Parole Board is not 'objective'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk/6984025.stm

Version 0 of 1.

The Parole Board in England and Wales is not "sufficiently independent" of government, the High Court has ruled.

The ruling came after a challenge by four prisoners, who said the board was too close to the government and its decisions were not "objective".

The Parole Board, which decides whether prisoners should be released or recalled to custody, said the ruling could have "far-reaching consequences".

The Ministry of Justice has said it will appeal against the decision.

The High Court judges ruled the government's present arrangements for the board "do not sufficiently demonstrate its objective independence" as required by law.

In particular, they highlighted a speech by former Home Secretary Charles Clarke in May last year, where he set out his intention to appoint new board members "with experience either of being a victim of crime or of involvement with a victim support organisation".

The judges said the announcement came when there was public anxiety about re-offending by released prisoners and the proposals were "designed to alter, to some extent at least, the outcome of cases before the board".

The lead case was brought by prisoner Michael Brooke, who was jailed for seven years in July 2001 for four offences of burglary. He was released on parole but then recalled.

The other challengers are:

<ul class="bulletList"><li>Gagik Ter-Ogannisyan, an Armenian serving life for complicity in murders committed in 1993, who is due for review for parole in August 2008.</li><li>David O'Connell, convicted of assaulting his wife, was given a two-year custodial sentence and a three-year licence period in July 2005.</li><li>Michael Murphy, sentenced in October 2005 to an extended sentence of two years for a sexual assault on a child under 13, was recalled to prison after failing to comply with licensing conditions.</li><ul class="bulletList"></ul></ul>

Human rights lawyers complained in court about the government's refusal to fund board interviews with prisoners and also accused the government of wrongly making rules concerning how reviews should be conducted.

'Fundamental' judgement

Mark Vinall, representing the justice secretary, told the court the general importance of the case lay in the fact the Parole Board structure represented "a long-standing system" that had survived previous legal challenges.

A spokeswoman said the Ministry of Justice was disappointed by the judgement.

"This judgement will not result in any prisoner being released earlier than would otherwise have been the case, neither does it open the way for offenders to seek to apply for compensation," she said.

"The court was clear that there was no evidence of the department seeking to influence the Parole Board in individual cases or that Parole Board members were unduly influenced by the department."

A spokesman from the Parole Board, which made 14,000 decisions in 2002, said it was a "fundamental" judgement which could lead to the restructuring of the whole system.

"Unless the decision is reversed on appeal, the Secretary of State will have to take the necessary steps to ensure that the board does become sufficiently independent, or risk being in contempt of the court," he said.

He added that might involve moving the sponsorship of the board to another government department or the board becoming part of Her Majesty's Courts Service.