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

[Kenmair]

” You do not have to admit your guilt prior to making an application for parole, nor is denial of guilt an automatic bar to release on parole licence. It is not the role of the Parole Board to decide on issues of guilt or innocence, and your case will be considered on the basis that you were rightfully convicted.”
https://prisonreformtrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/old_files/Documents/Parole%20Information%20Booklet.pdf

Most murderers do not admit their guilt. As far as I'm aware, one of the reasons LM was refused parole was because he was deemed to be a danger to women, whether that was observed in his interactions with female visitors or female staff. Much like Peter Sutcliffe, there seems to be numerous women wanting to befriend convicted killers for some reason. I've not tried it, but is Tinder not the place to meet people?

[Chris_Halkides]

A great deal depends on the word "automatic."  This passage implies that denial of guilt is a factor in the decision, but it is not the sole factor.

Regarding the denial of parole, The Daily Mail wrote, "A psychiatric report branded Mitchell a ‘sexual risk’ to women. Police Scotland is also understood to have had an input."  Unless someone is claiming that LM committed a crime while in prison, why the police, who do not have particular expertise in psychiatric risk assessment, would have any input is difficult to understand. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

A great deal depends on the word "automatic."  This passage implies that denial of guilt is a factor in the decision, but it is not the sole factor.

Regarding the denial of parole, The Daily Mail wrote, "A psychiatric report branded Mitchell a ‘sexual risk’ to women. Police Scotland is also understood to have had an input."  Unless someone is claiming that LM committed a crime while in prison, why the police, who do not have particular expertise in psychiatric risk assessment, would have any input is difficult to understand.

Are you happy to dimiss the psychiatric report then? 

[Parky41]

A great deal depends on the word "automatic."  This passage implies that denial of guilt is a factor in the decision, but it is not the sole factor.

Regarding the denial of parole, The Daily Mail wrote, "A psychiatric report branded Mitchell a ‘sexual risk’ to women. Police Scotland is also understood to have had an input."  Unless someone is claiming that LM committed a crime while in prison, why the police, who do not have particular expertise in psychiatric risk assessment, would have any input is difficult to understand.

Predicting the future? - 5 months past his minimum fixed sentence inside. He took drugs, grief with the staff, governor? whilst on his first training/rehabilitation stint for life on the outside. What else was the parole board to do? As has been pointed out, it is not the role of the board to work with a prisoners pleas. They are there to ascertain risk, not at all an easy thing to do, one would imagine. Whatever pleas a convict may make, the rules have changed. They can, and are, rehabilitated for life out side regardless.

[Chris_Halkides]

Are you happy to dimiss the psychiatric report then?

I would defer to independent, professional judgment on the matter, but I still find it strange that the police have any role.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I would defer to independent, professional judgment on the matter, but I still find it strange that the police have any role.

So you accept the psychiatrist’s report that he is a danger to women and girls but you don’t accept that he is a murderer. OK.

[Chris_Halkides]

So you accept the psychiatrist’s report that he is a danger to women and girls but you don’t accept that he is a murderer. OK.

No, that is not at all what I meant; a great deal is contingent upon the word "independent." 

[faithlilly]

A great deal depends on the word "automatic."  This passage implies that denial of guilt is a factor in the decision, but it is not the sole factor.

Regarding the denial of parole, The Daily Mail wrote, "A psychiatric report branded Mitchell a ‘sexual risk’ to women. Police Scotland is also understood to have had an input."  Unless someone is claiming that LM committed a crime while in prison, why the police, who do not have particular expertise in psychiatric risk assessment, would have any input is difficult to understand.

The word ‘understood’ is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

[Kenmair]

No, that is not at all what I meant; a great deal is contingent upon the word "independent."

In all Scots Law cases there is always an option for the appellant to access an independent assessment outwith Police Scotland or NHS MH Services, free of charge and with Legal Aid. If an independent assessment is not favourable, the appellant (LM) or his solicitor, can withhold it from his parole review. Either way, nothing's happening in a legal context.

[Vertigo Swirl]

No, that is not at all what I meant; a great deal is contingent upon the word "independent."

I thought you might say that 
So how would you assess whether a psychiatrist was independent enough to pass the Chris Halkides smell test?

[Vertigo Swirl]

In all Scots Law cases there is always an option for the appellant to access an independent assessment outwith Police Scotland or NHS MH Services, free of charge and with Legal Aid. If an independent assessment is not favourable, the appellant (LM) or his solicitor, can withhold it from his parole review. Either way, nothing's happening in a legal context.

you’ve got to laugh at people who claim to defer to “independent, professional judgement “ but only when it suits them.  Judges, jailers, police, parole board, psychiatrists are all independent and professional (unless you subscribe to some bonkers conspiracy theory that they are all colluding to keep LM locked up forever).

[Chris_Halkides]

I thought you might say that 
So how would you assess whether a psychiatrist was independent enough to pass the Chris Halkides smell test?

https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/grigson-james-paul-jr
A psychiatrist who was not associated with the Criminal Justice system would be a good start.  On the other hand, consider the career of Dr. James Grigson, an object lesson in what can go wrong in this area.  Dr. Grigson testified against Randall Dale Adams ("At sentencing, Dr. James Grigson testified that Adams would be dangerous unless executed...").  The examination itself was a couple of questions long.  Adams was later exonerated.

[Vertigo Swirl]

https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/grigson-james-paul-jr
A psychiatrist who was not associated with the Criminal Justice system would be a good start.  On the other hand, consider the career of Dr. James Grigson, an object lesson in what can go wrong in this area.  Dr. Grigson testified against Randall Dale Adams ("At sentencing, Dr. James Grigson testified that Adams would be dangerous unless executed...").  The examination itself was a couple of questions long.  Adams was later exonerated.

So basically you’d be happy to to accept the opinion of any psychiatrist just so long as they had never been associated with the criminal justice system in any way and provided they passed your man as a model citizen and one who was one hundred percent safe and ready to be reintegrated in society.  Understood. 

[Chris_Halkides]

So basically you’d be happy to to accept the opinion of any psychiatrist just so long as they had never been associated with the criminal justice system in any way and provided they passed your man as a model citizen and one who was one hundred percent safe and ready to be reintegrated in society.  Understood.

https://www.medlinfirm.com/blog/miscarriages-of-justice-linked-to-dr-death-james-grigson-continue/
It would be refreshing if you refrained from putting words into my mouth.  What do you think of Dr. Grigson's career?  What lessons would you draw from it?

[faithlilly]

In all Scots Law cases there is always an option for the appellant to access an independent assessment outwith Police Scotland or NHS MH Services, free of charge and with Legal Aid. If an independent assessment is not favourable, the appellant (LM) or his solicitor, can withhold it from his parole review. Either way, nothing's happening in a legal context.

Years of nothing and then exoneration. That’s the way that it seems to go with these things unfortunately.