• Home /
• Statewatch Database /
• UK: Parole board ruling opens door for prisoners

UK: Parole board ruling opens door for prisoners

01 January 2008

Hundreds of prisoners have been given fresh hope of an early release from jail after two landmark legal rulings. The Appeal Court has said the Parole Board, which decides whether inmates should be freed, is too close to the Government and should be made independent. This will require an overhaul of the Parole Board, which was set up in 1967 and considers about 14,000 cases a year. Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice, said it was unduly influenced by ministerial pressure to consider the impact on victims and cannot take "objective" decisions. Ministers appoint board members and can remove them if they fail to perform their duties satisfactorily. Lord Phillips said:

The Parole Board must both be and be seen to be free of executive interference or influence.

The executive has sought to alter the criteria applied in selecting members of the board with a view to affecting the decision reached by the board.

He added:

Both by directions and by the use of his control over the appointment of members of the board, the Secretary of State has sought to influence the manner in which the board carries out its risk assessment.

In a second judgment, the Appeal Court criticised the way the Government had introduced a new open-ended jail terms for serious offenders. Thousands of criminals have been given indeterminate sentences for public protection (IPPs) and are eligible for release when a tariff set by the court expires. However, they must first demonstrate to the Parole Board that they are fit for release and a lack of funds means many cannot fulfil these conditions. Not enough money has been made available for proper rehabilitation courses or for interviews to be conducted. The Appeal Court called this "an unhappy state of affairs." It added: "There has been a systemic failure on the part of the Secretary of State (Jack Straw) to put in place the resources necessary to implement the scheme of rehabilitation necessary." The judges upheld a High Court ruling that Mr Straw had acted unlawfully because IPP inmates were unable to prove they were no longer a risk.

The Telegraph 01.02.08.