Public Glimpse into Parole Hearing for Convicted Killer

The Parole Board typically conducts its proceedings confidentially. Details concerning the progress of serious offenders in prison and the grounds for their potential release are usually kept private. However, in an initiative aimed at enhancing transparency, a portion of the hearing for William Dunlop, a murderer previously subject to double jeopardy, was held in public. How did this process unfold? Approximately thirty minutes into the hearing, Ann Ming expressed her anger. She had traveled 260 miles to hear discussions about her daughter’s murderer, but there was a clear problem with the sound. “It’s an absolute shambles for the family,” she exclaimed, as she forcefully entered Courtroom 67 at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. “We couldn’t hear a thing in there.” She and her six-person group, which included her grandson Kevin Hogg, had commenced the day in a private room. However, due to the evident deficiency in the audio there, they subsequently joined the roughly 20 members of the public and journalists in the courtroom. Tensions were already elevated, as this hearing had been abruptly rescheduled several months prior, representing the latest in a decades-long series of postponements in the pursuit of justice for Julie Hogg. The 22-year-old mother-of-one was strangled, sexually abused, and hidden beneath her bath by Dunlop in 1989. He subsequently walked free from two murder trials before later confessing. Seated at rows of wooden desks on fold-down blue chairs, all attendees observed two large TV screens positioned at the front of the room. The actual proceedings were taking place many miles away in an unnamed prison, where the four members of the Parole Board panel had convened with various legal representatives, prison staff, and Dunlop. We could see two views of a non-descript room, with light blue walls, and several individuals seated around a large wooden conference table. A couple of whiteboards were affixed to the walls; one prominently displayed the message “change your thoughts and you change your world” written in large black letters. A significant portion of what was heard was anonymized, often to the point of being indecipherable. Each time someone appeared to be on the verge of revealing a name or detail that the panel wished to keep secret, the audio feed was cut, eliciting frustrated snorts from Ms Ming and her family. Their anger was audibly amplified when, on one occasion, the link suddenly closed, replaced by an error message. The specific prison where the panel was located remained unknown to us, although one person did inadvertently let a name slip, prompting a flurry of whispers and questions among the press and rapid internet searches to determine its possible location. Furthermore, the names of the four panel members or any of the speakers were not disclosed. Everyone was identified solely by their roles, such as the woman who served as Dunlop’s prison offender manager and the man who acted as his key worker. The panel chairman informed us that he is a retired crown court judge, and his three colleagues, two men and a woman, include an individual with legal experience and a psychological expert. The panel must go to the prison, the chairman explained, because the grand Gothic court on Strand lacks the secure facilities required to accommodate an inmate. Holding such hearings in public is still a pilot program and demonstrates a commitment to enhance transparency surrounding these important decisions, the chairman stated, but he acknowledged a “significant difficulty” in allowing even this limited openness. It is impossible to ascertain what proportion of the material we will actually be privy to, as much is discussed in closed sessions from which the press and public are excluded. Nevertheless, the segments we do hear offer a fascinating insight into this typically secret process. It is rare to hear a convicted killer speak about his offending, but we heard extensively from Dunlop over the course of five hours. At no point, however, did he appear on the screen; the cameras were carefully angled to show only a couple of lawyers and the four panel members. He spoke about the “horrible” man he was, detailing how he viciously abused women, fought men when he felt challenged and flew into rages, and how Julie Hogg was the unlucky person he finally went too far with in 1989. He expressed deep regret for his actions and claimed to be a changed person, prompting scoffs from Ms Hogg’s mother and son, the latter of whom was just three years old when his mother was murdered by Dunlop. They were visibly disgusted when Dunlop stated he had a lot of respect and time for them and bore them no malice. He had not wished for this meeting to be open to the public, claiming it caused him stress and anxiety. However, while the “normal position” would still be for the Parole Board to meet in private, the organization’s chair, Caroline Corby, had previously ruled that the interests of justice in this case outweighed Dunlop’s own. The proceedings were very civilized and methodical, involving matter-of-fact discussions of sex thought diaries and emotional journals, references to completed courses and therapies, and allusions to Dunlop being a “model” prisoner. All these factors led professionals to have no cause for concern about him being moved. Dunlop discussed his past violence in a straightforward, analytical style, addressing the flaws that led to his crimes and the cognitive corrections he has undertaken during his incarceration. He stated that the prison staff and a psychologist were convinced by him, acknowledging that he articulated points the Parole Board undoubtedly wished to hear. However, he recognized that nothing he could say could ever convince Ms Hogg’s family that he should be released from high-security incarceration. The path Ms Hogg’s family has forged to reach this point is well-documented, including how they overturned an 800-year-old double jeopardy law so Dunlop would finally face justice. They vehemently oppose Dunlop’s release from a high-security prison, but the professionals who work with him daily assert his readiness for open conditions. Dunlop had initially requested complete release from prison but altered his application partway through proceedings after hearing the professionals’ opinions. The panel will formulate a recommendation to the secretary of state based on the level of risk Dunlop is believed to still pose and whether that risk can be successfully managed. In 2022, the Parole Board recommended his transfer to an open prison, but that recommendation was rejected by the secretary of state. As the hearing neared its conclusion, the chairman apologized for any technological difficulties that interrupted the stream and pledged to speak to Ms Hogg’s family. Further closed sessions will be necessary before the panel can agree on a recommendation, meaning an announcement is not expected until the new year. Dunlop returned to his cell, while his victim’s family departed into the London streets, which were bustling with commuters, tourists, and Christmas shoppers. Nothing they had heard had changed their minds. For them, Dunlop should remain behind bars.