Clause 32 will amend chapter II of part II of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, which relates to the release of prisoners serving life sentences. Clause 33 will amend chapter 6 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which relates to the release of prisoners serving determinate sentences. When a life sentence prisoner reaches the end of their minimum term or tariff—that is, the minimum period set by the independent courts that an offender must spend in custody—they will be referred to the Parole Board. The Parole Board will apply the release test set out in legislation: whether it is

“no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined”.

The board’s sole consideration in that decision is public protection.

Most determinate sentence prisoners are released from prison automatically at the halfway point of their sentence. However, certain high-risk offenders serving extended determinate sentences or sentences for offences of particular concern will be referred to the Parole Board before they are deemed safe to release. Offenders with an automatic release date who are deemed to be dangerous in custody can be referred to the Parole Board instead of being automatically released. Furthermore, offenders on determinate sentences who have been released and subsequently recalled to prison may be referred to the Parole Board.

In all cases, the Parole Board applies the release test set out in the legislation and decides whether it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined. Again, the sole consideration of the board is public protection. The overall intention is to codify the interpretation of the release test currently applied by the Parole Board so that the criteria for release or continued detention are transparent and understood by all. That will help to ensure consistency in decision making.

It may help if I set out the effects of the clause’s main provisions. First, I reassure the Committee that the clause will not change the existing interpretation of the threshold for release; it simply expressly sets out the criteria that must be taken into account by anyone applying the test. In the vast Majority of cases the Parole Board will be applying the test, as it does in each and every one of the 25,000 cases it considers each year.

As we heard in oral evidence from the chief executive of the board, Martin Jones, the board is content that the criteria in the clause

“should make no significant changes”––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2023; c. 51, Q100]

to the way its members currently assess a prisoner’s risk and suitability for release. However, there will be occasions, albeit very few, when the test is applied by the Secretary of State as a second check on behalf of the public; we shall come to those clauses in due course. The test will also be applied by the upper tribunal when considering an appeal by a prisoner against the decision of the Secretary of State to prevent their release. Again, we will consider the relevant clauses—and, I suspect, amendments from hon. Members—a little further down the line.

Proposed new section 28ZA(3) sets the threshold for a prisoner’s release as

“no more than a minimal risk that, were the prisoner no longer confined, the prisoner would commit a further offence the commission of which would cause serious harm.”

If the decision maker is not satisfied that that threshold has been met, the prisoner cannot be released and must remain incarcerated. The Government are clear on this. Public safety is our priority, and it cannot be compromised. The level of risk must be minimal and not an iota above. I trust that the Committee agrees that this is the right test and threshold.

The following subsections guide the decision maker in addressing questions on what serious harm is and how the decision maker should go about assessing minimal risk. For serious harm, proposed new section 28ZA(4) will require the decision maker to consider the likelihood of the prisoner committing

“an offence specified in Schedule 18B to the Criminal Justice Act 2003.”

Schedule 18B is inserted by the schedule to the Bill. The offences in it are those considered to be serious in nature, for which offenders must or may receive serious or restrictive sentencing and release measures. It includes common law offences such as murder, assault and robbery, as well as statutory offences such as offences against the person, firearms offences and robbery. However, when assessing the risk of a prisoner causing serious harm, the decision maker is not bound by the offences listed in the schedule. Indeed, proposed new section 28ZA(5)(d) will enable the decision maker to take into account

“the risk that the prisoner would commit a further offence” that could, in their view, cause serious harm.

I turn now to minimal risk. Subsection (5) is at the heart of the release test, and it is the starting point for assessing risk. Hopefully the criteria set out here are straightforward; none the less, it may aid the deliberations of the Committee on what is required of the decision maker if I briefly run through them in turn. Subsections (5)(a) and (b) relate to the index offence for which the prisoner was sentenced and any other offence of which they have been convicted. Of course, these are crucial factors in determining the level of risk the prisoner might pose if released. The decision maker is therefore directed to consider the nature of the offence—what crime was committed—and the seriousness of the manner in which the crime was committed. For example, were there aggravating factors and what were the judge’s sentencing remarks?