Prisoner’s Bid for Parole Denied by Parole Board

Nicholas Bidar, a prisoner serving a long-abolished indefinite jail sentence, recently lost his Parole Board bid to be released. He is one of many offenders still behind bars years beyond their minimum tariff due to being given Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences, which have no release date, despite the punishment being scrapped over a decade ago. The 36-year-old spoke from HMP Long Lartin in Worcestershire, where he is being held, at a public parole hearing earlier this month, describing his experience as living in “hell” as he pleaded to be freed. Bidar became the first prisoner serving this type of sentence to have his parole review heard in public after laws were changed to increase transparency in the process.

In 2009, Bidar was sentenced to jail for a series of robberies and using a gun to resist arrest when he was 21 years old. Despite the eight-year minimum tariff set as part of his indefinite sentence expiring in 2017, he remains behind bars. IPP sentences were introduced in 2005 to prevent serious offenders who did not warrant a life sentence from being released too early when they still posed a danger to the public. Even though this sentencing option was abolished in 2012, approximately 3,000 criminals are still incarcerated after being sentenced under this system. The Government has committed to reviewing and potentially ending the sentences of hundreds of rehabilitated offenders by 2025, as rule changes may allow for earlier termination of their sentences.

The recently published summary of the Parole Board’s decision noted that the panel reviewing Bidar’s case did not believe it would be safe for the protection of the public to release him at that point. They also did not recommend his transfer to an open prison, as they were not convinced that his risk of absconding or risk to the public had decreased to the necessary level. The panel, however, did suggest that urgent steps be taken for Bidar to potentially be moved to a lower security jail in the future and advised that his case be reviewed again in a year. They expressed concerns about Bidar’s current category A status affecting his ability to bring about positive change in the longer term, recommending efforts be made to establish a pathway for re-categorization and potential transfer to a lower security prison.

Parole judges are not responsible for determining the categorization of prison inmates, but the panel considering Bidar’s case did recommend that the Justice Secretary and officials take immediate action to explore the possibility of moving him to a lower security facility. They emphasized the importance of regular reviews to facilitate this process and suggested that if Bidar is able to achieve a reduction in categorization, he should be transferred to a more suitable prison where he can continue with his sentence plan. The recommendation for urgent action to address Bidar’s category A status reflects the panel’s belief that his current classification is hindering his progress and potential for rehabilitation. Continued efforts to reassess his situation and work towards a more appropriate placement were advised to support his long-term development and successful reintegration into society.