Report comment

Um... how is it that the Secretary of State feels able to lambast the Parole Board chair and effectively force him out of office (in what other way could 'your position is untenable' be interpreted), when the chair did not make the decision in the particular case and the Secretary of State declined (on QC's advice) to JR the decision himself? Are High Court judges told that their positions are 'untenable' if their decision in a case is overturned by the Court of Appeal? Has any recent Home Secretary/Secretary of State ever been told his/her position is untenable on account of successful JRs brought against the Home Office or other department? I think not.

Yes, the particular Parole Board decision was flawed and has now been successfully challenged (and a good job too in this case) but that does not in itself justify sacking the chief - especially as the Parole Board is currently hampered by rules that the LC has now realised need to be changed. I hope Mr Hardwick is a member of the FDA, who assisted the Head of the Prison Service who was summarily sacked by the then Home Secretary to obtain redress for unfair dismissal.