HL Deb 09 October 1986 vol 480 cc347-50

3.15 p.m.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether in response to the request of Judge Hazan, QC, they have now investigated the case of William Anderson who murdered a man within a week of his release on pre-parole home leave during the currency of a sentence for stabbing and robbery.

The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness)

Yes, my Lords. May I briefly remind your Lordships of the case? Anderson was granted six months' parole from 11th November 1985 at final review on condition that he resided at a named aftercare hostel. The murder was committed in October 1985 while he was unlawfully at large following a short period of pre-parole leave at that hostel. Had Anderson not been granted parole, he would have been released on 8th May 1986.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this case and the concern which it caused, as he knows, for the learned judge who tried the subsequent murder case indicates the heavy responsibility that lies on the shoulders of those who release dangerous men on parole? Has any action been taken in respect of whoever did this?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, the decision to grant Anderson parole was taken in the light of the available information about his background, criminal record and performance in prison. The aim was to provide a rootless, persistent criminal with support which he might not otherwise accept on his release. The full extent of his dangerousness emerged only at his latest trial. Nevertheless, the tragic outcome reinforces the need, which my right honourable friend and the Parole Board have always accepted, for such decisions to be taken with the utmost care and on the basis of the fullest possible information.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, does the noble Earl the Minister accept that in all parts of your Lordships' House this incident must be regarded with horror? Does he also accept that it would be extremely dangerous and wrong to take an unfortunate case of this kind and try to apply to it a general rule in regard to the granting of parole, which is always granted and dealt with with the utmost care?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I, too, should like to say what a horrific and tragic event it was. With regard to the whole case for parole, when Judge Hazan commented on this case, he said: 'The granting of parole and pre-parole leave to enable offenders to adjust to the outside world is an essential element in any humane criminal justice system and is rightly used to rehabilitate offenders.

Lord Hunt

My Lords, will the Minister accept that I, too, regard this as a major failure of the parole system? However, does he not agree that such cases are very few and very rare, in relation to the wide scale of operation of the scheme and the long period during which it has been successfully operated? Does he also agree that some risks may have to be taken, as has been said, rather than court the greater risk of releasing someone a few months later without any conditions at all? Is the Minister aware that two comparable cases occurred while I was chairman—that is, two cases in seven years—when the balance of public interest appeared to indicate that a brief period of parole would be better than release without any conditions a few months later? Those cases did not attract a general condemnation of the value of the parole system.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I confirm what the noble Lord has said: that very few pre-parole leave applicants are refused and that there are very few failures. In fact, in recent years less than 2 per cent. of prisoners granted pre-parole leave have failed to return on time and less than one-half of 1 per cent. have committed a criminal offence.

Lord Hooson

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that virtually every civilised country has now a parole scheme and that none of them has ever abandoned it once it has been used? Does he agree that by the very nature of parole there are bound to be a few failures, and that a failure which is highlighted by this horrific case points out that it is relatively rare? It points out the general success of the parole system.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the examination for parole includes a medical examination of the patient's mental state? It appears that this man was not a criminal but rather a sick man.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, it is up to the Parole Board, which has by statute a psychiatrist on it, to apply for a psychiatric report whenever it wishes.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that on the basis of what he has said, this man as I understand it, would have been released in six months in any event? Is he also aware that parole boards are constantly looking at the cases of dangerous and potentially dangerous men to consider how they should be released into the community? It is a difficult decision and it would be wholly wrong for this House to draw any conclusions other than that the parole board does a difficult job in a highly responsible way.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, we fully concur with the noble Lord with regard to the tremendous work that the Parole Board does. Indeed, provided that Anderson had behaved in a good and reasonable way he would have been out of prison some eight months after the tragic event, but in any case he would have been paroled had he not committed a further misdemeanour two months later.

Lord Paget of Northampton

My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that in this, as in every other case of this sort, we have to take the best medical advice available in the full knowledge that doctors are sometimes wrong and that, if they were not sometimes wrong, there would be a great many more people living longer than they do now?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, the Parole Board had full information in front of it. It admittedly did not have a psychiatric report, but that could have been provided had it wished. The same full evidence was in front of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, with reference to this case, is my noble friend satisfied that those responsible for the decision in respect of this obviously dangerous man (which is a decision that has cost the life of an innocent man) was properly taken? In particular, has he not just told your Lordships that a psychiatric report was apparently not even available?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, we are satisfied that the decision was taken in good faith, on the basis of adequate information concerning the man's background and record of offending.