header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Parole Board Rules 2011 (SI 2011/2947)

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
13 December 2011
Categories: Legislation
printer mail-detail

Set out the procedure to be adopted by the Parole Board when dealing with cases referred to it by the Secretary of State.
Commencement date

3 January 2012


Enabling Power

Criminal Justice Act 2003, s 239(5)

Summary

Establish procedures which are required in Parole Board proceedings, including the appointment of panels, information and reports to be prepared by the Secretary of State and the giving of directions.

Prescribe the timetable and rules for:

- proceedings without a hearing where the Parole Board determines the initial release of a prisoner serving an indeterminate sentence; and

- proceedings with a hearing.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Cyber drills build real-world resilience
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: Fairness from day one
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
NLJ this week: When procedure is power
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
NLJ this week: Jury still trusted—Crown Court study revisited
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
NLJ this week: AI copyright clash
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll