon unproven allegations without proper analysis resulting in a decision which did not meet the statutory test and was therefore irrational.

2. The submissions are supplemented by written arguments to which reference will be made in the Discussion section below.?

Background

1. The Applicant received an indeterminate sentence for public protection with a tariff of six years on 4 July 2008 following conviction after trial of two counts of rape. He also received a determinate sentence of 10 years for sexual assault. His tariff expired on 29 August 2013.

2. The Applicant was 41 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 59 years old.

---

Current parole review

---

1. The Applicant's case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State (the Respondent) in October 2024 to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to direct his release. If the Board did not consider it appropriate to release it was invited to advise the Respondent whether the Applicant should be transferred to open conditions.

2. The case proceeded to an oral hearing via videoconference on 27 January 2026. The panel consisted of two independent members. It heard oral evidence from the Applicant together with his Prison Offender Manager (POM) and Community Offender Manager (COM). The Applicant was legally represented throughout the hearing. The Respondent was not represented by an advocate.

10.The panel did not direct the Applicant's release nor make a recommendation for open conditions. It is only the release decision that is open for reconsideration.

The Relevant Law

11.The panel correctly sets out in its decision dated 4 February 2026 the test for release and the issues to be addressed in making a recommendation to the Secretary of State for a progressive move to open conditions.

Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended)

1. 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)).

2. 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)).

3. A decision to recommend or not to recommend a move to open conditions is not eligible for reconsideration under rule 28. This has been confirmed by the decision on the previous reconsideration application in Barclay [2019] PBRA 6.

Irrationality

15.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.

16.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. "

17.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). 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.

18.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.

19.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.

Error of law

**

20.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.

21.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

---

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

---

Discussion

23.The grounds submit that " the central defect in the present decision is the Panel's conclusion that the [Applicant] needs to complete further work on is attitude, thinking and behaviour" before risk can be considered reduced ". The grounds submit that the decision does not identify the specific work to be done and submit that the Applicant has completed a large number of interventions, copies of the results of which he attaches to his application. The grounds submit that " continued detention predicated upon unspecified and unavailable work is not rationally connected to the statutory test."

24.The Applicant has clearly engaged in many interventions. He has submitted reports including a Wellbeing Report, Positive Futures Workbook and documents confirming completion of SOTP (Sex Offender Treatment Program), TSP (Thinking Skills Program) and alcohol awareness. These courses and programmes were completed some time ago. The panel heard extensive evidence from witnesses and has recorded the Applicant's account and response to questions. His account recorded by the panel justified the conclusion that he " sought to deflect, minimise and blame others for events in his life on licence ", he had not been open with his COM (failure to disclose earlier arrest) and despite admitting that he was " a lightweight " regarding alcohol consumption, he had nevertheless gone drinking. These findings and conclusions validly informed the conclusion that there were concerns regarding his attitude, his thinking and his behaviour which need to be addressed. That is the specific work that needed to be addressed; it was not for the panel to identify specific programmes or set a specific timetable for one-to-one work.

25.The Applicant submits an email dated 23 February 2026 from his POM in support of his submissions. With regard to the programmes already undertaken the POM notes that " the work he completed with Wellbeing was personally very important for him and gave him a chance to reflect in detail on his past experiences and gain a better understanding of himself. This work was concluded shortly after the Parole hearing..." It is not claimed that the work completed has addressed the concerns of the panel. The email also states that " the sentence plan... will need to be updated to reflect the assessment/observations of the Parole Board that he "needs to complete further work on his attitude, thinking and behaviour, so that he has a clearer understanding of his risk factors ''.

26.I am satisfied there is no basis for this ground. It is not correct to submit that the panel proposed " unspecified and unavailable work ". The panel's identification of these risks is based on the evidence presented; the risks are specified and there is no suggestion that the work identified could not be delivered either as part of a general programme or as a bespoke programme.

27.The grounds submit that the panel placed weight on alcohol as an " active risk factor " whilst there was no evidence of such, and proposed licence conditions could manage any such risk.

28.The Applicant may well have completed an alcohol awareness course successfully however it is clear that alcohol continues to be a problem for him. The panel sets out recent examples of behaviour which indicates that alcohol is an active risk factor for the Applicant. In his own evidence the Applicant gave examples of drinking which indicated that it was a risk factor for example bringing him to the attention of the authorities (drink driving) and alcohol having affected his decision making (he said he had told somebody more about himself than he would have done if sober). In those circumstances it was correct to say that this remained an active risk factor, there is no basis for this ground and accordingly this submission fails.?

29.The grounds submit that " the most serious legal flaw concerns the Panel's treatment of the 2024 allegation and it's application of R(Pearce) " and submit that " allegations cannot be used as background suspicion or treated as implicit fact ".

30.I am satisfied that there was no irrationality or error of law in the panel's treatment of the allegations. The panel made clear that it was not making findings on the balance of probabilities. There is a difference between making findings on balance of probabilities regarding allegations and taking account of the existence and nature of allegations as part of an overall risk assessment. The panel made clear that it was not making findings of fact but made clear why it concluded that there was a pattern of concerning and risky behaviour leading to the recall. That approach and conclusion was open to the panel, in accordance with the principles in Pearce and did not amount to irrationality or error of law.

31.The grounds submit that the decision fails to demonstrate proper engagement with material evidence of change, that the panel failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting the position of the POM and COM both of whom support release.

32.I am satisfied that the grounds amount to a disagreement with the panel's conclusions, with the weight it attached to the evidence and with its departure from the recommendation of the professionals. It is for the panel, with appropriate and proper reasons as set out in this decision, what evidence they accept or to which they attach weight, and what they reject. The panel set out its reasons for their conclusions, plainly justified from the material before the panel. Those reasons and conclusions were not irrational according to the tests outlined above. Their reasons and reasoning in refusing release or any recommendation for open conditions were logical, rational and far short of being in any way unreasonable in the circumstances as set out by them.

Decision

33.For the reasons I have given, I do not consider that the decision was irrational and no error of law is identified in the decision, accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused.

---

Barbara Mensah

16 March 2026

---

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/PBRA/2026/59.html