Pitchfork case ‘proves parole board needs reform’

Double killer’s recall to prison shows that tougher assessments needed, says former justice secretary

THE parole board should be renamed to refocus it on protecting the public after the recall to jail of released double child murderer Colin Pitchfork for “concerning behaviour”, according to the former justice secretary.

Robert Buckland, who set up a rootand-branch review of the board and opposed Pitchfork’s release when he was in the post, said its should become the “public protection board” and follow tougher rules when assessing the risk freed criminals post to the community. In an article for The Sunday Telegraph’s website, he said the change of name would “convey a much clearer idea as to the board’s proper role and function”.

Pitchfork, 61, was jailed for life in 1988 for raping and murdering Lynda Mann, 15, in 1983 and Dawn Ashworth, also 15, in 1986 in Leicestershire and ordered to serve a minimum of 30 years. But he was released in September when a legal challenge by Mr Buckland failed to keep him behind bars.

Mr Buckland said the current test was whether the board was satisfied that it was “no longer necessary for the protection of the public” for a convicted criminal be kept in jail, but this could mean the offender could still be released even if it was “safer” to keep them behind bars.

“The test means that nothing short of necessity will do. In other words, whilst it might on balance be safer for the offender to stay inside, that won’t be enough to prevent their release,” Mr Buckland said.

“I would urge ministers to come up with an alternative that, in essence, allows the board to focus in each case as to how the protection of the public can best be maintained.

“There will still be many cases where release on licence does allow this, but our aim should be to avoid the revolving door of release and then recall, as in Pitchfork’s case, with resultant damage to the system’s reputation.”

Pitchfork had been subject to the strictest licensing conditions imposed on an offender in modern UK history. He is understood to have breached one of nearly 40 rules – but the Ministry of Justice said he had not reoffended or compromised public protection.

“To see him returned to custody as a result of good work by experienced probation officers applying some of the toughest licence conditions ever seen in this country gives me cause to say that my concerns were justified,” said Mr Buckland.

Now, he said, there needed to be greater transparency in the board‘s decision making including, the opening up of its deliberations to the public.

“The presumption that Parole Board hearings should always be held in private should be abolished.

“With remote technology, access for those with a direct interest, the public and the media can be achieved,” said Mr Buckland, who also recommended that the board should be required to publish “fuller reasons” for its decisions.

“If we are to increase public understanding of and confidence in the system, openness should be the norm.

“We owe these changes not only to the families of Pitchfork’s victims who have been through unimaginable hell, but to the wider public too,” said Mr Buckland.

Ministry of Justice sources have indicated that Pitchfork, whose appeal to the board for release was his third in five years, will remain in jail for many years.

‘I would urge ministers to come up with an alternative that, in essence, allows the board to focus in each case as to how the protection of the public can best be maintained’