incidents, and has successfully completed various training courses which would assist him in obtaining employment, were he to be released. The attached Occupational Therapy report indicates that he is fully capable of carrying out ordinary daily activities and managing his daily routine in a productive manner. He is deemed to be a positive influence on other inmates, especially younger offenders. He has worked hard to maintain contact with his children by letter, and they visit once or twice a year (they currently reside with Mr Parrie’s former wife in Aberdeen so more frequent visits are not practicable). In all the above respects, therefore, I consider him an appropriate candidate for consideration by the Board.
However, there remains one significant issue, i.e. his contention that he is not guilty of the crimes for which he was imprisoned. Such a failure to assume responsibility for offending behaviour and express appropriate remorse (especially with offences of this gravity) is usually deemed to be a significant bar to early release. However, while Parrie continues to maintain his innocence, it appears his attitude has ameliorated considerably in this respect in recent months. Previous to this, he had always insisted that the police ‘fitted him up’; he now appears willing to concede that while there may have been mistakes in the Thames Valley Police investigation, there was no deliberate attempt to frame him for a crime he did not commit. The abatement of this paranoia is clearly a very positive sign. It must also be borne in mind that he has now served eighteen years, and had he originally entered a guilty plea, he might well have been released before this date.
The Parole Board has a duty to assess whether a specific offender continues to present a risk to the public, and individuals will not be eligible for parole unless the Board is satisfied on this point. However, it is – as is well known – especially difficult for someone in Mr Parrie’s particular position to demonstrate reduced risk of harm, as sex offenders who refuse to admit guilt are not eligible for the Sexual Offenders Treatment Programme (SOTP) and the Structured Assessment of Risk and Need (SARN) which follows completion of that programme, which the Parole Board look to when assessing these offenders.
At the same time, it is crucial that those who do maintain their innocence – regardless of the nature of their crime(s) – should not be discriminated against, especially where there are other factors that can be brought into play, to assist in the assessment of risk. I would point to Mr Parrie’s proven good conduct, over a very long period, in support of this. In my own conversations with him, he also expressed considerable sympathy with the victims of the crimes (albeit whilst maintaining that he himself was not culpable), which I also consider to be a positive sign.
I do not consider Mr Parrie to be suffering either from mental illness or any psychiatric condition such as schizoaffective disorder, within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983 (amended 2007).
Dr Simeon Ware
MBBS FRCPsych
Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist
‘I don’t believe a bloody word of it. Model prisoner, my arse. It’s all just a bloody act.’
Osbourne takes the report from me and slips it back in the envelope; he’s going out on a limb, letting me see it at all.
‘And he’s still telling anyone who’ll listen that he’s innocent.’
Even now, all these years later. I should have expected it, knowing what I do, but it infuriates me all the same.
Osbourne is watching my face. ‘At least he seems to have backed off about being fitted up.’
‘It’s not just that, though, is it? This new attack – it’s too similar – it’s all going to start up all over again –’
‘But that’s the point, Adam. It’s similar. It’s not the same. From what you’ve said, the attack on the Appleford girl is far more likely to be a hate crime. And even if it isn’t, there are umpteen ways you could explain any superficial parallels. It could be a copycat, for starters. Someone who read about the Parrie case in the papers. It wouldn’t be the first time, now would it?’
I want to believe it. Part of why I came here was to hear him say it. But the unease is still there, snaking round my gut.
‘Is that something you’re looking into?’
I shake my head. ‘Not yet. Not officially.’
He knows what I’m getting at: looking for a copycat would mean going public. At least internally.
‘Might be worth checking