Categories
Criminal Justice Judiciary Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

What is the Parole Board ?

Parole Board

The Parole Board for England and Wales is an independent executive non-departmental public body sponsored by the Ministry of Justice.

Established in its modern form by the Criminal Justice Act 1967, it is responsible for deciding whether prisoners serving certain types of sentences in England and Wales are safe to be released into the community under licence and, if already released, whether they should be recalled to prison.

It does not cover Scotland or Northern Ireland, which have separate arrangements.

Legal Framework

The Parole Board’s primary powers derive from:

It deals with three main categories of prisoner:

  • Life sentence prisoners (mandatory, discretionary and automatic life sentences, and imprisonment/detention for public protection (IPP))
  • Prisoners serving extended determinate sentences (EDS)
  • Certain determinate sentence prisoners who are assessed as dangerous and subject to Parole Board release (e.g. extended sentences under older legislation or those moved to parole release by executive decision)

For most standard determinate sentence prisoners, release is automatic at the halfway or two-thirds point and the Parole Board has no role.

Role and Functions

The Board’s core functions are:

  • To conduct risk assessments and decide whether prisoners can be safely released on licence before the end of their sentence
  • To set licence conditions
  • To decide whether released prisoners who have breached their licence should be recalled to custody
  • To advise the Secretary of State on transfer of life sentence and IPP prisoners to open conditions
  • To consider applications for early release on compassionate grounds in exceptional circumstances (rare)

All decisions must prioritise the protection of the public while giving the prisoner a fair hearing.

Composition and Membership

The Parole Board consists of over 300 members, appointed by the Secretary of State for Justice. Members include:

  • Judicial members (serving or retired judges)
  • Psychiatrist members
  • Psychologist members
  • Probation officer members
  • Independent members (from a wide range of professional and lay backgrounds)

Members sit part-time and are supported by a permanent secretariat based in London.

Cecilia French was appointed Chief Executive of the Parole Board in October 2024 and The Chair Alexandra Marks CBE was appointed in 2025.

Members serve fixed terms typically of five years.

Types of Parole Hearing

  • Oral hearings: held when the case is complex or contested. Conducted either in prison or, increasingly, by video link. The prisoner, victim (if participating via the Victim Contact Scheme), and witnesses give evidence. A panel (usually three members) questions all parties.
  • Paper hearings: for less complex recall cases or some determinate sentence reviews, decided “on the papers” without a live hearing.

Since 2022, most oral hearings for serious offenders have been open to the public or victims upon application, following a rule change intended to increase transparency.

The Release Test

For indeterminate sentence prisoners (life, IPP, etc.), the statutory release test is: “whether it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined.”

For determinate extended sentence prisoners and certain others, the test is whether the Board is satisfied that “it is no longer necessary on the grounds that [the prisoner] would not present a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission of further specified offences.”

The burden of proof lies on the prisoner to show they are safe for release.

Reconsideration Mechanism

Since 2019, prisoners (or the Secretary of State) may apply for a decision refusing release to be reconsidered if there has been an error of law or fact, or if new information could have changed the outcome. This replaced the previous judicial review route for most cases.

Key Reforms (2022–2025)

  • The Root and Branch Review (2022): led to greater ministerial oversight of release decisions for the most serious offenders.
  • Victims and Prisoners Act 2024: introduced a “public protection” top-down decision-making approach, a power for the Secretary of State to veto release of certain high-profile prisoners, and greater victim involvement.
  • Increased transparency: summary reasons for release decisions are now published online for top-tier cases.

Criticism and Controversy

The Parole Board has faced significant criticism over the years:

  • The 2018 John Worboys case (initial decision to release the “black cab rapist”) led to the then-Chair’s resignation and prompted major rule changes.
  • Ongoing concerns about the continued detention of prisoners on abolished IPP sentences (over 2,800 still in custody as of 2025, many years past tariff).
  • Delays in hearings, partly due to prison overcrowding and staff shortages.

Current Statistics (as at Dec 2025)

  • Approximately 12,000–14,000 parole reviews conducted annually
  • Around 3,000 oral hearings per year
  • Release rate for indeterminate sentence prisoners hovers between 25–35 % at first review, rising with subsequent reviews
  • Over 99 % of those released on parole do not commit a serious further serious offence during their licence period

Check out the related articles on the Attorney General, Solicitor General, Lady Chief Justice, Lord Chancellor, Chancellor of the High Court,Justice Secretary, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Law, Is the Law Black and White ?, Government Legal Department, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Government Legal Department (GLD), Abuse of Process, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, McKenzie Friend, Can a Judge Direct a Jury to Find a Defendant Not Guilty ?,Law Society, Law Commission, McKenzie Friend Right of Audience, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

[post_title] was last updated on the 23rd June 2026

By Dom Watts

Dom Watts founded the Ministry of Injustice in July 2021. Dom is an IT Professional with 30+ years experience in Tier 1 Banking, Government, Defence, Healthcare and Global Blue Chips. Dom has no legal training and is not a lawyer but has previously consulted for a Magic Circle Law Firm. You can find Dom on X or Google.

Dom Watts publishes the Ministry of Injustice as a citizen journalist. The journalism exemption is detailed in the Data protection and journalism code of practice published by the ICO and Section 124 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

Section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of truth. Section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of honest opinion. Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of public interest. Section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the single publication rule.

Section 4a of The Limitation Act 1980 defines the time limit for actions for defamation or malicious falsehood as one year from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives the right to freedom of expression. "This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

"Free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another." - Para 43 Scottow v CPS [2020] EWHC 3421 (Admin)

"Free speech is a fundamental common law right" - Para 21 R v Shayler [2002] UKHL 11 [2003] 1 AC 247 per Lord Bingham and Para 42 Phillips -v- Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2024] EWHC 32 (Admin)

Dom is a member of The Free Speech Union

“A key issue here is the need to distinguish between conduct which, however objectionable, does not justify invoking the criminal law and conduct which crosses the line and results in criminal liability" - Para 31 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

“Harassment is generally understood to involve improper oppressive and unreasonable conduct that is targeted at an individual and calculated to produce alarm and distress” - Para 38 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

"The behaviour said to amount to harassment must reach a level of seriousness passing beyond irritations, annoyances....The gravity of the misconduct must be of an order which would sustain criminal liability" - Paras [40-44] Hayden v Dickenson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB)

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything"

In 2002 Dom Watts was an unlikely consumer champion. The dad of three from Croydon took on the power and might of Kodak – and won...Dom on BBC Working Lunch

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent