News
The way prisoners are assessed for suitability for release may have to be radically overhauled after the High Court ruled that the Parole Board was not sufficiently independent of the government.
Four prisoners successfully argued in R (on the application of Brooke) v Parole Board that their right to a fair hearing had been violated because of the close link between the board and the government. The lead case was brought by Michael Brooke, who was jailed for seven years in July 2001 for burglary. He was released on parole but then recalled.
Lord Justice Hughes and Mr Justice Treacy said they had found no sign of any bid by the former Home Office—and now the Ministry of Justice—to influence individual cases but ruled that the government’s present arrangements for the board “do not sufficiently demonstrate its objective independence” as required by Art 5 (right to liberty) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Issues raised during the case included the government’s refusal to fund interviews with the prisoner conducted by the Parole Board as part of the risk assessment procedure, and the making of rules by the government about the manner in which the Parole Board conducted reviews.
