Evidence Before the Parole Board
Published date | 01 August 2023 |
DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00220183231197123 |
Author | Andrew Beetham |
Date | 01 August 2023 |
Subject Matter | Case Notes |
Evidence Before the Parole Board
R (Bailey & Another) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2023] EWHC 555 (Admin);
[2023] WLR(D) 130
Keywords
Release of prisoners, Parole Board procedure, ability of witnesses to give evidence and
recommendations, judicial review
This case stemmed from the changes made to the way in which the Parole Board (an interested party)
managed the receipt of the evidence from the Secretary of State for Justice (the SSJ). The changes
were rooted in the Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2022 (SI 2022/717), r. 2(22) (the “2022 rules”).
Rule 2(22) of the 2022 rules amended the Parole Board Rules 2019 (SI 2019/1038) (the “2019 rules”)
and came into effect on 21 July 2022 (r. 1(2)). Rule 2(22)(a) inserted paragraph 1Z into Part B of the
Schedule of the 2019 rules. Paragraph 1Z stated:
(1) Reports relating to the prisoner should present all relevant information and a factual assessment pertaining
to risk, as set out in the paragraphs of Part B of this Schedule, but the report writer must not present a view or
recommendation as to the prisoner’s suitability for release or move to open prison conditions.
Prior to the commencement of r. 2(22) of the 2022 rules, report writers (whether prison psychologists,
prison staff or probation officers) were able to provide recommendations to the Parole Board either in
writing or in oral evidence relating to the risk a prisoner posed and whether they believed they were
ready to be transferred to open conditions or be released. Rule 2(22) stated that they “must not present
a view or recommendation …”
In July 2022, the SSJ issued guidance (the July guidance) to report writers as to the content of their
reports and the oral evidence they could give to the Parole Board, this included standard answers to be
given upon being asked questions regarding a recommendation by the Parole Board panel members or the
legal representative. This guidance was then amended in October 2022 (the October guidance). Both sets
of guidance were included in the judgment at Annexes A and B.
On 26 January 2009, the Claimant was convicted of murder and sentenced to the mandatory life sen-
tence. His minimum term was set at 8 years, which expired in January 2014. Upon the expiry of his
minimum term, the Claimant became eligible for regular reviews of his continued detention by th e
Parole Board and on 10 November 2020 his case was referred to the Parole Board by the SSJ to consider
whether he ought to be released (at the time he was in an open prison).
The Parole Board directed that the Claimant’s case for release be considered by way of an oral hearing,
and this was listed for 10 August 2022. Before the commencement of the 2022 rules, the panel chair
issued directions on the management of the oral hearing. This included updated reports by the
Claimant’s prison offender manager and community offender manager, which offered to the panel a rec-
ommendation upon whether the Claimant ought to be released. The reports were directed to be served by
29 July 2022, and when served the reports did not express a recommendation. The served reports, there-
fore, did not comply with the panel chair’s directions, though they did comply with the 2022 rules.
Case Note
The Journal of Criminal Law
2023, Vol. 87(4) 299–302
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00220183231197123
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial