Shake up for the Parole Board

Shake up for the Parole Board

By: John O'Connor - HMP Whatton

Sir David Latham Chairman of the Parole Board

John O'Connor wonders whether changes at the top of the Parole Board will actually bring about essential change.

Reports that a consultation paper will be released later this year on the future of the Parole Board are to be welcomed, particularly so by the many prisoners whose liberty is unnecessarily delayed because of inefficiencies by the Parole Board secretariat. Also welcomed are the views of Sir David Latham, the newly appointed chairman of the Board, for they appear like a breath of fresh air blowing through the complacent corridors of the Board's Marsham Street London HQ. For despite its modernistic glass and steel appearance, behind this superficial edifice is an organisation so riddled with inefficiency that it has been hit with a double whammy of excoriating reports from Parliament's Public Affairs Committee and the National Audit Office to start amending its offending ways.

Whether Sir David Latham can indeed bring about essential change, including anything which smacks of liberal thinking, remains to be seen, for lined up against him are the usual suspects. There's the ‘hang 'em and flog 'em' brigade (including the rabid red-top tabloid newspapers); the burgeoning 'victim' industry; commercial interests within the private security business; and, as always, opportunistic politicians looking for cheap votes at the expense of voteless prisoners.
There are also the dogmatists who object to any usurpation of Parliament's role as the supreme lawmaker. In this respect Sir David, a former Lord Justice of Appeal, has 'form'. For he and his judicial colleagues stand accused of interpreting Parliament's will in ways other than intended. That the High Court is increasingly being placed in an interventionist role is more often the result of sloppy Parliamentary draftsmanship plus inadequate scrutiny at committee stages in both Houses of Parliament. But whether MPs like it or not, poorly drafted laws are having to be defined by senior judges, of which until recently Sir David was one. This means that in his new role he could be viewed with suspicion as to any interventionist tendencies.

Whether this is reflected in a recent media interview remains to be seen. There is a view that few people understand sentencing and even fewer that the Board's job is to assess whether a prisoner who is eligible for release remains a risk to the public. Speaking to The Times, Sir David stated: 'We cannot live in a risk-free world and there sadly will be, and inevitably will be, some cases where release results in a serious offence being committed by a prisoner who was thought to present either no, or no significant risk. Unless we operate a system which essentially deprives prisoners of any realistic right to release at some point, release is going to have to take place and an assessment of risk has got to take place in a realistic way.'

Sir David also expressed frustration that few people understand the role of the Board, set up over 40 years ago as a purely advisory body. 'We are not concerned with the length of sentence. This is a misunderstanding. What the Court orders to be served has been served. Our only concern is the risk of reoffending. This is not what people think.'

But there's going to be much more to Sir David's new job than simply explaining the role of the Parole Board. He will need to assess the impact and effectiveness of organisational changes implemented ahead of his arrival. For it is now over a year since the National Audit Office revealed shocking data regarding inadequacies of the Parole Board as they relate specifically to lifers. Since then no update has been disclosed as to whether there has been any improvement in the way hearings are organised. But hopefully they will be an improvement on the previous period which disclosed that:

* Only 32% of oral hearings for IPPs were held on time:
* 20% of indeterminate oral hearings were held more than 12 months after their target date;
* The average time to rearrange a deferred hearing was 226 days:
* That 35% of dossiers for hearings held during the sample period did not contain a life sentence plan or OASys report:
* During the 2006/7 fiscal year only 38% of dossiers were received by the Parole Board during the target timescale, against a target of 80%.

As for the main reasons for the parole process delays, two factors were cited as being the dominant cause of delays and deferrals:

* Missing reports and incomplete dossiers;
* A shortage of appropriate panel members.

Other identifiable contributory factors to delays included missing witnesses, prisoners' transfers, courses not completed, missing solicitors and the panel running out of time.

The National Audit office described the Parole Board as being "...heavily constrained by delays within the Ministry of Justice, HM Prison Service and the Probation Service in providing information in a timely manner."
Following publication of this damning assessment, the Parole Board has implemented a number of changes intended to increase its performance against targets across a number of areas of work. They include:

* Implementation of the Intensive Casework Management System. This ensures dossiers are checked by a Parole Board panel member ahead of an oral hearing to confirm completeness;
* Restructuring the Parole Board oral hearing casework team. This process aims to allow closer liaison between prisons and the Parole Board;
* Restructuring of the Public Protection Casework Section.

As a result of the above, something called the Generic Parole Process went operational four months ago. From April, it standardises the system for all those involved in the parole process for both pre and post tariff indeterminate prisoners. The main improvement from a lifer's and IPP's viewpoint is one of accountability, for those responsible for delivering results during the parole process will now be able to clearly see both deadlines for completion of their own work, and the whole system target.

The barely hidden message behind these changes is to be found in the following statement: ‘It is hoped that this greater degree of transparency in the targets and responsibilities involved in the parole process will encourage a greater commitment to achieving results amongst all those involved.' In other words, there's now a greater personal accountability by staff for decisions and action based on them.

But this is not the end to the necessary changes in the way the Parole Board works. A consultation paper planned for later this year will provide an opportunity for greater clarity to the role of the Parole Board. Sir David is quoted as saying '...it is time that the Government decided what it is asking the Board to do as there are 'some fuzzy edges'. He said that some Parole Board members see their role as simply deciding whether or not a prisoner can 'be released but others take a more pro-active position and advise the Prison Service that certain courses should be undertaken in order that a prisoner might be released in future.

The anticipated Prison Service response is characterised as that of Corporal Jones in Dad's Army: 'They don't like it up 'em'. For it believes this goes beyond the Board's mandate. It would like even less Sir David's more radical suggestion that would turn the Board into an ‘Appeal Court’ for prisoners with complaints that they have been unable to go on courses such as sex offender treatment or anger management programmes which could help them win release.

This most radical of Sir David's thinking is encapsulated in the view: 'What it would really ultimately want is that there should be a Court-like body which oversees the process of release into the community so that the Board is not simply dealing with the ultimate decision to release or not.' It is believed the Prison Service is likely to resist strongly any move to give the Board a power of review over its decisions. But Sir David said: 'This is an opportunity to put the Parole Board on a long term basis. It would be a shame if the opportunity was not taken to at least discuss this issue, even if only as something which results in them saying … ‘we would like to move towards this ultimately'.

Such radical thinking may send a shiver of foreboding down the spine of the more obstructionist diehards vehemently opposed to changing the cosy relationship which presently exists between the Board and the Prison Service. These reactionaries haven't forgotten and still rue the day Sir David (now Lord) Ramsbotham was appointed Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. Any chance of a compliant 'yes-man' prepared to toe the party line soon went out the window. From then on it was downhill all the way for the Prison Service, for his reports pulled no punches when spelling out its appalling inadequacies. But they resulted in necessary and long overdue changes being implemented. Hopefully, the arrival of Sir David Latham as chairman of the Parole Board will result in similar changes for all concerned with public safety.