Loved ones of a mother bludgeoned to death in her Ascot home by her British Airways captain husband said they are “shocked” and “angered” that he will have a private parole hearing. 

Brown attacked his 46-year-old wife, Joanna Simpson, with a claw hammer in their Berkshire family home in October 2010 as their two young children cowered in a playroom.

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”

Now the decision whether to free Brown from jail will be discussed behind closed doors after pleas from family and friends of Ms Simpson to hear the case in public were rejected by the Parole Board.

Protecting Brown’s human rights – namely his right to privacy as covered by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – was given as one of the reasons for denying the request, according to a document setting out the decision.

Ms Simpsons’ mother Diana Parkes, who was made a CBE last year for services to vulnerable children suffering from domestic abuse and domestic homicide, said she was "angered" at the decision. 

Ms Parkes said:  “Robert Brown committed the most heinous of crimes killing my daughter. 

“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.”

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.

Hetti Barkworth-Nanton, a close friend of Ms Simpson who is chairwoman of domestic abuse charity Refuge and co-founded a foundation in her name, said the decision to have his parole hearing in private had left her "totally shocked."

She said: “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.

“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.”

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 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.