Family of mum-of-two bludgeoned to death by BA pilot slam decision to hold parole hearing behind-closed-doors

JOANNA Simpson’s family have blasted the decision to hold a hearing on whether her killer can be released from prison behind closed doors. 

Their application for a public examination of the case was rejected on the grounds that it would breach former British Airways pilot Brown’s human rights.

Joanna’s mother Diana Parkes said: “Robert Brown committed the most heinous of crimes killing my daughter, so I am angered that the Parole Board have made the decision to not make Brown’s parole hearing public.

“We have given up all our rights to privacy to do everything that we can to make sure this evil man stays behind bars.

“Why should Brown get to keep his privacy? I truly hope the Parole Board can still see that Brown is a dangerous man and does not let him out.

“Sadly, everything seems to be in favour of the perpetrator. The safety of the victims is put below the safety of the offender.”

Joanna was just 46 when she was killed by her estranged husband Brown, who hit her 14 times in the head within earshot of their two young children. 

He then bundled her body into the boot of his car and hid her in a pre-dug grave in Windsor Great Park.

Before her death Joanna had spoken about being threatened with a knife by abusive Brown and they were almost at the end of an acrimonious divorce battle. 

Brown was handed a 26-year term for manslaughter, after arguing that he was suffering from adjustment disorder at the time of the attack, and was due to be released last year after serving just half of his sentence. 

Joanna’s mother Diana Parkes launched an appeal in The Sun to block Robert’s release, saying in February 2023 that she was convinced he would find a way to hurt her and her grandchildren if he was set free.

The then Justice Secretary Alex Chalk stepped in and used his Powers To Detain to stop him from getting out of prison and his case will now be heard by the Parole Board before a decision is made on his release.

Campaigners had applied for the hearing on whether Brown can be released to be heard in public to ensure full transparency.

They argued that the case is of a huge public interest because it is “symptomatic of a lack of concern about domestic violence within the justice system”.

Representations made on behalf of the new Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, submitted on August 8, asked for a public hearing because “increased transparency is vital to building public confidence in the parole system”. 

Brown, 60, argued that his right to privacy would be affected under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights if there was a public hearing. 

He also claimed that there would be an “inevitable backlash” if comments made by witnesses at the hearing supported his release – but that was rejected by the Parole Board as they could give evidence anonymously. 

‘VITAL FOR PUBLIC SAFETY’

In a decision published today, Sir John Saunders on behalf of the Chair of the Parole Board said that the hearing must be held in private because of issues around privacy and because a “considerable amount” of the hearing will concern the killer’s mental health. 

He wrote in conclusion: “While I accept the public interest in transparency and informing the public of how the Parole Board carry out their work, in my view that is outweighed in this case by the need to ensure that the hearing will be fair and achieve the right result. 

“The right result is that, if Mr Brown is safe to be released, he is released having served the period in custody set by the Judge, and if he is not safe to be released, he remains in custody. 

“While I accept the importance of open justice, in this case, in my view, the interests of justice dictate that the hearing should be in private as is the normal way that Parole Board hearings are conducted.”

He added: “As this would be very relevant to issues of public safety, it is vital that Mr. Brown is able to give his best evidence as to those issues and answer any questions as openly as possible.”

Joanna’s close friend Hetti Barkworth-Nanton said: “I’m totally shocked the Parole Board have taken this decision to not make Brown’s parole hearing public.

“The judicial review earlier this year in which Brown challenged the decision made by the Justice Secretary to detain him found that Brown is a significant risk to members of the public, including Jo’s family and friends.

“Since we launched the campaign to block Brown’s early automatic release, this case has received a large amount of interest from the public.

“If the judicial system want the public to see and believe that justice is done, then making Browns hearing private feels like a huge missed opportunity, especially as there has never been a public hearing of a power to detain case.”

A spokesperson for the Parole Board said:  “Parole Board decisions are solely focused on what risk a prisoner could represent to the public if released and whether that risk is manageable in the community.   

“A panel will carefully examine a huge range of evidence, including details of the original crime, and any evidence of behaviour change, as well as explore the harm done and impact the crime has had on the victims.   

“Members read and digest hundreds of pages of evidence and reports in the lead up to an oral hearing.   

“Evidence from witnesses such as probation officers, psychiatrists and psychologists, officials supervising the offender in prison as well as victim personal statements may be given at the hearing.   

“It is standard for the prisoner and witnesses to be questioned at length during the hearing which often lasts a full day or more. Parole reviews are undertaken thoroughly and with extreme care. Protecting the public is our number one priority.”