header-logo header-logo

Plans afoot to make Parole Board decisions transparent

03 May 2018
Issue: 7791 / Categories: Legal News , Judicial review , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Judge-led hearings, open to the public, should be held to reconsider Parole Board decisions on the release of prisoners, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has proposed.

The proposal would make it easier to challenge the release of dangerous prisoners. Currently, the only route of challenge to controversial decisions—such as that to release serial rapist John Worboys despite the fears of his many victims—is judicial review. However, the MoJ launched a consultation last week, Reconsideration of Parole Board decisions: creating a new and open system, on a judge-led review process that would operate within the Parole Board’s current structures but be ‘properly protected and distinct’.

The consultation states: ‘This will allow changes to be made quickly and bring about meaningful change. An external review mechanism would require primary legislation.’

The proposals are the direct result of an urgent government review into the policy and procedures of Parole Board decisions, which began in January 2018.

Welcoming the proposal, Martin Jones, chief executive of the Parole Board, said: ‘We agree that there is scope for further changes to the Rules to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the parole process and we will be working closely with the MoJ to make appropriate changes.’

In March, Lord Chancellor David Gauke promised to bring forward proposals to allow Parole Board decision to be challenged, and to remove a blanket ban on disclosure of information about the decisions, in March. This followed the case of R (on the application of DSD, Mayor of London & Ors) v the Parole Board [2018] EWHC 694 (Admin), where the High Court quashed the decision to release Worboys and held that the ban was unlawful.

Issue: 7791 / Categories: Legal News , Judicial review , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll