Parole Decisions: Judge Hazan's Comments (Hansard, 18 January 1988)

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)
My Lords, my right honourable friend has not received any formal communication from Judge Hazan about these cases. No reply has therefore been sent.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful Answer. Is he aware that the learned judge stated in open court that he had communicated with the Home Secretary, and if the Home Secretary has lost his letter will be make inquiries so that the matter can be looked into? Is my noble friend aware that this is a serious matter in respect of which the Police Federation has expressed deep concern?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I fully realise that this is a serious matter. I think that my noble friend may be in error. What I believe the judge said was that he would send a transcript of the proceedings to my right honourable friend. That has not arrived. It has not therefore been considered appropriate for my right honourable friend to reply to something on which he has not yet received any specific information.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that from time to time we have Questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, which appear to have as their aim the chipping away of the reputation of the parole system? If that is so, does the noble Earl agree that it is rather damaging to take a minority of cases and then try to construct a general application which is harmful to the reputation of the Parole Board?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, it would be quite inappropriate for me to say what was in my noble friend's mind when he put down his Question. In so 7 far as he put down that Question, I think it reflects a concern which is felt throughout the country by people who have offences committed against them. To answer specifically the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the parole system is tighter than it used to be. Fewer inmates serving sentences of two years or more now are granted parole; 47 per cent. in 1986 compared with 55 per cent. in 1983. Those who are granted parole are given less time on parole. The average length of licence granted in the four- to five-year sentence band fell from 322 days in 1983 to 241 days in 1986.
Obviously with a parole system there is a risk. The duty of the Home Secretary, and indeed of the Parole Board, is to ensure that that risk is as small as possible.

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is not the only person who is deeply disturbed by the facts disclosed in the Judge Hazan case? It was not the only case of repeated rapes while on parole, for precisely the same offence took place in the last seven days. I pay my own tribute to the parole service and to the Parole Board, but could there be anything more harmful to it than a repetition of cases of that kind?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I realise the problem and my noble and learned friend is quite correct to suggest that this is a matter which causes great concern. It is correct to point out that, of the two cases which were mentioned, one man was given only three months' parole at the end of a seven-year sentence for offences of robbery and he committed further offences while on parole which came to light only as the result of investigations into other offences committed after the parole licence had expired. The other man to whom the judge referred committed the offence of rape for which he was given life imprisonment 13 months after his last prison sentence had ended, when in fact he was a free man.

§ Lord Mackie of Benshie
My Lords, will the Minister explain to us a little further? He said that under this Government the amount of parole granted had been reduced. I think that was the burden of his reply. Can be tell us whether this reduction has occurred only in cases of crimes against the person such as rape or whether it is overall? If it is so in less harmful crimes it is surely adding to the problems of overcrowding in prisons.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, inferred an unfortunate result from what I said: it was not that during the period of this Government parole was stricter. What I said was that the facts referred to 1983 and 1986. They refer to all instances of parole and not necessarily those relating to crimes of violence.

§ Lord Harmar-Nicholls
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it would be hard for any reasonable person to read my noble friend's Question and suggest that it was chipping away the authority of the Parole Board or anything else? Is he aware that the noble Lord who put the Question seemed in his enthusiasm to be wanting to discourage investigations into a matter to which the learned judge who has listened to the case thought real attention ought to be given?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I think the answer to that is that I am aware of what my noble friend considered to be the inference behind the question asked by my noble and learned friend and that asked by the noble Lord. Perhaps I should say this because it is important: my right honourable friend is very concerned when acts of violence are committed by people throughout the country whether they are on parole or not. He has set up a committee under my noble friend Lord Carlisle to undertake a review of the whole of the parole system. That committee is at present sitting.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that the concern he has expressed is widespread throughout the nation and is appreciated in all quarters of the House? Is he further aware that my only concern was that examples in a few cases should not lead the Government or anyone else to think that the Parole Board is not carrying out a very difficult task very well indeed, accompanying mercy with justice?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making his position clear on the issue. But this is a matter of concern. The Parole Board is doing an excellent job of work, but my right honourable friend considered it prudent to review the whole of the parole system simply because people are rightly concerned when offences against the public take place.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is a rather odd aspect of parliamentary procedure to refer to a "chipping away" at an institution when a question is raised which has aroused general public interest? Is he aware that the gibe of "chipping away", however amiably intentioned, is not likely to discourage any noble Lord from doing his duty in raising matters of public concern?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I fear that I may be in danger of being a postbox. I hear what my noble friend says. I think that there is a great deal of virtue in what he says.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that some time ago I raised the question of a rapist who was paroled and who then returned to rape and murder the person for attacking whom he had originally been convicted? Deep concern was expressed in your Lordships' House and also wide and deep concern was expressed in the area of Yorkshire where I live and where that crime took 9 place. The public are concerned when mistakes of this kind seem to be made for one reason or another at not—I repeat not—infrequent intervals. Is the Minister also aware that at that time I made a suggestion, which I stand by today, that I think the Home Secretary should look into the question of whether parole ought to be available for people convicted of violent rape? Despite all the plaudits that have been uttered on behalf of the Parole Board, I hope that your Lordships' House will continue to be vigilant on behalf of the community as a whole.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, the noble Lord has made a serious point. He is quite right to make that point and it is reflected by many people. Prisoners serving sentences of over five years for offences of violence and drug trafficking are not released on parole, other than in very exceptional circumstances. In 1986 only approximately 3 per cent. of those recommended for parole were recalled for committing further offences. Those are the facts.
The second important point for the noble Lord to bear in mind is that if one has a parole system there is bound, by definition, to be a risk. Some will offend, thousands will not. Those who do not offend are considered to be better for having some kind of supervision before they are let loose. "Let loose" is not the correct expression; I should say, before they return to normal life cold, as it were. That is the reason why the parole system exists, but there is a risk attached to it.