Moore's Application for Reconsideration of Parole Denial

| | [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 >>

  Moore, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 66 (23 March 2026)

URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/PBRA/2026/66.html
Cite as:
[2026] PBRA 66 | | |
[New search ]

[Printable PDF version ]

[Help ]

[2026] PBRA 66

Application for Reconsideration by Moore

---

---

Application?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

---

1. This is an application by Moore (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision dated 16 December 2025 not to direct her release. The decision was made by a panel on the papers.

2. Rule 28(1) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 (as amended) (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.

3. I have considered the application on the papers. These are the decision, the dossier (currently consisting of 402 numbered pages), and the application for reconsideration.

Background

1. On 29 August 2023, the Applicant was sentenced following conviction of stalking involving fear or violence. She received an extended sentence consisting of four years and six months in custody with a licence extension period of two years and six months. She was also sentenced following conviction for wounding/inflicting grievous bodily harm (30 months concurrent), possession of knife blade or sharp pointed article in public (four months concurrent) and criminal damage (three months concurrent).

2. Her parole eligibility date passed in August 2025. Her conditional release date is in February 2027, and her sentence expiry date is in August 2029.

3. The Applicant was 34 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 36 years old.

Request for Reconsideration

1. The application for reconsideration has been submitted by the Applicant. It argues that the decision was irrational and/or procedurally unfair.

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

---

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 her release. This is the Applicant's first parole review.

2. In March 2025, the case was directed to an oral hearing which was subsequently listed for 16 December 2025. However, in November 2025, the panel chair gave notice that the case was considered to be suitable for conclusion on the papers under rule 21 with no direction for release and invited representations from the parties within 14 days.

3. The panel's paper decision records that representations were received from the Applicant's legal representative the day before the hearing, seeking a deferral rather than a paper decision, on the grounds that the Applicant was committed to completing the offence focussed work she was currently engaged in, and expected to conclude it in March/April 2026.

4. Although late, the panel chair considered the application. Without adequate confirmation of the conclusion of the offending behaviour work in question, the panel chair directed that the hearing would convene as scheduled to consider the application for the deferral.

5. On the morning of the hearing, the panel chair was advised that the programme work would complete in early May 2026, with a post programme report due in late May/early June 2026. Satisfied that this would be sufficient to decline the application for a deferral, the panel chair stood down the substantive hearing and directed the Parole Board case manager to inform the parties.

6. Given the late notice, the panel chair nonetheless joined the hearing via video, in case witnesses had not received the stand-down message. The Applicant's legal representative was present, along with the Applicant's establishment.

7. The Prison Offender Manager (POM) clarified that the programme work would, in fact, conclude on 22 May 2026 with the report available by 3 July 2026.

8. The Applicant's legal representative made additional submissions that a deferral would preserve as timely a hearing as possible for the Applicant.

9. The panel chair considered those submissions and declined the application for a deferral. It was noted that guidance to members is clear in setting out that deferral or adjournment should not be granted if the timeframe to reconvene would exceed four months, unless there are exceptional circumstances. The Applicant's legal representative did not put forward any exceptional circumstances, but nevertheless the chair considered whether there were any in evidence and found that there were not.

10. The review continued on the papers.

11. The panel declined to direct the Applicant's release because it was not satisfied that the risk she posed to the public could be safely managed in the community at this stage. In reaching that conclusion, the panel placed significant weight on the seriousness and pattern of the Applicant's index offending, which involved persistent stalking behaviour, escalating violence, and the use of a weapon. The panel also considered the Applicant's broader history of grievance-based and fixated behaviour, including attempts to maintain contact with victims and continued hostility towards those involved in the investigation.

12. Although the panel acknowledged that the Applicant had made some progress in custody and had engaged with elements of offence-focused work, it concluded that this work was not yet complete and that key risk factors, including her management of interpersonal conflict, fixation, and emotional regulation, had not been sufficiently addressed. The panel further noted professional assessments indicating an ongoing risk of stalking-related violence and a high assessed risk of serious harm to the public and known adults. Taking these matters together, the panel concluded that the statutory test for release was not met and that the Applicant's risk would be better managed by continued progression in custody, including the completion of further offence-focused work.

The Relevant Law

1. The Parole Board will direct release if it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined.

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.

**

Procedural unfairness

1. 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.

2. 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.

1. The overriding objective is to ensure that the applicant's case was dealt with justly.

**

Irrationality

1. 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 (CA) 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.

2. In R(DSD and others) v Parole Board [2018] EWHC 694 (Admin) the Divisional Court applied this test to Parole Board hearings in these words (at [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."

3. In R(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 the Divisional Court in R(Secretary of State for Justice) v Parole Board [2022] EWHC 1282 (Admin).

4. As was made clear by Saini J in Wells, 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

The reply on behalf of the Respondent

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

---

Discussion

1. The Applicant submits that the process was procedurally unfair. She states that her legal representative requested a deferral in order for her to complete offending behaviour work and that she believed the hearing had been deferred. She says that she was therefore surprised when she was brought to the hearing on 16 December 2025 and felt unprepared. She also submits that the panel ultimately concluded the case on the papers rather than proceeding with an oral hearing.

2. The chronology set out above does not support a finding of procedural unfairness. The panel chair had already issued a notice indicating that the case appeared suitable for conclusion on the papers under rule 21, inviting representations from the parties. The Applicant was legally represented and her representative made submissions seeking a deferral. Those submissions were considered. The chair sought clarification regarding the anticipated completion of the offending behaviour programme and the likely timing of the post-programme report.

3. The question for present purposes is not whether the Applicant was disappointed by the outcome of the deferral request, but whether the procedure adopted by the panel deprived her of a fair opportunity to advance her case.

4. On the day of the listed hearing the POM confirmed that the programme would complete on 22 May 2026, with the report available by 3 July 2026. The Applicant's legal representative made further submissions in support of a deferral. The chair considered those submissions and applied the guidance that deferral should not normally be granted where the timeframe to reconvene would exceed four months unless exceptional circumstances exist. None were advanced and none were identified on the evidence. The application for a deferral was therefore refused.

5. In those circumstances the Applicant had notice that the panel was considering concluding the case on the papers, was legally represented, and her representative was able to make submissions in support of a deferral. The request was considered and refused for reasons which were properly open to the panel. The Applicant's complaint therefore amounts to disagreement with the panel's procedural decision rather than identification of any procedural impropriety capable of rendering the proceedings fundamentally unfair. The ground of procedural unfairness is not made out.

6. The Applicant also argues that the decision was irrational because there was miscommunication between the Parole Board, probation and her solicitor. However, irrationality requires a decision that no reasonable panel properly directing itself could have reached. The Applicant does not challenge the panel's assessment of risk or identify any flaw in the evidential basis for the decision not to direct release. A perceived misunderstanding about the handling of the hearing does not render the panel's risk assessment irrational.

7. The panel's decision was based on the seriousness of the Applicant's offending, the pattern of stalking and violent behaviour identified in the dossier, the incomplete nature of offence-focused work, and professional assessments of continuing risk. Those were matters plainly open to the panel on the evidence. The high threshold for irrationality is therefore not met.

8. Neither ground of challenge is made out.

Decision

1. For the reasons set out above, the application for reconsideration is refused.

---

---

---

Stefan Fafinski

23 March 2026

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/PBRA/2026/66.html