How The Parole Board See Things

I notice that in the latest Bromley Briefing from the Prison Reform Trust, there is a lengthy article by the Parole Board CEO. Somewhat intriguingly, probation gets not one direct mention despite now astonishingly deprived of their ability to advise the Board directly on progression and release. In fact the whole document, although primarily a broad-ranging prison 'fact file', probation gets just a cursory mention. Amazing. Anyway, here is the piece minus references and charts:-  

Introduction 

We’ve had three prime ministers, two justice secretaries (one twice over), four prisons ministers and two CEOs of the prison and probation service since the last edition of this briefing. So it’s hardly surprising that this edition is not full of evidence of progress towards the ambitions set out in the Prisons Strategy White Paper published in January last year. All of those office holders have struggled with an accelerating exodus of staff from the prison service, fuelling a crisis that has kept many prisoners in conditions amounting to solitary confinement. In the latter half of the year, the much-anticipated increase in prison numbers as court activity increases has also materialised. As a result, far from being a year of post-pandemic recovery, 2022 has seen life change depressingly little for people in prison. 

We know that the practical challenges any prisons minister inherits are daunting, and mirrored in other public services. But what sets prisons apart is the willingness of successive governments to add to their problems, generally in the face of all the evidence about how to reduce them. This edition’s “Long View” tracks changes in the parole system, and provides precisely such an example. 

There is much that should cause concern about how our system deals with people whose release depends on an assessment of future risk by the Parole Board. It cannot be right that a large majority of people end up serving well beyond the period set for punishment by the sentencing court (the “tariff”) when prisons have had many years to prepare them for safe release when that term expires. By the same token, the system should regard the fact that well over 2,000 people on life and imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentences are back in prison having been recalled as a failure rather than a success. But the extreme caution that drives the parole system does produce remarkably low re-offending rates — roughly one tenth of those for people released automatically on a determinate sentence. In a criminal justice system characterised by chronic under-performance, the Parole Board can reasonably claim to be something of an exception to the rule. 

As the “Long View” makes clear, the parole system exists to assess and manage risk — it cannot eliminate it. But changes made in the summer of 2022 seems to have that goal in mind. As a result of changes made without parliamentary scrutiny, almost all opportunity for indeterminate sentenced prisoners to move to an open prison has disappeared. Overnight, a 94% acceptance rate has turned into 87% rejected. The Parole Board’s advice — proven over many years to be both cautious and reliable — is now either not sought or ignored. Legislation to allow a political veto over the Parole Board’s expert decision on release in high-profile cases is promised for 2023. 

The cumulative effect of these changes is to make release an unfairly distant prospect for a growing number of prisoners, regardless of the progress they make over the many years set aside as punishment. The expectations on which both prisoners and staff rely to preserve hope and meaning in the long years of custody are being systematically undermined, and the punitive impact of the sentence in practice now exceeds what either parliament or the sentencing court intended. The legislation that created the discredited IPP sentence in 2003 fell into a similar error, creating a punishment that was neither humane nor just — 20 years later a government with a short memory is repeating that mistake. 

Peter Dawson 

Director, Prison Reform Trust

The long view—The changing face of parole

The mists of time… 

The work of the Parole Board has changed enormously since its creation in 1967–68. Looking back, its origins seem rooted in a different age. Its founding chair, Lord Hunt, had overseen the first successful ascent of Mount Everest. At the point of creation, there were just 17 members, including just one woman. Those first members never saw a prisoner, there were in fact no “hearings” at all. Technically there were in fact no decisions, as the final decision rested with the home secretary of the day. There was virtually no transparency at all for victims, the public or prisoners. Today, the board has nearly 350 members, and is independent of government. Last year the board made over 16,000 decisions, with detailed reasons provided, as to whether prisoners were safe to be released. The board also held around 9,000 oral hearings. Our decisions are now clearly recognised as those of a court, though the precise status of the board remains controversial and has been the subject of repeated reviews. 

The changing face of parole has been the result of gradual evolution over the last three decades often precipitated by legislative change and judgments of both the domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights. As long ago as 1989, the House of Lords Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment recommended that the decision to release indeterminate prisoners should be an entirely judicial one, “independent of the executive.” The government of the day rejected that argument, and until the 1990s the final decision on the release of those serving life sentences continued to rest with the home secretary. However, a series of judgments chipped away at political decision making, with government and Parliament gradually ceding that the final decision on the release of prisoners should rest with a “court” and that the Parole Board was the right body to perform that function.

“Only around one in four people considered by the Parole Board each year are released, and we know that the majority of people we release repay that trust in the community.”

Having worked on sentencing in that era, I know that not all these changes were politically welcome, but I think they were right. They removed some of the political sting from high profile release decisions, but fundamentally they meant that decisions had to be based on evidence and the law. 

During the 55 years since 1967, exactly what “parole” means has also been hotly debated and undergone significant change. At the heart of any system of conditional release there are bound to be tensions between the rights of prisoners and the legitimate concerns of victims; between a desire to prevent future crime and a need to reach decisions about individual liberty in a procedurally just way. The very idea of parole offends some as an attack on “truth in sentencing”, while others see it as a powerful tool to promote desistance from future offending. The Parole Board finds itself continually at the centre of these tensions, both corporately and in the day-to-day work of its members. 

In the 1960s, 70s and 80s, parole was typically seen as an incentive to good behaviour by prisoners, and early release (after as little as one third of the sentence) a form of reward. That changed in 1991 with the introduction of automatic release at the halfway point for all sentences under four years, and a requirement that those serving sentences of four years or more should serve a minimum of 50% of the sentence in custody before being subject to a discretionary release (“parole”) process. Securing parole for prisoners became less a matter of “keeping a clean and tidy cell” and more an issue of potential future risk. Progressively more sophisticated systems of assessment, and the advent of accredited offending behaviour programmes cemented that shift during the following decade.

The 1990s also saw changes required following successful litigation that gave many more prisoners the right to make their case in person to the Parole Board, and to question evidence given about them at an oral hearing. That process unquestionably sharpened up the board’s practice and training, and few would now argue against the idea that prisoners should be entitled to the same rights and safeguards that come with any other judicial proceeding. At least as far as the question of release is concerned, the days of decisions taken in secret in offices in Whitehall were consigned to history.

“The published evidence is strong; when a prisoner is afforded a successful period in open conditions it makes the public safer, and increases the chance that the individual can succeed on release.”

An accountable system 

Many of the more recent reforms have built on these foundations. The parole system can seem secretive and unaccountable to the victims of serious crime, but is now more transparent, publishing reasons for its decisions. There is also a reconsideration mechanism that allows people the opportunity to challenge our decisions where they believe they are irrational or unfair. On 12 December 2022 the first ever public parole hearing was held, and we are piloting a scheme to allow victims to observe parole hearings, with proper support. 

Our decisions really matter to people. They matter to the public because the overriding focus of our hearings is their protection. They matter to victims because our decisions can cause anxiety and they deserve to be kept updated about the decisions that affect them so deeply. They also matter to prisoners because however serious the original offence, after they have served the period set for punishment, they are legally entitled to a fair hearing, by an independent court, to decide if their continued imprisonment remains necessary for the protection of the public.

What the board does and how it does it 

Having spent three decades working in criminal justice, as a practitioner working in the criminal courts, as a policy maker and now as chief executive of the Parole Board, it’s impossible not to be struck by the intense public interest in what people call “early” release. In fact, over 90% of people released from prison each year are let out automatically without a Parole Board assessment. Their sentence assumes that much of it will be served under supervision in the community, not in prison. By contrast, the Parole Board deals with only the most serious cases — those who have committed serious sexual and violent offences or are assessed as dangerous. The board has the power to keep someone serving an indeterminate sentence in prison until they die. 

Across their time at the board our members will often end up assessing thousands of people, so whilst no system can be fool-proof, members build up a huge amount of expertise. We also benefit from the assessments of those who have worked with and assessed the prisoner, and that opinion always carries huge weight with us.

“It is hard not to be concerned that since June 2022 the secretary of state has chosen not even to seek the board’s advice in a much higher proportion of cases, and his officials have chosen not to take our advice in nearly nine out of every 10 cases where we have recommended a progressive move to open conditions.”

The facts demonstrate that the Parole Board is very cautious in its decision making. Only around one in four people considered by the Parole Board each year are released, and we know that the majority of people we release repay that trust in the community. Less than one of every 200 prisoners we release go on to be convicted of a serious offence within three years of their release. We do not have a crystal ball, but we do know some facts about how risk changes over time. We also know that the opportunity to test in open conditions, education, employment, accommodation and support in the community are key to a safe and successful release. We should not shy away from telling victims and the public why and how we make our robust decisions.

"Whilst I accept and support scrutiny of the Parole Board, I worry that too much focus on the Parole Board alone represents a missed opportunity. The board’s decision is a product of how the prison system has performed as well as the choices the prisoner has made."

That is why the Parole Board has published its decision-making framework. It is why we now provide summaries of our decisions to explain our reasons. It is why I have welcomed allowing victims to observe hearings, and the holding of public hearings where it is in the interests of justice. And I look forward to a BBC documentary during 2023, which will provide unprecedented access to the way in which we make our decisions. We have nothing to hide. 

A parole system, not just a board 

Whilst I accept and support scrutiny of the Parole Board, I worry that too much focus on the Parole Board alone represents a missed opportunity. The board’s decision is a product of how the prison system has performed as well as the choices the prisoner has made. I am also deeply conscious how important support in the community can be to keep the public safe; and how difficult it can be for a probation service struggling with high caseloads and staffing vacancies to deliver. The establishment of a parole system oversight board, where senior leaders from both HM Prison and Probation Service and the Parole Board can formally review performance, is a welcome if overdue reform.

Release is not the only issue which the board considers. For many years, it has advised the secretary of state on whether a person serving an indeterminate sentence should progress to an open prison. Whilst the final decision rests with the secretary of state, historically those recommendations have almost always been accepted, because the published evidence is strong; when a prisoner is afforded a successful period in open conditions it makes the public safer, and increases the chance that the individual can succeed on release by their gradual reintegration back into society. 

So, it is hard not to be concerned that since June 2022 the secretary of state has chosen not even to seek the board’s advice in a much higher proportion of cases, and his officials have chosen not to take our advice in nearly nine out of every 10 cases where we have recommended a progressive move to open conditions. Looking ahead, this is likely to inevitably lead to some people being released without this crucial testing, and others staying in custody for longer than might have been necessary for the protection of the public. 

The board’s membership 

So, who takes these incredibly weighty decisions? In 2021/22 there were 346 active members with a wide range of professional backgrounds, from serving judges to the police service. 

The diversity of our membership goes beyond professional background. Since 2016, we have made huge strides in improving the ethnic diversity of our members. In 2016, less than 5% of the membership identified as being from a Black, Asian or minority ethnic background. Now, that figure is 18%. This is important for trust and confidence given the over representation of people from a minority ethnic background in our prisons. 

What next 

The Parole Board is constantly evolving and will continue to do so. Some change is driven by ministers and parliament, some by our own desire to improve what we do. Whilst we must remain independent, we should be open to challenge and always look for ways to improve our performance. We need to constantly reassure those who rely on our decisions that we have a fair and transparent parole system and that our record on public protection is strong — as good as any I have seen internationally. Change is inevitable, but it should build on those solid foundations.

Martin Jones 

Chief Executive Officer, Parole Board