Thorne - 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 >>

  Thorne, Application for Reconsideration [2026] PBRA 68 (25 March 2026)

URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/PBRA/2026/68.html
Cite as:
[2026] PBRA 68 | | |
[New search ]

[Printable PDF version ]

[Help ]

[2026] PBRA 68

Application for Reconsideration by Thorne

---

---

Application

---

1. This is an application by Thorne (the Applicant) for reconsideration of a decision dated 12 February 2026 not to direct his release. The decision was made by a panel following an oral hearing.

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 (now consisting of 634 numbered pages), and the application for reconsideration.

Background

1. On 20 October 2006, the Applicant was convicted of threats to kill, two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and one count of common assault. He received a sentence of imprisonment for public protection for the threats to kill, with concurrent determinate sentences of two years and 12 months for the actual bodily harm offences and 3 months consecutive for the common assault. The minimum term was set at 18 months less time spent on remand and expired in March 2008.

2. The Applicant was 33 years old at the time of sentencing and is now 53 years old.

3. The Applicant has been released and recalled twice on this sentence. He was most recently released on 10 May 2024 following an oral hearing. His licence was revoked on 17 June 2024, and he was returned to custody the following day.

4. It is reported that information had been received from the police that the Applicant had entered a brief relationship with a female, which he had failed to disclose to his supervising officer. He is also reported to have exhibited obsessive and possessive behaviour which amounted to harassment.

Request for Reconsideration

1. The application for reconsideration has been submitted by solicitors on behalf of the Applicant. It argues that the decision was irrational.

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 July 2024 to consider whether to direct his release. This is the Applicant's first parole review since his second recall.

2. His review proceeded to an oral hearing on 9 February 2026 before a three-member panel including a psychologist specialist member. Oral evidence was taken from the Applicant, the Prison Offender Manager (POM), the Community Offender Manager (COM), and a forensic psychologist commissioned by HMPPS. The Applicant was legally represented throughout.

3. An earlier hearing had been adjourned by the panel for an updated psychological risk assessment (PRA). At that time, the Applicant's legal representative notified the panel that a report would also be commissioned on behalf of the Applicant.

4. A prisoner-commissioned report was instructed and written, but not disclosed or relied upon in evidence.

5. At the hearing, the POM supported release. The COM considered that the Applicant could be moved to open conditions. Although the psychologist considered that the Applicant could potentially be released subject to additional support in the community, the COM explained that the identified support was not currently available.

6. The panel noted that the Applicant has a long history of violent offending, particularly domestic violence against partners, including the index offences. His risk factors were identified as poor insight, a tendency to deflect blame, limited appreciation of the impact of his behaviour on victims, and particular difficulty managing risk in intimate relationships. These concerns were reinforced by the circumstances of the Applicant's second recall, which occurred only weeks after re-release and involved undisclosed contact with a vulnerable woman together with behaviour perceived as obsessive or possessive.

7. The panel was not persuaded by the Applicant's explanation that he was unaware of the need to disclose this contact, given his extensive experience of probation supervision and previous recalls for similar behaviour. While his behaviour in custody had been positive and there had been no further violence since the index offences, no additional core risk reduction work had been completed since the previous review.

8. The panel also accepted professional evidence that the current community risk management plan relied heavily on external controls and did not provide sufficient supportive intervention to manage risk effectively in the community. In those circumstances, the panel concluded that it remained necessary for the protection of the public that the Applicant remain confined, although it recommended that risk could be tested and further managed through a progressive move to open conditions.

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.

**

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 application for reconsideration advances a single ground. It is submitted that the panel's decision was irrational because the evidence before the panel supported release and the panel failed to give proper weight to that evidence. Particular reliance is placed upon the absence of a completed autism assessment and the suggestion that this may have affected the panel's understanding of the Applicant's behaviour and decision-making.

2. The applicable test is well established. A reconsideration panel does not conduct a rehearing of the case or substitute its own view of the evidence for that of the original panel. The question is whether the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable panel, properly directing itself on the law and the evidence, could have reached it. In applying that test, proper regard must be given to the expertise of the original panel and to its role in assessing the evidence and determining risk.

3. In the present case, the panel set out clear and intelligible reasons for its decision. The panel identified the Applicant's long history of violent offending, particularly in the context of intimate relationships, including the index offences. It also identified a number of ongoing risk factors, including poor insight into his risk, a tendency to deflect blame, and particular difficulty managing risk in intimate relationships.

4. The panel placed particular weight on the circumstances of the Applicant's second recall. This occurred only a short period after his most recent re-release and arose from undisclosed contact with a vulnerable woman together with behaviour which was perceived as obsessive or possessive. The panel was entitled to regard this as behaviour which closely paralleled previous concerns in the Applicant's history and which demonstrated continuing difficulties in recognising and managing relationship-related risk. Those were findings which were open to it on the evidence before it.

5. The panel also addressed the Applicant's explanation for his behaviour. It was not persuaded by his assertion that he was unaware of the need to disclose the contact in question, noting his extensive experience of probation supervision and the repeated emphasis placed upon the requirement for openness about relationships and relevant associations. The assessment of the credibility and reliability of such explanations was plainly a matter for the panel.

6. The panel further considered the professional evidence before it. While the POM supported release, the COM considered that the appropriate progression at that stage was a move to open conditions. The psychologist did not make a clear recommendation that release should be directed and identified that additional support in the community would be desirable. The panel was also informed that the support which had been identified was not currently available. In those circumstances, the panel concluded that the proposed risk management plan relied heavily on external controls and did not provide sufficient supportive intervention to manage the Applicant's risk effectively in the community. The panel was entitled to reach that evaluative conclusion.

7. The application places emphasis on the absence of a completed formal autism assessment. However, the panel was aware of the possibility that the Applicant might be autistic and considered the evidence before it in that context. Although no formal diagnosis had been made and no expert evidence establishing such a diagnosis was before the panel, the PRA nonetheless evaluated risk on the possible presence of autism. In those circumstances, the panel cannot be criticised for determining the case on the basis of the evidence which was available to it. The absence of a completed assessment does not render irrational the panel's evaluation of the Applicant's behaviour, his history of non-disclosure, or the risks arising from those matters. Moreover, that evaluation was made with the possibility of autism in the panel's mind.

8. More broadly, the submissions advanced on behalf of the Applicant amount in substance to a disagreement with the panel's evaluation of the evidence and the weight which it chose to attach to different aspects of that evidence. That is not a basis upon which a reconsideration panel may interfere with the decision. It was plainly open to the panel, on the evidence before it, to conclude that the Applicant's risk had not reduced to a level at which release could safely be directed.

9. I am therefore satisfied that the panel's decision was one which was rationally open to it on the evidence before it. It does not come close to meeting the high bar necessary for a finding of irrationality. No ground for reconsideration under rule 28 is made out.

Decision

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

---

---

Stefan Fafinski

25 March 2026

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/PBRA/2026/68.html