Unlocking the door

The Parole Board should increase the number of public hearings it holds each year, an internal review has recommended. It’s one of the ways that the board hopes to achieve greater public understanding of its work.

The Parole Board is an independent body whose members make judicial decisions on whether people who have committed serious offences or who are assessed as potentially dangerous need to stay in prison for the protection of the public.

But the public have little idea of how panels of board members question prisoners and assess risk. Some people think the Parole Board has a say in all prisoner releases; others believe it can shorten sentences passed by the courts. But neither is true and the review suggests that greater openness can reduce allegations of secret justice.

It was carried out by Peter Rook KC (pictured), who’s vice-chair and the senior judicial member of the Parole Board, and Michael Topolski KC, who’s also a senior member of the board; both are former Old Bailey judges.

Thanking them for their report, the board’s chief executive Cecilia French said it had made great strides in becoming more transparent over the years but was keen to do more. “The transparency review highlights the key areas we should focus on to further progress our transparency agenda,” she added. “I am looking forward to implementing the recommendations in this review.”

For the latest episode of my podcast A Lawyer Talks, I asked Rook about the review’s findings. As a general rule, he explained, parole hearings would remain private. But he hoped the board would find new ways of helping the public to understand its work.

Rook referred to the judiciary’s transparency and open justice board whose chair, Mr Justice Nicklin, gave a lecture in Oxford last night that I plan to cover shortly.

My podcast series is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol above.