News story

Should an oral hearing be impacted by the coronavirus?

The Parole Board has been and is continuing to make contingency plans should the work of the Board be impacted by the coronavirus.

Practice Principles

The witness is unable to attend

  • The panel chair should establish (through the case manager) whether there is an appropriate stand-in who can attend in the witness’ absence. If there is not an appropriate stand-in, then the panel chair will need to decide whether it would be appropriate for the hearing to go ahead in the person’s absence. The overriding principle is fairness. The proposal to proceed without a directed witness must be canvased with the prisoner or their representative.

  • Members should be particularly alert to specialist witnesses being unable to join the hearing. It is unlikely a review can proceed fairly if the representative is unexpectedly absent. Another situation which might raise questions about fairness is the absence of one witness when report writers have made contradictory recommendations about release or progression.

  • If the hearing cannot proceed without the witness or an appropriate stand-in, then the hearing will need to be adjourned or deferred.

  • Unless a suitable stand-in is available who is familiar with the case and has had the time to meet the prisoner and prepare for the hearing, it is likely that the case should be adjourned or deferred.

  • If the panel is faced with this issue on the day of the hearing and the prisoner does not have their legal representative present, the prisoner should be asked what their preference is but caution should be taken if the prisoner is wanting to push on without their legal representative. For example, not all prisoners will be confident in asking for an adjournment. It is the prisoner’s decision as to whether or not they are represented (as long as there are no questions over mental capacity), but the panel should remind the prisoner of the benefits of legal representation. If the hearing does proceed without a representative, panels should test the evidence carefully to ensure they have covered the points the representative may have examined, even if the prisoner does not take those points.

Remote attendance

  • The starting point is consideration of the appropriateness of the remote attendance. For example, if the video/ telephone link facilities are unreliable; the prisoner has a disability or a mental health illness or is under 18 years old which means for an effective hearing/ for fairness the hearing needs to take place in person, then it will be appropriate to adjourn/ defer the hearing to ensure fairness.

  • Equally, if remote attendance has previously been deemed inappropriate then, unless there has been a change in circumstances, then remote attendance is unlikely to be appropriate.

  • Parole hearings must take place in secure and private settings.

  • Panel members must conduct the hearing in the same room – either at the prison or from the Parole Board’s hub hearing rooms at 10 South Colonnade, London E14 4PU. Remote attendance to hearings by panel members cannot take place in other locations without prior approval of the Parole Board.

  • Before remote attendance is agreed, the views of both parties need to be sought.

Observer is unable to attend

  • It is highly unlikely that it would be appropriate to adjourn or defer a hearing because an observer is unable to attend. If the observer is there to support the victim or the prisoner, PPCS or the prisoner’s representative needs to be approached to see if there is someone else who can attend in the observer’s place.

Victim cannot attend and asks for the hearing to be deferred or adjourned

  • If there is a VPS and the victim’s attendance is to read out the VPS, the panel chair should make enquiries as to whether there is an appropriate person (for example, could be a family member, friend, member of prison staff or the VLO) who can read out the VPS on the victim’s behalf.

  • It may not be tenable to move the hearing date (because of the delay it will cause to the review), especially if all of the other attendees are able to attend.

  • If there is not a VPS, please contact the Policy and Practice Advisor.

Prisoner is unable to attend

  • The panel chair must seek the view of the prisoner/ their representative.

  • If the prisoner is represented and is happy for the hearing to take place in their absence and the panel feel that they can have a fully effective and fair hearing without the prisoner then it may be possible to proceed without the prisoner.

  • If the prisoner is not in agreement or the panel deem that it would not be an effective hearing or it may not be an effective hearing then it is likely that the hearing will need to be adjourned or deferred.

  • If the prisoner is not represented and cannot attend the hearing then the hearing would need to be adjourned or deferred.

Panel Chair is unable to attend

  • In the case of a three-member panel, the case should only proceed with two panellists if it is suitable; the prisoner or representative agrees to continue and one of the co-panellists is an accredited panel chair. Similarly, a two-member panel could go ahead as long as the panel member holds the accreditation to sit as a single panel member: but the chances of this appearing suitable are slimmer, given the rationale of the MCA member or duty member when making directions and setting panel logistics.

Co-panellist is unable to attend

  • If a co-panellist cannot attend on the day of the hearing, the panel chair must decide whether it would be appropriate for the hearing to go ahead in the person’s absence. The overriding principle is fairness. The proposal to proceed without any co-panellist must be canvased with the prisoner or representative.

  • Panel members must notify the panel chair and Parole Board case manager. In the case of a three-member panel, the case should only proceed with two panellists if it is suitable and the prisoner or representative agrees to continue. Similarly, a two-member panel could go ahead with just the panel chair (if the panel chair hold the accreditation to sit as a single panel member): but the chances of this appearing suitable are slimmer, given the rationale of the MCA member or duty member when making directions and setting panel logistics.

  • Members should be particularly alert to specialist Parole Board members not being present as the case may hinge on the specialist’s expertise.

  • The views of the prisoner or representative must be sought before a decision is made as to whether the hearing can proceed.

Consideration as to whether to adjourn or defer

  • This would count as an exceptional reason to defer rather than adjourn, contrary to the COMPASS framework if the decision to defer is made before the hearing and evidence has not been taken. However, adjournments should be the first consideration and if the hearing is part-heard then it should be adjourned rather than deferred.
Published 13 March 2020