Politicisation of parole

Evidence of increased political over-stepping into practice in the criminal justice domain was seen in the changes made to the Parole Board Rules, in June 2022, which prohibited staff employed or engaged by HM Prison and Probation Service making a recommendation in their reports regarding whether a prisoner was suitable for release or transfer to an open prison (a step on the pathway towards eventual release). Further changes also envisage that the Secretary of State could present a ‘single view’ on the suitability of a prisoner for release in what were referred to as ‘top tier cases’ specified according to offence, which is to say those most likely to garner public attention. The changes to the Parole Board rules were widely criticised. NAPO observed that precluding recommendations undermined the professional judgement and role of probation staff in parole proceedings. It also should be noted that in any event the ultimate decision regarding prisoner release or transfer to an open institution rested with the Parole Board, and that any recommendations from professionals formed part of an overall assessment taken in the round. Preventing a probation practitioner from making a recommendation in this context made no sense. The main justification put forward by government for the rule change was that it did not want to see a situation where a government employee, such as a probation officer or an HMPPS psychologist, put forward a view on release that would potentially be at variance with the Secretary of State for Justice’s view. However, this blurring of executive and administrative functions, alongside the overall ‘reasonableness’ of the changes, have been the subject of a legal challenge. In a judgement on the matter the High Court has held that the Secretary of State’s changes to the Parole Board rules were unlawful on two main grounds. Firstly, on the basis of improper interference by the Secretary of State in the Parole Board proceedings, and secondly because there was a lack of adequate justifications put forward for the changes. In a bruising assessment, the judgement notes the following: