Prisoners‘ Can Claim Thousands Of Pounds’ Over Delays To Parol

As a result they may be able to claim tens of thousands of pounds in compensation after a landmark Court of Appeal judgment. It held that their human rights were breached because they were kept in prison beyond the date on which they became eligible for parole.

{mosimage}The Prison Service and the Parole Board are so concerned at the far-reaching consequences of the judgment that they are planning to appeal to the Law Lords, the most senior judges in England and Wales.

Latest figures indicate that between 500 and 700 prisoners a year miss their early release deadline because of delays within the jail system.

Derrick Johnson, who was sentenced to seven years for supplying drugs, was held in jail for an unjustified and arbitrary 8½ months beyond the date on which he was eligible for parole, according to the Court of Appeal. Johnson, from Bristol, was jailed in May 2000 at the city’s Crown Court and was eligible for parole in June 2003.

In accordance with usual practice he was asked six months before that date whether he wished to apply for parole and told the authorities that he wanted to be considered for early release. There was then a long delay in assembling the dossier that must go to the Parole Board when it considers a case.

Among the papers are reports from the Probation Service including details of settling the offender on leaving jail and others from prison staff on behaviour in prison, assessment of likely reoffending and courses undertaken to tackle offending behaviour or substance misuse. The board, which should normally deal with a case before a prisoner’s eligibility date, finally heard Johnson’s application in February 2004 and recommended his release.

In their ruling the Court of Appeal said that a jail term is at risk of becoming arbitrary if there is a delay in hearings before the Parole Board.

Lord Justice Waller said: “There was in this case an unjustified and indeed arbitrary delay of eight and a half months.

“If Mr Johnson can demonstrate that at an earlier consideration by the Parole Board he would have been released, it would seem to follow that his detention for some period was arbitrary, unjustified and therefore unlawful.”

Lord Justice Waller said that under human rights laws Mr Johnson was entitled to have his case considered by the Parole Board “speedily” to ensure the sentence did not become arbitrary.

Tony Stokoe, solicitor for Johnson, said: “I and other prison lawyers are pleased that the Parole Board and Prison Service are going to have to account for missing deadlines. It is a matter that has been concerning us for a number of years. We believe there are many other people in a similar position.”

Mr Stokoe said that the broad rule of thumb for compensation was £1,000 for the first month and £500 for each subsequent month that an offender was held beyond his or her parole date.

The judgment means that the Prison Service could face claims for compensation for wrongful imprisonment if the first early release deadline is missed and the offender released after a subsequent parole hearing.

A spokesman for the Parole Board said: “This judgment potentially has very wide implications. We would have to give prisoners a decision on parole by the date on which they are eligible and at the moment, often we don’t, usually because prisons have not provided the information in time.”

The spokesman added that the board was seeking leave to appeal against the ruling.