I recently wrote about changes to the Parole Board rules concerning the evidence it can receive from witnesses on behalf of the prison and probation service.
Following an appeal to my freedom of information act request for all the relevant information issued to prison and probation staff, I have now received the document referred to in the High Court’s interim decision in Bailey.
I have been advised that it was not provided to me earlier due to an administrative error.
You can read the guidance here – it is called Changes to the open test for Indeterminate Sentence Prisoners (ISPs) and changes to recommendations in parole reports, oral hearings and recall reports Parts B and C.
Despite the reference in the Bailey case and the concerns about the lawfulness of its content, the response to my correspondence confirms that this is “the guidance to which staff are continuing to work.”
It was of this guidance that the Court in Bailey said:
“The guidance does not arise as part of a manifesto pledge and so cannot obviously be seen as having a democratic mandate. The rationale for it is in my view not clear. It does not appear in the root and branch and review and for the reason I have given it appears to go beyond the scope of the amended rules.” (paragraph 41)
Readers might wish to compare and contrast the approach here with the guidance issued by the Parole Board to its members, obtained by the Prison Reform Trust under the Freedom of Information Act.