A continued denial of guilt alone is not sufficient to deny prisoner parole. ‘We consider that the Parole Board must approach its consideration of any application for parole on the basis that the Applicant has committed the offences of which he has been convicted. It is not the function of the Parole Board to investigate possible miscarriages of justice or to give effect in their considerations to any personal misgivings they may have about the correctness of any particular conviction.’ and ‘Thus, it is said that whilst the Parole Board certainly take the completion of a course of treatment as a positive factor in favour of any Applicant, the failure to complete such a course because of the denial of the commission of the offence leading to imprisonment should not be taken as a negative factor. In our judgment, this submission over simplifies the position.’ and ‘That being so, where the pattern of offending behaviour is such that there is a significant risk of a further offence being committed, particularly an offence of a violent or a sexual nature, and an applicant does not demonstrate by his conduct in prison that such risk has been reduced to acceptable level, then a recommendation for parole is unlikely to be made. The conduct in prison to which a panel of the Parole Board will inevitably and rightly look, will be the extent to which the applicant has examined the behaviour which has led to his imprisonment. Where, because of denial that the offence has been committed, no such examination has taken place, it will be more difficult for an applicant to satisfy the Board that the risk he posed when he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment has been reduced to an acceptable level. We repeat in emphasis that each case must turn on its own particular facts.’
Judges:
Mr Justice Butterfield
Citations:
Times 13-Dec-1996, [1996] EWHC Admin 281
Links:
Cited by:
Applied – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Zulfikar Admn 18-Feb-1997
The applicant sought leave to present an applicant for judicial review. He had wanted parole, but the parole board considered that his continued denial of guilt meant that he was unwilling to address the causes of his offending.
Held: The . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Hepworth, Fenton-Palmer and Baldonzy and Regina v Parole Board ex parte Winfield Admn 25-Mar-1997
The applicants for judicial review had each been convicted and sentenced for sex offences. Each maintained his innocence, and now complained that that fact had prejudiced decisions as to early release on parole and as to their categorisation.
Cited – Regina v Parole Board ex parte Zulfikar CA 28-Apr-1997
The applicant appealed refusal of leave to apply for judicial review of a refusal of parole. He denied his guilt of the offence, and complained it had improperly affected the decision.
Held: Since the decision appealed, the court had, in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing, Prisons
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136829
