10/08/2022
Police Oracle
Regular readers, particularly anyone involved in the world of probation, will be aware of the recent major changes taking place in the parole process.
The Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab recently issued new rules which prohibits probation staff from offering explicit recommendations (either for or against release) when they submit reports to the parole board. The rules were followed up by new guidance attempting to restrict probation officers’ ability to answer a range of questions typically raised by parole board members.
The probation unions (NAPO, Unison & the GMB) were furious at their professional role being undermined and protested in the strongest terms possible, calling the Secretary of State’s initiative “ill-conceived and haphazard” and arguing that there will be serious negative consequences:
“The clearly foreseeable consequences of this is that the number of prisoners absconding from open conditions, being returned to closed conditions, being recalled to custody and reoffending (including committing Serious Further Offences) will increase as a direct consequence of your decision in this regard. In addition to creating more victims this will also weaken the confidence which the public have in the criminal justice system and increase both public expenditure and the workload of various workers and agencies involved.”
Penal reformers and people in prison going through the parole process – and their families and friends – have also been very critical at such sudden and profound changes to the parole system.
Yesterday, the High Court got involved when a legal challenge was brought against the changes on behalf of a life prisoner currently going through the parole process. The individual concerned was more than eight years past the tariff imposed by the sentencing judge and was concerned that his parole hearing (due to take place today) would be adversely affected. The case was contested by the Government with the Parole Board itself not involved in arguing the rights and wrongs of the matter in court but listed on the judgment as “an interested party”.
While the full case is still to be argued and a judgment passed, His Honour Judge Bird, sitting in the High Court, accepted that for the imminent parole hearing the witnesses must not be prevented from giving their full evidence and answering all questions put to them. The Judge said that if he had not made this judgment:
“I would be permitting the Secretary of State to have independent control over the evidence given to the panel at the claimant’s hearing. There is a strong risk that I would therefore be allowing an interference with the judicial processes of the Board and an interference with its statutory duty to consider all evidence that might be adduced before it."
The language of the judgment is direct:
"Bearing in mind that the guidance is not primary or secondary legislation, does not support the amended rules and appears to interfere with the judicial functions of the Board and bearing in mind the claimant’s right to a fair and impartial hearing pursuant to Art.5(4) the balance of convenience in my view comes down strongly in favour of granting the relief sought."
The Judge also expressed surprise that the Parole Board itself remained a non-participating interested party in the proceedings and did not make any submissions to the Court.
The Parole Board is, of course, in a tricky position since its role is to administer the parole process according to the laws of the land. Interestingly, the Judge did not contest the new rules about probation officers not being able to make recommendations, saying that the Secretary of State’s decision to amend the rules followed a manifesto commitment to review the parole system. Judge Bird ruled against the guidance which does not have the same legal status as the rules and suggested that the guidance to HMPPS staff “may well go far beyond the rule change”. In essence, he said it did not seem right or proper that a probation officer could be asked questions at a parole board hearing but was not allowed to answer because of the interference of the Justice Secretary.
Interested readers can read the full legal judgment here.
Work with offenders will keep you informed about the final judgment in this case as and when it takes place.