Written questions by Johnson.

How many and what proportion of Parole Board decisions on (a) moving prisoners to open conditions, and (b) releasing prisoners were overruled by the Government in each of the last (i) 12 months, and (ii) 5 years.

The transfer of an indeterminate sentence prisoner to open conditions is a categorisation decision for the Secretary of State. However, historically, before approving transfer the Secretary of State has sought the advice of the Parole Board. Even where the Parole Board recommends that a prisoner is suitable for open conditions, the Secretary of State has a discretion as to whether to accept the recommendation. Pursuant to the practice of seeking the Parole Board’s advice, the Secretary of State has published a policy to indicate where s/he will be likely to accept the Board’s recommendation.Up until June 2022, the HM Prison & Probation Service Policy Framework stipulated that the Secretary of State (or an official with delegated responsibility) would accept a recommendation from the Parole Board except where:the panel’s recommendation goes against the clear recommendation of report writers without providing a sufficient explanation as to why; orthe panel’s recommendation is based on inaccurate information.The Policy Framework stated that the Secretary of State might also reject a Parole Board recommendation if it is considered that there is not a wholly persuasive case for transferring the prisoner to open conditions at this time.For the period June 2022 to July 2023, the Policy Framework stipulated that the Secretary of State (or an official with delegated responsibility) would accept a recommendation from the Parole Board only where:the prisoner is assessed as low risk of abscond; anda period in open conditions is considered essential to inform future decisions about release and to prepare for possible release on licence into the community; anda transfer to open conditions would not undermine public confidence in the Criminal Justice System.The Policy Framework and associated guidance were updated on 17 July and has been applied to all outstanding Parole Board recommendations at that date and all recommendations received after that date. Under the terms of the Policy, the Secretary of State (or an official with delegated responsibility) will accept a recommendation from the Parole Board (to approve an ISP for open conditions) only where:the prisoner has made sufficient progress during the sentence in addressing and reducing risk to a level consistent with protecting the public from harm (in circumstances where the prisoner in open conditions may be in the community, unsupervised under licensed temporary release); andthe prisoner is assessed as low risk of abscond; andthere is a wholly persuasive case for transferring the ISP to open conditions.Below is a breakdown of how many times the Secretary of State for Justice has accepted and not accepted the Parole Board’s recommendation to move prisoners to open conditions in the last five calendar years YearAcceptedNot AcceptedTotal% of recommendations rejected2019596166123%2020617276444%2021534365706%20229915625561%202326025951950%There is no current power for the Government to overrule a Parole Board release decision. The Lord Chancellor has decided to proceed with implementation of the referral power in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 which will give the Secretary of State the ability to directly refer certain Parole Board decisions in ‘top tier’ cases to the High Court for a second look. ‘Top tier’ cases include certain offenders convicted of murder, rape, terrorism, or terrorism connected offences, or causing or allowing the death of a child. This power will create a new role for the High Court to conduct risk assessments and hearings along similar lines to the Parole Board, to decide whether the statutory test for release has been met in the cases referred to it.

How many and what proportion of people serving an imprisonment for public protection sentence in prison were originally given a tariff of (a) six months, (b) 12 months, (c) 18 months, (d) two years, (e) three years and (f) five years or under.

The number of prisoners serving a sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) who have never been released, as of 30 June 2024, and were sentenced to tariffs of six months, 12 months, 18 months, two years, three years and five years or under, five years to ten years are set out in the table below.Original Tariff Count Proportion of those unreleased in prisonLess than 6 months50.4%6 months to less than 12 months151.3%12 months to less than 18 months474.2%18 months to less than 2 years12110.7%2 years to less than 3 years25322.3%3 years to 5 years37233.0%5 years to 10 years28024.7%Tariff not recorded2 Notes:1. Tariff length is the time between date of sentencing and tariff expiry date and does not take into account any time served on remand.2. 'Tariff not recorded' includes cases where a confirmed tariff expiry date has yet to be received, and any unmatched records. It is right that IPP sentences were abolished, and we are committed to working at pace to support the progression of all those serving the IPP sentence, but not in a way that undermines public protection.

If she will take steps to refer the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Oliver Campbell and The King, reference [2024] EWCA Crim 1036, to the Law Commission for its review of the appeal process in England and Wales.

Criminal justice policies have advanced in the 33 years since Mr Campbell’s conviction, reflecting improved understanding of vulnerabilities. Robust processes to support defendants are now in place and regularly reviewed, for example guidance for judges on relevant adjustments and the use of intermediaries. The Law Commission are preparing the preliminary findings of their review of the criminal appeals process, and I anticipate these shortly.

If she will make an assessment of the implications for her policies of the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Oliver Campbell and The King, reference [2024] EWCA Crim 1036.

Criminal justice policies have advanced in the 33 years since Mr Campbell’s conviction, reflecting improved understanding of vulnerabilities. Robust processes to support defendants are now in place and regularly reviewed, for example guidance for judges on relevant adjustments and the use of intermediaries. The Law Commission are preparing the preliminary findings of their review of the criminal appeals process, and I anticipate these shortly.

If she will make an assessment of the adequacy of compensation arrangements for people wrongly convicted of crimes in the context of the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Oliver Campbell and The King, reference [2024] EWCA Crim 1036.

The Government is unable to comment on individual cases. Anyone who has had their conviction quashed in an out of time appeal is able to apply for compensation under the statutory Miscarriage of Justice Application Service (MOJAS). The Law Commission is undertaking a review of the criminal appeals process which includes MOJAS. I will be considering their findings once their review is complete.