Reconsideration Mechanism and the Parole Board Rules 2019
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the reconsideration mechanism and the Parole Board Rules 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison.
In 2018, the Parole Board decided to release John Worboys, the so-called “black cab rapist” who drugged and raped women between the years 2000 and 2008. It is believed that he assaulted more than 100 innocent victims. That was the wrong decision, and the Parole Board clearly made an error in assessing the level of risk that Worboys posed to the community, and particularly to young women. At the time of that decision, the then Secretary of State for Justice had no means to ask for a review, because he would have had to apply for judicial review proceedings against a public body over which he had ministerial responsibility. His hands were therefore tied. He had to wait powerlessly—those of us who were in the House will remember it—for the outcome of a separate third-party judicial review, which thankfully led to the quashing of that irrational Parole Board decision to release John Worboys.
To avoid this happening again, that same Secretary of State for Justice, David Gauke, rightly considered and introduced the policy that became—I think under Sir Robert Buckland—the reconsideration mechanism in 2019. Those changes created a specific route, the reconsideration mechanism, that allows the Secretary of State to apply for an internal review of a Parole Board decision to release, on the grounds of either an error in law, irrationality or material procedural error—in other words, grounds similar to those for an application for judicial review.
The so-called reconsideration mechanism is effectively a form of internal review, giving the Secretary of State an element of authority over the Parole Board, without in any way compromising its independence, but merely to request that it review a potentially flawed decision. The right to apply for reconsideration was also extended to prisoners.
It is now clear, however, that what was intended as a safeguard to prevent dangerous prisoners such as Worboys from being wrongly released while a Secretary of State watched from the sidelines is now being deployed by such prisoners to mount effectively limitless, cost-free internal appeals against decisions they do not like. One example is the high-profile, nationally renowned case that occurred in my South Leicestershire constituency involving one Colin Pitchfork, who brutally raped and murdered two young girls, Lynda Mann in 1983 and Dawn Ashworth in 1986.
For those who did not live in South Leicestershire at that time, as I did not, it is impossible to comprehend the anguish and worry felt in the areas of Narborough, Enderby, Blaby and beyond between 1983 and the day when Pitchfork was caught in 1987. Those were four whole years when parents were terrified to let their daughters out of their sight, women were scared to walk home alone and suspicion was rife, while families and friends grieved for the lives of those two young women, who would be around my age today had their lives not been taken so early and so brutally.
Before Colin Pitchfork was caught, he forcibly manipulated one of his colleagues into giving DNA evidence on his behalf, to deceive police into thinking that his DNA did not match that of the killer. Pitchfork was eventually caught and the case was of national significance for English criminal history, because it was the first in which the embryonic DNA fingerprinting technique was used. Pitchfork received life imprisonment for the two offences of murder, with a minimum term of 28 years, and concurrent terms for rapes and perverting the course of justice.
That is just one of the high-profile cases in which a dangerous, violent sexual predator and murderer has served their sentence and the Parole Board has had the unenviable job of deciding whether that prisoner is safe to be released into the public. On its website, the Parole Board explains that its role is
“to determine whether prisoners serving indeterminate sentences, and those serving certain determinate sentences for serious offences, continue to represent a significant risk to the public.”
The Parole Board has an incredibly important role in protecting us all, and our constituents the public, from the most dangerous offenders in the criminal justice system. The public and victims’ families need to know that when the Parole Board makes a judgment, it is definitive. If the Parole Board’s work is disrupted by repeated or opportunistic applications for reconsideration, the public understandably lose trust in its ability to deliver timely and conclusive decisions. Victims, their families and the wider public want clarity and finality. That is all they ask from the reconsideration rule and it is what they deserve.
That is why I have raised concerns over many years about Colin Pitchfork, and over the last few years particularly about the reconsideration mechanism rule, with successive Ministers of different governing parties. Pitchfork has already once successfully used the mechanism to request reconsideration of an already reconsidered decision. After Pitchfork’s successful application for reconsideration last year, I wrote previously to my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), then the Minister responsible for justice and sentencing. He confirmed to me:
“There is no limit to the number of applications for reconsideration which may be made.”—
I repeat that statement; it is what the Minister said—
“There is no limit to the number of applications for reconsideration which may be made.”
He went on to state:
“Consequently, there will be a final decision only where a provisional decision is not subject to an application for reconsideration (from either party) or where an application for reconsideration is made but then rejected by the Reconsideration Assessment Panel.”
That is a problem, because there is no finality. Imagine the pain that my constituents and the victims’ family members have to go through when Colin Pitchfork, every couple of years, makes a bid for parole. That is his right, but none of us expected that the reconsideration mechanism rule would be used for never-ending challenges by the prisoner, repeatedly calling for a Parole Board decision to be reconsidered until effectively they get the decision they want.
That potentially never-ending process has created legal uncertainty in the parole system, delaying finality and causing ongoing distress to victims’ families and friends. The public understandably feel that justice is now always hanging in a fragile balance, where a murderous sexual predator can exploit a loophole in a way that was never intended by David Gauke or Sir Robert Buckland when the rules were first introduced.
The Parole Board—rightly, in my opinion—decided recently that Colin Pitchfork is not safe to be released to the public at present, but my South Leicestershire constituents are now in the unpalatable position of waiting to see whether Mr Pitchfork will challenge the board’s latest provisional decision, made only on 27 October. Pitchfork has until this Thursday to do so; if he does, not only will it be one of the first cases in English history where a prisoner who has committed such offences has asked for reconsideration, but it will effectively mean that he is being given the opportunity through these rules to request that a reconsideration of an already reconsidered decision is once again reconsidered. That is a farce.
While I fully accept that there must be a route for prisoners to challenge genuinely flawed decisions, my view is that there must be a right to apply for just one reconsideration, whether by the prisoner or by the Secretary of State. I note that the Parole Board rules were updated last year to strengthen the system, for example by tightening the criteria for claiming a procedural error under rule 39. Those were welcome changes, and I would be grateful if the Minister could update the House on their impact. If he is unable to do so today, I invite him to write to me on that point.
I will raise two related further points. First, those changes, while welcome, do not change the fact that a prisoner can still apply for the reconsideration of an already reconsidered decision, as Mr Pitchfork did in 2024 on the grounds of irrationality.
Secondly, the changes introduced last year were made through secondary legislation, just as the reconsideration mechanism itself was created through secondary legislation in 2019. It follows that, if the Government seriously consider limiting the mechanism to one application per parole decision—and I very much hope the Minister will take it into account, given the high profile nature of this case and the cross-party involvement in my campaign to highlight the issue—that too could be achieved through secondary legislation without the need for primary legislation.
That is why I ask the Minister whether he agrees that the reconsideration mechanism should be limited to one application per parole decision, which would still allow a prisoner to apply to reconsider a decision, and would in no way detract from that prisoner’s having the right to issue an application for judicial review if the decision was generally irrational or unlawful. We must remember that the reconsideration mechanism is relatively new, and making this change would restore it to what it was always intended to be: a targeted safeguard against wrongful release, ensuring that the Secretary of State could respond to significant public pressure, as we witnessed with Worboys. It should not be, and was never intended to be, an open-ended appeal system for dangerous offenders.
I end with the comment made by the former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston:
“There is no limit to the number of applications for reconsideration which made be made.”
That is the mischief—but, if the Government are serious on this, they can attend to that mischief and rectify it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for securing this important debate and raising this critical issue on behalf of his constituents and us all. I start, where we all should, by recognising the appalling crimes of double child rapist and murderer Colin Pitchfork. It is important to pay tribute to the victims’ families, who continue to live with his crimes. They must always be at the forefront of our minds whenever we discuss these quite technical issues of criminal law.
The function of the Parole Board is of paramount importance to our criminal justice system: to assess whether very serious offenders who have completed their minimum term in prison could be safely managed in the community if they were to be released. The board takes that responsibility extremely seriously, and rigorously examines all the evidence before reaching a decision. Only about one in four cases the board reviews results in a decision to release, and in the majority of cases, the board concludes that the offender must remain in custody for the protection of the public. Indeed, that was the board’s conclusion in their most recent review in the case of Colin Pitchfork, to which the hon. Member for South Leicestershire referred. These decisions are of such importance to victims and the public, and I welcome any opportunity to discuss how they are made and how safeguards such as the reconsideration mechanism are used.
I will begin by setting out the Government’s approach to the Parole Board’s reconsideration mechanism rules, their origins and their purpose. The approach was adopted following the case of John Worboys and the flawed parole decision in 2018, which was met with understandable public outrage. The decision was eventually quashed, but only as a result of third-party application for judicial review. That led to the introduction in 2019 of the reconsideration mechanism, ensuring that decisions that may be flawed can now be challenged without resorting to lengthy and costly judicial reviews. Alongside those measures, the Parole Board rules were comprehensively updated to modernise procedures, strengthen victim engagement and improve case management.
To avoid what might be called a Worboys scenario, the then Government introduced changes to permit the Secretary of State to have a direct, quick and effective mechanism to challenge a Parole Board decision, with similar grounds to that of a judicial review: error of law, irrationality or material procedural error. Crucially, the opportunity to challenge the decision was available to both parties of a Parole Board decision—the Secretary of State and the prisoner or offender. That must be right, as it would be offensive to the laws of natural justice to allow one party a route to appeal but not the other.
The Government’s view of the mechanism, as things stand, is that it has been broadly successful. Of more than 17,000 Parole Board decisions last year, there were only 257 applications for reconsideration. The argument—it was not made, but could be—that this mechanism is being abused in some manner on a wide scale is not correct.
The case of Pitchfork, however, has proven deeply problematic. First, there have been unusual and wholly unwelcome delays—unusual in the sense that they do not and have not occurred in other cases. His 2021 application for reconsideration was only heard in 2023, and the 2023 application for reconsideration of that Parole Board decision was only heard in October this year. He has until Thursday to apply for further reconsideration of the latest Parole Board decision.
There were various legal and evidence-gathering explanations for those delays, but I wholly appreciate, considering the decision in 2021 and the controversy at the time, the enormous anxiety that such delays create for families. The Government are always determined to ensure that justice and Parole Board decisions are undertaken as expeditiously as possible. In most cases, however, the rarely used reconsideration mechanism has been quick and efficient.
Further measures are being enacted to empower public protection in Parole Board decisions and appeals. Ministerial oversight of release decisions made by the Parole Board will be strengthened in the Victims and Courts Bill through a fresh determination. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor are looking to enact that provision quickly. We have also taken measures to improve transparency and victim involvement in the process, including allowing victims to observe and play a greater role in Parole Board hearings, with certain measures having already been rolled out earlier this year.
I also accept that there is a potential mischief for historic offenders sentenced prior to whole life order provisions, whereby a prisoner makes hopeless applications, wasting time and money, and—more importantly—putting families through unnecessary strife. I will look at what can be done to mitigate this risk, but I must stress that this mischief would be incredibly rare, and I repeat the assertion that the previous Government’s changes in this area have been broadly positive.
It is also worth noting that a prisoner would continue to have opportunities to challenge a Parole Board’s decision, or a decision not to hear a prisoner’s case, in our common law. I will write to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire on those specific measures over the coming weeks, and I am very happy to meet him, or any other Members who want to discuss this issue, either at the Ministry of Justice or in Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.