Nick Hardwick’s letter to the justice secretary, David Gauke, after their meeting on Tuesday to prepare for the Worboys’ high court ruling makes clear that he was forced to resign in the biggest criminal justice sacking since Michael Howard’s involvement in the dismissal of prisons chief, Derek Lewis.
“You told me that you thought my position was untenable,” he toldGauke. “I am sorry for the mistakes that were made in the case but I have always made it clear that I will support the members and staff of the board in the very difficult individual decisions they make and I will accept accountability for the work of the board. I will not pass the buck to those who work under me. In these circumstances I inform you of my decision to resign with immediate effect.”
The high court ruling in the case was actually on quite a narrow legal issue. The three judges did not try to put themselves in the place of the experienced parole board members who made the decision to recommend release on the basis of the evidence that they had before them.
Instead, the judges said the experienced Parole Board panel was mistaken in not going beyond the attacks on 12 women for which Worboys, aged 60, had been convicted and served 10 years in prison and taking into account up to 100 other offences for which he had not been convicted.
The court ruled that the Board panel was mistaken in this “misapprehension” in a case which they described as “difficult, troubling” and with “many exceptional features”.
In his letter to the justice secretary, Hardwick, who had no role in the decision taken by the panel to recommend Worboys’ release, makes clear he shared that misapprehension which was supported by the legal advice he had received: “We were wrong,” he accepts bluntly. It is a ruling that could now overturn years of parole board practice and lead to even longer sentences in the future.
Hardwick has had a selfless career in public service. He was involved in setting up Centrepoint, the homeless charity. He led the Refugee Council, which was never a popular cause. He chaired the Independent Police Complaints Commission and then took on the tough job of chief inspector of prisons before his appointment to the parole board.
None of these jobs was straightforward and in each post he demonstrated a principled approach to the difficult issues involved. As soon as the Worboys decision became the centre of an intense public debate, Hardwick made clear he had been pressing to increase the transparency of parole board decisions, and the official inquiry made clear it was not a failing of the parole board that victims were not properly kept informed.
The Parole Board is an independent body that carries out risk assessments on prisoners to determine whether they can be safely released into the community.
It manages the early release of prisoners serving fixed-length sentences of four years or more; the release of prisoners who are serving life sentences or indeterminate sentences for public protection; and the re-release of prisoners who have been given life or indeterminate sentences and were then re-imprisoned.
Some prisoners seeking release may have to attend a hearing before Parole Board members.
Up to three members of a panel will decide whether to release the prisoner based on a file of documents including information on the inmate’s behaviour in prison, their plans once released and risk of committing further crimes. Medical, psychiatric and psychological evidence can also be heard.
As well as the prisoner, a solicitor, psychologist and witnesses could attend. The victim of the prisoner’s offences may also be present.
The Parole Board has 234 members who make the assessments and decisions and employs 120 members of staff to support them.
But he is also right in his letter to the justice secretary to raise his concern about the independence of the Parole Board: “I believe this matter raises very troubling questions about how the board’s independence can be safeguarded. I hope parliament will consider what structural changes are necessary to ensure this independence is protected in future.”
He was right to raise the issue. The new justice secretary only weeks before swore an oath to protect the independence of the judiciary. Yet Gauke was prepared, egged on by the chairman of the Conservative party, to consider launching a legal action himself to overturn the decision of the Parole Board.
It was right – as has been proved – that the victims’ legal action should go ahead, but for the justice secretary to take his own steps in response to a media-fuelled campaign to overturn the Parole Board in the courts was a step way over the line for a lord chancellor. In the event Gauke didn’t go ahead because the Ministry of Justice lawyers advised that such a high court action was unlikely to succeed. They too got it wrong.
If Gauke felt the Parole Board had made a mistake in not taking into account Worboys’ unconvicted offences, he should have initiated the necessary reforms rather than make a sacrificial lamb out of a Parole Board chair who was only too willing to reform the board.
The role of the Parole Board has grown significantly in the past 20 years, matching the increase in the public’s appetite for more punitive sentencing, which in turn has been reflected in the growth of indefinite sentences. The board’s secrecy – although an essential part of the justice system – has always stood apart from the judicial system. It is time it also enjoyed the independence of the courts and protection from populist politicians.
