Politicisation of parole
| Published date | 01 June 2023 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/02645505231184543 |
| Author | Nicola Carr |
| Date | 01 June 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Editorial |
Politicisation of parole
Evidence of increased political over-stepping into practice in the criminal justice
domain was seen in the changes made to the Parole Board Rules, in June 2022,
which prohibited staff employed or engaged by HM Prison and Probation Service
making a recommendation in their reports regardingwhether a prisoner was suitable
for release or transfer to an open prison (a step on the pathway towards eventual
release). Further changes also envisage that the Secretary of State could present a
‘single view’on the suitability of a prisoner for release in what were referred to as
‘top tier cases’specified according to offence, which is to say those most likely to
garner public attention. The changes to the ParoleBoard rules were widely criticised.
NAPO observed that precluding recommendations undermined the professional
judgement and role of probation staff in parole proceedings. It also should be
noted that in any event the ultimate decision regarding prisoner release or transfer
to an open institution rested with the Parole Board, and that any recommendations
from professionals formed part of an overall assessment taken in the round.
Preventing a probation practitioner from making a recommendation in this context
made no sense.
The main justification put forward by government for the rule change was that it
did not want to see a situation where a government employee, such as a probation
officer or an HMPPS psychologist, put forward a view on release that would poten-
tially be at variance with the Secretary of State for Justice’s view. However, this blur-
ring of executive and administrative functions,alongside the overall ‘reasonableness’
of the changes, have been the subject of a legal challenge. In a judgement on the
matter the High Court has held that the Secretary of State’s changes to the Parole
Board rules were unlawful on two main grounds. Firstly, on the basis of improper
interference by the Secretary of State in the Parole Boardproceedings, and secondly
because there was a lack of adequate justifications put forward for the changes. In a
bruising assessment, the judgement notes the following:
One of the Secretary of State’s principal purposes in making it [changes to the Parole
Board rules] was to suppress or enable the suppression of relevant opinion evidence
which differed from his own view in cases where he expressed one. That purpose
was improper. The decision to make the rule was an attempt by a party to judicial pro-
ceedings to influence to his own advantage the substance of the evidence given by
Editorial The Journal of Communit
y
and Criminal Justice
Probation Journal
2023, Vol. 70(2) 101–103
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/02645505231184543
journals.sagepub.com/home/prb
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
