Luke Mitchell will not have to admit being a killer to get parole.

[Captain Cringe]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a749113ed915d0e8e3993ae/Parole_Board_-_Information_for_Victims.pdf
The Parole Board has a booklet called "Information for Victims."  It states in part, "If an offender continues to maintain their innocence, the Parole Board must assess whether their risk is still high enough that the public can only be protected by their continued imprisonment against the fact that they are unlikely to show any remorse, while they continue to deny their guilt...However, denial of guilt is not a lawful reason by itself for the Board to refuse to release an offender, or assess them as suitable for open conditions."  There is, shall we say, tension between the two ideas in the quoted passage.  I will come back to this thread when I have more time.

There is no tension.  The offender was found guilty of an offence and incarcerated , there is no question of the parole board considering the possibility thst maybe they were wrongfully convicted, that is not their job.

[Chris_Halkides]

"If an offender continues to maintain their innocence, the Parole Board must assess whether their risk is still high enough that the public can only be protected by their continued imprisonment against the fact that they are unlikely to show any remorse, while they continue to deny their guilt."

The Parole Board is saying in effect that they cannot by law deny parole to someone who maintains their innocence but they can factor in lack of remorse; therefore, they can get to the same place by a different route.  My suggestions are not to use remorse (which can be feigned) as a criterion, and to put little or no weight on predictions about future violence, because it is asking too much of the current state of psychology.  I am no expert, but I would instead look at the frequency of disciplinary infractions and participation in education or training programs, or perhaps other things that might bear on a prisoner's attempt to reintegrate into society.

[Captain Cringe]

"If an offender continues to maintain their innocence, the Parole Board must assess whether their risk is still high enough that the public can only be protected by their continued imprisonment against the fact that they are unlikely to show any remorse, while they continue to deny their guilt."

The Parole Board is saying in effect that they cannot by law deny parole to someone who maintains their innocence but they can factor in lack of remorse; therefore, they can get to the same place by a different route.  My suggestions are not to use remorse (which can be feigned) as a criterion, and to put little or no weight on predictions about future violence, because it is asking too much of the current state of psychology.  I am no expert, but I would instead look at the frequency of disciplinary infractions and participation in education or training programs, or perhaps other things that might bear on a prisoner's attempt to reintegrate into society.

Obviously when assessing risk the parole board will take into account the frequency of disciplinary infractions and participation in education or training programmes, or perhaps other things that might bear on a prisoner’s attempt to reintegrate into society such as their attitude (especially towards women, if they’ve been convicted of a crime against one) and their predilections (eg an avowed and renewed devotion to Satan is probably not a good look for one who has been convicted of a diabolical crime, certainly not as far as the parole board is concerned).