A high court judge has ruled that the Parole Board lacks “objective independence”. It comes after justice secretary David Gauke reportedly pressured former Parole Board chairman Prof Nick Hardwick to resign. And the ruling reveals tensions between parliament and the judicial system.
Hardwick quit on 27 March following months of controversy over the Parole Board’s decision to release serial rapist John Worboys from prison. Worboys was given a now-abolished imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentence with a minimum term of eight years. When the Parole Board decided to release him in January, he’d served nearly nine years.
A focal point for anger was an apparent failure to inform some of Worboys’ victims of his impending release. Gauke declined calls for a judicial review into the decision. This resulted in two of Worboys’ victims bringing an ultimately successful judicial review of their own. In the lead up to the review’s conclusion, Gauke told Hardwick that his position as chair was “untenable”. Speaking to the Guardian, Hardwick said:
In the end, it was not possible to remain if the justice secretary is saying you’ve got to go. So I said, all right then.
Hardwick publicly disagreed with Gauke’s actions from the outset. On 29 March, he spoke [paywall] to Radio 4 saying Gauke should “accept responsibility for the mistakes he made”. And Hardwick extensively detailed his frustrations in an interview with Byline, published 27 April. But the recent judgement by Justice Mostyn came from a challenge launched by another IPP prisoner.
IPP sentences are indeterminate, meaning they have a minimum term called a ‘tariff’ but not a maximum term. Once an IPP prisoner’s tariff has been reached, they must convince the Parole Board they’re safe for release. But the process is difficult, leading to thousands of people remaining in prison years beyond their tariff.
Paul Wakenshaw was sentenced for armed robbery and handed an IPP sentence with a six year tariff in October 2009. Today he is facing a Parole Board review for release. But his lawyers claimed the Worboys controversy exposed a lack of independence by the Parole Board and therefore Wakenshaw’s review wouldn’t be fair. So they took the case to the Royal Courts of Justice.
Justice Mostyn’s decision is highly critical of Gauke. The judgement, published 7 August, explains the role of the Parole Board as one of a “quasi-judicial body” and must therefore receive “complete objective independence”. And Justice Mostyn goes on to say:
In my judgment it is not acceptable for the Secretary of State to pressurise the Chair of the Parole Board to resign because he is dissatisfied with the latter’s conduct. This breaches the principle of judicial independence enshrined in the Act of Settlement 1701.
Since his resignation, Hardwick has been vocal about Gauke’s meddling. Speaking to Byline, he describes the justice secretary’s actions as “calculated realpolitik”. Gauke had become justice secretary in the 8 January cabinet reshuffle, just days after the Worboys controversy erupted. And Hardwick suggests that Gauke’s actions were because it was his own position, not Hardwick’s, that was untenable following Gauke’s failure to pursue a judicial review.
Thousands of IPP prisoners remain in prison beyond their original sentence and many are several times over their tariff. Worboys and Wakenshaw were handed IPP sentences for serious, violent crimes. But many IPP prisoners were jailed for minor crimes. As chair of the Parole Board, Hardwick was a strong advocate for speeding up release of over-tariff IPP prisoners. But his resignation and its circumstances appear to have made that much more difficult.
Gauke came under heavy fire in his previous position as work and pensions secretary. His stonewall defence of a failing Universal Credit system and claim that benefit sanctions help people get work portray a man blindly committed to enacting party policy.
Hardwick claims Gauke said he didn’t want to “get macho” about the resignation. But that appears to be the way the justice secretary often operates in his office. And that is not acceptable.
– Follow Nick Hardwick on Twitter.
We need your help to keep speaking the truth
Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.
Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.
We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.
In return, you get:
* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop
Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.
With your help we can continue:
* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do
We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?