Luke Mitchell claims parole refusal 'unlawful' in court challenge against decision

Convicted murderer Luke Mitchell thought parole board members were “more concerned” about the feelings of a “victim” of his offending than his battle to win freedom, a court heard.

Legal papers lodged in a judicial review brought by Jodi Jones’s killer tell of his impressions when a panel met last year to discuss releasing him from his life sentence.

Mitchell, 36, has gone to the Court of Session in Edinburgh to argue that the parole board acted unlawfully in deciding to keep him in prison.

He instructed lawyers to argue that the hearing held in April 2024 was procedurally unfair and failed to consider all of the evidence before it.

Mitchell wants judge Lady Haldane to overturn the board’s decision to not allow him out of prison and he wants the board to reconsider his request again.

On Friday, lawyers acting in the case adopted their notes of argument before Lady Haldane.

The papers tell of how he wanted the hearing adjourned as panel members had access to a report about him which he possessed only in redacted form.

Luke Mitchell stabbed Jodi Jones to death STV News

Mitchell wanted the hearing adjourned as he wanted to consult his lawyer about the news concerning the report. It tells of how he had “serious concerns” about the information contained in the dossier.

The panel board refused to adjourn proceedings, and it later decided not to consider the report its deliberations.

Mitchell was still given a chance to consult with a lawyer by phone.

However, he was aware that a “victim of the offence” was observing proceedings, and he got the impression that the panel was more concerned about the impact the adjournment would have on them than the fairness of his hearing.

The news emerged during a one-day hearing at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

Mitchell was just 14 when he stabbed Jodi to death in woods near her home in Dalkeith, Midlothian, in 2003, and he was later sentenced to serve a minimum term of 20 years before being eligible for parole.

Mitchell was denied parole last April.

He had been dating Jodi for four months when he killed her in what Judge Lord Nimmo Smith later described as “a truly evil murder”.

Jodi had failed to return home on the evening of June 30, and Mitchell claimed to have been alerted to her body by his dog while out looking for her.

Following a ten-month police inquiry, Mitchell was accused of her murder and was 16 when he was convicted at the High Court in Edinburgh in 2005.

He has lost four appeals but has attracted a significant following of online supporters convinced of his innocence since a TV documentary was aired in 2021.

After Mitchell’s parole bid was refused, a relative of his victim said: “If this man was released, I would fear for women.

“He is a dangerous killer and should remain inside for a long time to come.”

Mitchell was jailed in February 2005 but became eligible for parole last April because the time he spent on remand ahead of his trial is taken into account.

On Friday, Mitchell’s lawyer, Shaun McPhee, told Lady Haldane that the parole board’s decision should be overturned.

He said the panel failed to consider all of the evidence available to it.

He said his client should have had access to the full unredacted report. Mr McPhee said he should have been given more time to know of its existence than the 20 minutes he was given before the start of proceedings.

Mr McPhee added: “The petitioner clearly feels a severe sense of injustice. He feels that the panel had predetermined the outcome against him.

“We are seeking a reduction of the decision made by the parole board from April 15 last year.”

The parole board’s lawyer Mark Lindsay KC told Lady Haldane that his clients acted lawfully in its dealings with Mitchell.

He said the report played no part in the parole board’s eventual decision.

The court heard the report was placed to “one side” and the parole board used other evidence to refuse granting parole to Mitchell.

Mr Lindsay told the court that the author of the report was a doctor who Mitchell believes to be so “biased” that he is making a report to the General Medical Council about his alleged failures.

He added: “The petitioner believes this to be a fundamentally flawed report and yet considers it to be procedurally unfair for the respondents not to have considered it.

“I ask that the petition to be refused.”

Mr Lindsay told the court that the parole board was obliged to hold another parole board hearing before April this year – the panel at that would consider all evidence about Mitchell’s suitability for release afresh.

Lady Haldane thanked the lawyers for their submissions at the end of the hearing.

She added: “I will issue a written decision in due course.”