Remote parole oral hearings: more efficient, but at what cost?

The Parole Board (PB) is responsible for deciding whether some prisoners are safe to be released into the community. COVID-19 accelerated the PB’s move towards using remote oral hearings. Little is known about how this shift towards remote working has impacted the work of the PB and prisoners. In this article, we present the findings from a study that sought to understand the differences between remote and in-person hearings. Through analysis of interviews with 15 PB panel members we identify benefits and disbenefits of remote hearings. We suggest that in-person hearings are perceived to be better and that remote hearings pose challenges to participation, especially for certain prisoners. However, we also find that remote hearings bring benefits, such as greater efficiency for the organisation. We conclude that the Board needs to reconcile the tension between the efficiency afforded by remote working and the risks to justice that exist in this context.

Remote Parole Hearings: Efficiency vs. Justice

The study examined the differences between remote and in-person hearings conducted by the Parole Board during the COVID-19 pandemic through analysis of interviews with Parole Board members. Remote hearings offered benefits such as greater efficiency for the organization, but posed challenges to participation, especially for certain prisoners. In-person hearings were perceived to be better. The study recommends that remote hearings should be used on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the needs of prisoners and the risks to justice.

The research presented in this article is important because it sheds light on the impact of the shift towards remote working on the work of the Parole Board (PB) and prisoners. The study identifies the benefits and challenges of remote hearings, and highlights the need for careful decision-making in relation to whether a prisoner's oral hearing takes place remotely or in-person. The research also raises important questions about who the beneficiaries of remote hearings really are and highlights the need for further research to ensure that fairness is achieved across all hearings, regardless of mode of communication.

Key Takeaways:

1. The shift towards remote working has impacted the work of the PB and prisoners, with both benefits and challenges identified.

2. In-person hearings are perceived to be better, but remote hearings bring benefits such as greater efficiency for the organisation.

3. The PB needs to reconcile the tension between the efficiency afforded by remote working and the risks to justice that exist in this context.

4. There is a need for careful decision-making in relation to whether a prisoner's oral hearing takes place remotely or in-person, and the PB should investigate the possibility of panel members over-working due to the perceived ease of conducting hearings remotely.

5. The length of remote hearings needs to be considered, as they were typically much longer than in-person hearings, raising questions about who the beneficiaries of remote hearings really are.

6. The research highlights the need for further research to ensure that fairness is achieved across all hearings, regardless of mode of communication, and for the PB to be mindful of the pressure that remote working places on panel members.