Total Pageviews

Tuesday 31 July 2018

1. IPP Prisoner Ben still in prison an innocent man because of unending promises that words are no longer good enough ...... 2. Prison: the facts published. 3. Drug Misuse: Findings from the 2017/18 Crime Survey for England and Wales



My partner Ben Gayton is currently in Preston prison. He was given the IPP sentence 12 years ago. He served 7 years on a 17 month tariff. He was recalled in January 2017 of an accusation of assault and  all charges was dropped in November 2017, a not guilty verdict was given. 5 month later, he's still sat in prison an innocent man. IPP Prisoners
He was given a Parole Hearing date for the 10th April , when arrived the parole hearing was differed it to 17th July because the CPS still hadn't met their deadline (29th march) to provide the reports I question why they offered no evidence and dropped the case.
  •  The parole also decided on the day they wanted the arresting officer present at the hearing
  •  Ben was to see a psychologist.
  •  Why was this not organised before his hearing
 It seems they are doing anything possible to keep him in. He's still being punished for a post-date crime, when he was 17. He's now 30! We want Ben and all other IPP prisoners and families heard, its so unfair how they are treated.



Prison: the facts published
Our annual pocket guide to prisons and the people in them has been launched this month. Prison: the facts, the more concise version of our flagship Bromley Briefings brings together the facts and figures about our prisons and is now available on our website by clicking here.

Launching the briefing last week, we have called on the UK government to follow the Scottish government's lead and introduce a presumption against prison sentences of less than 12 months. 

It reveals the current scale of the challenge facing the government, with hundreds of people flowing in and out of the prison system on short sentences every week, placing pressure on an already overstretched and overcrowded prison system.

Recent reforms aimed at providing more support on release to people serving short sentences have, perversely, created further instability.

The Prison Reform Trust estimates that if a presumption was introduced it could see 13,500 fewer people entering prison each year—allowing vital breathing space for our prison system to focus on those who absolutely need to be there, whilst delivering better outcomes for victims, society, and people in trouble with the law.

The publication comes as the Ministry of Justice has announced a consultation on the future of probation, with plans to end the current contracts with Community Rehabilitation Companies in 2020, two years earlier than planned.

Friends of the Prison Reform Trust will receive copies of the briefing in the post shortly.

To read the full story and to download a copy of Prison: the facts click here.
Prisoner Policy Network
This month saw the offical launch of our Prisoner Policy Network at an event held at HMP Grendon. The establishment of the network marks an exciting new step for the Prison Reform Trust as we aim to give people with lived experience of imprisonment a voice in influencing criminal justice policy at the highest level.
The free to join network of prisoners, ex-prisoners and organisations working with prisoners will bring together their insight and expertise on key areas of criminal justice policy, which will then be presented to officials, ministers and other decision makers in a final report.

As the Secretary of State for Justice, David Gauke seeks to reform the Incentives and Earned Privileges scheme, for our first topic we are asking "What incentives work in prison?"

Click here to view the visual minutes from the launch, and click here to find out more and how you can get involved.
The impact of maternal imprisonment
Children are often devastated when their mum is sent to prison but their interests are rarely considered by a justice system which is blind to their needs, a new report published by the Prison Reform Trust this month reveals.
For most children, their mother is their primary carer. Every year an estimated 17,000 children experience their mum being sent to prison. Women are more likely to commit non-violent offences, and many face short spells behind bars which do little to tackle the causes of their offending.
The report, launched exclusively with ITV's Loose Women, shows that a mother’s imprisonment not only damages the child’s relationship with her, but can affect every area of their lives, including their housing, education, health, and well-being.

Among the report’s recommendations­—many of which would also be relevant to situations where a father is imprisoned—is a call for child impact assessments to be conducted as soon as a parent enters the criminal justice system, to ensure that any children affected are identified and their needs addressed.

It also recommends the introduction of a presumption against short prison sentences of less than 12 months, and better investment in women’s community support, including women’s centres.

The report was also covered in the Daily Mirror, The Independent, and by Loose Women panellist Saira Khan. Report author, Sarah Beresford, has also written blogs about her research on The Justice Gap and St Martin in the Fields' Frontline Network.

Click here to read more and to download a copy of the report.
Writing competition—final call
A final call to our readers to submit their entries to our annual writing competition. The deadline is Monday 6 August and we'd love to hear from prisoners, prisoners’ families and friends, and former prisoners. We have three categories: comment; short story; and lyric/rap.

You can download the competition leaflet with more information on the categories, rules and guidelines by clicking here.
Parole Board review
Earlier this year the Prison Reform Trust submitted evidence to the Ministry of Justice to inform its ongoing review of parole, in light of the decision to recommend the release of John Worboys.

The review by the Ministry of Justice promised to consult on a mechanism to reconsider Parole Board decisions. The Prison Reform Trust has now submitted its response to the Ministry of Justice's plans.

The proposal for a new appeals process carried out within the Board risks pleasing no-one—neither those like PRT who worry about the Board’s independence, nor those who worry about the influence victims currently have in the decision to release.

Our suggestion is that the divisional court’s approach in the Worboys case has shown that judicial review can and has provided a remedy that meets legitimate concerns in the rare case where they arise.

We are in no doubt that the proposal put out for consultation would lead to substantial new cost and, perhaps even more importantly, reverse the progress the Board has been able to make in reducing backlogs and delays, with all the negative consequences that would have for both justice and expenditure.

Cobbling together an appeal mechanism in the absence of a more fundamental change in the Board’s statutory personality—which we understand has been ruled out—will serve only to divert attention from more pressing reforms.

Click here to read our letter to David Gauke outlining our concerns in more detail. You can read our full response to the consultation by clicking here.
Volunteer with PRT
The Prison Reform Trust is looking for an enthusiastic volunteer to assist in the production of its flagship Bromley Briefing Prison Factfile, based at PRT's London office for two days a week between September and December.

The Bromley Briefings bring together the latest statistics, research findings and policy developments in prisons and criminal justice. It is an essential part of the Prison Reform Trust’s work to inform Parliament, the media and the public about prisons and the people in them.

Click here to find out more.




15 Northburgh Street, London, EC1V 0JR

Tel: 020 7251 5070, Fax: 020 7251 5076
Registered Charity in England and Wales No. 1035525
Company Limited by Guarantee No. 2906362
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/

Research and publications volunteer

The Prison Reform Trust is looking for an enthusiastic volunteer to assist in the production of its flagship Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile. The Bromley Briefings bring together the latest statistics, research findings and policy developments in prisons and criminal justice. It is an essential part of the Prison Reform Trust’s work to inform Parliament, the media and the public about prisons and the people in them. Applicants should be available to volunteer for two days per week from September to December 2018. Reasonable travel and lunch expenses will be provided.A full person specification for the voluntary position can be downloaded by clicking here.
To apply Email a covering letter outlining your suitability for the position (maximum one side of A4) and a CV (maximum two pages) to alex.hewson@prisonreformtrust.org.uk Deadline: Monday 13 August at noon Interviews: w/c Monday 20 August
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/WhoWeAre/JobsInternships?dm_i=47L,5RY6Q,EGK2Y1,MJ97Y,1


Drug Misuse: Findings from the 2017/18 Crime Survey for England and Wales  

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/729249/drug-misuse-2018-hosb1418.pdf



RusselWebster

Week in Justice 29 July 2018 

The  major cri inal justice news this week was the MoJ's long awaited announcement on the future of the probation service. The Justice Secretary acknowledged that Transforming Rehabilitation had failed and the MoJ will be radically revising the structure of probation. CRCs will remain in England (not Wales) but their contracts will be ended two years early and from 2020 there will be just 10 CRCs mapped against NPS regions.
There's plenty of other news too including a prisoner's judicial review of parole post-Worboys as well as an interesting new HMPPS study on what prisoners think of being recalled.
As always, click on the link to read the full story.

  • Offender management on low and medium risk offenders is to be transferred to the National Probation Service in Wales.
  • The CRC contracts are being cut short with the end date being brought forwards from 2022 to 2020.
  • CRCs will now be aligned with the NPS areas (making 10 English probation regions) and a new procurement exercise will shortly be launched with the expectation that more voluntary sector organisations will be involved in delivering interventions and unpaid work – an ambition unrealised in the original TR procurement exercise.
  • Recognising current under-performance, the MoJ will put additional money into contracts for through-the-gate work in particular.

JUSTICE SECRETARY OUTLINES FUTURE VISION FOR PROBATION
  • Government is strengthening offender supervision in existing CRC contracts and investing an extra £22 million each year to improve through-the-gate support
  • CRC and NPS areas to be aligned – improving joint working and strengthening ties with key partners, including the third sector, local authorities and PCCs
  • Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) contracts will end two years early in 2020, with plans to work with the market to design new and improved contracts
Justice Secretary David Gauke has set out his vision for the future of probation services in England and Wales today, announcing plans to change and improve the current system and invest £22 million in extra support for offenders leaving prison.

A consultation document published today outlines the Ministry of Justice’s intention to strengthen the supervision of offenders and increase confidence in community sentences.
It builds on the recent publication of our female offender and employment and education strategies, to demonstrate the department’s commitment to tackling reoffending by: investing in community provision, strengthening alternatives to short custodial sentences; and boosting rehabilitation and prospects for offenders.

Probation relies heavily on joint working with a range of agencies and today’s consultation outlines plans to create a more integrated and collaborative system, by improving partnerships with PCCs and the third sector.
In the future, CRC and NPS areas will be aligned, with ten new probation regions in England, simplifying and strengthening ties with key local partners and creating opportunities to co-commission rehabilitation services with PCCs.
Reforms to probation in 2015, known as ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’, were challenging, ambitious and have led to 40,000 extra offenders a year receiving support and supervision on release – a positive change for public safety.

This additional monitoring has been carried out by newly formed, ‘Community Rehabilitation Companies’ (CRCs) who manage low and medium-risk offenders, and the publicly funded National Probation Service (NPS), who manage higher-risk offenders.
While CRCs have reduced the overall number of people reoffending, it is clear that probation providers have faced significant challenges. Unforeseen changes in the types of offenders coming to the courts and the sentences they receive have substantially reduced CRC income and affected the quality of frontline services.

That is why the consultation document sets out urgent action being taken to address existing issues with CRC contracts. This includes ending current CRC contracts early in 2020, improving supervision and through-the-gate support in the meantime, and using the lessons learnt so far to put in place improved services in the future, with more effective commercial arrangements.
Secretary of State, David Gauke said:
I am determined to have a probation service that protects the public, commands the confidence of the courts and ultimately reduces reoffending.
So we are taking decisive action now to improve the delivery of probation services in England and Wales.
We want to see less reliance on ineffective short prison terms, and in order to achieve this courts must have confidence that probation services will deliver tough community sentences – sentences that punish, but also help those who commit crime to turn their lives around and stop offending.
I am confident that the proposals set out in this consultation will play a major role in helping us to achieve this aim.
To improve services in the next two years, the Ministry of Justice is investing an additional £22 million a year in through-the-gate support for offenders when they leave prison, as part of wider changes to contracts to stabilise CRC delivery until the end of 2020 and allow CRCs to continue to deliver the level of service required.

The Ministry of Justice will also work with London and Greater Manchester to co-design future services in those areas as part of existing devolution arrangements.
In addition, the devolved responsibilities of the Welsh Government and existing arrangements in Wales make the delivery of probation services fundamentally different to England.
To reflect this, the consultation sets out proposals to bring the supervision of all offenders in Wales into the NPS and explore how wider partners can help to improve rehabilitative support for offenders, by better joining up with health, housing and other local services.

Alongside the structural and contractual changes, a new professional register will be introduced, helping staff to move between roles and develop their careers. The consultation also seeks views on improving the training and development of staff.
The consultation will seek to gather views and expertise from a range of potential providers, including the voluntary sector, as well as other stakeholders, and will inform the future delivery of probation services in England and Wales.



Although the MoJ is not consulting on the main re-design of probation, it has issued a consultation on how best to make the changes outlined above.
Click to go straight to the consultation paper entitled Strengthening probation, building confidence, which is seeking opinions on:
  • Improving continuity of supervision
  • Frequency of offender contact
  • Post-sentence supervision
  • Engagement between courts and CRCs
  • Improving staff career progression with more interchange between NPS and CRCs and the possible introduction of a professional register for offender managers (similar to the social worker/nurse arrangements).
I know many will be disappointed that the probation service is not being fully re-integrated and re-nationalised, although more are probably not surprised that the “mixed economy” is being preserved. Nevertheless, this is a clear recognition that fundamental reform is needed.
The consultation will only be running for 8 weeks so I urge everyone with an interest in getting our probation service back on track and focused on protecting the public AND promoting desistance to respond.

Continued  http://www.russellwebster.com/probconsultation/


Prisoner experiences

 """very little attention to date"""". In this post,
I want to focus on the experiences of 68 male prisoners who completed a survey and which the authors structure into five themes:

1:Perceptions of unfairness and mistrust

The majority of prisoners (68%) believed that the recall process was unfair, and more than half believed that the
reasons for not being re-released were also unfair. When asked what recall was for, free text responses related to unfairness, benefits to Probation (e.g. recall being easier for OMs) or ulterior motives (e.g. to make money). When asked about barriers to re-release, respondents also reported believing staff power was being abused, and that staff were unwilling to complete paperwork.

2: Poor understanding and communication

Most prisoners understood the reasons for their recall, but over half did not understand why they had not been
re-released. 62% reported receiving no advice or information about how to achieve re-release.

3: Little contact with, and help from, staff

The majority of prisoners knew who their OM was and how to contact them (over 75%). However, 32% reported
having had no contact since returning to custody, and a similar percentage had had no contact with their
Offender Supervisor. Although the majority of prisoners did not believe their OM or prison staff were helping them to progress, many really wanted this and were open to engaging.

4: Progression – barriers and positive thinking

Over half of prisoners felt positive or hopeful about the future and being able to progress to re-release. They
identified a range of barriers to progression. Most of these were external barriers, such as Parole Board
decisions, lack of help from others and lack of community accommodation. Although lack of help was commonly
cited as a barrier, approximately half of the prisoners did not view help from others as necessary for them to
progress. A small number of prisoners reported that it was their own behaviour that was affecting their rerelease.

5: Effect of recall – positive and negative

A small number of prisoners identified positive effects; the most frequently cited was an improvement in their
motivation to progress and understand their risk factor. They reported that recall gave them time to reflect on
their lives and look forward to a positive future. Most prisoners felt that recall had had a negative effect
however, particularly on their personal relationships, accommodation and trust in the system. The most
commonly reported negative effects were loss of family, anger at the system, perceived injustice and lack of help. 39% reported preferring to stay in prison until their sentence end date, or were unsure whether they wanted re-release. The main reason given for wishing to stay in prison was to avoid working with Probation and such restrictions again.


Analytical Summary 2018 analytical summary

Comments

Dziesinski We have just been knocked back on parole for a further 2 years, how stressful it is.




Petitionwhttps://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/free-the-remaining-ipp-prisoners
  
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/723265/Understanding_the_process_and_experience_of_recall_to_prison.pdf

http://www.russellwebster.com/hmppsrecall18/
http://www.russellwebster.com/transforming-rehabilitation-resource-pack/

Saturday 28 July 2018

1. I would like to thank Martin jones and his associate for our meeting on the 28 June 2018. There was a lot discussed the main points are summarised. 2. John Worboys case shows Parole Board is not independent, court to hear. 3. Private probation contracts ended early by government









Verbal and written questions asked at the meeting, notes taken and document submitted. -Doc- Unintended Consequences thematic review by HM Inspectorate of Prisons) 




That we could not clearly always identified the reasons why IPP prisoners are turned down for progression apart from a Perceived perspective of risk being too high and/or likely to continue behaviours . This creates a continuous loop of torment that simply never ends for the prisoner.


IPP Cooke denied open condition not always understood
My son has been knocked back at his pre tariff Parole hearing for re categorisation. I've read the decision letter and it doesn't just say his risk is too high but there is nothing in the letter to suggest or point to what he might do for the future to reduce his risk.
They won't allow him the opportunity to prove he is not a risk by moving him to open conditions, yet how else can he prove it?


IPP John Gilbert allowed open condition
On 14 July 2014, the Parole Board decision recommended that JOHN GILBERT was returned to open conditions. The panel’s decision included the following passage:-
You are assessed as a high risk of serious harm to the public and this is unlikely to be reduced until you have been tested in the community.


Both of these examples were high risk but Cooke was denied the opportunity to prove he was not a risk, yet both were assessed as high risk .Cooke has 2 years left to go and shouldn’t be denied the opportunity to prove he is not a danger. In open conditions he could demonstrate this in a controlled and safe manner. Judgments need to be seen to be fair and transparent and judgments need to be easy to read and understand for those with diverse needs. ROTL is only available in open conditions and they haven’t done enough to demonstrate they are not a risk and yet most have done the courses. A few have probation officers that don't put good release plans together and don't know how to progress their prisoners, furthermore the quality of some reports are poor.


Considering there are extremely low reoffending rates for IPP prisoners, estimated at LESS than 1% leads me to ask the following:-
Questions:-
Is the assessment of risk to the public in anyway accurate or fair?
Why are you not taking the low reoffending rates of IPP’s into account? (Reference to the thematic report page 46,47,48 , HM Inspectorate of Prisons unintended consequences, finding a way forward for prisoners serving IPP sentences November 2016)

Question:
ROTL is only available in open conditions and if they haven’t done enough to demonstrate they are not a risk, what else can the prisoner do?
A few Offender Managers don't put strategies together and don't know how to progress their prisoners forward and furthermore the quality of some Oasy’s and community risk management plans are poor, this is clearly an injustice to the prisoner who has no control over such problem

Learning difficulties
Dr Kerensa a chartered forensic psychologist and a specialist in intellectual disability based at HMP Whatton stated that she was rolling out screening for those in prison. Perrie lectures HMPPS College Rugby 6 June 2018. Victims of crime within prison Factors such as impaired cognitive abilities and judgment, physical disabilities, insufficient adaptive behaviours, constant interactions with "protectors" who exploit them, lack of knowledge on how to protect themselves and living in high-risk environments increase the vulnerability and leads to victimization.

Stated was those with learning differences need support and that screening needs to be in all prisons.
Due to lack of reasonable adjustments prisoners with learning differences are left supporting each other with appeals however there is a privacy & safety issue as a result . Mental health treatment for those that need it, especially those on indeterminate sentences results in many of them doing double the sentences because they find it hard to deal with daily life etc….
Those who have done offender courses and are recalled struggle to progress again, so where do you go next? It is difficult to move prisoners to another prison. Many are assessed as unsuitable for accredited programmes so what do they do next to progress?
ROTL is only available in open conditions and they haven’t done enough to demonstrate they are not a risk. A few people don't have amrese to put strategies together and don't know how to progress, furthermore the quality of the reports are poor.


I agree that screening is the correct way forward however inmates do not own up to having learning difference because of fear of being seen a risk. Prisoners with difficulties feel they are being prejudged if they own up, they are also less likely to be offered programmes.
Question: Would it not be easier for the parole board to make a more accurate assessment of risk?
Question: For complex cases would the Solution be to look at hospitals to register prisoners with treatment plans rather than holding them to avoid them falling into the same trap the following year with probation?
Question: Have you voiced your concerns to the justice Ministers on the IPP issues that may take a number of years to resolve this being the case would it not be right to ask the justice Minister for policy change?
Question: If an inmate has completed courses what else can they do to qualify for release or a move to open conditions?
Question: Those who have done offender courses and are recalled can’t work to progress again, so where do they go next?

If the above has happened it is difficult to move prisoners to another prison. Many are assessed as unsuitable for accredited programmes so what do they do next to progress?
ROTL is only available in open conditions and they haven’t done enough to demonstrate their risk is low enough. A few people don't have amerce to put strategies together and don't know how to progress furthermore the quality of the reports are poor.

Question: Do you feel we need to press for a change in the test for release which doesn't need parliamentary authority? We have more people on indeterminate sentences than Germany, France & Spain combined. We either are an island full of dangerous people or we are persecuting people.
Question: What are the complex cases? Who is considered complexet? Are they prisoners with Personality disorders, ADHD, Sex offenders, mental health, learning difficulties or something else? mentioned was those with learning differences however I said that  prisons are employing people with learning difficulties are  they seen by the prison  as a risk or complexet?  
this leaflet I picked up from A prison officers training college applying for a job as a Prison Officer your entry if you have learning difficulties and the support you receive for those learning diffrences.
If a prisoner with learning difficulties you are seen as complexed case and risk .Those with learning diffrences and mental health other......do double the sentence and more, if an IPP prisoner. It is wrong on all level its double standards and its discrimination. 

Question: Does a prisoner’s behaviour get them breached or influence the decisions to their sentence plan? If so why not take the approach of Warren Hill, not to punish for breaches or bad behaviour and instead put them to work and end segregation and breaches that lead to a longer sentence. Can we roll this model out to other prisons?

Warren Hill Prison
I spoke to the governor of Warren hill Prison since she has been there governor for 3 years and she has done an inspirational job.
Question: Do you feel all prisons need to follow that model?
• 50% attend Open University. 80% progress from Warren Hill.
• She creates a space where they can make mistakes and can survive and swear if they like.
• They are not given punishments for breaches they are just given work. All are given key workers and they don't end up in the segregation unit’s. I feel it’s a must to role this example out to other prisons

Question: What is being done to address treatments and failings in a timely manner?
Treatment plans for sex offenders (Nil)
Personality disorders (Unknown)
Likely to continue behaviours, timely manner
Drug related treatments plans (sparse, if not at all)
Drug Scope, Sector survey 2015-16 makes it very clear that a large proportion of dependent drug users with complex needs face a dramatic cutback in a wide range of services essential to promoting their recovery.

Drug users, over one fifth of respondents felt that access had worsened in the year prior to the survey. Continued http://ippfanilycampaign.blogspot.com/
Mental health in the community (poor)
Hostels places? (Needed)
Redirecting prisoners to other prisons (poor) Issues with prisons wanting to take them, so many problems with courses.
Demand for offending behaviour programmes
Risk management activity (improvements needed).
Help them progress through their custodial term (pilot team is need in all prisons)
Placement’s not enough information from offender managers.
ROTL process how many have progressed on release?


Recalls
Most are not related to reoffending but rather to 'risky' behaviour or breaches. Many IPP have committed minor breaches, breaches rather than crimes considering the extremely low reoffending rates of IPP prisoners as stated on page 47 of the report, estimated at LESS than 1%, is the assessment of risk to the public taking this into account, why?
What I’m trying to understand from the evidence that there is a disproportionate connection regarding the recall of IPPs and determinate prisoners and also a disproportionate level of perceived risk between the two groups?
Question: Is an IPP less of a risk to the public and if so is the calculation of risk being done properly?
Question: How can we identify this? Are you able to explain the cause of the high levels of recalls for IPP’s as it doesn’t appear to reflect their actual danger within reoffending rates?
Last year at the parole meeting you gave us a date for release of the over tariff prisoner by 2018 and others by 2020. Though on Page 50 of the Thematic report by HM Inspectorate of Prisons unintended consequences Nick Hardwick states we should be able to reduce the number of IPP prisoners in prison to about 1,500 by 2020 if effective arrangements are made to reduce their risk and manage them in the community!

Question: Does this mean the parole board in fact have no control over a “timely” resolution since the goal post seemed to of changed now from 1,500 by 2020.
I do believe from the parole denials that IPP’s are less likely to engage positively with the parole process the longer they are held over tariff? Some IPP prisoners have been denied parole 6 times, something is clearly not working!

Question: Do the parole board have knowledge of the difficulties the Post IPP prisoners have and do the parole board look into the back ground of an inmate to try and give a balance of fairness?
Deferrals can be the result of mistakes, lack of information or offender manger not turning up.
Question: you cannot afford to sack poor performing and sparse prison officers should there not be a backup, another person briefed on the case, encase of any issues on the day of a parole hearing?
Offender mangers should know their job, there is no excuse for poor performance this needs urgent attention.

Most parole board members I met are posh; do you feel we need to change the parole board members with everyday people like students and teachers etc?

Question: How are you working with prisoners to make amends to reduce their risk? Do you really have a set date? If you don’t and you feel it going to take a numbers of years to address all the issues perhaps the justice Minister should be made aware and do the right thing rather than lingering it on?
Question: Do you have ideas on modernising risk assessments?
Question: What has been done in the last year to ensure adequate resources and timely support and progression are available to work with IPP prisoners to reduce their said risk?
Question: What more can you do to help IPP prisoners?

Martin I noticed your recent articles regarding Warboy and victims.

Question: But what can you do to get IPP prisoners seen in a better light with the media noting their risk is seriously low?
Question: Can you set up a family support group for the IPP prisoner’s families? families are victims too, they need a place to go share up to date information, just to talk as many have been suicidal and are lost, some have turned to drink due stress and anxiety
meetings to which i attended 05/06/18 to 06/06/18 IPP Event hosted by the Leicester prison and Perrie lectures research group Strategies for prisoners .

-Professor Nick Hardwick discussed facts and that 4 justice Ministers chose to do nothing. Lisa Smith an Associate Professor in Criminology, now working at HMPP’s Psychology services was interesting, she mentioned they interviewed IPP prisoners and have set up a pilot project team to deal with indeterminate sentenced prisoners so that IPP’s can move forward however this has not been rolled out to all prison.
Question Can this model be rolled out to other prisoner in a timely manner?
The number of IPP in custody now to date 2,884
Recalled 84
Pre-tariff data from Lisa Smith shows the number classed as sexual offenders at 1178 (38.8%)
Violence 533 (17.6%)
Weapons 86 (2.8%)
Drugs 3 (0.1%)
Other 55 (1.8%)
Missing 69 (2.3%

Age groups of those recalled
21-24 years (5%)
25-29 years (10. 9%)
30-39 years (51.2%)
40-49 years (26.7%), it goes up as they get older.

• There are 84 offender managers and there leaving at an alarming rate
• 18% of IPP prisoners have not had contact with their offender manager and 28 were not being helped at all
• Prisoners contact with offender supervisor, only 25% were being helped to prepare cases. Some prisons didn't have offender mangers but did have untrained probation officers helping with cases but they never got to know the IPP’s according to the complaints.
• There were also inconsistencies in contact and there was a backlog of reviewing OASy’s assessments.

Those IPP’s that are 10 to 11 years over tariff,
12% of short tariffs are massively over tariff.
Goal posts being moved 83% very over tariff.
36 inspection reports.
15th and 16th of March 2018 the inspection looked at IPP prisoners to find out why they were not progressing

• They looked at offender mangers to see if they were any good.
• What prisons did to demonstrate a risk reduction.
• Moral problems were higher with IPP as well as self harm. Anxiety was high with those with short tariffs as they would see their friends go and they were still there.
• There’s work on ISOS operational support
• The Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS) will work closely with the Parole Board and the National Probation Service to provide operational oversight for IPPs.
• NPS will prioritise cases where psychology is needed and a separate section for woman.

****COHORT CURRENTLY 999 THAT HAVE FAILED AT 2 PAROLE BOARD REVIEWS DATA IS REFRESHED QUARTELY.
• Some have been to six parole hearing but still haven't reduced risk.
• Complete psychology case file reviews identify reasons why such as, struggling treatment planning and are looking to see how they can monitor better. They have a high rate of personality disorders and mental disorders. OPD pathway might be linked to risk or being an IPP so they say we must increase planning.

• 1285 case file reviews have been completed to date; they say they must take a fresh look at cases and do consultations.
• They say the IPP’s trauma is acerbated or made worse and related to risk.
• They say they need to have an offender manger unit, clear sense of a progressive pathway, look at parole to help them progress, avoid delays.

• Give IPP’s and family access to a support group and work with the families
• Monitor IPP prisoners that have had 2 or more reviews, have psychologist meetings, and increase the focus to enable progression to those that struggle. They have included a traffic light system:-*Green to indicate progress easy*Amber engagement issues*Red to classify the case is difficult and to engage treatment work on behaviour.
• Research and evaluation on recall, work on communications strategy for IPPs and family, needs for sex offender officers, and experience of recall project pathway.
• IPPs cost a million pound a year in compensation keeping IPP prisoners in prison over their tariff there is a big problem with deferrals as on the day it can be cancelled then you are sent back. This happens because of a lack of paper work or poor paper work that is given to the parole board, or needing more information but now there and looking at a pilot to keep the cases moving.

February 2018
• NO people are waiting for a hearing they said. 48 was reviewed.
• That offender managers went around prisons to share their information looking at how to review cases, parole board cases and parole board journals.
Professor Leam, A Craig who is a Forensic and Clinical Psychologist gave evidence at the parole board OPD pathway.
• The test for recall is too low, a technical breach and you can be recalled. Must find alternatives to recall and address the lack of community support for mental health. That’s why those with mental health are still in prison, parole is aware of this.
• He talked about delays in HSPS, SARN not available if need, and delays in specialist cases. He talked about the loss of motivation and engagement leading to failing parole, there’s still a lack of courses and mental health leading to desperation in prisoners.
• Also a lack of space’s in hostels (AP’s) and a lack of supportive housing. He spoke about those IPP prisoners released last year but are still in prison just waiting for housing.
• That there is a lack of supportive mentoring and the funding cuts also to circles UK.
Dr Emma palmer, an Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society and a Chartered Forensic Psychologist from Leicester University talked about risk.
• The Parole board predict risk based on experience of behaviour. Clinical professional judgment, age at the time of the offence, substance abuse etc.
• Your risk might change over time* results OGRS scores OASY’s risk, Likelihood of behaviour and Wing assessments.
• Clearly unfair predictions as judged against the same criteria even though they may have changed during their time in custody.

Worboys
4 psychologists agreed on Worboys was a very low risk prisoner. When four psychologists all apparently arrive at similar conclusions regarding the risk assessment should we not question the parole panels?

Question: Are you in agreement that the model is floored?
A category A release that was initially cleared by the parole board only makes others suspicious about fairness and intention. Other Prisoners have had to work their way down.
Question: Have you ideas to change that risk model, if not who can?

IPP policy options suggested

• CONVERSION: Convert all or some IPP sentences to a fixed term sentence with a definite sentence end date
• SUNSET CLAUSE: Establish a provision to provide that all or some post tariff prisoners must be released no later than a certain date
• RISK TEST: Reverse the risk test for some or all IPPs so the Parole Board has to demonstrate the prisoners poses a serious risk rather than the prisoners needing to demonstrate that they do not
• EXECUTIVE RELEASE: Consider using existing powers to release IPP prisoners who have now served more than the current maximum tariff for their sentence
• SHORT TARIFF IPPs: Reverse the risk test for IPPs with an original tariff of less than two years
• RECALLS: End the IPP sentence once the Parole Board has decided release and deal with further offences under normal sentencing provisions and limit license periods

Question: It will take years to fix these issues therefore we have a duty to end the IPP Prisoners suffering. Should the parole board suggest to the justice minister the above issues moreover because they are not going to be timely?

Prison population 30th May2018
On the 10 November 2017The prison population was 86,163, which has a operational capacity of 87,330 (98.7%).
On the 1st June 2018The prison population was 83,254, which now has an operation capacity 86,549 (96.19%) Deaths 40%, and 13% self-inflicted

The number of IPP prisoners has fallen by 53%.
Since December 2012? There were 2,884 IPP prisoners on 31 March 2018 (not including recalls)88% of those remaining in prison were post tariff or, put another way, 349 had not yet served their tariff 85 with tariffs of over 10 yearsStill 459 in prison with a tariff of less than two yearsRestrictions on ROTL have made risk assessments more difficult. Recalled IPPs increased by19% between March 207 and March 2018 to 847


The prison population
November 2017-18Prison population up from 44,246 June 1993 to 85,134 June 2016
10 Nov 2017 Population 86,163; Op Cap 87,330 (98.7%)
Concerns about violence and disorder in many prisons
Link to reform and governor autonomy agenda
1 June 2018
Prison population down to 83,254. Op Cap 86,549 (96.19%)
Total deaths reduced 13% and self inflicted deaths reduced 40%
ROTL changes
Worboys…


Risk test
When considering the release of prisoners who come before it, the Board is required to determine whether it is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should remain detained HMIP Prisons prisoner Surveys 2016/17
How much time do you spend out of your cell on a weekend?

Average 22% RED 14% BLUE
Open Prison Red 2% Blue 40%
Young adults prisons Red 37% Blue 40%
High security prisons Red 11% Blue13%
Training prisons Red 16% Blue 15%
Local prisons Red 31% Blue 8%
Red less than 2 hours a day (weekdays)% Blue more than 10 hours a day (WEEKENDS)%

Prison staff in last ten years
2007-8 2017 2018 % changed 07-08/17-18
189 deaths in prison custody 344 295 + 56%
2.3 deaths/1000 4.0 3.5 + 52%
84 apparent self-inflicted deaths 115 69 (- 18%)
1 homicides 5 3 -
6,132 prisoners self-harmed 11,000 11,630 + 90%
15,272 assaults 26,022 29,485 + 93%
1,485 serious assaults 3,519 3,856 + 160%
3,279 assaults on staff 6,844 8,429 + 157%
285 serious assaults on staff 789 864 +203%


(POA), Mark Fairhurst, says that the government is “totally misleading the public”
Mark says that the government is “totally misleading the public” over staffing levels. He says that when the recruitment drive began there were 1,500 vacancies in the service, another 3,254 officers had quit since, and that since 2010 the service has lost over 7,000 officers. He says: “Our employer’s own statistics demonstrate that when the much-needed 3,111 recruits are taken into account, we still have a significant deficit of prison officers. Attrition rates in some areas exceed 30 per cent and it is becoming apparent that more and more experienced staff are leaving the service.” The POA say they expect the Prison Service to lose another 1,800 staff this year and if the recruitment campaign was as successful as Mr Gauke claimed, there should be an immediate end to ‘detached duty’ in which an average 200 prison officers a week are transferred to plug staffing gaps in other prisons".
Question: what do you think and what can be done to reassure us?

Structural problems, Government’s privatisation of the probation service has failed though it does not affect IPP prisoners:
The reform was rushed through; the pilots were abandoned and there was no evidence base on which to base the new structure. The split of the service into two parts dealing with high risk (National Probation Service) and medium/low risk (21 new private Community Rehabilitation Companies) offenders created a needlessly fragmented service. The reform was driven by ideology. The MOJ cut costs too drastically and encouraged bidders to win on the basis of price.

Last minute changes in procurement largely excluded voluntary sector organisations with experience of working with offenders. The Justice Select Committee produced a damning report on TR last week (22 June 2018) in which it requested the MoJ to review the current system and come up with alternative models by February 2019. Specific needs of offenders, the issues facing offenders on probation are not all within the gift of probation services to resolve, and therefore a cross-Government approach is needed and organisations need to work together.important component of the Committee’s report is the demand for a review which looks at alternative models. The MOJ has been working on this for well over a year now and the latest rumours to reach me suggest an even more fragmented and complex system is being constructed out of the ashes of TR

Increased risk of suicide and self-harm
A sister had a brother serving an IPP sentence from 2009, he was 4 years over tariff when he got turned down a second time and unfortunately he felt unable to carry on and took his own life last September. The family had no idea what an IPP sentence was and that this was the sentence he had been given, partly due to him being in prison regularly for minor offences and party because he was unable to articulate it to us, especially as we had no idea about prison sentences etc. The family, are devastated the sister particular. She was extremely close to her brother up until a few years before he was given the IPP sentence, when they drifted apart. Now she wants to change things for others who are serving an IPP sentence.


Other notes taken at the meeting
MJ assured us that the PB really has been trying to progress IPPs, and that he has been encouraging the members to do this. From what he said, it seems probable that he was not entirely happy with at least one recent hearing which resulted in a knockback, but which he had expected to have had a positive outcome instead, so he definitely is in favour of getting IPPs out of prison.
Risk
MJ agreed that the serious reoffending rate of IPPs was extremely low, which should be taken into account.
Although there is a problem in the media with people’s reaction to sex offenders (e.g. John Worboys), in fact IPP sex offenders’ reoffending rate is among the lowest in the system.
He said that there was no scientific certainty about calculation of risk. The Parole Board should not assess risk on the basis of courses alone, but should look at other aspects such as support in the community and other indicators.
He mentioned the RADAR project, which is intended to look at the PB’s approach to risk. There is a need to be able to clarify their approach and make it clear to others, and also to make the approach more consistent.
MJ has been trying to ensure that the PB makes decisions without reference to what the media say about risk.
He agreed that the media need to reflect IPPS in a good light considering there a very low risk 1% however felt they was not intrusted in that news but agreed they we need to look at this.
Changes needs to be done in a timely manner and if it’s going to take years to achieve we must ask the justice Minister for a policy change. He said he was going to raise these issues with Minister.
Figures for IPPs was from March 31st 2,884
Main reason for recalls breaches of rules, fail to stay in contact and drugs and drink, though drink is an impossible task to ask of anyone.
He felt strong on parole board members being of different back ground and colour and that it should be look at having members of the public.
I said I wanted to end breaches and model on warren hill. I asked what the breaches was for he said there was 640 summery of reasons. He felt this could be looked at and agreed that warren hill was a good model.

• Recall to be put to the minister if a prisoner is reforming to relax it.

• Sex offender are the lowest risk in the system ( not a danger)

Other complicating factors
1. Immigration status:
MJ agreed that too often the Parole Board and the Home Office just sat back and each waited for the other to make a move where an IPP prisoner was threatened with deportation. He reiterated that the PB should be prepared to direct release whether or not there was a problem of immigration status. He agreed that the prohibition by the MoJ on open conditions (but not on release) for such prisoners, was rather illogical.

2. Recalls
The PB has written to ministers to ask for the possibility of shorter recalls, especially for minor issues.
The recall population is up by 19%. MJ has raised the issue of being consistent for recalls – look at the individual case, especially where there are complex needs. Not every infringement of licence conditions needs to be dealt with by recall.
MJ is seriously concerned about the suicide rate / attempted suicide among IPPs – these cases are often recall cases.

3. ROTL
This is really useful for the PB, to get an idea of how the IPP prisoner is coping in the community.
MJ mentioned the problem of a prisoner being barred from open conditions because of absconding previously. He said that a prisoner should not be judged on his past behaviour, and that the reasons for absconding should be looked at – again, looking at individuals, not just a generic “you absconded, so you’re barred from open conditions”.
IPP recall, the matter was looked at within 28 days and could be dealt with 'on the papers' [but my recollection from the website is of this taking months if not longer, so perhaps this a recent tightening up -if so about time too]

The future?
• Life licence: The PB wants this reformed to give a shorter licence.
• The PB is asking for more power to give directives and sanction prisons / probation etc. when they fail to comply with reasonable requests e.g. having documents available and correct on time for a hearing, or when they fail to do what the PB has asked e.g. carry out review of medication before the next hearing.
• Warren Hill prison – excellent regime and support for IPPs. Possibly 2 more prisons in different parts of the country will be rolling out this programme.
• Need for more diversity on the PB? Ensure there is no prejudice, understand complex needs and disabilities.
• IPP recall, the matter was looked at within 28 days and could be dealt with 'on the papers' [but my recollection from the website is of this taking months if not longer, so perhaps this a recent tightening up -if so about time too]
(* Waiting on Minutes of the meeting i will post once received* )

There are a number of reasons why one would be granted open and the other not.
Google: psi-13-2015-release-on-temporary-licence - Justice.gov.uk
Definition of Restricted ROTL offender3.5 The following offenders are all subject to Restricted ROTL: All indeterminate sentence prisoners (ISPs);It gives you more information in chapter 8, page 97 regarding the conditions of the restricted ROTL and this PSI also goes into detail about the punishments if for any reason there is the slightest issue. Being just 5minutes late could suspend you ROTL’s for 35days if you are on Restricted ROTL and your likely to receive an additional punishment as well, whether it was circumstances beyond your control or not. (Annex L, page 213)






Jez owen

Referred to the Unintended consequences page 7 which states clearly:-


 



There are three main reasons why decisive action must be taken to improve this situation. Firstly, for many of the IPP prisoners, it is not clear that holding them well beyond their end-of-tariff date is necessarily in the interests of public protection, and therefore there are issues of fairness and justice.


Secondly, the cost to the public purse of continuing to hold the high numbers of IPP prisoners is significant.

Thirdly, the pressures IPPs exert on the system in terms of risk management activity, demand for offending behaviour programmes and parole processes is significant. Resources are being stretched increasingly thinly and there are risks that prisoners will struggle to access the support they need and that delays will increase still further.

From the above I want to clarify what Martin Jones has actually been issued with by the secretary for state to address these points.

1.       What extra resources have you been issued by the secretary of state to reduce significantly the delays in the parole process to better help rehabilitate the many prisoners on the IPP sentence?


Main recommendation

The Secretary of State for Justice should take immediate action to ensure adequate resources and timely support are available to work with IPP prisoners to reduce their

risk of harm to others and to help them progress through the custodial system towards consideration for release by the Parole Board (Page 12).

Specifically it states the following two relevant directions to the parole board on page 13:-

To Parole Board for England and Wales

9. The Parole Board information and management systems should be used to identify the reasons why IPP prisoners are turned down for progression and/or release on

Licence and this should inform work in prisons to reduce their risk.

10. Decision-making about the recall decision for IPP sentence prisoners should be expedited.

 

So the following question’s to Martin Jones is aimed at seeing if those recommendations have been implemented.

2.       What has David Guake done since taking up his post to better help the Parole Board make a diagnosis of the actual risk an IPP sentenced prisoner actually represents to the public and how are you evidencing these changes to evaluate their effectiveness to ensure that IPP’s are being effectively rehabilitated.

3.       How can you evidence that the rehabilitation needs of long serving IPP prisoners are actually being met?

4.       Since the Warboys case what are you doing differently and will this make the system slower or faster?

5.       If an Offender Manager doesn’t approve release of an over tariff IPP prisoner are the parole board now more or less likely to still direct release since the Warboys case? 

6.       Have you expedited the recall decision making regarding IPP sentenced prisoners as recommended within the Unintended Consequences report page 13 and how are you able to evidence this?

3.6 The sentence was intended to ensure that high-risk individuals served a minimum term in prison, during which time they would undertake work to reduce the risk they posed, and at

the point where sufficient risk reduction had been achieved they would be released by the Parole Board. Page 18

Referring to the above section the following questions are directed to better understand how the parole board views its understanding and effectiveness and what they actually see their role regarding its purpose and whether that purpose has changed.

7.       I refer to page 18 section 3.6 of the unintended consequences report (read it to clarify)  Do you feel this remit has changed bearing in mind a large percentage of IPP’s have been released and recalled for minor breaches of their licence?

8.       How effective has it been for the purpose of rehabilitation for additional detention after a recalled IPP comes back up for parole who has not committed a further offense whilst on licence and has this lead to a lesser or more wiliness to engage by the prisoner.

6.13 It is important to emphasise that we are not advocating that IPP prisoners should circumvent the existing arrangements to protect the public around ROTL, but that with current legislation most people serving IPP sentences would have a determinate rather than

indeterminate sentence, and the vast majority are well over tariff. We consider that the

expansion of ROTL to those IPP prisoners in closed conditions deemed eligible may be one

means of progressing those stuck in the prison system towards a safe and more speedy

release. Page 44

 

The following questions are to see if this has been a direction they have attempted to expedite and whether they have been given the necessary powers to direct this.

9.       Has the parole board been able to progress IPP’s better through the ROTL process as recommended in section 6.13 page 44 of the Unintended consequences report (read it to clarify) to better help reintegration into the community and improve rehabilitation whilst protecting the public?

10.       Can you give a figure of how many IPP prisoners have been progressed onto ROTL and of those that have how many progressed onto licence successfully.

7.7 the recall rate for IPP prisoners is very high compared with some other categories of

offenders: in 2015, around 500 IPP sentence prisoners were released, but 391 were recalled

in this period. Most of this was not related to reoffending, but rather to 'risky' behaviour such as the use of alcohol/drugs, which can still manifest in the community. In addition, through discussion with recalled IPP prisoners, there is some anecdotal evidence that gaps in the provision of some key community services, for example mental health services, can lead

to a breakdown of the release plan. However, the Parole Board says the serious reoffending

rate for IPP prisoners on release is very low, estimated at less than 1% (page 47)

What I’m trying to understand from this is can we conclude from the evidence that there is a disproportionate correlation regarding the recall of IPPs and determinate prisoners and also a disproportionate level of perceived risk between the two groups? Is an IPP less of a risk to the public and if so is the calculations of risk properly identify this?

11.   Considering the extremely low reoffending rates of IPP prisoners as stated on page 47 of the report, estimated at LESS than 1%, is the assessment of risk to the public taking this into account?

12.   Are you able to explain the cause of the high levels of recalls for IPP’s as it doesn’t appear to reflect their actual danger within reoffending rates?

13.   Would it not be easier for the parole board to make a more accurate assessment of risk posed by over tariff IPP’s by having the argument for continued detention being made by the state?

PART of Nick Hardwicks statement on page 50

We could reduce the number of IPP prisoners in prison to about 1,500 by 2020.

If ministers want to go further and faster than this that will require legislative or policy changes. Options might include: revising the risk test so that prisoners only continue to be detained if there is evidence they remain a danger to the public;– introducing that measure just for ’short-tariff’ IPPs – those who received a tariff of two years or less but remain in prison long after their tariff has expired because they are unable to prove their risk

has reduced;– taking executive action to release IPP prisoners who have now served longer than the maximum current sentence for their offence

14.   Do you feel that you are currently still able to deliver the target suggested by Mr Hardwick that you can reduce the IPP population in prison to 1,500 by 2020 and if not why not?

15.   Are you able to see if IPP’s are more or less likely to engage positively with the parole process the longer they are held over tariff?

16.   Have you seen an increase or decrease since 2016 in the timely delivery of proper assessments and management plans for parole hearings?

 Hoping that some of these questions are helpful and from his answers we can put together another letter to Mr Gauke in an effort to help him see sense. 



Jez owen  

I thought this article below needed bringing to all your attention. Wakenshaw is an IPP and over tariff and his lawyers argument has merit.'Wakenshaw’s lawyers will argue that while the Parole Board is a de facto court under both common law and the ECHR, it does not enjoy the independence usually granted to a court.
"They will quote from Hardwick’s resignation letter, in which he questioned the board’s independence. Speaking to the Guardian in May, he went further, saying: “I think the Parole Board now fails the independence test.

John Worboys case shows Parole Board is not independent, court to hear....



Keane Robert

Private probation contracts ended early by government



 







rivate companies that run probation services are to have their government contracts ended early - after MPs said the system for supervising criminals was in a "mess".
The contracts began in 2015 to manage low-risk offenders in England and Wales, under a partial privatisation by then-Justice Secretary Chris Grayling.

Ministers are proposing further changes and private firms will remain involved.
But Labour said the costly contracts had created an "unprecedented crisis".
It comes after the Commons justice committee said in July that changes to probation had failed, and it was unconvinced private sector firms could ever deliver an effective service.
BBC home affairs correspondent Tom Symonds said the government had hoped that shaking up probation would result in less reoffending. The number of people reoffending has reduced slightly, but those that do are committing crimes more frequently.

'Substantial losses'

The arrangements for managing offenders were overhauled in 2014, with the probation service split in two.
A new state body, the National Probation Service (NPS), was set up to supervise high-risk offenders, with 21 privately run Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) supervising low and medium-risk offenders.
But David Gauke, who became justice secretary in January, said that while the £3.7bn Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) programme had been ambitious and innovative, several CRCs had made "very substantial losses".

David GaukeImage copyright EPA
Image caption David Gauke became justice secretary in January
Mr Gauke said the amount of work available for the CRCs had been "lower than anticipated and that has had an impact in terms of their income and the services they are able to provide".
He also said he was determined to have a service that reduced reoffending, and could oversee "tough" community sentences with less reliance on "ineffective" short prison terms.

Failure to perform

Existing contracts will now end two years early, in 2020 - and will be replaced with 10 new ones under changes that will cost the government £170m.
This includes £110m that the CRCs owe the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) in fines for failing to meet performance targets - but which they will be allowed to reinvest in services to keep them going for the last two years of their agreements.
The MoJ will also pay £46m over the next two years for services that help offenders immediately after they are released from prison.

The MoJ said it had budgeted to pay firms £2.5bn by 2020 but had only paid out £2.2bn - a saving of £300m - because less work than anticipated was allocated to the CRCs.
This was because there was an increase in the proportion of serious offences which they were ineligible to work on.
Mr Gauke said new contracts would make better use of offending data and would move towards "payment for services delivered", but he ruled out allowing CRCs to take on high-risk cases.

Media playback is unsupported on your device


"People under probation supervision need help to change" says Dame Glenys Stacey
Media playback is unsupported on your device listen here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44973258




A British prisoner is seeking a judicial review because he says he does not have a fair chance of parole following the controversy surrounding the decision to release the serial sex attacker John Worboys.
High court judges ruled in March that the Parole Board’s decision to release Worboys should be quashed and ordered a “fresh determination” in his case. The ruling led to the departure of Parole Board chair Nick Hardwick, whose position was said to be “untenable” by the justice secretary, David Gauke.
Lawyers acting for the prisoner Paul Wakenshaw claim that Hardwick’s removal proves that the Parole Board lacks independence and as such fails to meet the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights

Wakenshaw is also seeking an order postponing the recruitment of a new chair, for which interviews are scheduled to take place next month.

On Thursday the Royal Courts of Justice will consider whether the recruitment process should be suspended until the judicial review claim can be decided.

Like Worboys, Wakenshaw is serving an indeterminate public protection (IPP) sentence. In 2009 he was sentenced to a minimum of six years’ imprisonment for two offences of robbery and for using an imitation firearm. Now three years over that tariff, he is undergoing a parole review and is due to appear before the Parole Board.


IPP sentences were introduced in 2005 by the former home secretary David Blunkett to protect the public against criminals whose crimes were not serious enough to merit a normal life sentence but who were regarded as too dangerous to be released when the term of their original sentence had expired.
High-risk criminals, mainly convicted of violent or sexual offences, were given a tariff (a minimum sentence) instead of a fixed-term sentence. They could only be released at the end of that tariff if the Parole Board was satisfied they could be managed safely in the community.

In 2012, IPP sentences were scrapped by the then justice secretary Kenneth Clarke, who called them a stain on the justice system. More than 3,000 IPP prisoners remain behind bars. Before being released, IPP prisoners must complete offending behaviour courses. But not all jails run the required courses and prisoners can wait years to participate in them.


Wakenshaw’s lawyers will argue that while the Parole Board is a de facto court under both common law and the ECHR, it does not enjoy the independence usually granted to a court.
They will quote from Hardwick’s resignation letter, in which he questioned the board’s independence. Speaking to the Guardian in May, he went further, saying: “I think the Parole Board now fails the independence test.”


It is not the first time the autonomy of the board has been questioned in the courts. In 2008 four prisoners successfully challenged its perceived lack of independence, again citing common and ECHR law.. The secretary of state appealed, but the court of appeal upheld the lower divisional court’s ruling.

In that case – R (Brooke) v Parole Board – the judges concluded: “Neither the secretary of state nor his department has adequately addressed the need for the Parole Board to be and to be seen to be free of influence in relation to the performance of its judicial functions. Both by directions and by the use of his control over the appointment of members of the board, the secretary of state has sought to influence the manner in which the board carries out its risk assessment.”

Wakenshaw’s lawyers acknowledge thatsome changes to the Parole Board were made after the Brooke ruling, but say the overall structure remains largely in place.

Wakenshaw’s lawyer, Dean Kingham, of Swain & Co, said: “The Ministry of Justice classifies the Parole Board as an arms-length body, but often its approach could better be described as hands on. The removal of Hardwick by the minister was a stark example of overt and undue political influence over a supposedly independent body. My client believes that the board will now exercise undue caution, and many prisoners who are safe to be released will not be.”


Deborah Russo, co-director of the Prisoners’ Advice Service charity, said a legal challenge was long overdue and that nothing had substantially changed in the Parole Board since the Brooke case. The fact that the Parole Board is located within the Ministry of Justice and shares a website within it, is indicative of a lack of independence. Further, the forced resignation of Nick Hardwick is testament to the fact that the actions of the Parole Board are very closely manoeuvered behind closed doors by the MoJ.”
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “The Parole Board is independent from the government and ministers play no role in the decisions that it makes. It would be inappropriate to comment further while legal proceedings are ongoing.”





COMMENTS


Kelly how on earth is A probation officer allowed the power to be judge and jury in their opinion with regards to perceived risk FAIR JUSTICE SYSTEM DONT THINK SO and given the POWER to have someone's parole decision overturned

Mcluckie My argument is with  that how can any outside probation say if their client is high or low risk when they clearly have NO dealings with them whilst stuck in he system not even been to meet them face to face either that be on a parole hearing or just a visit? My son's so called probation walked out on her job the day b 4 his last hearing so the manageress had to take the call she stated an I mean from paperwork in front of her that my son was high risk she was asked she was asked have u or any of ur team been to visit -Mr bla bla over the months coming up to his parole? answer NO, have any of ur team had video link wit Mr bla bla ? answer NO, then witout seeing this man who sits here today can u say he is high risk to the public wen here in front of the panel it states this man is a medium to low risk ? well I have in front of me papers stain otherwise, parole board buts in that does clearly NOT state that in his up to date papers then she probation says her computer has crashed emmmmmm beg to differ on that she says she was using 2 computers at one time an both crashed on her.

Rosina It's funny how all the stories are so similar for every one

James Bit random but have any of you IPPers who are now out gone on to have children? I see a lot of posts about SS being involved and banning released IPPs from seeing children so wondering if we would have issues if we got pregnant once mines released (if I’m not too old by then)
I think is really sad that my oh has said if it wasn’t for coming home to me he would be happy to live the rest of his life in prison.... 9 years inside on a 3year IPP sentence so it’s the norm for him now and still no release date in sight

Pullman  Social services do get involved but they don't just ban every IPP my hubby is IPP and sees his children all time and social services wud have no reason once released for him to be Ripped unless he was a danger to them which he is not.   My man got 15 month tariff for arson on two empty cars, he  has now done 13 years nearly he's losing hope he also said if it wasn't for me and kids he would happily stay in jail and throw the towel in, its heart breaking .....



Rumble So sad, it’s disgusting how they cannot task one of those lazy b...rds in parliament to make this a priority and set these boys free. Hang in there you will get your boy home



Piercy Ipp sentence is bull shit they get recalled over nothing how is that fair or right.. They done their time and more.. They get punish more then a murderer it's a joke. Mine got another knock back 15 months he was recalled in 2014 with no new crime it's broken me to levels I never thou it could but he is now trying to reapply again for parole if they give him new date maybe am sick of this system and how they destroy people lives..






















https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/26/john-worboys-case-parole-board-independent-court#img-1