Why have a Parole Board if its recommendations are rejected?

Letters to the editor: our readers share their views. Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

Regardless of whether prisoners held under a now-defunct law are worthy of release or less stringent imprisonment, the interference of the government smacks of a Big Brother scenario (“The government needs to help prisoners serving indefinite jail terms – not prolong their suffering”, 28 December 2024).

The governments of China, Russia, etc, are well known for overriding and interfering in their judicial systems. Are we becoming yet another country to deny people, albeit lawbreakers, their rights?

It seems that the government has overruled the Parole Board which, appointed by the government, has recommended that 128 inmates be moved to open prisons. Surely, these prisoners have been denied a chance to be rehabilitated back into society.

The law under which they were imprisoned is no longer on the statute book. Justice secretary Shabana Mahmood ought to revisit this gross and inhumane injustice and accept the Parole Board’s decision. After all, why have a Parole Board in the first place if the recommendations are rejected?

This is a sensitive situation and again, the new Labour government has stumbled into another contentious conundrum. Mr Starmer needs to get a firmer grip on these foolish government mistakes before he runs out of time and the will of the electorate.

Keith Poole

Basingstoke

Make good on your pledge

Geoffrey Brooking appears to be starstruck by our prime minister (“Far from getting involved in petty squabbles, Keir Starmer is putting the country first”, 28 Dec 2024). But I am less impressed.

If Starmer genuinely wants to put the country first, he needs to make good on his first-day pledge to prioritise the security of the United Kingdom. Pandering to the unions and focusing on other public services is all well and good, but not much help if we can’t defend our country against a plurality of global threats to democracy.

He has initiated a “strategic defence review” but the proof of its worth will be in the government’s response to its recommendations.

All too often, reviews have been used to kick the can down the road, or recommendations are watered down, or sufficient funding is not made available. The money must be found even if it means raising taxes, diverting cash from other public services, or both.

In the meantime, Starmer should demonstrate international leadership by promoting a more united and effective Europe in its support for Ukraine, and exercising whatever influence the UK may have left to secure the best possible outcome for Ukraine in any peace negotiations. I am not convinced that Starmer has the steel within him to deal with Trump, and other national leaders, who may look for a quick and capitulative fix.

Our prime minister may be a capable administrator and lawyer, but he lacks charisma and does not come across as a strong and inspiring leader.

David Platts

Nottingham