Parole Board response to publication of HMIP Report into conviction of Anthony Rice for the murder of Naomi Bryant

10/05/2006

The Parole Board deeply regrets the circumstances that led to the death of Naomi Bryant and the fact that she was murdered by a man who had recently been released from prison on life licence following a Parole Board review. I want to convey my personal sympathies and those of the Board to Naomi Bryant’s family for their terrible loss. The Board is committed to doing everything it can to learn the lessons from such cases that will help to help prevent further such tragedies.

"The Parole Board welcomes and will study carefully the Report of the HM Inspectorate of Probation Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the release of Anthony Rice. We accept the principal finding of the Inspectorate that the decision to release Anthony Rice was the result of a cumulative failure across the custodial, release on licence and post release phases of the whole process and that he should not have been released on life licence. We also accept his assessment that the Parole Board decision of August 2004 was in itself arguably reasonable given where we were at that point.

The HM Inspector of Prisons report explains how we got to that point, where based on incomplete information and an over-optimistic earlier assessment Rice had been moved to open prison conditions, and could with the aid of a lawyer argue that he had done all he could reasonably do to justify release on life licence.

With this cumulative failure in mind the Board also accepts the recommendation that there should be a major appraisal of current policy and practice for releasing prisoners from indeterminate sentences. We welcome such a review of the whole system and will co-operate fully with it.

Anthony Rice had served over 15 years of a discretionary life sentence for attempted rape when he was released in November 2004, having completed his minimum tariff of 10 years in December 1998. His previous convictions were for rape, indecent assault, threats to kill and assault. He had been turned down for release by the Parole Board on three previous occasions and the decision to release him was taken at an oral hearing before a three member panel that was chaired by a judge and included a consultant forensic psychiatrist.

All of the professional reports considered by the parole panel recommended that Rice was suitable for release, including clear professional opinion that Rice had been able to overcome his propensity for sexualised violence. He had performed well in open conditions for 30 months, including six periods of home leave, and there was a well-defined release plan.

Rice had a long history as a predatory sex offender and he was assessed as presenting a high risk of harm. This meant that he required a high quantity and quality of restrictive interventions to keep to a minimum his risk of harm to others. These interventions were supervised at the highest level by a Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel.

As the report acknowledges, the Parole Board has, as always in such cases, undertaken an internal review of our decision in the Anthony Rice case. This Review Committee looks for any learning points from such cases for both the Board and its partner agencies. We have recently strengthened this review process by including distinguished individuals from outside the membership of the Parole Board on the Committee to ensure an external perspective.

It is vitally important that we learn from such cases and apply that learning to the way we handle cases in the future, so that we can do everything within our power to prevent a repeat of the tragic events that led to the murder of Naomi Bryant.

In particular we need:

• To make absolutely sure that no important information is missing from the dossier considered by the parole panel. In this regard we warmly welcome the recent commitment by the Home Secretary to ensuring that we get a full report on each offender that we consider for release.
• Much better inter-agency working, including better information sharing across agencies, working together to jointly raise report standards and multi-agency case reviews in the wake of cases such as that of Anthony Rice.
• To examine the case for legal representation for the Secretary of State at oral lifer hearings to balance the legal representation already provided for the prisoner in order to ensure that protection of the public is always the most important consideration.
• To examine the case for a separate assessment of the prisoner that is independent of the treatment and which takes into account all of the available evidence.

The Parole Board has already taken a number of steps to make our risk assessment procedures more robust. These include:

• Plans to re-introduce Parole Board member interviews, selectively used for the most dangerous offenders or those who pose particular concern to the Board despite favourable recommendations in reports.
• Proposals to introduce intensive case management for the most dangerous prisoners, to make sure that all of the necessary information is available before a panel is held.
• The introduction of oral hearings for all lifer cases where a move to open conditions is being considered.
• Additional bespoke training for Parole Board members in risk assessing violent offenders.

Parole Board members are tasked with making judgements about whether and when it is safe to release offenders back into the community. The safety of the public is always our overriding concern and members will be reminded that concerns about the possibility of a judicial review should be subordinate to concerns about the serious risk of harm an offender might pose. The most important objective of the Parole Board is to ensure that rigorous risk assessment procedures are in place to underpin our role in protecting the public.

Professor Sir Duncan Nichol, Chairman of the Parole Board

Notes to Editors

The Parole Board is the independent body that protects the public by making risk assessments about prisoners to decide who may safely be released into the community and who must remain in or be returned to custody. The Parole Board was established under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 to advise the Home Secretary on the early release of prisoners. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 established the Board as an Executive Non-Departmental Public Body.

The Parole Board's aims and objectives are linked closely with those of the Home Office in seeking to reduce re-offending and in protecting the public.  The Board works closely with the Home Office, the Probation Service and the Prison Service, voluntary organisations, the legal profession and others involved in the criminal justice system.

For further information please call Tim Morris, Head of Communications for the Parole Board, on 020-7217 0564 during office hours, or on 07725-927954 out of hours, look on the Parole Board website at www.paroleboard.gov.uk , or e-mail tim.morris5@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

ENDS

The Parole Board for England and Wales

Grenadier House, 99-105 Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 2DX

Telephone 0845 251 2220