Parol allows prisoners to be released from their sentance early, the conditions of this is that the Prisoner goes on to 'Parole' and must report to prison staff / probation officers on a regular basis. A prisoner will need to provide evidence that they are due parol, and are elligeable for parol. If they do not provide sufficient evidence then parol will not be considered. A prisoner can be granted parole based on their behavious whilst in prison, the type of sentance they are serving and the crime they committed and their home circustance, again they need to provide evidence to get Parol.

A Prisoner can apply for Parole on an annual basis, and they will be given the opportunity to see any reports about themselves, and can make a written representation. In this they will get the opportunity to state they're argument for why they should be granted parole. A member of the Parol process may also interview the prisoner as part of this process.

Before the parole can be granted a board will meet to discuss the prisoners case, take in to account the circumstances above and discuss further theyre impressions. So if you are looking to apply for parole, or want to understand your rights in Parol have a quick read.

A primary focus will be whether the prisoner will mark any threat to the public. As well as this they will consider the benefits that can be found from releasing the prisoner early. This is the parol evidence rule.

The prisoner will then be notified immediately once a decision has been made about the Parole evidence rule.

If a prisoner is serving greater than 15 years then the case is referred to the home secretary for a decison. If the prisoner is refused parole, then they will be able to reapply on a yearly basis. This will depend on the length of service how many times they can reapply and is known as the 'parole window'.

The Parol Evidence Rule (provided by Wikipedia)

The parol evidence rule enacts a principle of the common law of contracts that presumes that a written contract embodies the complete agreement between the parties involved; the document is the sole repository of the terms of the contract (Jacobs v. Batavia & General Plantations Trust Ltd [1924] 1 Ch 287). The rule therefore generally forbids the introduction of extrinsic evidence (i.e., evidence of communications between the parties which is not contained in the language of the contract itself) which would add or change terms of a later written contract.

In order for the rule to be effective, the contract in question must be a fully integrated writing; it must, in the judgment of the court, be the final agreement between the parties (as opposed to a mere draft, for example). One way to ensure that the contract will be found fully integrated is through the inclusion of a merger clause, which recites that the contract is, in fact, the whole agreement between the parties. However, many modern cases have found merger clauses to be only a rebuttable presumption.

An integrated agreement is either a partial or complete integration. If it contains some, but not all, of the terms as to which the parties have agreed then it is a partial integration. This means that the writing was a final agreement between the parties (and not mere preliminary negotiations) as to some terms, but not as to others.