Press release: The background, the myth and the facts. A summary of the Board’s position and experience in dealing with those who maintain their innocence and how its primary role of risk assessment operates in these circumstances.

Particularly following the case of Stephen Downing, there has been much concern and some misunderstanding about the position of those maintaining innocence in prison and how this effects chances of parole or release on Life Licence.

A myth has grown up that unless prisoners admit and express remorse for the crime that they have been sentenced for, they will not get parole. This is not true. It is important to get the facts right, not least for those in prison who do maintain their innocence and who may be unnecessarily affected by the myth.

Firstly, legal precedent has established that it would be unlawful for the Board to refuse parole solely on the grounds of denial of guilt or anything that flows from that (such as not being able to take part in offending behaviour programmes which focus on the crime committed). The Board is bound to take account not only of the offence, and the circumstances in which it was committed, but the circumstances and behaviour of the dividual prisoner before and during the sentence and his/her plans for re-settlement after release. It is important to understand that the Board is not entitled to "go behind" the conviction.That is the job of the appeal courts and the Criminal Cases Review Commission.The Board’s remit extends only to the assessment of risk, and the bottom line is always the safety of the public.

A recent survey by the Board showed that 31% of those maintaining innocence were released on parole or life licence, as compared with 46% of all prisoners.While this puts paid to the myth that denial of guilt means that parole is impossible,the survey also suggests that a prisoner’s chances of early release can be affected by the denial of guilt.

The Board is the first to recognise that its core task of assessing the risk of future harm to the public is often made more difficult when dealing with those who deny guilt.This is because there may simply be less information to go on, particularly where the prisoner has not been able to undertake some relevant offending behaviour work. Detailed reports of a wide range of offending behaviour programmes are a key source of information for Board members in working out how a prisoner operates and copes with life and therefore what the risk to the public of a future offence might be.

In this context it is interesting to note the results of a sample of 50 recent release cases recommended by the Board.The fifty were all serving mandatory life sentences for murder. Of these, nine had maintained their innocence in whole or in part throughout their sentence. While the circumstances of the murders,and the background of the prisoners varied enormously - from hardened criminals, to those of previous good character - there were two key factors which led to release on life licence. In all cases the individuals had spent a considerable period in "open conditions", where their response to life in the community could be closely monitored. The majority had also undertaken a variety of offending behaviour work such as anger management, assertiveness, thinking skills all of which helped the Board to assess any future risk to the public, irrespective of a denial of guilt or lack of remorse for the offence which led to the conviction.

Overall, the Board is painfully conscious of the psychological pressure often experienced by those who maintain their innocence in prison. It respects their position and would not wish anyone to pretend guilt simply to get parole.

Equally, it is important for those people to respect and understand the Board’s position, focusing always on the risk to the pubic in the future balanced against the needs, expectations and rights of the individual in prison.