Let
me paint you a little picture of part of the justice system. Perhaps
one of the most difficult parts - the assessment and release of Life
sentence prisoners. More precisely, murderers.
Each
Life sentence is divided into two parts. The first is the retribution
and deterrence part, the punishment for the crime. We call this the
Tariff. Post tariff is the second part of the sentence, where the
Lifer continues to be detained until it can be established that he or
she poses no more than a minimal risk to life and limb. Essentially,
when he's judged to be safe to release. Tariffs can range from months
to a whole lifetime, depending on the crime and the behaviour of the
Lifer.
All
so simple so far. Let's look at HOW the release and assessment
process works. Firstly, the Lifer isn't told his tariff. He has no
idea how long he is intended to serve. As the tariff expiry
approaches, the interviews by prison staff begin. Everyone from the
guy who unlocks your door to the Governor, taking in the Chaplain,
education staff, and psychiatrists along the way. EVERYONE gets a
say. They interview the Lifer endlessly and write their reports for
the Parole Board.
Here's
the interesting bit - the Lifer is not shown these reports. He has no
idea what's being said about him. He has no way of checking or
correcting anything he may dispute. The Lifer can make
representations but he doesn't know what he's arguing against. These
reports then go off to the Parole Board.
The
Parole Board then looks at these reports and judges the Lifer against
the release criteria - being no more than a minimal risk to life or
limb. It then makes its decision. Release, or not to release. If not
to release, the Board notes its concerns and the issues the Lifer
needs to address before being released. The Board also sets the next
review date, which may be a decade ahead.
Here's
that interesting bit again - The Lifer isn't shown the Parole Board's
answer. He is told “You aren't being released, come back in X
years. Now off you go.” That's it. He has no clue whatever what the
issues are preventing his release, has no idea what he needs to do to
get released. This was called “Mushroom Management” - kept in the
dark and fed on shit.
If
the Parole Board does opt for release, this can then be stopped by a
politician. The Justice Minister can overrule everything the
specialists have assessed and substitute his own opinion. And as
always, the Lifer Wasn't told why and left to blunder along in blind
hope.
Would
anyone call such a system fair and reasonable? When the Lifer is told
nothing and can't argue against anything, can't defend himself
against any wild claims made in staff reports? And to then have
release blocked by a politician on equally secret grounds?
Well,
the British courts were more than happy to uphold this system. They
had no problems with it at all, at times tying themselves in
ridiculous knots to defend it.
Which
is where we get the European Court of Human Rights stepping in.
The
ECHR stated what should be the bleeding obvious - that no, a secret
system where you cant see what's being said against you isn't fair
and just. And having politicians decide release was just absurd - no
one should be detained for political purposes, a judicial body should
control release, not a vote grabber. What supporter of the rule of
law could argue against this?
The
system above is, dear reader, history. It was the situation up to the
early 1990s, when the ECHR rulings led to a new system. Reports were
open - Lifers got to see every word written about them and be able to
make informed representations. Release was decided by a three person
Panel headed by a High Court Judge. The Minister had a representative
there to give their views to the Panel. To all involved in these
matters, it was universally accepted to be a better way. Even if it
did put the brakes on prison staff's imaginative abuse in previously
secret reports…
This
system worked pretty well for the last 30 years. Public safety was
upheld whilst a transparent due process was enforced. The rate of
Lifers reoffending did not increase one iota. What's not to like?
Well,
2023 saw some opposition. Not based on any rational grounds. Tory
politicians began grumbling that Lifers were being released that the
public didn't want to be released. They want none released,
obviously. This is a regular moan and can be dealt with by pointing
to the Parole Board and saying “nothing to do with me, it's the
law”.
This
recent grumbling has been given an extra impetus - poor electoral
prospects for the Tories. In their usual electoral spasms, they
retreat to the high hill of “law and order” and start bewailing
that everything is too soft, too short, too easy - the whine of
politicians at every election in my lifetime.
Not
that politicians were rendered completely useless under the new
system. The Minister was represented at parole Panels. He had his
say. And the Minister always has the ability to challenge the Parole
Board in court if they thought their decision was manifestly
irrational and have their decisions overturned. They never used this
power.
Now,
the Tories want to roll back time. They want the Minister to have the
final say on release. They want to be able to override the
considerations of the Parole Board and substitute their own views.
These views are not constrained by the “life and limb” test. No,
this schema abandons rationality completely. The Minister's criteria
for release is “Will this lose me votes?”
No
one should be detained in prison for political ends. No one's release
should be a gamble based on electoral concerns. People's imprisonment
should not be based on vote-grubbing and the whims of a politician.
This is a return to mob rule - from the party that claims to be one
of law and order. Lifers should be released when they have served
their punishment and judged to be safe to release. Not based on the
Minister's mood of the day.
While
a politician grubbing for votes is hardly novel, electoral fear seems
to have paralysed the political minds. As it stands, the release of
the most serious criminals rests with the Parole Board. Ministers
have a buffer against popular outrage at release decisions, being
able to say “Nuffink to do with me Guv, it's the Parole Board.”
In taking the release decision from the Board and back to the
Ministry is to put a perpetual albatross around the political neck,
THEY will now be directly responsible. This is a level of political
idiocy that only the Ministry of Justice can think is a genius plan.
Politicians
getting involved in release decisions undermines the rule of law.
Which for the party of law and order is doubly deplorable. Add that
to short term political panic and it's a recipe for gross injustice.