Public Safety at Risk as Nearly Half of Recalled Prisoners Deemed Too Dangerous for Release

[Social Media]

 

Public Safety at Risk as Nearly Half of Recalled Prisoners Deemed Too Dangerous for Release

 

Concerns over public safety have intensified following revelations that nearly half of all prisoners recalled to jail are considered too dangerous to be released, even as the government moves ahead with emergency legislation to ease pressure on overcrowded prisons. The latest figures show that 45 percent of offenders recalled to custody in 2023-24 were denied re-release by the Parole Board due to the threat they pose to the public—yet many of these individuals could soon benefit from a new policy capping their recall period at just 28 days.

 

 

Sir Keir Starmer defended the controversial decision, saying he had “no choice” but to introduce the 28-day limit due to the acute lack of prison capacity. “I don’t want to be put in this position, but it’s been pushed to crisis point where we simply don’t have the prison places for the prison population we’ve got because of the gross negligence of the last government,” Starmer said. “We are rectifying that at pace, which is why we’re now seeing prison builds. But as you’ll appreciate you can’t build a prison in a matter of months.”

 

 

Projections indicate that prisons in England and Wales could be entirely full by November. There are currently 13,583 recalled prisoners, accounting for 15 percent of the overall prison population, many of whom remain incarcerated pending Parole Board approval. The new recall rule, introduced by Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, will apply to offenders serving sentences between one and four years. But watchdogs, victims’ advocates, and former senior justice officials have expressed alarm over the move.

 

Baroness Newlove, the victims commissioner, has demanded an urgent meeting with the justice secretary, calling the change “unacceptable.” In a letter to Mahmood, she warned that “many of the offenders whose recalls will now be converted to fixed term will already have had their cases considered by the Parole Board — and not been directed for release.” She added, “In each case, the board will have applied the public protection test and concluded that it remained necessary to keep the individual in custody to protect the public.”

 

She also noted that the policy could benefit individuals convicted of violent and sexual offences, and those with repeat offending histories. The figures show that of the 3,270 decisions made last year on recalled prisoners serving fixed-term sentences of up to nine years, 1,469 were refused re-release due to safety concerns. Typically, Parole Board hearings for recalled offenders occur four to five months after their return to custody—well beyond the proposed 28-day limit.

 

Martin Jones, the chief inspector of probation, issued a stark warning about the practical consequences of the move. “There are some people amongst this group that remain a significant risk to the public,” he said. “What you may now see is somebody that would previously have been recalled to custody and would stay in custody until the Parole Board consider their case, may be in and out constantly... So they’re just bouncing around the system with nothing really happening to address the fundamental reasons why you’re getting that behaviour—such as drug addiction, alcohol problems, homelessness and all those issues.”

 

Nick Hardwick, former chief inspector of prisons, echoed these concerns. “The reason for doing this is very unclear,” he said. “If it’s thought that these prisoners are dangerous, then why are they being released before they’ve had a proper parole hearing and they’re risk assessed?” He further argued that for low-risk offenders, the new policy would be counterproductive, undermining rehabilitation efforts by disrupting housing, employment, and addiction support services. “All the work that will have been done before they left prison... will be completely wasted and the system will need to start all over again,” he said. “Either they’re dangerous, so don’t release them until they’re properly assessed, or they’re not dangerous, in which case don’t recall them. This seems to serve neither purpose.”

 

One of the most harrowing examples cited in the debate is that of Jordan McSweeney, who was released in 2019 after serving a sentence under four years for burglary and driving offences. Within six months, he murdered Zara Aleena, a 35-year-old law graduate. Under the new rules, McSweeney would have been eligible for automatic re-release within 28 days had he been recalled.

 

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Times  2025-05-17

 

 

[James105]

5 hours ago, Social Media said:

Sir Keir Starmer defended the controversial decision, saying he had “no choice” but to introduce the 28-day limit due to the acute lack of prison capacity.

 

There is always a choice you incompetent fool.   Over 10,000 are foreign criminals.   Deport as many of them as possible and then you have up to 10,000 spare places whilst new prisons are being built.