A reply to the Parole Board - the parole deal is not a ‘myth’ *

Michael Naughton

An announcement on the Parole Board’s website states that: ‘A myth has grown up that unless a prisoner admits and expresses remorse for the crime that they have been sentenced for, they will not get parole. This is not true.’ In support of their argument, the Parole Board list five points that they say disprove the existence of the parole deal. In this short article, I consider each of the Parole Board’s points in turn and show that they do not disprove the parole deal they actually prove that prisoners who maintain their innocence and refuse to go on offending behaviour programmes are less likely to be released.

First, the Parole Board acknowledge that it would be unlawful to refuse parole solely on the grounds of denial of guilt or not being able to take part in offending behaviour programmes which focus on the crime committed. In the same breath, however, they state that despite this: ‘The Board is bound to take account not only of the offence, and the circumstances in which it was committed, but the circumstances and behaviour of the individual prisoner before and during the sentence.’

This entirely undermines any notion that the Parole Board takes seriously the existence of innocent prisoners. It gives hope to prisoners maintaining innocence that they have an equal chance in law of achieving freedom with prisoners who were guilty of the offences for which they were convicted. It, then, demolishes that hope by insisting that they must take account not only of the offence for which they were wrongly convicted but, also, their behaviour during their sentence.

Second, the Parole Board argue that ‘it is important to understand that the Board is not entitled to “go behind” the conviction and overrule the decision of a judge or jury. This is because ‘the Board’s remit extends only to the assessment of risk, and the bottom line is always the safety of the public.’

I do not know of anyone who would expect the Parole Board to overrule the decisions of the courts. That would be a truly bizarre situation. But, the way in which they hide behind their organisational remit and refuse to acknowledge the reality of innocent prisoners cannot be justified. The courts are not infallible. Wrongful imprisonment can, and does, occur, not only for crimes that innocent men and women did not, in fact, commit, but, also, for crimes that did not, even, occur. This fact has been proven in dozens of high profile cases that have been overturned in the Court of Appeal – Stephen Downing, Robert Brown, Sally Clark, Sheila Bowler, Patrick Nichols, Kevin Callan, and so on.

Third, the Parole Board report that ‘the figures for 2003 show that in 24% of cases where prisoners maintained their innocence, parole was granted. This compares with 51% of all applications granted. This shows, according to the Parole Board, that the belief that “if you don’t admit the crime, you don’t get parole” is patently untrue.’

The problem with the statistics presented is that whilst they do show that some innocent prisoners achieve a parole licence, at the same time they actually emphasise that prisoners who maintain their innocence are less likely to achieve parole – they have half as much chance. This does not dispel the ‘parole deal’ it proves it!

Fourth, the Parole Board employs a particularly perverse logic. They say that their ‘core task of assessing the risk of future harm to the public is often made more difficult when dealing with those who deny guilt. This is because there may simply be less information to go on, particularly where the prisoner has not been able to undertake any relevant offending behaviour work. Detailed reports of a wide range of offending behaviour programmes are a key source of information for Board members in working out how a prisoner operates and copes with life and therefore what the risk to the public of a future offence might be.’

This shifts the focus of why prisoners who maintain their innocence are less likely to be recommended for parole to the victims of wrongful imprisonment themselves. It blames them for their own failure to comply with the needs of the Board and undertake relevant offending behaviour courses and provide the detailed information to assist Board members in their deliberations. This brings the parole deal into clear view and puts prisoners who maintain their innocence in an impossible catch-22 position. The only realistic way of achieving release is to acknowledge that they are murderers or rapists or sex abusers and work with prison staff on that aspect of their behaviour, even if they are not.

Finally, the Parole Board rely on further statistical evidence in the form of a breakdown of 50 release cases recommended by the Board. ‘The fifty were all serving mandatory life sentences for murder. Of these, nine had maintained their innocence in whole or in part throughout their sentence.’

Again, this reference to statistics only serves to further strengthen the concern that prisoners who maintain their innocence are at a disadvantage in terms of Parole Board decisions. This is because the survey cited decreases the statistical average from 24% of successful applicants to the Parole Board in 2003 who maintained their innocence to a maximum of 18% of the mandatory life prisoners surveyed.

This figure is decreased still further when it is taken into account that an unknown of the 18% referred to did not maintain their innocence for the whole of their sentences, but only part of it. As a final insight into the mind-set of the Parole Board, it is interesting to note that the majority of the mandatory lifers who were recommended for parole, whether or not they maintained their innocence, had conceded their guilt and undertaken offending behaviour courses. This leaves us none the wiser and raises the crucial question: How many of the 9 mandatory lifers who the Parole Board recommended should be released did maintain their innocence for the whole of their sentences and did not attend offending behaviour programmes?

Whatever the Parole Board might say, then, they have not provided any evidence to support the claim that the parole deal is a ‘myth’. On the contrary, the evidence that they put forward actually proves that the parole deal does exist. Prisoners who maintain their innocence and are unable to take part in offending behaviour programmes because they have no offending behaviour to confront are less likely to be considered for parole than offenders who admit their guilt and comply with the requirements of the prison and parole regimes.

March 2004

*First published in Inside Time, June 2004.  United Against Injustice is grateful to Inside Time for permission to reproduce this article.