You don't know what you don't know. Parole Board members face that issue in every case they review. Our job is to consider risk and whether a prisoner needs to stay in prison for the protection of the public, or whether they can be released safely after serving the minimum term set by a judge. So, the question is about future risk, and whether someone is likely to present a risk of serious harm after they are released. How can you predict the future? Every case that comes before the Parole Board starts with a review of the papers. This is the evidence presented by the Secretary of State for Justice and includes hundreds of pages of information from the entirety of the offender's time in prison. The papers also include any statements victims of the prisoner want the Parole Board to consider and any evidence or comment that a prisoner or their solicitor would like the Parole Board to see.
So, on the initial evidence, we only know what we are told. We still don't know what we don't know. But you need to know what you don't know and that is why members are trained to explore and discover, as far as they can, the unknowns about a prisoner. The evidence presented in the papers may lead to questions that need to be asked. Members can direct that further evidence is produced or that specialist assessments are completed. For example, in a case I reviewed, the sentencing judge spoke about a diary that the prisoner had kept at the time of his offending. The judge had seen it, he made comment about it, but there was little else about it in the written evidence. I directed that the diary be produced. It was copied from the court archives and provided for the Parole Board. It offered a lot of information that was relevant to the consideration of risk.
The analysis of written evidence at the initial paper stage of a prisoner's review is done with great care and often leads to questions and the need
