A big day
for the Parole Board in the High Court and in Parliament . Judges will decide
whether there is a case for a judicial review of the Board’s decision to
release John Worboys while the Justice Committee holds a one off hearing about
the transparency of Board decisions and
involvement of victims in the process. Lets hope that in the hue and cry for
something to be done, the courts and MPs will not rush to judgment about the way
an important institution should do its work.
Much ire has
been focussed on the rule that parole
proceedings must not be made public. While the case for increased transparency seems
to have been accepted without question, there now comes the difficult matter of
deciding what information should be put in the public domain. If the Board
starts to provide explanations for its decisions in every case, how much
information will they place in the public domain? Where a prisoner will live?
Their family circumstances? The local community’s attitude towards the
prisoner? This is information the Board considers when reaching a decision but
its arguable how much should responsibly be shared. A summary of the reasoning
behind each Parole Board decision seems to be favoured but steering a line
between formulaic cut and paste generalities and “too much information” - some of it of a highly personal nature-will be
hard. A decision will need to be made too about whether the names of the Parole
Board members making decisions be published.
The media will no doubt press for access to
Parole hearings and the case for that may be hard to resist. But the government
will need to consider whether this might adversely impact on the participation
of prisoners -and indeed victims -in the process.
It is these kind of unintended consequences that need guarding against. If the Board is forced down the road of publishing its reasons, it will become much more commonplace for those to be challenged. Perhaps that’s a good thing but the consequence may be more conservative decision making and more cost all round.
It is these kind of unintended consequences that need guarding against. If the Board is forced down the road of publishing its reasons, it will become much more commonplace for those to be challenged. Perhaps that’s a good thing but the consequence may be more conservative decision making and more cost all round.
What must be avoided at all costs is the
kind of system that developed in the USA in the 1970’s. Repeated parole rejections
for prisoners who were not thought ready to be released And when they were
ready, further rejection because they simply hadn’t done enough time. There’s more
than a whiff of the latter point in much of the discussion about Worboys.
