Skip to main content

Reporting Parole Board Public Hearings

For 55 years every parole hearing in England and Wales was held behind closed doors. Since 21 July 2022 the Board chair can direct a hearing to be held in public. This guide covers how to apply, what the chair weighs, what the live stream shows you — and the naming ban that still binds every reporter in the room.

Last reviewed: Next review due:

Jurisdiction note: This guide covers the Parole Board for England and Wales and the Parole Board Rules 2019. Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate parole bodies with their own rules. See our Scotland media law guide and Northern Ireland media law guide.

What changed in 2022

The Parole Board was established in 1967 and, under its rules, its hearings were always held in private. Following a government consultation that ran from 20 October to 1 December 2020, ministers decided in February 2021 that the blanket ban was unnecessary. The then Minister of State, Lucy Frazer, was careful about expectations: the government expected "truly public hearings to be rare", but it was right to remove the barrier that required them always to be private.

The change was made by the Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2022 (SI 2022/717), made on 28 June 2022 and in force from 21 July 2022. They inserted a new rule 15(3) into the Parole Board Rules 2019 (SI 2019/1038): an oral hearing — including a directions hearing or case management conference — "must be held in private unless the Board chair considers, on their own initiative or on an application to the Board, that it is in the interests of justice for the oral hearing to be held in public". Rule 15(3A) bars applications made later than 12 weeks before the date allocated for the hearing, and rule 15(3B) lets the panel chair or duty member direct that part of a public hearing is held in private.

Two distinctions matter throughout. The Board chair — the chair of the Parole Board itself, or a senior judicial member acting under delegated authority — decides whether a hearing is public at all. The panel chairruns the hearing on the day, decides which parts go private, and can remove observers. And the Parole Board is not a court in the Contempt of Court Act sense: it describes itself as a "court-like body", and its own rules, rather than the ordinary reporting-restriction orders, govern what you can publish.

How a hearing becomes public: the application

Anyone can apply — a victim, the prisoner, a journalist, an academic, or a member of the public — and the Chair can also act on their own initiative. The Board's procedure guidance (March 2026, v2.0) and the HMPPS oral hearing policy framework describe the same route.

1. Wait for the case to be listed
An application can only be made once the case has been directed to an oral hearing; the Board processes it once the case is listed. Applications made before a hearing is directed may not be accepted.
2. Use the form and the right inbox
Apply on the Parole Board's form ("Applying for a Parole Board hearing to be held in public") from gov.uk and send it to the dedicated public-hearings inbox given on that page. The procedure guidance warns that applications sent to any other mailbox will not be accepted.
3. Make it at least 12 weeks out
Rule 15(3A): no later than 12 weeks before the date allocated for the oral hearing. The time limit can be varied under rule 9, but the guidance says late applications should only be granted for exceptional reasons, and the nearer the hearing, the less likely.
4. Argue the interests of justice
Set out in writing why the case should be heard in public rather than remain private. Read the published grants and refusals first: the Chair reuses the same factors each time, and a thin application on "public interest" alone tends to fail.
5. Expect your name to be public
Since March 2026 the name and status of the applicant is public unless there are good reasons to the contrary, and details of accepted applications are posted on the Board's website inviting representations from others — with a window of up to five working days.
6. Representations and decision
The Secretary of State (via PPCS), the prisoner or their representative, victims (via the victim liaison officer) and the allocated panel chair are asked for views, which are cross-served so each side can respond. The decision is usually made on the papers and published on the Board's website the same day.

If the application is refused, the hearing stays private and the only route of challenge is judicial review — the decision is outside the Board's own reconsideration and set-aside mechanisms. Even where a hearing is granted, the Chair can revoke the direction if circumstances change, and the Board's information sheet reminds observers that attendance remains at the panel chair's discretion.

The interests-of-justice test: what the Chair weighs

Every published decision opens from the same place: the normal position is that parole hearings remain private, because it is of paramount importance that witnesses can give their best evidence and because the evidence can cover highly personal matters, including health, and material that may be distressing to victims. There must therefore be good reasons to depart from the general rule. The Board's 2026 procedure guidance sets out the non-exhaustive factors.

  • General: Whether there is good reason to depart from the rule that hearings are private; whether the case has special features which may add to proper public understanding of the parole system and public debate about it; whether a public hearing might compromise the Board's core function of assessing risk on all the evidence; the panel's ability to sit privately for appropriate periods; and the availability of summaries or redacted decisions to the public as an alternative.
  • Victim-related: The wishes of the victims; any risk of undue emotional stress or re-traumatisation, including adverse effects on the mental health of the victim or their family; and the victim's right to attend part of the hearing in any event. The Board's 2026 decisions record that since 1 April 2025 victims have been able to apply to observe private hearings and will normally be admitted, subject to a confidentiality undertaking.
  • Prisoner-related: The informed wishes of the prisoner and any risks to their safety. A prisoner's objection is important but not determinative — the guidance says it should not be treated as a veto. In the Causley decision the Chair noted that the prisoner had threatened not to give evidence, found no medical evidence to support the claim that he could not, and granted the application anyway.
  • Evidence-related: Whether witnesses, including the prisoner, will be able to give their best evidence in public. Where compelling evidence shows they cannot, a public hearing should not be directed. The Chair also weighs the mitigations available: taking evidence in private, using code phrases for addresses, attaching conditions to attendance, and suspending the hearing or removing disruptive observers.

The first grant shows the factors in action. In Causley([2022] PBPH 1, decided 7 September 2022), the Chair found special features: it was the first case involving a prisoner who had never disclosed the location of his victim's body since "Helen's Law" took effect; the offence was murder; the Board's work on recalls was little understood; and the victims, the media and an academic all wanted it heard in public. The Secretary of State supported the application. As of August 2026 the Board's register lists 16 applications granted against several dozen refused — so the minister's prediction that public hearings would be rare has held.

What a public hearing actually looks like

A public parole hearing is not a public gallery in a prison. Once a hearing is made public, everyone who wants to watch — press, public, victims, even the applicant — must register with the Board, and places are allocated first come, first served, limited by the venue's capacity. The hearing itself takes place at a secure location with the panel, the prisoner and the parties; observers watch a live stream from a separate Ministry of Justice-approved venue. The Board's member guidance notes the stream runs with a delay of about 60 seconds and can be terminated by the panel chair at any point.

Inquisitorial, not adversarial
Up to four members sit as a panel. They question the prisoner and witnesses from a dossier that can run to hundreds of pages; the prisoner or their representative can question witnesses too. Nobody is "prosecuting". The test is whether it remains necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner be confined.
Who you will see
The prisoner (usually), their representative, HMPPS witnesses such as the community and prison offender managers, psychologists and other specialists. At the start the panel chair asks each participant to explain their role — but observers are not introduced and cannot be seen or heard.
Witnesses by job title
The member guidance says the expectation is that witnesses will be referred to by job title rather than name, and the case management conference before the hearing settles who is on or off camera. That is the naming ban in rule 27 operating in real time.
Private sessions are built in
Licence conditions, the prisoner's health, the risk management plan, approved-premises locations, security information and references to victims are typically taken in a closed part. The stream is cut and resumes afterwards — or the private matters are dealt with on a separate day, as in both Causley and Salvador.
Victims
A victim may attend remotely before the hearing to read a victim personal statement to the panel. Victims are not witnesses: they do not take part in the discussion and are not questioned. Whether victims are mentioned in open session is itself an item for the case management conference.
No result on the day
No decision, or indication of one, is given at the hearing. The panel issues its decision to the parties within 14 days unless more time is needed; for eligible sentence types it stays provisional through a 21-day reconsideration window.

The Board's information sheet also warns that hearings can be delayed or pulled on the day without warning, that the material can be graphic and distressing, and that "members of the press are usually present at public hearings". Plan for a full day at the venue, a possible second private day you will not see, and a decision that arrives by press release a fortnight or more later.

What you can and cannot report

"Public" does not mean "unrestricted". The restrictions come from the Parole Board Rules themselves, not from court orders, and they apply whether you are a registered observer or reading a colleague's notes.

  • Rule 27(6): the naming ban: Other than those of the parties, the names of persons concerned in proceedings under the Rules must not be disclosed unless the Board chair gives a direction to the contrary. The parties are the prisoner and the Secretary of State — so the prisoner can be named. Everyone else is caught. The Board's observer sheet lists them: any social worker, prison staff, the author of any report, any witness, the prisoner's representative, the panel members and their staff — none of whom may be named in the press or on social media.
  • Rule 27(7): civil liability: A contravention of rule 27(5) or (6) is actionable as a breach of statutory duty by any person who suffers loss or damage as a result. This is not contempt with a jail term attached, but it is a cause of action against you and your publisher, and the Board also cites section 170 of the Data Protection Act 2018 — the offence of knowingly or recklessly obtaining or disclosing personal data without the controller's consent — in its observer guidance.
  • Rule 27(5): the chair's control of publication: Subject to rule 27(1) and rule 17, the Board chair may prohibit or permit the disclosure, recording or publication of proceedings or information about proceedings under the Rules — and a decision may relate to a class of proceedings. Conditions attached to a public hearing direction can therefore go further than the default naming ban. Read the grant decision and any conditions in the registration pack before you file.
  • Recording: contempt: The information sheet states that any digital audio, video or other recording of a parole oral hearing by an attendee, including screenshots or downloads, is strictly forbidden and constitutes contempt of court. The stream is for watching. Your contemporaneous note is your record.
  • Victims and the recall facts: Published decisions show the panel can anonymise victims and anyone connected to the events leading to a recall, and can take those facts in a closed part. The 2026 Shepherd decision records that the panel would ensure anyone seeking anonymity got it and that victims' names could be anonymised. Treat victim identity exactly as you would under a court order, and check for any criminal proceedings still active.

What you can report is still substantial: the prisoner's name, offence and sentence; the questions the panel asks and the answers given in open session; the positions the parties take; what witnesses say, attributed by role; the victim personal statement if read in open session and not anonymised; and the decision when it is published. For the ordinary court framework these rules sit alongside, see our reporting restrictions overview.

Getting the decision afterwards

Three documents exist after a public hearing, and reporters routinely confuse them.

The redacted decision
The Board says a redacted decision will be written in all public hearing cases and published on its website. The collection page on gov.uk carries the redacted decision letters for recent public hearings — these are the panel's full reasons with sensitive material removed.
The decision summary
Under rule 27(1) a victim or any other person can seek the reasons for a decision, and the Board must produce them — as a summary or a redacted decision — unless the Board chair finds exceptional circumstances. Requests are emailed to the Board's summaries inbox with the prisoner's name and prison number, one case per email; the Board will not process requests made more than six months after the decision (rule 27(2)).
The public hearing decision
Separate from all of the above: the Chair's decision on whether the hearing should be public, published under its own neutral citation ([year] PBPH number) on the day it is made. It often contains the fullest public account of the case background and the parties' arguments — read it before the hearing, not after.
What summaries leave out
The gov.uk summaries page lists the grounds for refusing or redacting: harm to rehabilitation, anyone's safety, young offenders, released mental health patients, court orders, live investigations, national security and the public interest. Summaries are useful for the outcome and the panel's reasoning, not for fresh facts.

Working a public hearing well

  • Watch the register. The Board publishes every application decision — granted and refused — and, since March 2026, details of accepted applications while representations are open. A pending application on a case you cover is a story in itself, and your window to make representations is five working days.
  • Apply early and argue the factors. Twelve weeks is the hard deadline; the first grant was only possible because the Chair waived it for applications made days after the rule took effect. Address best evidence, victim welfare and the availability of private sessions head-on, because those are the points on which refusals turn.
  • Register the moment a grant is published. Places are first come, first served and capped by the venue. Every observer — including the journalist who made the application — must register separately.
  • Read the grant decision and the conditions pack before the day. They tell you what will be heard in private, whether witnesses will be on camera, and any conditions attached under rule 27(5).
  • Build a role-based cast list. Note each participant by job title as the panel chair introduces them — community offender manager, prison offender manager, prison psychologist — and write your copy that way from the start rather than scrubbing names out later.
  • Do not file the result. Nothing said at the hearing is a decision; the panel gives no indication either way. Report what was said and what the prisoner is seeking, then wait for the Board's announcement and the redacted decision.
  • Use the private-session cuts as structure. When the stream drops for licence conditions or the risk management plan, that is a legitimate line in your report — "the panel then sat in private to consider the release plan" — and a sign of what the panel thought mattered.
  • Ask for the summary within six months. If you missed a public hearing or want the reasons in a related private case, rule 27(1) entitles you to a summary; the clock runs from the decision date.

Common mistakes to avoid

  • Naming a probation officer, psychologist or panel member because they were "in a public hearing". Rule 27(6) bars it regardless of how the hearing was held, and rule 27(7) makes it actionable.
  • Treating the live stream like a court video link and screen-grabbing a frame for the web story. The Board treats any recording, screenshot or download by an attendee as contempt.
  • Assuming "public" means you can just turn up. There is no public gallery: unregistered observers are not admitted, and attendance is at the panel chair's discretion even after registration.
  • Reporting the "verdict" from the hearing. There is none. Decisions are issued to the parties within 14 days and can remain provisional for a further 21-day reconsideration window.
  • Confusing the Board chair with the panel chair. The Board chair (or delegate) decides whether the hearing is public and controls publication under rule 27(5); the panel chair runs the day, orders private sessions and can remove you.
  • Sending the application to the Board's general inbox or applying before the case has been directed to an oral hearing. Both are grounds for the application not being accepted.
  • Forgetting that a recall case may carry a live criminal investigation. The 2026 Shepherd decision was delayed pending a charging decision; if proceedings are active, the Contempt of Court Act 1981 applies to your report of the hearing just as it would to any other publication.

For the wider framework, see our contempt in active proceedings guide and our guide to challenging reporting restrictions.

Primary sources

Frequently asked questions

Can journalists attend Parole Board hearings?
Only if the hearing has been directed to be held in public. Rule 15(3) of the Parole Board Rules 2019, as amended by the Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2022 (SI 2022/717) from 21 July 2022, says an oral hearing must be held in private unless the Board chair considers, on their own initiative or on an application, that it is in the interests of justice for it to be held in public. There is no press seat at an ordinary private hearing. If a hearing is made public, anyone — including reporters — can register to observe it, normally via a live stream at a Ministry of Justice venue.
How do I apply for a parole hearing to be held in public?
Anyone can apply: a victim, the prisoner, a journalist, or a member of the public. Use the Parole Board's application form on gov.uk, set out in writing why the interests of justice favour a public hearing, and send it to the dedicated public-hearings inbox named on that page — the Board's procedure guidance says applications sent to any other mailbox will not be accepted. Under rule 15(3A) the application may not be made later than 12 weeks before the date allocated for the oral hearing, and it can only be made once a case has actually been directed to an oral hearing. Late applications are accepted only for exceptional reasons.
Who decides, and what is the test?
The Chair of the Parole Board — or a senior judicial member to whom the Chair has delegated the function — decides whether it is in the interests of justice for the hearing to be public. The starting point is that hearings are private, so there must be good reason to depart from that rule. The published decisions and the Board's March 2026 procedure guidance list the factors: whether the case has special features that would add to public understanding of the parole system; whether a public hearing would compromise the panel's ability to assess risk; the wishes and welfare of victims; the informed wishes and safety of the prisoner; whether witnesses can give their best evidence; and whether a summary or redacted decision would meet the transparency need instead.
Can I name the witnesses, the probation officers or the panel members?
No. Rule 27(6) of the Parole Board Rules 2019 provides that, other than the parties, the names of persons concerned in proceedings under the Rules must not be disclosed unless the Board chair directs otherwise, and rule 27(7) makes a breach actionable as a breach of statutory duty by anyone who suffers loss or damage. The Board's observer information sheet spells out who that catches: social workers, prison staff, report authors, any witness, the prisoner's representative, the panel members and their staff — and says they cannot be named in the press or on social media. The parties — the prisoner and the Secretary of State — are outside the ban, which is why the prisoner can be named. In practice witnesses are referred to by job title during the hearing.
Can I record or screenshot the live stream?
No. The Board's observer information sheet states that any digital audio, video or other recording of a parole oral hearing by an attendee, including screenshots or downloads, is strictly forbidden and constitutes contempt of court. Rule 27(5) also gives the Board chair power to prohibit or permit the disclosure, recording or publication of proceedings. Take a contemporaneous note, as you would in court.
Will I hear the decision at the hearing?
No. The Board's guidance is explicit that no decision, or indication of a decision, is given in the hearing. The panel issues its decision to the parties within 14 days unless more time is needed, and for eligible sentence types there is a 21-day reconsideration window during which the decision remains provisional. In every public hearing case the Board says a redacted decision will be written and published on its website; anyone can also request a decision summary within six months of the decision.
Which was the first public parole hearing?
Russell Causley's. The Chair of the Parole Board, Caroline Corby, granted the application in a decision dated 7 September 2022 and published on 20 September 2022 — the first under the new rule, cited as [2022] PBPH 1 — after four applications were received within days of the rule taking effect: one from a victim, two from the media and one from an academic. The Board's published summary records that the hearing on 12 December 2022, held in person at the prison, was the first to be heard in public following the rule change, with a second session on 16 December 2022 held in private so that sensitive matters could be discussed. Charles Salvador, better known as Charles Bronson, followed with public sessions on 6 and 8 March 2023.
Can I challenge a refusal to hold a hearing in public?
Only by judicial review. The Board's procedure guidance and the HMPPS policy framework both state that there is no appeal, and that the decision is not eligible for the Board's reconsideration or set-aside mechanisms. The Board publishes refusals as well as grants, so read recent refusals before applying to see what arguments have failed.

Related guides

Court ReportingRemote Observation of Court HearingsRead →Court ReportingChallenging Reporting RestrictionsRead →BeatsPrison Reporting in DepthRead →BeatsCourt and Justice ReportingRead →Media LawReporting Restrictions OverviewRead →Media LawContempt: Active ProceedingsRead →Court ReportingCourt Reporting HubRead →

Primary sources

Not legal advice. This guide is for educational purposes. Consult a qualified media lawyer before making publication decisions in legally sensitive situations.