This is a thread about an important High Court judgment which was handed down yesterday. It concerns the decision of Dominic Raab to try to control the conduct of parole proceedings and to prescribe how his officials provide evidence to the Parole Board.
Dominic Raab is Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. He is under investigation for several bullying complaints during different ministerial posts. Coverage of this is more prevalent than coverage of his performance in his current role. This is about the latter.
Raab has decided to make 'reform' of the parole system one of his priorities. This might be regarded as an odd choice given that his remit includes the whole criminal justice and penal systems. There is very little evidence that the Parole Board is performing badly.
The Parole Board is tasked with a difficult role. It must make decisions about whether certain prisoners meet a test for release on licence. This test is set by Parliament and has been interpreted by the courts.
The Parole Board is a non-departmental public body. It is supposed to be independent of government. It performs a judicial role and is described by the courts as a court-like body. The separation of judiciary and government is a fundamental feature of a democracy.
A 'root and branch' review of the Parole Board was ordered by a former Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland. This included strong recommendations for it to become a fully independent court or tribunal. Buckland had been replaced before decisions had been made about the Board's future
Dominic Raab did not agree that the Board should become a properly constituted tribunal. Instead, he has sought to make changes to the Parole Board which take it in a completely different direction.
Raab's ultimate plan - which will soon be considered by Parliament - is to take control of a significant proportion of the Parole Board's judicial decisions. This is very likely to be unlawful and he will probably have been given advice to that effect.
Yesterday's High Court judgment concerned his decision to stop professional witnesses (probation officers, psychologists and prison officers) from providing recommendations to the Parole Board. He did not want them to provide recommendations which might conflict with his own.
Professional witnesses employed by the prison and probation service have been providing recommendations to the Parole Board for many years. The Board does not have to follow them. They will investigate them and challenge them. They usually find them helpful.
Raab and his officials issued rules prohibiting witnesses from giving recommendations. They issued guidance telling them how they should respond if Parole Board members ask them to do so. This has made many parole hearings farcical ("I am not permitted to answer that question")
Yesterday's judgment decided Raab's rule change and guidance were unlawful. The judges concluded that it "may well have resulted in prisoners being released who would not otherwise have been released and in prisoners not being released who would otherwise have been released"
Here is a link to the full judgment and press statement. judiciary.uk/judgments/bail…
It makes for an interesting read. If you like that kind of thing.
This fiasco has cast a shadow over thousands of hearings conducted over several months. It has thrown hearings conducted this week and beyond into confusion. It is a huge embarrassment. This story is not receiving the coverage it should.
This is not the first - nor will it be the last - example of unlawful action by the current Justice Secretary. Unlawful does not mean criminal. But in this case it indicates a basic misunderstanding of the law and a serious attempt to interfere with a judicial process.
A government committed to "integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level" might wonder if it is right to continue to keep Dominic Raab in this important post.
If you want to know more about how the parole system works you could do worse than watch the BBC's Parole series. It is not perfect but does at least give a flavour of what actually happens at a parole hearing.
As far as I know, Dominic Raab has never actually observed a parole hearing. I know he has been invited to do so. ENDS
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Congratulations on your appointment by your colleagues as our Prime Minister. I listened to your speech earlier. You said your government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level. You also used the word compassion. 1/4
I note that you have reappointed Suella Braverman as Home Secretary. She resigned after 6 days for breaching her ministerial code. She also described the transportation of vulnerable asylum seekers as her dream. Why have you appointed her? Was it for her compassion and integrity?
I note that you have reappointed Dominic Raab as Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary. He refused to engage with the legal profession and perpetuated a crisis which his successor managed to improve within weeks. He has undermined the Parole Board & professionals in HMPPS.
Another day, another depressing report. This relates to people detained in prison under immigration powers (after prison sentences have ended). These are the headlines of this important report.
1. Many immigration detainees held in prisons for long periods despite minimal progress in their cases. There was little prospect of removal within a reasonable period for many & some stayed in prison after release was agreed in principle because of a lack of accommodation.
2. Detainees routinely encountered difficulties in obtaining legal representation for their immigration cases.
I wanted to share some details of a case my excellent colleague @Parole_Lawyer acted in. It illustrates quite how much effort and skill is often required to secure the release of an IPP prisoner. THREAD
Emma acted for an IPP prisoner who had found himself recalled for approaching 10 years following allegations which had been dropped. He maintained his innocence in relation to these allegations. Successive Parole Board Panels had continued to rely on these unproven allegations.
His frustration at being held back in this way had led to him losing hope in custody. He accrued numerous adjudications for non-violent rule breaking.
A Friday evening shout out for my brilliant @sl5legal colleague @legally_yasmin. Yasmin joined us in the summer. This is a short thread about Yasmin's recent achievements for her clients.
This has been one of the hardest periods I have known for people representing prisoners. Yasmin has risen to the challenges of a dealing with a succession of bewildering and infuriating ‘innovations' by the now departed Justice Secretary.
In the last fortnight Yasmin has had four notable successes. 1. She secured the release of a prisoner who had been recalled for the third time. It was a very difficult case which Yasmin prepared carefully and presented skilfully.
This morning's thread is about HMP Woodhill, a high security prison based near Milton Keynes. You may well find this distressing. I find it extremely distressing.
I have a client who has been at Woodhill for over three years. He is serving an IPP sentence. He expected to serve 4 years. He has served over 10 so far. He was moved to Woodhill to complete a programme which he was told he would start within a short time.
The programme which he has been told is essential for him to complete is still not running at Woodhill. He was told that initial problems were due to Covid. He has been told repeatedly that it will finally start this summer. This has proved to be untrue.
A thread this morning to illustrate the state of a particular prison. This one is HMP Swaleside, a large category B prison on the Isle of Sheppey in Kent. This thread focuses on visits.
Social visits are extremely important to prisoners and their families. Legal visits are essential if you are instructed to represent a prisoner in legal proceedings. Swaleside offers the same two hour slot for social and legal visits on three afternoons each week.
Swaleside is one of a tiny number of prisons which do not offer any videolink or phone conferencing for legal visits. This means that all legal visits must be in person. In many cases remote legal visits are satisfactory and appropriate.