Public concern about the John Worboys case is completely understandable and I believe that public bodies should be open to scrutiny and accountable.
So I would welcome a decision to judicially review the Parole Board over the Worboys case. I hope such a review will provide assurance that the Parole Board acted in accordance with the law and the evidence.
The test our members must apply in deciding whether to release a prisoner is that “it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that they should be detained”; in other words, the burden is on the prisoner to demonstrate they are safe.
The law governing us is clear. We have to decide about future risk. We cannot reassess guilt or innocence, or whether the original sentence was appropriate. Instead, our decisions are informed by evidence of how the prisoner has changed and the plans to manage him or her in the community.
Our panels carry out this task carefully. Fewer than one per cent of those we release commit a serious further offence. But risk cannot be eliminated completely. We need to be confident a prisoner will not reoffend — but we cannot be certain.
The Parole Board is prohibited from disclosing details of individual cases. I do not think this is right and hope the Government’s review of this area will be radical. But I can say something about the processes followed over Worboys.
First, I share the concerns that victims say they were not informed or consulted about licence conditions.
Other than considering their statements, the Parole Board has no role in liaising with victims. That is undertaken by the Victim Contact Service, part of the National Probation Service, on behalf of the Justice Secretary. But these are very serious allegations and the Justice Secretary should order an independent investigation.
It is also worrying that other victims state they did not have an opportunity to give their views. Some are frightened. The probation service must now ensure that victims have their concerns considered and apply to the Parole Board for licence variations where appropriate.
Finally, the Parole Board is, in effect, a court. We should be open to legal challenge, but I hope people will agree that it is right that we resist political interference in our decisions. Like any court, we must make independent decisions in accordance with the law and on the basis of evidence. It would be a bad day for us all if people’s rightful abhorrence of Worboys’ crimes or concern about a Parole Board decision allowed these basic principles of justice to be overturned. Not on my watch.
Professor Nick Hardwick is chairman of the Parole Board
