Mother of Baby P may have been ‘deceiving’ parole panel, psychologist says

It is possible that the mother of Baby P, who died after months of abuse, has been “deceiving” a parole board panel in her seventh bid for freedom, a psychologist has told the hearing.

Tracey Connelly was jailed at the Old Bailey in 2009 for causing or allowing the death of her 17-month-old son Peter at their home in Tottenham, north London, on August 3 2007 – with her then boyfriend, Steven Barker, and his brother, Jason Owen, convicted of the same crime.

Her latest review for release is the first one that has been held in public – with a video feed livestreamed from prison – and the second since she was recalled to prison last year having breached licence conditions by concealing a relationship with a man she met online.

Connelly, now in her 40s, admitted in her off camera evidence on Wednesday that she had been a “bad mother” who “knew deep down” that Barker was abusing her son, and that she believes she would pose a risk to children in her care.

Known publicly as Baby P, Peter suffered more than 50 injuries despite being on the at-risk register and receiving 60 visits from social workers, police officers and health professionals over eight months.

Connelly also accepted that she “lied” to professionals supervising her about the relationship she started last year but insisted that she has developed trust with officials since being recalled.

A psychologist told the hearing on Thursday that it is possible that Connelly has been lying.

Panel member Fiona Ainsworth asked: “Could she be deceiving us now?”

“The answer to that is yes she could,” the psychologist said.

They said it is “inherently very difficult” to measure whether someone is being deceitful and that it is also possible that the work Connelly has done and the treatment she has received to tackle difficulties in being honest “have brought authentic change”.

Ms Ainsworth continued: “Your view now, as much as anyone can be sure, is that the Tracey we saw yesterday is authentic and genuine?”

The psychologist replied: “In my experience I’ve not seen any evidence to the contrary that it is disingenuous or deceitful.”

They said Connelly meets the test for release from prison.

Questioned on the risk the inmate could pose to children, the psychologist said: “If other risk factors weren’t present and there was no deterioration in mental health or unhealthy relationships I would not expect to see a massive change in behaviour from the person that we see today.”

They added that they would not expect her to be violent towards children, but said the risk changes to high and potentially imminent if Connelly did become involved in an unhealthy relationship or if her mental health worsened.

Connelly’s community offender managers (COMs) were asked why the prisoner, who judicial panel member Peter Jones said had deceived professionals three times, could now meet the test for release.

One COM said: “It is that robustness of our approach to management. We do not take everything at face value, we continue to maintain that professional approach.

“We are acutely aware of her ability to mislead professionals but we have to also support her to be able to trust in professionals so that she can manage that.”

They added that she does not meet the criteria for a polygraph test.

Connelly admitted the offence of causing or allowing the death of her son and was handed a sentence of imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term of five years.

She was released on licence in 2013 but was recalled to prison two years later after failing to disclose an online relationship – a situation the parole panel said “closely mirrored” that of her second recall to jail last year following a further release in 2022.

Panel members for Connelly’s review will assess her risk in whether to release her from prison or recommend she is transferred to open prison conditions.

She declined to address the panel personally at the end of the public evidence.

There will be further evidence heard in private before the hearing ends, with a decision to come at a later date.