Subject-Matter Index

Parole

criteria for decision

Committee legitimately concerned by risk to community from offender remaining dependent on alcohol and/or drugs—progress in prison may not be sufficient to dispel reservations: Webster v. Parole Review Cttee. (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR 559

court may adopt English parole criteria—appropriate because similarities in two systems and transfer of Guernsey prisoners to English prisons—to adopt additional factors if appropriate: Bradley v. Parole Review Cttee. (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR 335

criteria to be followed listed, without any single one being decisive: Baker v. Parole Review Cttee. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [10]

criteria to include, inter alia, steps taken by applicant to establish better lifestyle, risk posed to community and self, nature and circumstances of original offence and likelihood of re-offending: Bradley v. Parole Review Cttee. (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR 335

inappropriate to continue to adopt English parole criteria once English and Guernsey parole systems diverge—parole in England abolished for offenders serving less than 4 years and automatic release substituted at 50% of sentence—guidance from English developments in law and practice reduced in relevance: Webster v. Parole Review Cttee. (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR 559

offender given discretionary life sentence and transferred to English prison entitled, under European Convention, art. 5(4), to have lawfulness of imprisonment considered at reasonable intervals, i.e. of not more than every 2 years—grounds for continued detention based on risk to public, and dangerousness: Burton v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 438

Parole Review Committee and court to follow parole criteria of Parole Board for England and Wales, but English case-law to be considered cautiously, since Guernsey parole regime different: Baker v. Parole Review Cttee. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [10]

unacceptable risk to public safety—risk to be substantial, not merely perceptible or minimal—sufficient that unacceptable in subjective view of Parole Review Committee, but to consider all material considerations, balancing increasing unfairness of imprisonment against risk to public: Baker v. Parole Review Cttee. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [10]

future of parole

Home Department should reconsider future of parole and Parole Review Committee in Guernsey—may threaten consistency achieved in sentencing by Royal Court and Court of Appeal to introduce further tier of decision-making on sentencing—limitation of Committee’s role to offenders with extended sentences to be considered: Webster v. Parole Review Cttee. (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR 559

judicial review

in quashing Committee’s decision to refuse parole, Wednesbury standard of unreasonableness to be established—not to apply test for Jurat unreasonableness: Baker v. Parole Review Cttee. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [10]

procedure

Parole Review Committee to inform applicant of contents of dossier it proposes to rely on and give opportunity to comment, but no duty expressly to inform applicant of parole criteria: Bradley v. Parole Review Cttee. (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR 335

reasons for decision

Parole Review Committee to detail reasons sufficiently in decision letter to enable applicant to understand decision and which matters considered—reasons need not be as elaborate as court’s reasons, since Committee lay body without legal drafting skills: Baker v. Parole Review Cttee. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [10]

Parole Review Committee to detail reasons sufficiently to enable applicant to understand why application dismissed—to be based on sound, relevant considerations, e.g. nature and circumstances of original offence and risk applicant poses to broader community (may include community outside Guernsey) if application successful: Bradley v. Parole Review Cttee. (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR 335

Prison overcrowding. See CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (Sentence—imprisonment)

Transfer of prisoners

transfer to English prison

under Transfer of Prisoners (Restricted Transfers) (Channel Islands and Isle of Man) Order 1998, Schedule, para. 11(2), offender given discretionary life sentence and transferred to England on restricted basis not eligible for parole—under European Convention, art. 5(4), entitled to have lawfulness of imprisonment considered at reasonable intervals, i.e. not longer than every 2 years: Burton v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 438