Steven Barrett

The Colin Pitchfork saga exposes the problem with the Parole Board

• 8 June 2021, 9:16am

• Text settings

  Text size

  • Small
  • Medium
  • Large

  Line Spacing

  • Compact
  • Normal
  • Spacious
• Comments
• Share

  Share

  Steven Barrett

  The Colin Pitchfork saga exposes the problem with the Parole Board

  

  Copy link

  • Linkedin
  • Messenger
  • Email

Already a subscriber? Log in

This article is for subscribers only

Subscribe today to get 3 months' delivery of the magazine, as well as online and app access, for only £3.

• Weekly delivery of the magazine
• Unlimited access to our website and app
• Enjoy Spectator newsletters and podcasts
• Explore our online archive, going back to 1828

Most popular

Alexander Larman

What happened to the Rishi Sunak I knew at school?

So who are they? The answer is not very clear, this is their webpage on the subject; we only know there are 246 of them. Which is more than the four set out in the Act itself. From the Act, we learn that one of them must be a sitting or ex judge, one a psychiatrist and one a probation officer (or equivalent).

At least one must be someone who has ‘made a study of the causes of delinquency or the treatment of offenders’.

Other than that, we know very little, other than that the Parole Board has very broad powers. In contrast, the Minister in question can do almost nothing. 

This is now quite common; quite a lot of Acts like this exist, which take political decisions away from the elected and giving them to the non-elected.

Soon, Pitchfork will be free. And an obscure statutory body, deliberately set up to make political choices on your behalf, will be responsible for that decision. Is this really a good idea?

We know the Parole Board makes mistakes from cases like John Worboys. If the political power to release or not release was with a politician, no doubt he or she would also make mistakes. The difference is the illusion that the Board is not engaging in a political decision and the relatively high bar there is for determining what is or is not a ‘mistake’.

Taking the politician out of it also takes the public out of it. The pre-90s system made the minister the fall guy, so the public would know who had made the decision and could decide their fate. 

Whether you think that is right or wrong is your political view. But it’s not irrational to think that the growing distrust of experts may be linked to the political power they have been made to wield – even if some of them look on it as favourably as a gift of a uranium necklace.