Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

Dear All,

I am able to advise that Peter Burr who was initially sentenced to 48 months in prison (5th January 2018), on which was based a preliminary decision to release him on 5th January 2020 which had not allowed for his extended sentence by the Appeal Court, has been released on 20th April 2021 based on half his 6 years and 7 months increased sentence. I understand that the requirement that he had to undergo a Parole Board interview did not occur. Thus he has served half his extended sentence.

None of the victims were notified.

Rob

It’s of concern if he was released with a Parole Board hearing if that was a requirement , might if he worth following this up with them or with Probation?

I am trying to asses exactly what the Appeal Court required.

But this is standard practice? A release at the midway point based on good behaviour and other such measurables?

One assumes that despite a formal parole hearing there are appropriate controls to govern his movement and conduct.

No it is not standard practice for 'extended sentences' where 2/3rds must be served. It seems that it is not clear what their Honours exactly wanted in the Appeal.

As for controls post release - they are not worth the legal paper they are written on!

Avon wrote: ↑Thu Sep 16, 2021 7:21 pm But this is standard practice? A release at the midway point based on good behaviour and other such measurables?

One assumes that despite a formal parole hearing there are appropriate controls to govern his movement and conduct.

For the majority of immediate custodial sentences, release comes automatically at the halfway point. The second half of the sentence is served on licence, i.e. regular attendance with probation officers, unannounced visits by police, etc.

There are some exceptions where 2/3 of the sentence has to be served, or where release is at the parole board's discretion, but these are a minority of cases.

Avon wrote: ↑Thu Sep 16, 2021 7:21 pm But this is standard practice? A release at the midway point based on good behaviour and other such measurables?

One assumes that despite a formal parole hearing there are appropriate controls to govern his movement and conduct.

A simple question; what is "good behaviour"? I suspect that if the authorities were strict about "Yes Sir, No Sir" then they would have a battle on their hands. Finding a shiv in another prisoner might tip the balance