2
(1)
The Board is to consist of a chairman and not less than five other members appointed by the Secretary of State.
(2)
The Board must include among its members—
(a)
a person who holds or has held judicial office;
(b)
a registered medical practitioner who is a psychiatrist;
(c)
a person appearing to the Secretary of State to have knowledge and experience of the supervision or after-care of discharged prisoners; ...
(d)
a person appearing to the Secretary of State to have made a study of the causes of delinquency or the treatment of offenders ; and
(e)
a person appearing to the Secretary of State to have experience of law enforcement in a part of the United Kingdom.
(2A)
“Law enforcement” means the prevention, detection or investigation of offences.
(3)
A member of the Board—
(a)
holds and vacates office in accordance with the terms of his appointment;
(b)
may resign his office by notice in writing addressed to the Secretary of State;
and a person who ceases to hold office as a member of the Board is eligible for re-appointment.
Cases considering Schedule 19, paragraph 2 3
[2008] EWCA Civ 29 · 1 February 2008Limits
The court treated the Secretary of State's statutory appointment responsibility as compatible with independence only where individual selection was appropriately distanced from ministerial influence and carried out transparently (see paras [27]-[29]; [83]-[84]).
The court used the required categories of membership to recognise the value of relevant specialist experience. The Minister could not add selection criteria designed to influence release outcomes rather than assist the Board's functions (see paras [27]-[30]; [83]-[84]).
[2007] EWHC 2036 (Admin) · 7 September 2007Interprets
Confirms that members are appointed by the Secretary of State. Appointment alone need not undermine independence, but its use to influence outcomes may do so. (see paras [29]–[33], [62])
[2015] UKEAT 0323_14_2801 · 28 January 2015
Paragraph 2 of Schedule 19 established the Secretary of State’s appointment and remuneration functions in respect of the Parole Board. The court used that statutory setting to identify the fee-setting practice under challenge (see paras [4]; [18]; [46]-[47]).
What each judgment says about Schedule 19, paragraph 2 is in the case-law panel in the full Act.