Overview
The complainant (Mr C) felt the behaviour of a member of the Parole Board (Officer 1) was inappropriate as he felt that Officer 1 acted as an advocate for his release, which was not the role to be assumed by Officer 1. Mr C also complained that inaccurate minutes had been provided to the Parole Board (the Board) Review when considering his case and this adversely affected the decision reached by the Board. Furthermore, the complainant felt the Board should have re-convened a new review due to the inaccuracies in the minutes.
Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:
- (a) the manner in which Officer 1 conducted the interview, acting as an advocate for Mr C’s release when in fact this was not her role (not upheld);
- (b) incorrect information recorded on minutes and the adverse effect this had on the Parole Board’s decision on the review of Mr C’s case (not upheld), and;
- (c) the decision not to re-convene a new review panel given the inaccuracies in the minutes (not upheld).
Redress and recommendation
The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.