The Parole Board. Working with others to protect the public.
About the Parole Board
I would like to start this review once again by sending a vote of thanks to all of our staff, members and stakeholders for their hard work and dedication in maintaining their high standards and levels of
performance over the last 12 months.
Last year was another record one for the Board in terms of workload, with a small increase in oral hearings and significant one in recall cases. Oral hearings increased by 1% from 2,505 in 2006/07 to
2,531 in 2007/08 with lifer cases remaining stable and a rise in IPP cases compensating for a reduction in Smith and West oral hearing reviews following the introduction of a sift process to cut down on
unnecessary oral hearings. The number of recalls dealt with by the Board again increased significantly in 2007/08 to 19,060. This was a significant 30% increase on 2006/07.
This year is likely to represent the high watermark for the overall number of cases handled by the Board with DCR cases projected to fall again next year as the changes brought in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 continue to work their way through the system. Legislative changes recently enacted in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 will reduce the number of extended sentence and 1991 Act cases referred to the Board in the future andmay also reduce the number of recalls.
A detailed report on the Boards performance against business plan targets for 2007/08 is given on pages 42 to 48. Our headline performance in specific work areas is as follows:
Lifer/IPP oral hearings work We exceeded the target for sending initial notifications 130 days in advance of hearings in 90% of cases, achieving this in 98% of cases.We took steps to reduce the number of deferred oral hearings from 22% in 2006/07 to 15% in 2007/08, although this was short of the ambitious target of 10% set in the business plan.
Paper panel work We fell short of the target for considering 95% of re-panelled DCR cases within 25 working days, achieving 74%. We also fell short of the target for considering 90% of recall cases
within six days, achieving 84%. However, by the end of the year our performance had improved and we were achieving close to 100% in both these areas. We did exceed the target for reducing DCR paper
panel deferrals to 10% of panels, achieving a reduction to 7%.
Smith and West oral hearings work We fell short of the target for holding 70% of oral hearings within the allotted timescale, achieving this in only 55% of cases.We took steps to reduce the number of
deferred Smith and West oral hearings, achieving a reduction to 17%, although this was short of the target of 10%.
Post panel work We exceeded the target for taking action to insert licence conditions or suspend parole within 20 working days in 95% of cases, achieving this in 100% of cases. We only just missed the
target for responding to complaints from prisoners and correspondence within 20 working in 95% of cases days, achieving this in 94% of cases.
2007/08 was another difficult year in terms of managing our caseload and we struggled in the area of recalls and deferrals in particular because of a lack of specialist member resources and because of
some casework backlogs that took place outside of our control.
The introduction of our Intensive Case Management system in January caused some disruption, but it was a considerable achievement for us that is already starting to pay significant dividends in terms of speeding up case progression and reducing deferrals.
I am disappointed that it has not been possible to implement agreed changes to the Parole Board Rules during the year. Discussions on these Rules have been taking place since 2006 and the lack of progress means that the single member arrangements for Smith and West oral hearings have still not been regularised. It also limits our flexibility in dealing with our casework and means that we have
to hold some unnecessary hearings which is wasteful of resources. I hope that early progress will be made to implement these changes.
A succession of court decisions makes it clear that the nature of the Board has now moved decisively from being an executive body making administrative decisions on the papers to being a court, making decisions in the cases of the most dangerous offenders, normally at an oral hearing. This change, coupled with legislative changes to the work, is likely to have major implications for both the number and the type of members that the Board will need, with a growing requirement for judicial, psychiatrist and psychologist members in particular.
The milestone judgment in the Brooke case in the Court of Appeal has already led to some changes in the sponsorship arrangements for the Board, with our move to the Access to Justice Group within
the Ministry of Justice to join the Courts and Tribunals services. Further changes lie ahead as Ministers consider how to ensure that the Board is sufficiently independent of government in line with the terms of the judgment.
I want to end by paying tribute to Sir Duncan Nichol, who is stepping down as Chairman of the Parole Board to take up a new role as non-executive Chairman of HM Courts Service. Sir Duncan has led the
Board through some momentous changes since he took up his post in 2004, but his mantra has been a consistent one, that maintaining the highest quality of decision making is the best way to offer both
fair treatment for prisoners and protection for the public.
As the Parole Board evolves towards what some may see as its natural destination of becoming a parole or public protection court it might be that we shall at some point be joining Sir Duncan at HM Courts Service.
Grenadier House, 99-105 Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 2DX
Telephone 0845 251 2220