Tuesday 9 January 2018

John Worboys and the Parole Board's power to release indeterminate sentence prisoners

It has been announced that the Parole Board will undergo a consultation on how its decision making process can be made more "transparent". The announcement came after widespread media and public outrage that the sex offender John Worboys is to be released from prison.

The Parole Board is an independent body which conducts risk assessments on prisoners who are eligible for release from custody, and determines whether or not they should be released.

Worboys: the index offences and sentence

Worboys was working as a black cab driver in London when he drugged, raped and sexually assaulted female passengers. He received his sentence in relation to 12 women however police fear he may have had up to 100 victims. He denied all charges. He was given a sentence of imprisonment for public protection ("IPP") with a minimum term of eight years. Although this sentence has since been abolished (meaning judges no longer pass this sentence), there are still thousands of prisoners serving this sentence. It is a type of indeterminate sentence, that is to say, it has no "fixed end date" or "Sentence Expiry Date". This sentence meant that the prisoner had to serve the specified minimum term in custody (in this case, 8 years). After serving the minimum term, the prisoner could ask the Parole Board to be released. Imposition of this sentence was reserved for offenders who were perceived to be a risk to the public but who could not be punished with a life sentence.If released, the offender would be subject to supervision in the community on licence for at least ten years. The Parole Board decided that in this case, Worboys should be released, subject to licence conditions.

Why are Parole Board hearings in private?

The legal reason why Parole Board hearings are not public is because the Board is bound by statutory rules which prevent proceedings being disclosed. In order to change this, legislative changes would be required.

The release test

The Parole Board's objective is to assess the risk a prisoner poses. In making its decision, the Board will consider a range of evidence, including reports from prison staff. It may also consider psychiatric or psychological reports, for example. The prisoner is entitled to make representations as to why he feels he should be released and how his risk could be managed in the community. As mentioned above, the Parole Board is an independent body. Its members come from a range of backgrounds, including experienced judges, psychiatrists, probation officers and lay panel members. In theory, a prisoner serving an IPP sentence could be detained in prison for the rest of his life if the Parole Board determine that he is not safe to be released.

Can a Parole Board decision be challenged?

Parole Board decisions can be challenged by way of judicial review. However, in the past, such challenges have only been made when a prisoner has been denied release. Additionally, such challenges are usually made by the prisoner himself.

Maintenance of innocence

The following is an extract from the Parole Board's Information for Victims  and relates to the issue of prisoners who maintain their innocence:

"If an offender continues to maintain their innocence, the Parole Board must assess whether their risk is still high enough that the public can only be protected by their continued imprisonment against the fact that they are unlikely to show any remorse, while they continue to deny their guilt. The Parole Board does not treat such offenders any differently or more leniently; we accept the Court’s verdict that they are guilty and assess them on the basis that they are guilty. However, denial of guilt is not a lawful reason by itself for the Board to refuse to release an offender."


What will happen next?

Worboys remains on licence and if he is found to be in breach of his licence, he may be recalled to custody. If recalled, he will remain in custody until the Parole Board deem he is once again suitable for release. In terms of the issues regarding transparency that this case has raised, the Parole Board is due to undergo a review of its procedures.

No comments:

Post a Comment