GLEN - Fergus John - 01/04/2016
Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002
Fergus John GLEN
Hearing: 7 April 2016 at [withheld]
Members of the Board:
Hon. JW Gendall QC – Panel Convenor
Judge JP Gittos
Assoc. Prof. P Brinded
Mr L Comer
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1. Fergus Glen is serving a life sentence imposed on 21 November 2003 for the murder of his brother, to which he pleaded guilty. The circumstances have been well documented in the past and need not be repeated other than to observe that his action, as described by the sentencing Judge, was inexplicable. His parole eligibility date was 7 March 2013.
2. When the Board last saw him on 25 June 2015 it noted that he had completed the Medium Intensity Rehabilitation Programme but he had limited other rehabilitation interventions. He was then having one-to-one psychological counselling and it was said that he needed careful treatment and reintegration measures.
3. Since then, he has had extensive one-to-one psychological counselling with [withheld]. By all accounts this has been progressing extremely well. We are told that he has a very positive view of his psychologist and is eager that the one-to-one sessions continue. We are told that [withheld] supports further reintegration measures.
4. In [withheld]’s report she says (paragraph 20):
It is considered essential that subject to Prison Services security requirements Mr Glen be provided with reintegrative opportunities before release from prison becomes a feasible option. That would include new vocational opportunities, potentially including Release to Work as well as eventual placement in a Self Care environment. Accommodation in a Self Care context would permit both Mr Glen the opportunity to ready himself for any eventual release from prison that may be granted as well as to demonstration his behavioural compliance within a less restrictive prison setting.
5. Mr Glen has been in Self Care since February 2016 and an application for Release to Work is pending. Mr Glen’s counsel asks that the Board give “support” for a favourable Release to Work decision. But we do not see that be the Board’s function in most cases because it must always be a decision of prison management based on advice it receives from its expert psychologists and panel. Nevertheless if the case manager and [withheld] support that application we imagine the advisory panel will take that into account.
6. Parole is not sought today. Good progress has been made by Mr Glen but obviously more is required. At the moment Mr Glen remains an undue risk to the safety of the community and parole must be declined. He should, if at all possible, progress carefully in the reintegration phase of his sentence which would include considerable work being undertaken in formulating a sound release plan. But release is still some way off. He will be seen again in the week commencing 15 May 2017.
Hon. JW Gendall QC