A Parole Board should scrutinise ever more anxiously whether the level of risk is unacceptable on considering the release of a prisoner, the longer the time the prisoner has spent in prison following the expiry of his tariff. The Board had to carry out a ‘balancing exercise’ between two interests, that of the prisoner and that of the public. The PB had to decide whether there was more than a perceptible or minimal risk that the prisoner might commit further serious offences of violence. The court said that the PB panel also had to have in mind all material considerations, which would include the ‘intrinsic and increasing unfairness of leaving the prisoner languishing in gaol, ex hypothesi for longer than punishment requires, unless there is sufficient public risk to justify this’.
Citations:
[1991] 1 WLR 134, [1990] COD 375, [1990] 3 All ER 828
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Sturnham, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board of England and Wales and Another (No 2) SC 3-Jul-2013
From 4 April 2005 until 3 December 2012, English law provided for the imposition of sentences of imprisonment for public protection (‘IPP’). The Court addressed the practical and legal issues resulting from the new system.
Held: The decision . .
Cited – Osborn v The Parole Board SC 9-Oct-2013
Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing, Prisons
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.534295
