Solving the Parole Board's Identity Crisis
The Parole Board is a strange body because it's not quite like a court and yet the decisions that it makes each year will often get more attention than the judgments handed down by the Supreme Court.
Only a few weeks ago there was media interest as the Parole Board decided that the youngest person to have ever been convicted of terrorist offences in the UK could now go free. These are exactly the sort of decisions that the Parole Board makes: once a prisoner has served their minimum term, have they demonstrated enough progress in their rehabilitation to be considered for release or should they remain in prison?
In many cases that is a sensitive question and one that is extremely difficult to answer. There is a difficult balance to achieve between making sure offenders are properly punished but also acknowledging that they might be ready to return to society. When reviewing the sentences of some truly heinous criminals there will be parts of the media and the public who justifiably ask why releasing such a person is even being considered as a possibility at all.
Part of the problem here is that the public is not really aware of what the Parole Board does and the only time it garners attention is when something goes wrong. For example in 2018 the Parole Board hit national headlines when the so-called Black Cab rapist, John Worboys, was released early despite several victims not being informed and fresh prosecutions against Worboys about to commence. This led to some changes (including the resignation of the Parole Board Chair) but it has been abundantly clear for a while that something more comprehensive needs to be done.
For the most part this is all about transparency. At the moment the hearings are closed affairs and this leads to mistrust. Instead, where it is appropriate and there is public interest, these hearings should be open to the public, press and, perhaps most importantly of all, victims. The Parole Board will continue to make controversial decisions that will be the subject of debate but with greater openness there is at least a better chance that the public will see both sides of the story.
This week's episode of the podcast also considers the role of the Parole Board; specifically whether or not it is a judicial body. On the one hand it does make decisions in relation to convicted criminals but the Board itself doesn't really fit into the overall court hierarchy.
Anyway the conversation takes place in the context of legal costs orders that are made after the decision in a case is handed down. The weird thing about costs though is that there aren't really any strict rules and the courts are only following guidelines. Is that fair and should the courts just be allowed to make up their own rules? Tune in to listen to the discussion.
Episode link: http://uklawweekly.com/2020-uksc-50/
Make a difference today,
Marcus