Reconsideration Mechanism and the Parole Board Rules 2019

Jake Richards Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.