HOW DO YOU DECIDE IF IT IS RIGHT TO RELEASE A KILLER LIKE PITCHFORK?
PAROLE BOARD IS EXPECTED TO RULE SOON ON THE CASE OF DOUBLE RAPIST AND MURDERER
COLIN Pitchfork may well feel he is counting down the days to freedom after serving more than 30 years in prison for raping and murdering schoolgirls Lynda Mann and Dawn Ashworth.
The 61-year-old, who killed the girls, both 15, in 1983 and 1986 respectively, can expect to learn soon whether the Parole Board accepts his contention he poses no threat to women and can therefore be safely released.
Plenty of people, not least the girls’ families and friends, have said repeatedly and passionately they believe the risk is too great and that he should remain behind bars for the rest of his life.
As the members of the parole panel – which includes psychiatrists and officials who have closely monitored Pitchfork in custody – weigh up the evidence, the body gave an insight into its methods in such cases.
While explicitly not commenting on Pitchfork, it explained how decisions are reached and what public protection measures are put in place when prisoners who have carried out the most wicked crimes are released back into the community.
Pitchfork raped and murdered Lynda in November 1983, leaving her body near the Black Pad footpath, in Narborough.
He took Dawn’s life in the same brutal fashion in July 1986, leaving her body in Ten Pound Lane, also in Narborough.
The community is still scarred by the crimes, the area’s MP, Alberto Costa, told the Mercury earlier this month.
More than 20,000 people have signed an online petition, set up by Lynda’s family, to call for his release to be blocked, while a further 7,000 signed a paper version.
SO, how do members of the panel reach their decisions and how do they address the awful possibility of someone they release going on to commit new crimes? “Parole Board decisions are solely focused on what risk a prisoner could represent to the public if released and whether that risk is manageable in the community,” a spokesman said.
“A panel will carefully examine a huge range of evidence, including details of the original crime, and any evidence of behaviour change, as well as explore the harm done and impact the crime has had on the victims.
“Members read and digest hundreds of of evidence and reports in the lead up to an oral hearing.
“Evidence from witnesses including probation officers, psychiatrists and psychologists, officials supervising the offender in prison, as well as victim personal statements are then given at the hearings.
“The prisoner and witnesses are then questioned at length during the hearing, which often lasts a full day.
“Parole reviews are undertaken thoroughly and with extreme care. Protecting the public is our number one priority.”
If Pitchfork is to be freed, a series of public protection measures will be put in place, including significant restrictions on his movement, the spokesman said.
For example, there is no suggestion he would be allowed anywhere near Leicestershire or to knowingly approach the girls’ relatives and it has been reported that he has been, or will be, given a new name.
The spokesman said: “The Parole Board will carefully examine and consider a wide variety of licence conditions as well as the wider release plan when considering whether an offender’s risk can be safely managed in the community.
“No prisoner will be released if it is deemed their risk management plan is not robust enough or licence conditions stringent enough to
No prisoner will be released if it is deemed their risk management plan is not robust enough
Parole Board
ensure they can be safely managed upon release.
“Victim engagement is a vital part of the parole process and we are committed to ensuring victims are kept fully informed about any updates and information regarding parole reviews.
“It is vital for the parole system that victims are kept notified of their rights to make victim personal statements and request licence conditions. “Licence conditions include a variety of rules by which an offender must abide or they can be recalled to prison immediately. “Some examples include an order to live at a specific address, electronic tagging, curfews and daily check-ins, exclusion zones which prohibit someone from entering a certain area, bans on contacting victims and other individuals of a certain age, restrictions on the use of electronic devices, polypages
graph testing, drug testing and removal of passport, to name a few.
“The board recognises the pain and anguish victims will go through when an offender is going through a parole review.
“As such, we absolutely welcome input from victims when deciding licence conditions and will consider any requests for additional conditions extremely carefully.”
On average, the Parole Board hears about 25,000 cases a year and, the spokesman said, one in four prisoners meet the release test.
Currently, the serious further offence rate is 0.5 per cent, he said.
Pitchfork, who has lost previous applications for full release, is currently in an open prison – the standard method of preparing a long-term prisoner for release back into the community.
A few years ago, he was photographed strolling around Bristol city centre, apparently unsupervised.
Mr Costa said: “Many are still deeply worried about the prospect of Pitchfork ever being released back into normal society.
“The Parole Board has a tremendously difficult decision to make here, especially in light of the recent circumstances and the discussions that are rightfully taking place with regard to violent acts committed against women.
“Questions must surely be raised as to how an individual such as Pitchfork can ever be released.”
The only real insight into Pitchfork’s life in prison was made public in May 2009 when his case was heard at the Court of Appeal, in London.
The hearing saw Pitchfork win a two-year reduction in the minimum term of 30 years he would serve before he could be considered for release.
He reached that point in 2016. At the 2009 hearing, three
appeal justices, led by the-then Lord Chief Justice, heard he was “a model prisoner” who had developed the skill of translating sheet music into braille for the Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB).
The three judges also said it was believed he had “sought to address” his motivation for killing Lynda and Dawn.
The-then Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Justice Judge, cut the minimum sentence, or tariff, by two years, but rejected the killer’s appeal for a further five-year reduction.
The judge stressed that Pitchfork should only be considered for release when he no longer posed a threat to public safety.
The murders led to the largest manhunt ever undertaken by Leicestershire Police and Pitchfork became the first criminal in the world to be trapped by the DNA profiling process pioneered by Sir Alec Jeffreys at the University of Leicester.