About the Parole Board
In July 2009 the Ministry of Justice finally published its consultation paper 'The Future of the Parole Board'. This paper was a response to the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Brooke, which brought into question the independence of the sponsorship arrangements for the Parole Board. The consultation took the opportunity to review the functions, powers and status of the Board and set out possible options for future.
The paper asked for responses by November 2009, and the Board immediately set out to conduct its own internal consultation with members and staff. This took place over a series of face-to-face meetings and via an online survey.
After lengthy deliberations, the Parole Board response was sent to the Ministry of Justice in time for their November deadline. This called for the Board to remain an independent body, but with sponsorship transferred to HM Courts Service.
The response argued that this change would put the independence of the Parole Board from the executive on a firmer footing, as required by the Court of Appeal, and at the same time enhance its ability to secure sufficient judicial resources from HMCS to hear prisoners cases on time.
It would also provide for some efficiency savings through a closer relationship with HMCS without generating the additional costs that a formal move into the courts structure might entail.
The Parole Board argued against the option of a move to the Tribunals Service as being inconsistent with it remaining an integral part of the criminal justice system.
The Board called for its recommendations on moving prisoners to open prison conditions to be made binding upon the Secretary of State and to be given the power to review the cases of prisoners who have been moved back from open to closed conditions by the Prison Service.
The Board also expressed a wish to be given additional powers to enforce the attendance of witnesses and the provision of reports and other written material and to make wasted costs orders for anyone failing to comply with such directions.
In publishing the response the Rt Hon Sir David Latham, Chairman of the Parole Board, said:
"The Board considers that transfer of sponsorship to HMCS would best serve the requirement of independence, would enable its functions to be carried out with the necessary informality and would retain the essential inquisitorial nature of the proceedings. If it became part of the court structure formally, the latter two could be put at risk.
"If HMCS is directly responsible, as the sponsorship body, for delivery of the functions of the Board, the Board will be in a better position to obtain the necessary resources for it to fulfil its functions effectively.
"There are some who would consider that the tribunal system would be the appropriate ultimate resting place for the Parole Board. However, that solution fails to recognise the importance of the functions of the Board as an integral part of the criminal justice system.
"Its functions represent the ultimate conclusion of the legal process which was started by conviction and sentence. Article 5(4) reflects the basic principle that no person should be deprived of their liberty for any longer than is legally justifiable, a question properly the function of a court."
The Ministry of Justice received a total of 75 responses to its consultation document. However, these responses established no clear consensus for the way forward.
The situation was also impacted and the options narrowed, in March 2010, with the announcement by the Secretary of State of his intention to bring together HM Courts Service and the Tribunals Service into a single organisation.
The Board understands the latest position to be that officials are currently undertaking more detailed work to understand the ideas raised and develop a better picture of the options available, with the intention of presenting findings to Ministers in the summer.