header-logo header-logo

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

Plans afoot to make Parole Board decisions transparent

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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll