Freedom or Justice

The current media storm regarding the Parole Board’s decision to release John Worboys at the end of his minimum prison sentence, raises some interesting issues about freedom of information and our expectations of justice.

Like all other life sentence prisoners, Mr Worboys’ was given a minimum amount of time which he needed to spend in prison before he could ask to be released.  The Parole Board of England and Wales was established as an independent organisation to take on the role of reviewing all of the information about the prisoner’s progress since being sentenced, and decide if sufficient progress has been made to consider them safe enough to release back into the community.  The Parole Board is comprised of highly experienced Judges, Solicitors, Psychologists, Psychiatrists, Probation Officers, Civil Servants and Lay members (people from a variety of backgrounds who have demonstrated competence in reviewing information on which they can form a defensible decision).  These members undergo a variety of training courses to enable them to understand the significant aspects of risk of offending and the mechanisms of risk reduction.

When a prisoner receives notification of their Parole review, members of the Prison and Probation Service team that have worked with him/her complete detailed reports. The reports outline what the prisoner’s main risk factors are, what work they have done to reduce that risk, and give recommendations as to whether the prisoner is ready to move to an Open Prison, or if their risk can be managed in the community.  The prisoner also has the option to appoint a solicitor to represent them, as there can be some complicated legal arguments involved in a parole review along with the need to question witnesses (report writers).  Often the prisoner’s legal representative will commission reports from experts such as Psychologists or Psychiatrists to focus on a specific aspect of the prisoner’s case.  For example, a Psychologist may be asked to complete an assessment of the prisoner’s risk of committing specific types of offences, or comment on the relevance of particular release proposals.  Sometimes the prisoner disagrees with the assessment provided by the Prison and Probation Service and therefore instructs their own experts to get a second opinion.  It is important to remember that risk assessment is not a precise science and ultimately it is the person’s responsibility to understand and manage their own risk.

The Parole Board then sets up a Panel, comprising three members – usually a Judge or specially trained Chairperson of the panel, a Lay member and another member.  In Mr Worboys’ case, there will most likely have been a Psychologist member on the Panel in order to evaluate the evidence provided by the Psychologists and give an opinion on whose evidence to most rely upon.  The Panel start from the standpoint that the prisoner was found guilty of their index offence(s), were given a prison sentence and are now legally entitled to a review of the prison part of their life sentence.  The Panel must decide if the prisoner’s risk is sufficiently reduced for them to recommend to the Secretary of State for Justice that he/she be moved on to an Open Prison, or to direct that the prisoner be released to the community.  If they are not convinced that the prisoner has sufficiently reduced their risk to the public, then they will not recommend a progressive move, and the prisoner has to stay in prison until their next review.

I heard someone comment on the radio news this morning that they could not see how someone as high risk as Mr Worboys could, after only eight years, now present no risk.  It is a common misconception that someone being released from prison means they no longer present a risk of reoffending.  It is impossible to say that someone presents no risk, especially if they have a history of offending.  I have sat on many Panels, and written scores of assessments, where someone has still presented with a degree of risk of reoffending, but the reasons why they offend are known and that risk can be managed with the help of specific services.

The Parole Board Panel is required to give consideration to the risk presented to particular victims, or groups of victims.  In addition, any impact on current victims or relatives is taken into account via the Offender Management process (Probation).  Often exclusion zones, a move to a different part of the country, or other restrictions are placed on someone as part of their release plan.  Sometimes victims or their relatives provide a representation to the Panel in the form or a letter or oral evidence.  This can be really helpful in understanding the impact of the prisoner’s offending behaviour in a more emotional sense.  However, the primary function of the Parole Board is to decide on current risk and manageability of that risk in the community.

The misconceptions in the media at the moment appear to revolve around an expectation that the Parole Board is part of the punishment and sentencing process.  It is not within the remit of the Parole Board to keep someone in prison because the general view is that the sentence was too lenient, the public are outraged by the nature of the person’s offending, or the CPS failed to prosecute the prisoner for other offences.  Whatever the view of the individual members on the Panel about the prisoner’s offending, they are required to be dispassionate and focus on the evidence placed before them.  I don’t know who the Panel Members were for Mr Worboys’ hearing, in some sense that is irrelevant.  I know some of the expert witnesses and know that they will have provided excellent assessments and opinions.  Whilst I find the offences committed by Mr Worboys to be abhorrent, and am surprised that his tariff was short, I have confidence that the Parole Board will have done a very thorough and professional job.

It is right that organisations responsible for the safety and security of the public are open to scrutiny in their decision-making processes, otherwise we are at risk of losing public accountability.  However, in my view, to publish the details of a Parole Board decision in the so-called popular press, serves no other purpose than to undermine the invaluable role of the Parole Board to maintain an independent and impartial view of a prisoner’s risk to the public, for the sake of selling newspapers.  The problems inherent in Mr Worboys’ case are not with the Parole Board processes, they fall within the Judiciary and the prosecution of cases.

Anger at Mr Worboys’ imminent release and the way in which the news of this was handled, is understandable and right to be expressed.  But, if we are to allow the press to pick apart every decision made by highly skilled professionals, because of that wave of anger, we make a nonsense of having an independent Board altogether.  By extension, there would be no mechanism by which someone could be deemed safe enough to return to society.  Some might say that is a good thing, that people who commit certain types of offences should never be allowed out of prison.  Maybe so, but what kind of society would we live in whereby those who do wrong can never hope to be forgiven, can never make recompense for the damage they caused, can never hope to turn their life around?

I wait with bated breath to see how this latest storm plays out.