Although we had already carried out some reforms to the system, such as a new power for the Justice Secretary to ask the Board to reconsider cases, more needs to be done in order to increase public confidence in the system. 

Like it or not, cases like Pitchfork’s have far-reaching effects on how the entire system is viewed. Making assurances that all is well and that nothing needs to change will not be good enough.

I set up the review late last year and its work has been continuing. I hope that it will soon be completed and published very soon, which was my firm intention. In advance of its findings, what in my view are the key elements of a meaningful change? 

Here are five suggestions.

Firstly, I am not convinced that the role of the Parole Board is properly understood. It is often assumed that decisions whether or not to release prisoners are made on the basis of their conduct whilst in prison. The old and misleading adage “time off for good behaviour” comes to mind.

Whilst their conduct in prison, the original offences for which they were imprisoned and their previous criminal records are all relevant issues in looking at a prisoner’s progress, the Parole Board decision is in reality about future risk. 

The test for release is whether the board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner be kept in jail. Is this the right test, however? 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.

I would urge ministers to come up with an alternative that in essence allows the board to focus in each case as to how 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.

Secondly, as a key part of the drive to increase public knowledge, the Parole Board should be renamed. My suggestion is the Public Protection Board. This would convey a much clearer idea as to the Board’s proper role and function.

Thirdly, there is a clear conflict between the power of the Justice Secretary to ask for the Parole Board to reconsider a decision to release, and their direct role in presenting an application to the Board for release in the first place. 

The Secretary of State should play no part in the initial proceedings. The Prison Service should prepare a file of material, but the Justice Secretary should only be involved if necessary after decisions are made by the Board, making an application in appropriate cases for reconsideration if they decide that a decision was unreasonable or that it was not made on all the information that should have been available.

Fourthly, 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. We should also recognise that many victims do not wish for a public hearing in the case that involves them, so that decision should be one for the Board.

Finally, whilst it is welcome that summaries of the Board’s decisions are now prepared, the publication of fuller reasons for their decisions, with allowances for sensitive information not to be included, should become the norm. 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.