Report comment

Let's all keep our feet on the ground.

1. This abomination of a man was convicted of certain offences and sentenced according to guidelines; the A-G of the day (one Patricia Scotland) considered a reference to the Court of Appeal but did not in the end refer it. Those are the convictions, that the sentence, with which the PB is concerned.

2. The findings of the civil court in proceedings brought by other complainants are neither here nor there; those findings were on the balance of probabilities and the man concerned was not a party to them.

3. He had the right to apply to the Board after serving his minimum and did so.

4. The Board was created in 1967 specifically to be independent of Ministers - and therefore of anyone who might put pressure on Ministers - and that includes the press.

5. The Board has since it was created worked under rules of tight confidentiality; that protects the applicant and also the members and staff of the Board.

6. If the Board failed to inform the victims - that is those whose cases led to a conviction - that is bad performance; but are we certain that the Board had up-to-date addresses? If they had moved on and not told the Board (and when you move address there are a lot of people to tell and the Board might not be at the top of anyone's list) the letter would be delayed.

So where does that leave us?

First, Yvette Cooper should be ashamed at asking for any information to be released which it would be unlawful to release. It is a warning of what might happen under any government of which she was a member.

Second, the Secretary of State has no power to delay the release of this man. He would be entitled to habeas corpus if he was not released, with damages to follow.

Third, there is no chance of successfully prosecuting him in respect of any other complainant. If the evidence did not pass the test then it will not now - the findings of the civil court would not even be admissible as evidence - and in any event the publicity of recent days makes a fair trial impossible.

Fourth - there may be arguments for the Board releasing more information (and there are excellent arguments against) but the desire of the tabloid press for cheap copy is not one of them. And any change can only be prospective.