Live Parole Board Statement House of Commons

Next don't that is extraordinarily

considerate.

I would like to make a further

statement on the parole board

decision to release John Worboys. I

know the victims have suffered

considerable trauma. The prospect of

the release of this man is deeply

concerning to them, to members of

this House and to members of the

wider public. I believe I omit to

those victims and the public to

consider all the options open to me

as Secretary of State for Justice. I

took the step of seeking legal

advice from specialist leading

counsel to establish whether there

were grounds to challenge this

decision in the courts and to ask

the courts to stop the release of

Worboys before the decision was

reconsidered. Let me set out my

approach to judicial review in

general. There should not be a

challenge that has no reasonable

prospect of success. It is right

that public bodies can be held to

account for their actions through

due process of law and specifically

judicial review. There has been

significant public debate about the

possible basis for a legal challenge

in a case such as this. It has been

speculated that there are two

grounds open to me to challenge such

a decision. The decision was one

that nobody could reasonably have

taken, or that there were

considerable procedural failings in

the way that that decision was

taken. The bar for a judicial review

to succeed is very high. The test

for deciding if a decision is

unreasonable is not simply that the

decision maker, in this case the

parole board, could have made an

alternative decision, but that no

reasonable person would have come to

the same conclusion on the facts

upper case. Similarly, on procedure,

it would be necessary to identify

failing to follow that process by

the parole board that would have had

a material impact on the decision.

Having taken considered an expert

legal advice, I have decided that it

would not be appropriate for me as

Secretary of State to proceed with

such a case. Honourable members will

appreciate that I can go further and

expose details of the legal advice I

have been given. I know this will

disappoint the victims in this case

and members of this House. Given the

crimes for which he has been

convicted, on a personal level,

candidly, I share those concerns. I

have taken a close personal interest

in this case since assuming office

as the Secretary of State for

Justice. I believe it is important

that all the victims have clarity as

soon as possible, which is why I am

before the House today. I can

reassure the House and the public

that Worboys will not be released

until his licence conditions have

been finalised. I understand that

contact with victims has taken place

this week, and further meetings

about his release will take place

next week. This will have given

those victims the opportunity to

make representations to the parole

board as to the conditions to which

Worboys should be subject on

release. Let me be absolutely clear,

Worboys will not be released until

their representations have been

properly considered and his licence

conditions are in place. Indeed,

last week, I asked for assurances

that the views of victims were being

taken into account and that robust

licensing conditions would be put in

place to manage his risk. I am aware

that some third parties have

indicated that they are seeking to

bring legal proceedings themselves,

and that correspondence has been

served on me as Secretary of State

as a potential interested party to

any litigation. I fully support the

right of victims to take their own

legal advice and to challenge the

decision. The approach I'm taking

does not mean that others who may

have significant interest in the

case are precluded from taking

action. Each case depends on the

circumstances of each individual

ringing a claim. And that is one of

the reason I do not intend to save

more on this matter. I would not

want to prejudice any legal

challenges by commenting further on

the facts of the particular case or

the legal advice I have received. I

will be taking advice on how my

department should consequently

engage in any proceedings, but it

would not be appropriate to comment

further at this stage. It is vitally

important that the public and

victims have confidence in the

justice system that is there to

serve them. This case has exposed

some issues with the parole process

as a whole. I have already indicated

that aspects of the parole process

more generally should be examined.

In my statement on the 9th of

January, I said my department would

review the case for transparency in

the review parole board decisions,

how victims are communicated with,

and how they are appropriately

engaged in that process. I now

believe that review should go

further. I have therefore expanded

the terms of reference of the review

to consider guidance in practice on

parole board decision making. I have

published these today and have

placed a copy in the catlike house

library. I have expanded the review

to consider whether there should be

a mechanism to allow parole

decisions to be reconsidered, and

how that might best be achieved

whilst retaining the independence of

the decision-making process. This

review remains a priority for me and

the Government. Despite the

significant expansion of the terms

of reference, I intend to complete

that review before Easter. I also

acknowledge the concerns that the

victim contact scheme operated by

the National probation service may

not have worked as well as it should

have in this particular case. It is

right that as well as looking at the

process around parole decisions for

all cases that we consider whether

existing processes were followed in

this instance. I have therefore ask

Dame Glenna Stacey, Her Majesty's

Chief Inspector of probation, to

conduct a rapid fact-finding

exercise to find out whether the

existing processes, policies and so

forth were adequately followed by

the parole board in this case. Her

findings will inform the wider

review. Mr Speaker, as I have said,

I know members of the House are

concerned about this case and how we

deal with the release of offenders.

I hope this has reassured all

members of the thorough and careful

consideration I have made this

difficult case, and that we are now

giving serious and urgent

consideration to ways in which the

process can be improved that

reassures not only the victims of

these terrible crimes but the wider

public.

Thank you very much, Mr

Speaker. I thank the Secretary of

State for prior sight of his

statement. Two weeks ago it was

announced that John Worboys would be

released from prison. In those two

weeks, it has been absolutely clear,

the victims of the vile crimes

committed by Worboys feel that our

criminal justice as has let them

down. Our system must ensure that it

has the victims of crime at its

core. When it fails to do so, it

affects not just the direct victims

themselves but risks undermining

wider public trust in our justice

system. As Labour has reiterated

since the news of the release of

John Worboys was announced, it is

important that the Secretary of

State does everything in his

power... Many will be disappointed

by today's news. It is understood

that legal advice can't be shared,

and the minister does not want to

prejudice other cases being brought.

But today's news makes the need for

changes in the parole board even

more pressing. The current rules

permit either the Secretary of State

for victims to bring judicial

review. Many will have seen that

they are doing and that they have

attracted much public support for

their fundraising for this. Judicial

review is a key tool for every

citizen to be able to challenge

unjust or unlawful decisions by the

state or other public bodies. Cuts

to legal aid have undermined the

ability of many to pursue judicial

review. I would request that the

Government today use its review into

this to see how it can support

judicial review. Any judicial review

would look at whether the parole

board decision was taken properly.

If not, it would go back to the

parole board to look at this again.

As it stands, the current rules mean

that we would not know the reasons

for any subsequent parole board

decision. As we have repeatedly said

on the side of the Us, there is no

need to debate whether there is a

case for greater transparency. It

should be a practical review that

looks at how to ensure the public is

informed of the reasons behind

parole board decisions. Just as the

public is clear about court

judgments, it needs to beat able to

be clear about decisions of the

parole board. Greater transparency

has widespread support, so we

welcome the widening of the review

announced today, and especially a

mechanism to allow parole board

decisions to be reconsidered whilst

retaining its independence. People

were shocked that some of the

victims found out about the decision

of the release of Mr Worboys through

the media. Labour has said from the

outset that it is totally

unacceptable and very concerning

that someone not given the

opportunity to participate in the

parole board hearing, as is their

right. The victim contact scheme is

responsible for informing victims of

significant changes in the case,

including parole board hearing. This

is managed by the National probation

service, which has experienced

significant difficulties, especially

case overload, since the reform to

probation services in 2014. Labour

had called in this House for the

Government to look into the failings

in the MPS and victim contact

scheme, so it is a step forward that

the minister has now asked Dame

Glenys Stacey to conduct a

fact-finding exercise into the role

of the MPS. He needs to also ensure

that this answers the questions

being asked on whether his

Government's wholly negative changes

to the probation service contributed

to failings, and how he plans to

address them. It is clear that

concerns are not limited to the

decisions or indeed the functioning

of the parole board. Labour has

repeatedly stated that the Worboys

case raises so many serious

questions that anything less than an

independent end to end review of the

handling of the case from the first

report to the police of an attack

right through to the parole board

hearing would let down the victims

and the wider public. Labour has

repeatedly called for this wider

enquiry but it is not clear why the

Secretary of State for Justice has

repeatedly refused this demand. It

is reasonable and rational, and it

would help build public trust. I

hope that he would take this

opportunity to reassure this House

that he will undertake this end to

end review.

Can I thank the

honourable gentleman for his

questions. In the context of wanting

to ensure that the victims' position

is supported, I think he was right

to focus on the areas he did. And

I'm grateful for his not pressing

need further on the facts or legal

advice. In terms of the matter is

that he raised, it is right that the

victims are treated with concern,

with sympathy, and that all due

processes are followed. In terms of

this particular case, I think we

need to have a proper understanding

of precisely what happened and

whether the support was provided in

the way that it should have been.

That's why I'm pleased that Dave is

-- Dame Glenys Stacey is undertaking

a fact-finding mission. I understand

the need for greater transparency in

parole board decisions. I know that

one of the things that frustrates

victims is the sense that they don't

get to know what is happening and

the reasons why the parole board has

reached the decision that it has

reached. Equally, I think it can be

a frustration for the parole board

that they are not able to articulate

the reasons why they have reached a

particular decision. I share that in

sick. I think we need to look

carefully at this, but I think we

need to move swiftly on this matter,

which is what I intend to do. In

terms of an end to end review, my

focus has been on these issues

transparency and victim support. I

think they are the immediate issues

in front of us. I recognise that

there is a debate about the original

investigation. There is a debate

about how these IPP sentences

operated, though they have been

abolished. It is important to focus

in terms of our reviews on how these

matters are dealt with, as a

priority.

It is very clear, Mr

Speaker, and may I wish you a happy

birthday, that my right honourable

friend the Lord Chancellor has

applied himself to what is a very

serious and troubling case with the

greatest scrupulousness and care,

and he is to be commended for having

applied a difficult legal test of

what is ultimately a legal decision.

Will he agree a political decision

that could be made as soon as

possible is to change the parole

Board balls to the them to give

reasons for their decisions

Krachunov Parole Board rules. And

will be a great reassurance to

victim is and the public.

That is a good point. It is right

that we fully understand the full

implications of greater transparency

within the Parole Board. It is not

my desire we find a position whereby

as a matter of course offenders,

where the Parole Board is taking a

particular firm line because on the

evidence somebody should not be

released, but we need to understand

the full implications.

There is a case for much better

transparency.

Can I welcome this statement and the

decision to widen the remit of the

review. Has he be informed if the

CPS and police are reviewing the

other serious allegations against

John Warboys and if there is any

chance of further chances being

brought against him before he is

released? This is the question

victim want answered.

-- victim is. That is a matter for

the CPS and Metropolitan Police and

I don't think there is anything I

can say to inform the House on that.

I should declare during my 17 years

in the Treasury Solicitor Department

I acted for the Secretary of State

and Parole Board and sometimes both

together.

I commend this detailed work on this

case and would ask him to reassure

us not only will the views of

statutory victim is be taken into

account but the wider group of

victim is known to the authorities.

There are different systems in place

for the statutory victim is versus

others but in this case where there

are a large number of people who are

victim is but not in respect of the

fit Coates convictions that John

Warboys had, we need to ensure the

system works them as well.

Following his previous statement

this month, I raised the importance

of competence in our justice system

and my fear is the decision not to

judicially review this will not give

reassurance. He has talked about

greater transparency but I want to

press him on the point the

honourable member for Bromley has

made, will he commit to changing the

statutory balls so decisions are

open not just in this case but

future cases?

-- statutory rules. The intention is

to look at increasing transparency.

I will come back to the House with

more detailed proposals.

Can I urge

him to write to the CPS and ask them

to undertake a review. It may be the

public interest test was not

satisfied because there was an

indeterminate sentence and the

change in circumstances may mean

that test is now satisfied the cases

that were not prosecuted.

Could he give that undertaking?

In

terms of accountability for

decisions on prosecutions, that is

not an area which is under my

responsibility. But I very much

understand and sympathise with the

point made, and I know this is an

issue which the Attorney General is

focused.

Will he be looking at how the CPS

and police deal with cases where

there are, where it comes to light

their further victims in cases of

serious like this? John Warboys was

convicted of sexual assaults on 12

women but there are over 85 others

who came forward afterwards and that

needs to be looked at for similar

events where that might occur.

This is a fair point on the record.

I refer to my earlier answer.

Clearly in terms of whether there is

a public interest case to bring

further prosecutions, no doubt that

is something both the police and CPS

will want to consider.

It is essential we recognise and

respect the independence of our

legal system but also recognised the

public are disappointed and angry

with the Parole Board decision. Does

he agree by opening up the decisions

and making them more transparent,

even if the public still disagree,

they will have an understanding how

that decision was reached?

That is a very good point. The

direction that as a society we have

gone in has generally been towards

greater transparency. As Professor

Nick Hardwick who was one of the

first to make this point, there is a

case in this context of the Parole

Board as well.

Whilst we understand the desire not

to prejudice possible actions, in

his previous letter in January a

public letter, he states the victims

were not contacted until October. He

knows the concern it is not just

about updating them but involving

them in decisions. Can he give an

assurance participation will be

looked at and he will publish the

date when contact was made?

This is what will be investigated

and I have no doubt it will be made

public in her conclusions. It is

important victims are involved. In

this case, they are involved in

terms of making representations on

licensing conditions. It is

appropriate due weight is given to

this.

My constituents believe the best way

to protect the public is for violent

offenders to be kept behind bars and

they take the honourable view if an

offender is sentenced to a term of

imprisonment they should serve that

in prison in full before being

released.

Given this is a statement about the

transparency of the Parole Board

decisions, who and how is held to

account in the Parole Board if those

released early reoffend?

In terms of the numbers of

re-offences, those numbers are put

into the public domain. That is one

of the tests of the effectiveness of

the Parole Board. It is clearly a

priority for all of us that people

who are dangerous are not released.

The test for a Parole Board in the

context of one of these IAPP

business is an assessment of their

risk to the public.

The Shadow Minister is right, this

case raises wider issues from the

offence being committed to the

process of parole. Can he tell us

when he will bring forward the Bill

promised in 2015?

What I can say is I am receiving

advice on what we can do to make

progress on this matter. I hope to

update the House in due course. I

agree victims the vitally important

in the system.

Thank you for the detailed

estimation for the decision. I

welcome his comments on further

transparency which will increase

public confidence and the confidence

of victims in the system. How soon

does he anticipate changes can be

made?

The review even though it has been

broadened and we are looking more

widely not just at transparency but

whether there should be opportunity

for the Parole Board to look again

at decisions, that review will

report by Easter, depending on what

it recommends will determine the

timing but I am keen to make

progress as quickly as possible.

Can I welcome the extension of the

review announced today but I do

think there are serious questions

about the way police and the CPS

operated in this. I don't think it

is satisfactory to leave it to the

police and CPS.

There is a Home Office minister

that, I want to know what the Home

Office and Attorney General office

under -- Are doing to look at the

early stages as to whether this man

should be charged with further

offences?

I know the Home Secretary and

Attorney General had been very

focused on this case. What I would

say is my focus has been on the

immediate issues and that does

relate to the consideration of

judicial review but also issues of

transparency and support for victim

is. Of course, there are questions

that do need to be asked about how

the system which this Government has

abolished, how that operated in

terms of whether it met the test of

honesty and sentencing.

That is for another day.

Recognising

the importance of the independence

of the judiciary but considering in

this case the crimes, the victims

public concern, can he assured he

has looked into all the options in

this case?

Yes, I can give that assurance and

without dwelling on the details of

the reasons I have set out before,

given very long, close and serious

consideration to my options.

He is rightly concentrating on the

issue of transparency in his remarks

but he referred to the fact there

are some victims court in legal

proceedings because legal aid has

been severely restricted. Would he

please look again at the

availability of civil legal aid for

judicial review?

In the context of legal aid

generally she will be aware there is

currently a review on that.

It is reassuring the Lord Chancellor

despite only being imposed a short

time has sought to get behind the

Viktor of this terrible case. Can I

push him on the point about legal

aid. He mentioned he supports the

rights of the victim is to pursue

their own case. Will there be

discretion from the legal aid agency

to provide funding for them to do

so?

First, in terms of the action

brought, that may be brought by

victims on this, I want to be

careful in my remarks.

Just because I am not taking action

does not mean others cannot because

these legal cases can depend upon

precisely what the position they are

in. It is the case legal aid

generally remains available for

advice, assistance and

representation in relation to

judicial review. And that would

include decisions of the Parole

Board where there is sufficient

benefit to the individual.

We all respect the independence of

the judiciary but there needs to

come transparency.

Will he agreed the outcome of this

review must be greater transparency

in terms of Parole Board decisions?

Is

I'm grateful to my honourable

friend for his question. The

direction we are moving in this

towards greater transparency. There

are some details we need to master

and fully understand, but I think

the direction of travel is clear.

Can I welcome the extended review

which the Justice Secretary just

announced. But would he confirmed to

the House that it will include a

very detailed assessment of the

decision-making processes that the

parole board go through, with

particular reference to expert

reports from people like Doctor

Jackie Chrissie Arty in this case,

which are at the heart of these

decisions, to make sure that they

are suitable to give the expert

advice that they give?

Clearly, this

is going to be a broad review in

terms of how the parole board works.

So, clearly, in terms of considering

how it operates, the importance of

particular expert evidence is going

to be part of that process.

I also

might welcome the Lord Chancellor's

statement and the decision to expand

the review. He will of course be

aware that this is not the first

such case, and I would just to his

attention the case of a serial child

exploitation offender released after

a 20 year sentence only five years

after his trial. His victims felt

the victim contact scheme let them

down. Will he consider this case as

part of his expanded review?

In

terms of generally looking at how

the victim contact scheme works, I

would certainly be interested to

receive more information from my

honourable friend, but certainly, if

there are other examples where

questions have been raised, then

that is clearly something the review

will need to take into account.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. On that same

note, I welcome the Secretary of

State's response to what is a

sensitive and emotive issue. It

highlights that they need to listen

to victims is so important. Could

the Minister give assurances that

this will be looked at? Is it fit

for purpose? And was it adequately

followed by the parole board?

In

terms of how the victim contact

scheme worked in this particular

case, you know, frankly, there

are... There are different views

that have been put to me. There is

conflicting evidence, and that is

why I think it is absolutely right

that we have that review by Dame

Glenys Stacey, so that we can

properly understand what happens

here, and therefore what lessons can

be learned from it.

I welcome the

Justice Secretary's commitment to a

broader review and appreciate that

he has set himself a pretty

aggressive timeline for this, so if

the end result is generally going to

be better reflection of the views of

victims, can he assure me that the

review itself will engage the

victims?

Yes, I think it is

absolutely essential that victims

are engaged in this process.

I think

that all members across this House

recognise and appreciate my right

honourable friend's candour with the

house, but for the sake of all

victims, will he make sure that all

appropriate and measured steps are

taken to make sure he's never put in

this position again?

I think the

most important thing is not my

position but the position of

victims, and clearly, we need to

ensure that victims have a system

which they have faith in. Sometimes

these can be difficult challenges in

terms of making sure that where

there are large numbers of victims,

that their voices properly heard.

Victims, I think, are entitled to

have their voices heard, and we have

to make sure we have a system that

works for them.

I am most grateful

to the Secretary of State for the

statement and two colleagues for

the... The house will now returned

to the homes fitness for habitation

bill.