§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government when it is intended to refer to the Parole Board for review the cases of four prisoners, who were serving life sentences in open prisons, but were returned to closed conditions on 11th October 1983, consequent upon the Home Secretary's announcement that a minimum period of 20 years must be served for certain types of crime.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur)My Lords, the cases of all four prisoners have been reviewed by the Parole Board since their removal from open conditions. They are due to be reviewed again in September 1985, October 1985, February 1986 and April 1987 respectively.
Lord HuntMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that answer and, on the whole, is he aware, I am glad to hear it? In considering the cases of these four men, would he consider putting to his right honourable friend in another place certain points—and is he aware of those points?—that these four men were serving in open conditions and therefore there were deemed to be no escape risks and this presented no danger to any members of the public; that a move to open conditions is a customary move towards eventual release for lifers and was so perceived not only by these men but by the prison staff and, of course by the men's relatives? Finally, because the announcement by the Secretary of State on 11th October, 1983 was applied retrospectively to all prisoners falling within the Secretary of State's categories, is the Minister aware that it was perceived as being especially harsh as applied to these men by many people who are well informed about penal policy, as was reflected in the divergent views expressed on appeals in the Divisional Court and in the Court of Appeal?
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, I note the noble Lord's remarks and I am glad that he found satisfaction in what I had to say when I gave the Answer. As he will be aware, transfer to an open prison is a purely administrative matter which does not impart any commitment of release; and in many cases life-sentence prisoners are transferred to an open prison not as a preparation for release in the way that the noble Lord suggested but preparatory only to a review of their cases so that the local review committee and the Parole Board can be provided with an assessment of the prisoners' response and reaction to freer 1016 surroundings. This was the case with these four individuals. They had not been recommended for release and there was therefore no commitment to release.
§ Lord MishconMy Lords, while there may have been no commitment to release, is it not a fact that the policy announced in October 1983 has, in fact, meant retrospectively that prison sentences are now longer for these people than they otherwise would have been? Is not such a retrospective decision, however much we may deplore the crimes committed, contrary to the rules of natural justice?
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, I do not agree entirely with the noble Lord. The fact is that they were in open prisons for the reasons that I gave just now in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Yes, they had all been convicted of very serious crimes and, although I agree that it was perhaps unfortunate that it should happen in this particular way, their removal from open conditions was in no way unfair.
§ Lord Edmund-DaviesMy Lords, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would inform your Lordships' House whether it remains the settled policy of the Home Secretary and of the Government that a minimum period of 20 years must be served for certain crimes; or am I wholly mistaken in thinking that there has been a revelation of second thoughts?
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, the noble and learned Lord is quite right. When my right honourable friend made the announcement in November, 1983, he said—and I quote part of it:
In future I intend to exercise my discretion so that murderers of police or prison officers, terrorist murderers, sexual or sadistic murderers of children and murderers by firearm in the course of robbery can normally expect to serve at least 20 years in custody".That remains in force.
§ Lord MishconMy Lords, if I may be permitted one further supplementary question, would it not be a little more just and a little more hopeful for the hopeless to indicate that there will be an examination of each case on its merits?
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, each case is always examined on its merits.