04/06/2025
The Parole Board Decision Summary
Introduction
As required by law, Mr Steele's case was referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State for Justice to determine whether he could be safely released on parole licence. If not, the panel should consider whether transfer to open conditions could be recommended.
The panel could only direct release if it was satisfied that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public that Mr Steele remained confined in prison. If the panel did not find that Mr Steele could be released, it should consider his suitability for transfer to open conditions.
To do so, the panel must review the extent to which he has made sufficient progress during the sentence in addressing and reducing risk to a level consistent with protecting the public from harm, given that a prisoner in open prison may be unsupervised in the community and taking temporary releases under licence. The Secretary of State will only accept a recommendation for transfer to open conditions from the Parole Board if the prisoner is assessed to be at low risk of
absconding.
The case was considered over a period of time at oral hearings on 10-11 May 2023 and 9 May and 12 November 2024. After oral evidence had been taken on each of these occasions, the panel adjourned Mr Steele's case for further consideration on 13 December and 8 January 2025, convening finally on 27 January 2025 to determine its decision.
No additional oral evidence was heard after 12 November 2024, but further paperwork was submitted to the panel, including written representations from the Secretary of State and from Mr Steele's legal team. Mr Steele had indicated, through his legal representative, that he hoped to be released as a result of his Parole Board review.
In reaching its decision, the panel considered the contents of Mr Steele's dossier, prepared and updated by the Secretary of State. At the various hearings, oral evidence was given by Mr Steele's probation officer based in the community; the two officials supervising his case in prison; a psychologist employed by the prison service; and another psychologist commissioned independently by Mr Steele's legal representative. Mr Steele also gave evidence to the panel. The Secretary of State's representative was party to the proceedings and provided written submissions.
The panel members had the benefit of a victim personal statement which clearly conveyed the impact of Mr Steele's crimes and the consequences of his offending. Their contents were given very careful consideration by the panel members. Full information was available to the panel, but some material had been provided to Mr Steele in edited format only.
SENTENCE DETAILS
On 20 January 1998, Mr Steele received mandatory life sentences following convictions for his part in three murders, which he denied perpetrating. The court also found him guilty of conspiring to import drugs into the country: an eight-year determinate prison term was to be served in parallel with Mr Steele's life sentences. Further similar charges were left on file by the court.
Mr Steele was 55 years old at the time he was sentenced and was aged 82 when his case was most recently reviewed. This was his second review by the Parole Board following the end of the initial minimum period (eventually set by the courts at 23 years) which had expired in May 2019. The Parole Board's regular reviews have meant that Mr Steele has so far additionally spent over five years in prison for the protection of the public.
RISK ASSESSMENT
Having considered the index offences, relevant patterns of previous offending and the other evidence before it, the panel listed as risk factors those influences which made it more likely that Mr Steele would reoffend.
At the time of his offending, these risk factors had included his criminal lifestyle, involvement with drugs and association with the wrong people. Mr Steele had needed to dominate and control people and events. His access to fi****ms and his use of weapons had been another factor. Mr Steele had offended for financial gain and out of greed. He had sought to maintain a level of status or respect from others by exerting power. There had also been an element of thrill-seeking in his actions.
Evidence was presented at the hearings regarding Mr Steele's progress and custodial conduct during this sentence. His behaviour in prison had shown a marked improvement and Mr Steele had been engaging more closely with those supervising him. None of the witnesses considered that his risks would be imminent if Mr Steele was released to the community at this stage. His probation
officer and the official supervising his case in prison were concerned that Mr Steele
had accessed no formal risk-reduction interventions while in prison.
He had not been assessed as suitable for accredited programmes, partly through lack of need and partly because he had maintained his innocence of involvement in the murders. Mr Steele had, however, more recently participated in a motivational training course and had had the benefit of educational and vocational services.
The psychologist witness who was employed by the prison service remained concerned about the level of insight demonstrated by Mr Steele and aspects of his style of thinking, including his preparedness to desist from involvement with drugs. However, the psychologist commissioned by Mr Steele's legal team advised that there were no evident risk areas remaining active and that currently assessed risk levels were minimal.
The panel explored the release plan provided by Mr Steele's probation officer and weighed its proposals against assessed risks. The plan included a requirement to reside in specialised designated accommodation as well as extremely strict limitations on Mr Steele's contacts, movements and activities.
The panel concluded this plan was robust enough to manage Mr Steele safely in the community at this stage. Although he had undertaken no formalised, targeted interventions to address his risk areas, he was motivated to comply with requirements and could be safely managed on life licence.
DECISION
After considering the circumstances of his offending, the progress made while in custody and the other evidence presented at the hearings, the panel was satisfied that imprisonment was no longer necessary for the protection of the public.
Mr Steele's release is subject to the following licence conditions, which must be strictly adhered to:
• To comply with requirements to reside at a designated address, to be of good behaviour, to disclose financial details and any business-related matters, to surrender his passport, and to report as required for supervision or other appointments;
• To submit to an enhanced form of supervision or monitoring including signing- in times, electronic tagging and a specified curfew;
• To comply with other identified limitations concerning named contacts, his activities and residency, and exclusion conditions to avoid contact with victims and prevent access to fi****ms;
• To meet specified restrictions relating to the use of electronic technology and contact with the media or other publications and not to own a boat, airplane or firearm; and
• To continue to work on addressing defined areas of risk in the community,
