Public confidence One of the key challenges a public institution
faces is ensuring it maintains public confidence. To maintain the
confidence of a body like the Parole Board, it is crucial that the
public understand the central role that the Parole Board plays in
the protection of the public, which is always our over-riding
priority....Request free trial
Public confidence
One of the key challenges a public institution faces is
ensuring it maintains public confidence.
-
To maintain the confidence of a body like the Parole
Board, it is crucial that the public understand the
central role that the Parole Board plays in the
protection of the public, which is always our
over-riding priority.
-
Reading the media and social media, I sometimes think
there is a risk of fundamental misunderstanding of the
role that the Parole Board plays in the criminal
justice system.
-
Whilst most people focus on those we release; there is
little understanding of the flip-side of our decisions.
I am certain that our decisions prevent dangerous
prisoners being released and we do not shirk from
keeping people in custody, if necessary, for the rest
of their lives if we consider they remain a risk to the
public. I am regularly made aware of people who have
been reviewed by the Board on multiple occasions,
sometimes being held in custody for decades beyond the
minimum period set for punishment. Without a court-like
body reviewing the continuing detention of those
individuals, after the period for punishment has
expired, the detention of those individuals would not
be lawful under the European Convention on Human Rights
or domestic law.
So, what are the facts?
- Last year around 65,000 people were released from
prison. Just 3,000 of those releases followed consideration
by the Parole Board.
- Well over 75% of the prisoners we review each year are
assessed by the Board as being too dangerous to release.
Our decisions can result in decades of additional time in
prison after the period for punishment has passed.
- Over 40% of the c9,000 people currently serving an
indeterminate sentence remain in prison because the Parole
Board continues to assess them as being too dangerous to
release.
To me these figures suggest that the Parole Board undertake
the serious decisions we take with some caution.
I do however believe in reform and redemption. People can
commit serious offences and reform over time. What is my
evidence for this? Well our success rate demonstrates that
only a tiny proportion of people - consistently at, or less
than 1% - are charged with a serious further offence after
a Parole Board release, and fewer than that are convicted.
That rate compares favourably with international parole
systems in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US.
Through sentencing in individual cases and the legal
framework, it is a matter for judges and Parliament to
decide how long people must serve in prison before release
is possible. But the overwhelming majority of people are
likely to be released at some point. There are currently
just 66 people (0.0001% of all of those in prison) whose
whole life sentence means release will never be considered.
Every other person in prison has a chance of release at
some point; and the majority will be released
automatically. But however long an offender spends in
custody, I am certain that our criminal justice system
would be far weaker without a detailed and independent risk
assessment of the most serious offenders by the Parole
Board before their release.
A victim’s perspective
-
Whilst our primary role is to look at the risk posed by
prisoners; I am glad that our system has become more
focused on, and sensitive to, the needs of victims.
Victims can now make statements at a parole hearing,
request a summary of a decision (around 2,500 have now
been issued) and ask the Justice Secretary to seek a
reconsideration of a parole decision.
-
The victims I have met display astonishing bravery and
fortitude. I am acutely aware of the impact the parole
process can have on them. The system needs to
understand that reality.
-
Even though a criminal offence may have taken place
many years previously, I find that victim impact
statements are visceral. They read as if the offence
was committed yesterday. The statements I have read
illustrate the continued trauma of serious offending on
lives. To make it even more difficult, few victims
properly understand the sentences imposed, and are
therefore ill-prepared for the Board to contemplate
release. Few victims understand that the parole process
is about the assessment of future risk, not punishment.
The system needs to do better.
-
That is why I am committed to working with other
agencies to ensure that the process supports and
prepares victims. I am concerned that some vulnerable
people are not aware of, and therefore unable to
properly access, their rights, because they have not
signed up to the Victim Contact Scheme in the past. I
strongly support the move to a position where victims
can “opt-out” of the victim contact scheme, rather than
being asked to “opt-in” shortly after the trauma of a
criminal trial. More also needs to be done to ensure
that victims can access professional victim support
when they are engaged in the parole process. I suspect
that for many victims the parole process is more
difficult than the trial itself.
Root and Branch Review of Parole
- Recent cases underline the seriousness and gravity of
the challenges facing the criminal justice system in
managing complex and potentially dangerous people. We
cannot be complacent. I support the case for a “root and
branch” review of the parole system and do not think we
should fear further scrutiny. Whilst we have no crystal
ball, I think the Parole Board has proven itself to be
effective at keeping the public safe. But there is surely
more that can be done to ensure we have a safe, fair and
effective system; sensitive to the needs of victims; whilst
commanding the confidence of the public?
|