header-logo header-logo

03 May 2018
Issue: 7791 / Categories: Legal News , Judicial review , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Plans afoot to make Parole Board decisions transparent

Judge-led hearings, open to the public, should be held to reconsider Parole Board decisions on the release of prisoners, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has proposed.

The proposal would make it easier to challenge the release of dangerous prisoners. Currently, the only route of challenge to controversial decisions—such as that to release serial rapist John Worboys despite the fears of his many victims—is judicial review. However, the MoJ launched a consultation last week, Reconsideration of Parole Board decisions: creating a new and open system, on a judge-led review process that would operate within the Parole Board’s current structures but be ‘properly protected and distinct’.

The consultation states: ‘This will allow changes to be made quickly and bring about meaningful change. An external review mechanism would require primary legislation.’

The proposals are the direct result of an urgent government review into the policy and procedures of Parole Board decisions, which began in January 2018.

Welcoming the proposal, Martin Jones, chief executive of the Parole Board, said: ‘We agree that there is scope for further changes to the Rules to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the parole process and we will be working closely with the MoJ to make appropriate changes.’

In March, Lord Chancellor David Gauke promised to bring forward proposals to allow Parole Board decision to be challenged, and to remove a blanket ban on disclosure of information about the decisions, in March. This followed the case of R (on the application of DSD, Mayor of London & Ors) v the Parole Board [2018] EWHC 694 (Admin), where the High Court quashed the decision to release Worboys and held that the ban was unlawful.

Issue: 7791 / Categories: Legal News , Judicial review , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll