JON VENABLES PAROLE BOARD WILL BREACH HIS HUMAN RIGHTS
Parole Board turns a serious case into a farce!
Jon Venables will be very lucky if his Parole Board hearing doesn’t violate his human rights. According to the Parole Board spokesman: “The Ministry of Justice has today referred the case of Jon Venables to the Parole Board for us to review his continued detention as required by the Directions to the Parole Board under Section 32(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991”.
Under the European Convention of Human Rights, the Parole Board is required to be an independent, impartial, judicial body. It cannot claim to meet these criteria of being an independent court-like body and at the same time take Directions from Jack Straw who is Secretary of State for Justice. This is the equivalent of the Executive telling the Judiciary how to decide cases.
For example, what if Jack Straw gave the Parole Board a Direction to “Take into account what the Sun and Daily Mail headlines and editorials might say, if you are thinking of re-releasing Venables”? The chair of the Parole Board for England and Wales, Sir David Latham, has said: “that public reaction to cases such as Jon Venables, the killer of James Bulger recalled to prison last month, heightened the danger of politicians and parole board members making ‘skewed decisions’ based on wrong assumptions about the risks offenders would pose to the public. As a result, he said, ‘large numbers’ of prisoners are kept in jail, probably unnecessarily”.
What further complicates Venables case is that the Crown Prosecution Service is considering whether to bring criminal proceedings against him. This has led to a delay to the parole process which is meant to determine whether Venables can be re-released. There is the legal principle ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ to consider, and the danger of double jeopardy of being subjected to two separate trials by different courts for the same offence. This is a legal minefield, not the best place for knee-jerk Jack Straw to be in.
A spokesman for the Association of Prisoners, John Hirst, said: “Jon Venables’ case could well be the final nail in the coffin of the life licence scheme. No other country in Europe operates such a scheme whereby a lifer continues their sentence out in the community. Over there a life sentence ends when the prisoner leaves custody. There is a case which is already challenging the life licence and recall policy. I can see Venables eventually walking away from this with thousands in compensation”.
Ends
Notes for editors
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/9014255
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/31/parole-chief-warns-overreaction
S. 32(6) of the CJA 1991 “The Secretary of State may also give to the Board directions as to the matters to be taken into account by it in discharging any functions under this Part; and in giving any such directions the Secretary of State shall in particular have regard to—
(a) the need to protect the public from serious harm from offenders; and
(b) the desirability of preventing the commission by them of further offences and of securing their rehabilitation”. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1991/ukpga_19910053_en_4#pt2-pb1-l1g32
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
No comments:
Post a Comment