to believe the Parole Board panel should be public

[longfingernails]

At the moment they can chortle and sneer and let down the victims of the likes of Worboys without any personal accountability. Their anonymity shields their elitist anti-victim pro-violent criminal bias.

We have to congratulate the Sun (and Sadiq Khan) for supporting social justice, and standing with the victims. The appalling decision has been sent back by the High Court.

But the parole board members who took this unconscionable decision are free to take similar decisions again, their reputations unjustly intact.

It's good that Hardwick has gone; his CV seems like that of a typical elitist left-wing do-gooder. David Gauke also deserves scorn; advisers advise but ministers decide.

The entire Parole Board needs systematic reform, with victims' concerns placed above all else, especially in the case of violent crime. In my opinion the victim's representative should hold an unconditional veto over parole decisions.

And let so-called public servants take personal responsibility. The Parole Board members who decided to let Worboys loose must be named and shamed.

Always the voice of reason.

You plainly do NOT know enough about the workings of the PB to have a smidgey understanding.

You have a long and ridiculous, swivel-eyed history on MN. This is just the next bit of it.

I don't beleive you have any genuine investment in the experience of the victims. Just a opportunity for a political rant. Shame on you.

How about actually addressing some of the issues instead of name-calling?

Justice needs public accountability. It enforces a dose of common sense amongst those whose instinct is to disregard victims and side with violent criminals out of some misguided notion of personal moral superiority.

Why on earth should their names be public? So people who disagree with them can go after them?

So they are held accountable in the same way as judges and magistrates.

What's next, publishing the names of jurors if they make the "wrong" decision?

I couldn't be happier at that the worboys cases to be reviewed but it's being done properly through legal channels and not from people putting pressure on those on the parole board. As it should be.

Held accountable by who?

By the public, politicians, the media.

I think the parole board is a highly important part of the justice system. Do we boot everyone whose decisions we disagree with.

If their decision was rooted in the correct protocol then we may disagree but they haven't technically done wrong. I am pleased it was overturned, but parole boards ought to be free to make hard decisions without fear of public backlash.

Why is it OK for judges who sentence criminals to be known publicly, but not Parole Board members who commute sentences?

I don't think individuals should be named and shamed but the process and how they reached their decisions should be more transparent. I would like to know, for example, how they came to the conclusion that the two individuals in this article were fit to be released.

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5549687/amp/Convicted-killers-guilty-murdering-following-prison-release.html

stitchglitched Why not name and shame the Parole Board members? At the very minimum, even if they are kept anonymous, we need to be assured that they have been demoted with pay cuts, or sacked.

Parole Boards do not "commute" sentences

The parole board has to make decisions about very nasty characters. I wouldn't want the people I was preceding over knowing my identity. Being anonymous allows the board to do their job without judgement being clouded by fear of repercussions.

I do believe hat decisions could be make more transparent however.

BitOutOfPractice You can hang on to semantics if you like. Whether you call it commuting sentences or deciding on parole, the effect is to let violent criminals out on to the street before the sentence they were given was fully served.

LoudBatPerson What makes it different in the case of judges?

I had to laugh loudly at held accountable by the media!

Since when do we have trial by media?

Demoting parole board members?

How very strange. An acquaintance of mine sits on a parole board as a volunteer. Where are you demoting her to?

OK, I'll let you carry on frothing alone. It isn't the same. And when it comes to the law, the right word matters.

Whether it's called commuting his sentence or letting him out early or granting parole might matter to you - I am reasonably confident that it doesn't matter one iota to his victims.

Because I don't want people to be abused or harrassed for decisions they have made, OP. I don't think the public hounding of individuals helps anyone. But as I said I do think the process should be more public and transparent, and I do think explanations should be given as to why certain decisions were made.

The reasoning for the decisions could be released perhaps. I can see no public interest in attacking individuals. My understanding is that these are panel decisions? Challenging decisions is appropriate and looking at what information the decisions are based on could be important. My understanding in this case is that only the convictions were looked at which would suggest the issue was the original criminal case rather than the parole board.

Why do "we" need to know if parole board members have been sacked over decisions that they've made? What business is it of ours?

The media and the general public doesn't have to turn everything into a mob mentality.

Actually YANBU. It's an extremely shadowy process that seems to circumvent justice. Not just Worboys or the link above but also don't forget John Venables.

Who are these mystery figures on parole boards? At the very least we should be allowed to know their qualifications.

What precisely is your evidence that anyone is "chortling"?

The reality is that the Parole Board is ridiculously underfunded. As the court found, it is inexplicable that in a case like this they didn't have a judge on the panel, and the government didn't choose to instruct counsel to represent them. I don't think Hardwick should have resigned: he is blatantly being made a scapegoat for problems which are the fault of the Ministry of Justice and, indeed, the government as a whole. It is Gauke and May who should resign.

Useful commentary here - www.matrixlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/DSD-explanatory-note-in-the-Worboys-case-27.3.18.pdf

Whether you call it commuting sentences or deciding on parole, the effect is to let violent criminals out on to the street before the sentence they were given was fully served.

But it is Parliament that has provided for that process, not individual members of the parole board. It would be ludicrous to set up a parole board and say that they must never grant parole because it would mean sentences not being fully served.

Parliament needs to tighten the parole rules up. Victims and their representatives must have vetos. Parole board members must be public. The number of reasons allowed for eligibility for parole should be dramatically reduced.

The main purpose of the criminal justice system must be protection of the public from violent criminals.

The Parole Board can only act on the information put before them.

They can't sit going "My neighbour says he also did xyz, so let's take that into account too". They acted appropriately with the information given.

It might be more appropriate to ask questions about the decision making around what cases against Worboys were initially prosecuted.