Guidance on parole reforms published

The letter from Stuart Andrew clarifies some issues, particularly in relation to when and why the Secretary of State might offer a “single view” to a parole hearing. It makes very clear that this will be comparatively rare – maybe 150 cases a year, but the criteria include a broad “public confidence” test which means that it’s very hard to predict exactly who will be affected.

The letter doesn’t provide the data we asked for to show what has been happening to recommendations for open conditions since the rules changed. We don’t know whether this data will be disclosed or not. But what the letter does make clear is that ministers are only likely to be involved personally when one of their officials in the ministry agrees with a Parole Board recommendation that someone should progress to open conditions. Ministers are clearly assuming that will be a rare occurrence. So it will be officials who will be interpreting the new guidelines and if ministers have given them any guidance on how to do so, it isn’t being made public. It’s not unreasonable to assume that officials will now start from a presumption of rejecting recommendations for open conditions rather than a former presumption of accepting them. The letter also drops a strong hint that officials may agree fewer pre-tariff reviews than previously (in its reference to the option of declining to ask the Parole Board for advice on the question of whether someone should be considered for open conditions). Only the data we have asked for will ultimately confirm whether this is what is happening or not.

There has in reality been a significant shift of influence away from an independent, publicly accountable parole board taking evidence directly from prisoners and experts.

We’ve already seen evidence of that in at least one refusal letter forwarded to us.

Just as we have been given no data on what’s happening with decisions, so too the ministry has nothing to offer on what the impact of these changes might be on the length of time people will spend in custody as a result. In correspondence with the ministry in the chaotic run-up to implementation of the new rules the Parole Board offered a conservative estimate that the changes would require an additional 800 prison places a year. But the minister thinks the consequences for prison capacity will be “manageable”. For that to be true there will have to be a radical rethink of what Category C prisons have to offer by way of regime and access to release on temporary licence (ROTL). We know that officials are now looking at those issues, but like everything else connected with these changes, work that should have been done before they were made is having to be done in a desperate rush to catch up.

The further material provided by the Parole Board in response to our freedom of information request is comprehensive and should prove useful to anyone preparing for a hearing. It shows that the Board is determined to preserve its right to ask report writers direct questions about their opinions, even if the Secretary of State has instructed those report writers to sidestep them. A current judicial review will grapple with the absurd situation that has created later in the autumn.

The Board’s guidance to its members is also useful in suggesting what might make it “essential” for someone to go to open conditions. Specifically, panel members will look for evidence that:

1. a settled period in less restrictive conditions is considered essential to prepare the prisoner for eventual release by providing the opportunity for release on temporary licence (ROTL); and
2. it is essential to test residual risk following the completion of risk reduction interventions which cannot be undertaken in the closed estate.

But the guidance notes that the criteria have moved away from balancing the assessment of risks and benefits. The emphasis must now focus primarily on risk reduction and only where it cannot be achieved in closed conditions.

Of course, since the minister wrote the letter, his boss, Dominic Raab, has left the government. In almost her first act, the new Prime Minister binned Raab’s pet project of a “Bill of Rights”. That bill was widely seen as being necessary to pave the way for Raab’s desire to have the Secretary of State take release decisions personally in high profile parole cases. We hope his successor, Brandon Lewis, may also see it that way and concentrate instead on more pressing matters in his new portfolio. But we will also keep up the pressure to think again both about criteria for progressing to open conditions and for denying report writers the chance to make recommendations to parole board panels. The quicker he reverses these unnecessary changes, which seem to have been very much a personal obsession of his predecessor, the quicker he can escape the multiple problems they have created.

Peter Dawson
Director