The Parole Board has today published a review into its transparency
We are pleased to publish the findings of a review that we commissioned into the transparency of the Parole Board. The review was chaired by two experienced judicial members of the Parole Board, HH Peter Rook KC and HH Michael Topolski KC.
The review covered a large scope but focused on three main areas:
- Parole Board public hearings
- Victims observing private hearings
- Decision summaries
Over 50 stakeholders and interested parties were consulted as part of the review, and we are thankful for their valuable input. We are especially thankful for those who represented the views of victims and offenders in the process.
We welcome the recommendations within the review. This review is an important step to ensuring the Parole Board continues to evolve our transparency and ensure that victims and the public have access to information that matters to them, whilst ensuring we can continue to provide fair and effective parole reviews for prisoners.
Commenting on the Parole Board transparency review and its findings, the Victims' Commissioner for England and Wales, Baroness Newlove, said:
"I welcome this review's clear call for change. As I know only too well, victims can find the parole system bewildering and traumatic - given little information and no meaningful role in a process that can profoundly affect their safety, wellbeing and peace of mind. These welcome and necessary reforms are key to changing that. Access to a redacted version of the decision will help victims better understand outcomes and reassure them of the care and diligence taken by the Parole Board. I'm also pleased that more victims will have the opportunity to observe parole hearings should they wish - important steps towards a more open and accountable system. I hope these recommendations are acted upon quickly. Victims - and the public - deserve a parole system they can understand, trust and have confidence in."
34 recommendations were made by the review, some of which include a recommendation to start a pilot of sharing redacted decisions, instead of decision summaries, and a pilot to test out different forms of holding a public hearing, including alternative observer locations and unsupervised streaming to accredited
