Family of Joanna Simpson killed by BA pilot husband 'disgusted' at private parole hearing

Friends and family of a woman from Berkshire, who was bludgeoned to death, say they are "disgusted" a parole hearing for her killer will take place in private.

Former British Airways captain Robert Brown attacked his wife Joanna Simpson with a claw hammer at their home in Ascot in 2010.

He killed Joanna a week before their divorce was due to be finalised and dumped her body in a makeshift coffin in Windsor Great Park.

Brown was jailed for 26 years in 2011 after being cleared of murder but admitting manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. He has served 14 years.

The decision whether to free Brown from jail will be discussed behind closed doors after pleas from Joanna's family and friends to hear the case in public were rejected by the Parole Board.

Protecting Brown’s human rights – namely his right to privacy known as article 8 rights – was given as one of the reasons for denying the request, according to a document setting out the decision.

Hetti Barkworth-Nanton, a close friend of Ms Simpson who is chairwoman of domestic abuse charity Refuge, said: "We're disgusted to be honest with you.

"There's a huge amount of public interest in the case and therefore it's really important that justice is seen to be done and doing it in private doesn't achieve that, regardless of the outcome of the parole board.

"They may decide to keep him in prison, or they may decide to release him, but showing the public how they come to those kind of decisions in a case like this is a huge, huge opportunity and an opportunity that's now going to be missed.

"For all of us, the thought of him coming out is horrific and terrifying in equal measure, particularly I think for Jo's mother, Diana, and myself, because we've campaigned so hard against him coming out.

"We don't believe that we're going to be able to change this decision. The letter that was provided was written by the Deputy Chair of the Parole Board, so it doesn't really give us anywhere to go.

"We just want to make sure that our concerns are heard, and I think in particular, that they understand the measure of the man that's coming through to the Parole Board."

• WATCH: Hetti Barkworth-Nanton talks about how she and Joanna's family are feeling ahead of the parole board decision

Brown's parole review is the first of its kind after new so-called power to detain laws allowing justice secretaries to intervene meant his automatic release from prison was blocked.

A High Court judge earlier this year rejected a legal challenge Brown brought against the Government move.

Setting out his decision for the Parole Board, Sir John Saunders said the "high bar" set for granting a public hearing "is not met in this case".

A "central part of the evidence will concern matters that not only affect the Article 8 rights of Mr Brown but also others who would not wish their right to privacy to be interfered with. If that evidence were to be revealed in public it may well affect Mr Brown’s ability to re-settle in the community as well as affecting the right to privacy of others," the decision said.

The ruling also feared Brown could find it "difficult" to give evidence about his mental health and answer questions "as openly as possible" if he knows this will be "heard by people who will almost all be hostile to him."

Sir John said there is "no doubt that there is an intense public interest in this case" and that the case will be the "first of its kind" but added: "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."

Brown was jailed for 26 years in 2011 after being cleared of murder but admitting manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, with a psychiatric report saying he suffered from an "adjustment disorder".

He previously claimed "political motivation" amid a media campaign against his release improperly contributed to a decision to refer his case to the Parole Board in October ahead of his anticipated release in November.

But a judge ruled there was "good grounds for believing" that at release Brown posed a “high risk to the public of serious harm” and needed full and proper assessment.

Then justice secretary Alex Chalk referred the case through a "power to detain" provision introduced through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.

A spokesperson for the Parole Board said: "A judicial member of the Parole Board on behalf of the Board Chair has refused the application for Robert Brown's parole hearing to be made public. A copy of the public hearing decision is available on the Parole Board website.

"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."

Want a quick and expert briefing on the biggest news stories? Listen to our latest podcasts to find out What You Need To Know...