Alberto has written to the Chair of the Parole Board Caroline Corby calling for double child rapist and murderer Colin Pitchfork’s next hearing to be held in public.
Alberto argues in the letter that as the first ever person to be found guilty of rape and murder using DNA evidence, the case remains in the public eye today because of the unique nature of the evidence used to convict Mr Pitchfork.
He goes on to say that there are other factors that make this case unique, and therefore warrant public access, namely that this is the first time ever that the Secretary of State, and then subsequently the prisoner, has successfully applied for reconsideration. As such Colin Pitchfork will face yet another fresh hearing in a scenario that Mr Costa has said is verging on ‘farce territory’
He said “As a member of parliament and a lawyer, even I am perplexed at how the rules can permit two seemingly contradictory decisions on the same grounds of irrationality in less than a year.”
Mr Costa has raised concerns that under current rules, limitless applications for reconsideration can be made by either prisoner or Secretary of State.
He said “The lack of finality here, is, in my opinion, a perverse and unintended consequence of the 2019 Parole Board Rules. Something I will seek to address in Parliament.”
Mr Costa continued “The Parole Board is rightly independent from Government, but that does not mean it is immune from scrutiny. There have been a number of questionable decisions and, it would seem, procedural errors, on Colin Pitchfork’s case, and as I believe we have crossed the threshold for a public hearing.
“The Parole Board is typically opaque about its proceedings, and almost never holds hearings in public, but I think the Parole Board have made a string of errors which can only be addressed by transparency, accountability, and ultimately reform to the Parole Board Rules.
“Pitchfork is only in his early 60s - a man of working age - who is capable of committing despicable acts and could easily reoffend. His victims get no second chance, and my sympathy goes out to the families of Dawn Ashworth and Lynda Mann whose pain will always outweigh Pitchfork’s punishment.
"The Parole Board need to take this opportunity to reinforce public trust in our parole system by allowing open scrutiny of the risk assessment decision-making and process.”
The full letter can be read below
Caroline Corby
Parole Board Chair
3rd Floor 10 South Colonnade
London
E14 4PU
[Sent by email to: [email protected]]
7th March 2024
Dear Caroline,
I am grateful to you for inviting my representation on the matter of whether Colin Pitchfork’s latest hearing should be held publicly. I welcome the opportunity to make this representation and feel strongly that following the Parole Board’s February 2024 decision to accept Colin Pitchfork’s reconsideration request for another the hearing ought to be held publicly.
Given the special features of this case, the emotional impact on the victims’ families and the wider community, as well as the potential risk to the public Mr Pitchfork’s release could pose, my view is that a public hearing is in the public interest. The public need to have confidence in the parole system and following a series of seemingly inconsistent decisions from the Parole Board on Colin Pitchfork, I think it is essential for the public to see how the Parole Board conducts reconsideration hearings and assesses risk especially in this matter.
Wishes of the victims’ families and the wider community
The Colin Pitchfork case remains a very sensitive matter to my constituents and continues to attract widespread national attention due to the horrific nature of his crimes.
Dawn Ashworth and Lynda Mann were brutally raped and murdered; their families and hundreds of other women continue to carry the pain and trauma of Mr Pitchfork’s fifteen years of sexual offending (Appendix 1), during which I understand he has admitted to exposing himself to over 1,000 women.
While I cannot speak for all the victims’ family members on this matter, I note that in February 2023, five of the six victims contacted gave their support for a public parole hearing. Therefore, a significant majority expressed their wish for a public hearing last year.
I would like to point out that in recent weeks I have been in contact with a member of one of the victim’s families, Philip Musson, who is the uncle of Dawn Ashworth. Mr Musson has made it clear to me that it is his express wish that this hearing be held publicly.
Special features of this case
As the first ever person to be found guilty of rape and murder using DNA evidence, the case remains in the public eye today because of the unique nature of the evidence used to convict Mr Pitchfork. The level of public interest in the case has already led to increased debate about the parole system, following a series of contradictory rulings.
In June 2023, the Parole Board issued a provisional decision directing for Pitchfork’s re-release. Following my intervention at the request of my constituents, the Secretary of State applied for reconsideration on the grounds that the decision was irrational, and the Parole Board granted the application. Following a fresh oral hearing a, on 7th December 2023 the Parole Board issued a provisional decision not directing Pitchfork's release. Pitchfork uniquely applied for reconsideration of a reconsidered decision, and on 12th February 2024 the Parole Board confirmed that it had granted his application on the grounds that the provisional decision of 7th December 2023 was irrational.
This is the first time that the Secretary of State, and then subsequently the prisoner, has successfully applied for reconsideration (Appendix 2). As a member of parliament and a lawyer, even I am perplexed at how the rules can permit two seemingly contradictory decisions on the same grounds of irrationality in less than a year.
Furthermore, as Minister Edward Argar MP has confirmed to me, under the Parole Board Rules 2019, “there is no limit to the number of applications for reconsideration which may be made” (Appendix 2). As such, this case serves to illustrate that unless rejected by the Reconsideration Assessment Panel, limitless applications for reconsideration can be made by either prisoner or Secretary of State. The lack of finality here, is, in my opinion, a perverse and unintended consequence of the 2019 Parole Board Rules.
I recall why these new rules were introduced in Parliament, as a direct result of the inability of the then Secretary of State to issue judicial review proceedings against the Parole Board following the John Worboys Parole Board debacle. These rules (and I know this because I was part of discussions with the then Secretary of State) were intended to allow a minister to seek, in effect, an internal review of a controversial Parole Board decision to avoid another John Worboys scenario, when the Minister was unable to intervene until the outcome of the third-party judicial review. The rules were never intended to allow a prisoner to challenge, on a cost-free basis, a reconsidered decision. Separately, I am campaigning to change these rules to ensure we do not encounter another Pitchfork scenario.
Given the implications of the rules, and the discretion it affords to the Reconsideration Assessment Panel to grant a fresh hearing, a public hearing on this case can add to the public understanding of the parole system and inform public debate about it.
Risk of undue emotional stress to the prisoner
In March 2023, you made the decision not to hold a public hearing for Mr Pitchfork’s 2023 parole hearing, despite representations made by the Secretary of State for Justice and I in favour of one. The bar for a public hearing is understandably high, and while I accept last year’s decision, there have been significant material changes to Mr Pitchfork’s case since this decision and I would submit that the threshold has now been crossed.
Notwithstanding my acceptance of that March 2023 decision, I would argue that some of the justifications that you, as chair, gave in 2023 for not holding a public hearing, focused heavily on the impact a public hearing would have on Mr Pitchfork’s wellbeing. My view is that the severity of the case we are dealing with and the value of transparency of Parole Board decision-making to the public, now far outweigh the potential impact a public hearing would have on the prisoner.
Concerns were raised for example, about a public hearing adding to Mr Pitchfork’s feelings of grandiosity, making it potentially more challenging to manage Mr Pitchfork in the prison estate or if he is released (Appendix 3). I think the public need to be reassured that Mr Pitchfork can manage feelings of grandiosity and that his impulses and attitudes towards other people are not destabilised by a public hearing. I would submit the public need to be reassured that if Mr Pitchfork’s feelings of grandiosity are a concern to the Parole Board panel, this should be considered not as a reason to avoid transparency, but as a significant risk-factor with implications for his release.
Risk
A public hearing will also allow the public an opportunity to see how the Parole Board assesses risk. I note that this was one of the reasons you gave recently in granting a public hearing in the case of paedophile teacher Nigel Leat (Appendix 5), and I know there is an appetite from my constituents and the wider country to understand the risk assessment calculations made of Mr Pitchfork’s case.
At the time of his offending, Mr Pitchfork’s risk factors included:
“His negative attitude towards women, his difficulties in managing extreme emotions and his enjoyment of causing fear in women. He had a need to be in control, held deviant fantasies and wanted to punish women. Mr Pitchfork was preoccupied with sexual thoughts, felt entitled to have sex as and when he wanted to and found enjoyment in sexual violence.” Parole Board Decision Summary 2023 (Appendix 1)
Having explored these factors in an oral hearing which took place over three days on 2nd October 2023, 3rd October 2023 and 6th November 2023, the Parole Board announced in December 2023 that the panel was not satisfied that the behaviours that caused Mr Pitchfork to offend were no longer present (Appendix 1). It was on these grounds that the Parole Board based its recent decision not to release Mr Pitchfork in December 2023. Since the Parole Board have now adjudicated that decision as irrational, and reversed it, it is essential for the public to see that Mr Pitchfork can clearly evidence that in the short time since that decision, he now exhibits normal, balanced, and measured behaviour and that his attitudes towards women and sex have demonstrably changed.
In the December 2023 Decision Summary (Appendix 1), the Parole Board also considered that Pitchfork’s explanations about how he spent his time on licence were “protracted and inconsistent”. During this time Mr Pitchfork spent time in forests and park areas claiming to litter pick, which for me is a concerning pattern of activity given the nature of his offending history. On hearing Mr Pitchfork’s evidence on this, the panel did not consider that he was being open and honest (Appendix 1).
In addition, the panel highlighted concerns about Mr Pitchfork’s behaviour in prison since his 2021 recall and questioned whether Mr Pitchfork would be able to build a confident relationship with his Probation Officer given the concerns that were raised about his attitude towards the probation officer when on licence. On this matter again the panel “did not consider that Mr Pitchfork could be adequately trusted to engage with the release plan” or “that he would be open and honest with his Probation Officer” (Appendix 1). The panel understandably considered this to be critical to future risk management. In light of the panel’s justifications for not releasing Mr Pitchfork in 2023, the public will be understandably worried that Mr Pitchfork’s case has reached the threshold to be reconsidered. As such, if the public is to have confidence in the Parole Board’s decision-making and risk assessment, it is crucial that the hearing be held publicly.
If released, the public need absolute confidence that Mr Pitchfork will engage properly with his release plan. However, the public will have understandable concerns about Mr Pitchfork’s honesty and integrity, given his track record of going to great lengths to avoid detection. From giving a false blood sample in the 1980s to evade DNA detection, to his deliberate attempts in November 2021 to undermine the polygraph testing process by controlling his breathing (Appendix 1); Mr Pitchfork has reportedly taken great pleasure in deception, reportedly saying "probation officers and psychiatrists, these people are quite happy if you tell them what they want to hear. I can't believe how easy it is to spin yarns to these people" (Appendix 6). Whilst this is a media article, you will appreciate without hearing the evidence, the public will only be left with such articles upon which to base their own assessment of whether Mr Pitchfork continues to present a danger to the public.
Mr Pitchfork’s aptitude for deception and manipulation are of great concern to my constituents, many of whom lived in fear while he was committing his crimes and evading the police through his calculated and deceptive practices. The public need to feel reassured that the Parole Board panel are not being misled or ‘spun yarn’ by Mr Pitchfork in this upcoming hearing. The only way that this can be achieved, and the public can have full confidence in the panel’s decision, is by holding this hearing publicly.
The Parole Board’s management of Mr Pitchfork’s case
There are understandable concerns from the public that the way Mr Pitchfork’s case has been managed by the Parole Board has created unnecessary complications as well as opportunities for Mr Pitchfork to challenge the decisions. As such, greater transparency on this particular case will be beneficial in ensuring all relevant information comes to light.
The grounds on which Mr Pitchfork mounted his successful 2024 appeal was because the prison offender manager’s recommendation needed to be taken into account during the hearing and it had been decided the panel’s “reasoned decision did not do so.” If this is indeed the primary reason for Mr Pitchfork’s reconsideration of a reconsidered decision, this means an error in the parole hearing has led to public resources needing to be redeployed again and taxpayer money spent on a fresh hearing; this is something that clearly could have been avoided if the hearing was conducted properly.
In addition, according to Minister Edward Argar MP “nearly two-and-a-half years after Pitchfork was recalled to custody, the post-recall review of his fresh period of detention conducted by the Parole Board has yet to be concluded” (Appendix 2).
In 2021 Mr Pitchfork was released, and polygraph testing was made one of Mr Pitchfork’s licence conditions, which Mr Pitchfork did not fully comply with. Following his recall, it was realised that the polygraph testing condition had been unlawfully imposed on Mr Pitchfork and could not then, or now, be properly attached to his licence conditions (Appendix 1). It is therefore disappointing that the “breach of the polygraph condition could not therefore be properly used as a justification for his recall to custody and the panel determined that it could not be satisfied that his recall had been appropriate” (Appendix 1). This is further evidence of a chain of errors which raise serious questions about the management of Mr Pitchfork’s case.
The growing concerns around the Parole Board’s management of Mr Pitchfork’s case is one of the central reasons that I am calling for greater transparency in this case. I would urge you, as Chair, to exercise your power under Parole Board Rule 15(3), to conduct Mr Pitchfork’s reconsideration hearing publicly.
Yours sincerely,
Alberto Costa MP
Member of Parliament for South Leicestershire
