Total Pageviews

Friday 31 August 2018

1.. prison officers and police a list of convicted who supply drugs or other..... .What happens to those prison officers who are caught supplying drugs? 2.The extent to which drugs have taken hold in our jails 3. Howard league fewer prisons is the answer. 4.Russell, longer sentence is driving increase

Related image


List of prisons, police, & court personnel charged with or convicted of supplying drugs or drug dealing, assault, misconduct and more.......Those Convicted of an offence from 209 to 2018. What happens to those  officers who caught supplying drugs leaving  addicts behind them, are they just sacked!

file:///C:/Users/Katherine/Downloads/PoliceListV34.pdf



The extent to which drugs have taken hold in our jails was detailed by the Chief Inspector of Prisons in his annual report last month.

“The ready availability of drugs in too many of our prisons sits behind much of the violence,” Peter Clarke said. “We are regularly told by prisoners how easy it is to get hold of illicit drugs in prisons and of the shockingly high numbers who acquire a drug habit while they are detained.”

Last week, he voiced the same concerns when the Government announced its temporary takeover of HMP Birmingham from G4S.

With the highest levels of violence of any prison of its kind in the country, Mr Clarke said he was astounded at “one of Britain’s leading jails slipping into a state of crisis that is remarkable even by the low standards we have seen all too frequently in recent years”.

One of the key failures he identified was the “blatant” use and trafficking of drugs.

Illustrating the futility around the issue at the prison, he wrote: “When inspectors at one point raised the fact that drugs were clearly being smoked on a wing, the response from staff was to shrug.”

On the face of it, the Government cannot be accused of the same resignation.

Days after HMP Birmingham was brought under state control, Prisons Minister Rory Stewart said that his key task was to reduce violence in prisons, with the new psychoactive substance (NPS) Spice being its biggest cause.

His focus, he said, was on massively reducing the supply of drugs, as well as restoring basic decency to our prisons and providing training and support for prison officers to enable them to challenge the behaviour leading to violence.

“We have an increasingly detailed understanding of how new psychoactive substances have driven prisoners into aggressive frenzies and self-harm and trapped them in dangerous drug-debt,” he wrote last week. “And we have better intelligence on how organised criminal gangs smuggle the substances in.

“But, we should and can do far more to improve our basic security procedures. Better netting and window-grilles will prevent throw-overs and drones, new body scanners will detect drugs being smuggled in through the gate. So will more sniffer dogs. And we need to improve our searching of everyone who enters the prisons – accepting that, although the vast majority of families and prison officers are not engaged in the trade, we need to search and catch those who are.”

Mr Stewart’s pledge followed other Government announcements in recent months on its determination to “fight drugs and improve security” across the prison estate. £10 million will be spent on 10 of the most violent prisons (although this does not include HMP Birmingham) on new scanners to detect packages inside bodies, sniffer dogs trained to smell psychoactive substances and improved perimeter fences, with Mr Stewart vowing to resign if these 10 prisons cannot turn things around within 12 months. This is in addition to another £7 million for airport-style security scanners, enhanced searching techniques, phone-blocking technology and improving intelligence around organised crime.

A focus on reducing violence in our prisons is clearly welcome, as is the recognition that tackling drug use is key to this. But, beyond stabilising the situation, can the measures announced by the Government lead to any lasting change? It is difficult to see how.





Source: Wikimedia Commons


While drugs have always been a feature of prison life, Spice the brand name for a group of drugs called synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists (SCRAs), originally designed to mimic the effects of cannabis in a legal way has caused chaos in recent years as the ‘psychological cosh’ of choice among inmates. Leaving users aggressive, comatose or anything in between, it has gained a toxic foothold in prisons lacking staff, decent conditions and meaningful regimes.

The realities of drug markets are such that Spice in prison continues to evolve. A plant-based form of the drug smoked with tobacco has already given way to Spice that is sprayed onto paper and enters jails in the guise of prison mail for inmates, which is then rolled up and smoked. Whether sniffer dogs, however well trained, will be able to keep apace with the changing chemical compounds in Spice is questionable.  

The Government’s attempts to legislate its way out of the issue have not worked. The 2016 Psychoactive Substances Act, which made the supply and possession of Spice in prisons illegal, has had little to no impact on the availability of or demand for the drug.

The law of unintended consequences that often operates in drug markets has also been ignored. Reports suggest that the prison smoking ban, introduced over the past two years, has led to an increase in Spice use as it is now vastly cheaper than tobacco. Left without lighters which can no longer be bought from the prison canteen, inmates are now using the elements in vape devices, fashioning makeshift bongs and taking apart the electrical wiring of kettles to smoke Spice.

Such a lucrative market is Spice, with much of it linked to organised crime, that it is hard to imagine it being definitively halted. Barter no longer acts as prison currency, with drug dealing inside becoming an increasingly professionalised pastime. Facilitated by illicit phones, debts are commonly settled by relatives or friends on the outside, who pay into a bank account and inform the inmate dealer when this is done. For some prisoners, Spice is such big money that a deliberate recall to prison is an attractive option to deal some more and add to illicit nest eggs.

Other uncomfortable truths must also be acknowledged. Drones may make for colourful headlines but most drugs are thrown over the prison wall, are hidden in post or are carried in – including by prison staff. A blind eye cannot be turned to young and inexperienced officers working in violent environments awash with drugs on modest salaries who are susceptible to corruption and Mr Stewart is right to recognise the need to be open to tackling this.

Fundamentally, however, the Government’s focus on security does not address why demand for drugs in our prisons is so high, and the more challenging question remains: how can we stop prisoners turning to drugs?

As Volteface has argued, supply reduction measures can only disrupt supply, not eradicate it, so there needs to be a shift in emphasis towards making prisons more effective places of rehabilitation and tackling problematic drug use.

In a report into a 500-inmate riot at HMP Birmingham in December 2016 – released by the Government under Freedom of Information last Monday – investigators said that they were repeatedly told by prisoners that “brazen drug use was tolerated”, while staff said they felt “powerless to intervene due to shortages and the perception you would be exposed or isolated if you were the ‘one who challenged’”.

“We asked the Prison Council why prisoners resorted to psychoactive substances, not least because of the known health risks,” the report states. “The simple answer was that it was a ‘bird killer’ – in other words, days of imprisonment spent in oblivion, to counter the effects of boredom and inactivity, the market for such distraction was more marked at Birmingham where structured activity was lacking and regime was inconsistently delivered.”

That a lack of purposeful activity and poor conditions drives drug use is clear. Busy, meaningful regimes and effective support for those using drugs would be far better at managing drug problems than focusing only on increasing security measures. But, this requires investment and bold thinking by politicians undeterred by tabloid headlines and the fact that this cannot be packaged as a quick-fix solution.

Investing in security to tackle drugs and violence in our prisons is ultimately an exercise in confronting symptoms, not causes. Without an honest, pragmatic understanding of why prisoners are turning to the likes of Spice, drug use in our jails will continue to deteriorate, not reduce.Hardeep Matharu is a senior writer and researcher at Volteface. Tweets @Hardeep_Matharu



Jez

'Reports suggest that the prison smoking ban, introduced over the past two years, has led to an increase in Spice use as it is now vastly cheaper than tobacco.'
Nice to see a reporter has worked it out, its not hard. Whilst there is demand Spice use will continue to grow within our prisons regardless as to how stiff the penalties are, Where there is a high demand which there is someone will always be willing to take the risk. Its time real investment went into our prisons to make the environment far more effective at rehabilitation and not geared to retribution.

Howard league

If we want safer prisons, we must have fewer prisoners.

I read two documents back-to-back this morning, which prompted this blog. The first was Rory Stewart’s article on Medium about reducing violence in prisons. The second was the newly released prison population projections from the Ministry of Justice.

Rory Stewart’s comments about getting a grip on prison safety are welcome and I support what he is trying to do. But his department’s own publication throws into sharp relief the futility of his efforts if they are not accompanied by a commensurate attempt to reduce the prison population.

The number of men, women and children in prison stood at 83,165 as of Friday 17 August 2018. The Ministry of Justice says that the population is projected to increase steadily by 3,200, reaching 86,400 people in March 2023.

This 2018 projection is much lower than last year’s – 2,800 lower for June 2019 and 2,400 lower for March 2022, to be precise. At face value this is a good news story but there are a few things that require a closer look. Here are the two projections side-by-side:

It is interesting that the slope of the blue line in this year’s projection is virtually the same as it was in last year’s projection. In other words, the big difference is where the projection is starting from, not in the trends it predicts around sentencing and release.

Another way of putting this: despite the dramatic, welcome and long overdue reduction in prison numbers since the start of the year, this projection does not assume that all of the drivers of this decrease will continue.

This is worrying. It speaks to a lack of concerted effort within the Ministry to pull the policy levers that would start to bring the population down in a systematic and sustained way.

Specifically, the Ministry of Justice predicts that improvements to how home detention curfew (HDC) is managed will continue – but that the phenomenon of the courts doing less business will reverse, while remands will stay flat. Worryingly, recalls are forecast to grow as prisoners serving IPP sentences are released – something that we know can have appalling consequences.

At the start of the year, the prison population was going down. It seemed that there were fewer people being pulled into the flow of the criminal justice system and into prison, as well as more effective ways of getting people out of prison. But for the fifth week in a row now, the prison population has gone up and these projections further suggest that the tide is turning. The government needs to take action now and that must involve legislative reform across sentencing, curbing recalls and abolishing short prison sentences.

Ominously, without such reform, sentence lengths and custody rates are projected to continue to increase, offsetting any small areas of respite or improvement. Over the past ten years, average sentence lengths across the board have increased by 24 per cent, and the trend continues. At one point under Margaret Thatcher the prison population was around 40,000. Now the debate is around whether it could hit 90,000.

The prisons minister’s suggestions for improving safety in prisons for staff and prisoners are good ones. I am impressed by his attempts to instil a new vision and get a grip on the worst performing prisons in the estate. I hope he stays in post long enough to see these changes through. But his efforts around training, security and culture will fail if they are not accompanied by a concerted attempt to get a grip on the prison population, namely by making a proper plan for how to bring it down.

Comments

Nora Mccormack 29 Aug 2018  says:   

Sometimes it’s down to police that people get locked needlessly my son who has been to prison before was stopped and arrested for possession of a cannabis cigarette not lit the police could have given on the spot fine but chose to arrest,detain over night send to court telling him he can be sentenced he had to have a solicitor, but fortunately the magistrate didn’t jail him but fined him £215 it just money making and needlessly put people in jail for trivial crimes and it is trivial



Russell Webster

Longer sentences driving increase

Last week (23 August 2018), the MoJ and Office for National Statistics published its latest prison population projection which predicts a further increase despite continued falls in the number of people being arrested and charged with crimes.
The main points are summarised in the graphic below:

Overall projections

The population is expected to grow reaching roughly 86,400 in March 2023. In the short term (to April 2019), an increase in the number of prison receptions is forecast, particularly of shorter sentenced offenders, due to the assumption that the number of cases received at the courts will increase from current position to the average levels observed in the 12 months to early 2018.
In the longer term, increases are driven by the underlying growth in the population of offenders sentenced to longer-determinate terms (in particular, those sentenced to 4 years or more). Growth in the sentenced determinate population, serving custodial sentences of 4 or more years, also reflects increases due to offenders sentenced to Extended Determinate Sentences (EDS), following the abolition of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences. As a result, growth in the determinate population is partially offset by declines in the indeterminate population, as IPP offenders are released from custody.

Recalls

The Recall population is projected to increase above current levels. Projected growth is driven by an expected increase in the pool of offenders on licence particularly as further IPP offenders are released, a proportion of which will likely be recalled to custody. There is no evidence to suggest the future direction of determinate recall population, so the MoJ is using a flat projection at current levels. The large increase in the recall population has been driven by high numbers of short term prisoners being recalled following the Transforming Rehabilitation changes. If the MoJ decides to change the requirements for licence supervision (as it is considering) for short term prisoners, this may reduce the number of people in prison for recall.

New drivers

Further changes in the prison population are expected as the result of a range of policies, including those already in effect but not yet fully represented in the population and those expected to take effect over the projection horizon. The projections only consider the impact of government policies which have achieved Royal Assent. These include:

  • The impacts of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 which includes provisions for restricting the use of cautions; changes to the framework for the sentencing and release of serious and dangerous sexual and violent offenders; and the introduction of a new test for the release of recalled determinate sentence prisoners;
  • The impacts of the Serious Crime Act 2015 which includes provisions for additional caseload and associated custodial sentences relating to new offences for controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship;
  • The expected impacts of the Sentencing Council guidelines on reduction of sentence for early guilty pleas;
  • The expected impacts of the Sentencing Council guidelines on Possession of Bladed Articles and Offensive Weapons, leading to increases in sentencing levels.

All prison posts are kindly sponsored by Prison Consultants Limited who offer a complete service from arrest to release for anyone facing prison and their family. Prison Consultants have no editorial influence on the contents of this site.
 

A unified probation identity

This is the fourth in a series of posts exploring the Ministry of Justice’s plans to re-design its Transforming Rehabilitation project. The MoJ says it wants our views on how best to re-design probation and asks 17 key questions in its consultation document, “Strengthening probation, building confidence”.
This week’s post examines three more questions with the aim of highlighting key concerns and, I hope, of promoting positive ideas about how the MoJ can design a better probation service. The question numbers refer to their numbering in the consultation document, so this week’s post starts with question 10.
Please do take issue with me and set out your views and thoughts in the comments section below.

Question 10: Which skills, training or competencies do you think are essential for responsible officers authorised to deliver probation services, and how do you think these differ depending on the types of offenders staff are working with?

One of the key outcomes, the MoJ is looking for from the second version of Transforming Rehabilitation is the re-creation of a probation identity with staff from both sides of the public/private divide feeling that they are part of the same profession and more movement — both ways — across that divide.
The consultation document commits to the development of a new probation workforce strategy which will more clearly specify the training, skills and competencies that staff will require for different roles. The MoJ also intends to develop a framework of recognised training for probation staff to maintain standards across the profession and provide staff “with ways to evidence transferable skills as they progress in their careers, while still allowing scope for providers to develop their own approaches to training and development”.
This workforce development strategy will have to take into account the difficulties that NPS and CRCs have had in recruiting staff in some parts of the country. The NPS has addressed this via a significant recruitment drive; whether CRCs can attract qualified and experienced staff seems more problematic.
To turn to the consultation question, I am not convinced that the key abilities and skills to be a good probation officer in a CRC are inherently different than those working for the NPS. The latter group must cope with the pressures of working with a group of people who are, by definition, those who commit crimes doing the most harm but CRC offender managers must supervise large numbers of people, very many of who are perpetrators of domestic abuse in the knowledge that most individuals convicted of a serious further offence while on supervision are low or medium risk offenders.
Given the current mainstream practice of people learning on the job, it seems to me that high quality apprenticeships is the natural way to achieve a suitably skilled workforce. I know that Kent, Surrey & Sussex CRC is working with Interserve – who run the Humberside, Lincolnshire & North Yorkshire CRC – as well as Skills for Justice on a trailblazer apprenticeships project.

Question 11: How would you see a national professional register operating across all providers – both public and private sector, and including agency staff – and what information should it capture?

The MoJ is keen to assure that all probation providers use properly qualified staff and intend to develop a national professional register as a way of maintaining a single list of those staff who are trained and authorised to deliver probation services:
As well as recognising the specialism and value of probation work, this register will ensure that staff who lack the requisite qualifications, are subject to relevant disciplinary processes or have been previously dismissed for poor performance or malpractice, cannot undertake roles for which they are not suitable. We will therefore develop, in consultation with staff, providers and unions, a process by which, subject to appropriate safeguards, staff could be removed from the register and their authorisation to practise revoked in certain circumstances.
The Probation Institute has already developed such a register but there are no statutory  requirements governing its use. There are also no details as to whether probation staff will be required to pay to keep up an annual membership of the register, as happens in other professions such as nursing.

Question 12: Do you agree that changes to the structure and leadership of probation areas are sufficient to achieve integration across all providers of probation services?

One of the drivers for the re-design of TR was the acknowledgement that the NPS/CRC split was failing to deliver an integrated service both to courts and to the offenders the probation service supervises and supports. For this reason, the MoJ has re-structured the CRC system moving from the current 20 CRCs in England to 10 CRCs with the new contract areas designed to align with the NPS regions as shown below.
The MoJ sets its rationale for this change below:
10 probation areas in England should help simplify the system and remove the current problem of individual providers operating across different geographical areas. Fewer, larger delivery areas offer the chance to simplify the delivery of resettlement services, as it should be possible to reduce the proportion of resettlement prisons releasing to multiple areas. This also reduces the risks associated with offenders moving around the country – for example, there will be fewer occasions where a change of address requires the formal transfer of the case between providers.
The flip-side of the coin is that (with the exception of London), many CRCs comprise several (between 3 and 7 by my reckoning) Police & Crime Commissioner areas making strong strategic links with PCCs problematic.
Whether the appointment of one HMPPS senior leader for each area will make a substantial difference is unclear and what the relationship will be between the CRC and this leader is not defined.
Regular readers will know that I find the logic of a fragmented service difficult to follow. If we must have a mixed economy, why not have 10 (or 39, the number of English PCCs) local probation services delivered by public, private or third sector bodies where one organisation is responsible for delivering all the responsibilities of the probation service? This one body can then have one straightforward set of working relationships with other criminal justice and social justice services.



 
http://volteface.me/scanners-sniffer-dogs-searching-alone-cannot-tackle-prolific-drug-use-prisons/
https://howardleague.org/blog/if-we-want-safer-prisons-we-must-have-fewer-prisoners/
https://mailchi.mp/russellwebster/prisonpop818?e=24805ba81c

Thursday 23 August 2018

The prisons minister, Rory Stewarta and David Gauke" We call for you to be sacked.

But the near collapse of the entire criminal justice system can happen right under our noses, and none but judges, lawyers, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and prison staff know anything about it.

Squalid prisons are just the start. The entire justice system is in meltdown, public view.

Prisons did top the news on Monday when the horrifying inspection report on HMP Birmingham forced the government to take it back from G4S. Blood, vomit, cockroaches, rats, the air thick with the drug spice, staff hiding, in fear of violent prisoners:

 here was a scene of hell and squalor that should knock the “prison works” nonsense out of the most ardent lock-’em-up MP.One shock inspection report after another has thudded on to ministers’ desks, many among the 102 state-run as well the 14 privately run jails, revealing a prison estate in crisis. Under all previous governments, journalists could regularly visit any prison with due notice – and prison governors would speak out about problems. 

Now they are frightened into silence. I was allowed to film a whole Panorama programme in the most disturbed and violent part of Holloway prison, known as the “muppet wing”, in the Tory 1980s, when authorities were still open about prison problems. No longer.

In 2010 the shutters came down and it’s virtually impossible for journalists to visit prisons, except for a rare manicured walk-about with a minister. Why not? Because what the media would see would be too disgusting. Because desperate staff might say too much. Because the worst are too out of control. But where scrutiny by the press is denied, as it is now in benefit offices and anywhere else the effects of austerity are on display, this government bars access to public services as never before in my professional lifetime.

 Secrecy suggests shame. The prisons minister, Rory Stewart, a semi-amateur politician, earns growls from colleagues for promising to resign if there’s no improvement by next year. He could start by opening the gates of his filthy estate to us of the filthy fourth estate.Prisons returning to Newgate conditions are just the most extreme fallout from the disintegrating justice system, from inadequate policing to a crumbling CPS, malfunctioning magistrate and crown courts and vanished legal aid. The tottering edifice is only kept going by the superhuman goodwill of the dwindling numbers operating it.  Who else sees it, beyond frequent-flyer criminals? The public – victims, witnesses and jurors – may only touch it once in a lifetime: then they find delays, adjournments and collapsed cases deeply distressing.

Cuts of departments – a huge 40% to be sliced away
The Treasury knows this is a secret world, hidden from public eyes, as courts are removed ever further from the local community, an integral part no longer. On the last day of term, when the government scuttles out bad news in written statements, the MoJ slid out an announcement that seven more courts are to be shut and sold off. That’s on top of the 258 that have closed and been sold off in England and Wales since 2010. In the great sale of public property – hospitals, schools, police stations, courts and more – the Treasury demands that capital raised be sucked into the running costs of remaining services, regardless of how a growing population will need this valuable land, gone forever.

Courts are so packed that clerks book in as many as seven extra cases, summoning lawyers, witnesses, victims and defendants from afar to wait all day, hoping a case collapses and they can be slotted in. If not, they are all summoned on another date to lose another day off work; child care rearranged, carers rebooked. Cases are often adjourned several times over or collapse altogether from bungled evidence collection. An over-stretched CPS after 25% cuts and a shrunken police force means evidence goes uncollected or is not disclosed to the defence, so the case goes under, setting free violent criminals and domestic abusers out of sheer incompetence. Political pieties promise to “put the victim first” – but victims are often left bereft and endangered by failed cases, after travelling miles several times over. A 2017 government report showed some 50% of cases are not prepared for hearings after the CPS lost a third of its workforce.

The great 1945 government is celebrated for its welfare state of pensions, benefits and the NHS. But less remembered is how its legal aid brought equal access to justice. No longer. In 2012 legal aid entitlement was removed from family, housing, immigration, debt and employment, leaving the poorest and weakest unable to claim their rights. Those trying to represent themselves take hours of expensive court time, where a lawyer representing them would cut to the chase. Defendants are granted longer sentences and less bail by magistrates when left to defend themselves: 15% of those remanded in prison, often for long periods, are found not guilty.

The unfolding calamity in our criminal justice system is best told in The Secret Barrister: Stories of the Law and How It’s Broken.
This angry yet forensic analysis from first arrest to prison is a gripping front-line view by an anonymous, lowly criminal barrister. Read and rage at evidence that “every day the provably guilty walk free”, while the hapless needlessly end up in jail.

All 650 MPs were sent a copy, crowdfunded by young legal aid lawyers. A ComRes survey of MPs’ summer reading finds it to be the third most popular beach-list book, a matching tale of woe to follow Tim Shipman’s account of the Brexit fiasco and Anthony Beevor’s history of the battle of Arnhem. But will they read it, or is it just listed by their spads, while they devour the latest Jack Reacher?
If they do, all 650 should return in September boiling with indignation. What have they been doing, prattling away about “sovereignty” and the supremacy of our laws over European courts, when gross injustice is done here daily by a legal system in meltdown, as reported by the Public Accounts Committee? Two-thirds of crown court cases are delayed or collapse, leaving 55% of witnesses saying they would never do it again.
When criminal barristers went on strike recently against 40% pay cuts leaving them often with less than the living wage after travel costs and waiting time, the government said: “Any action to disrupt the courts is unacceptable.” But they are the deliberate disrupters of a legal system that is the basis of democracy.

Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist.

 .......................................................


 Not forgetting IPP Prisoner being failed and those with learning diffrences defending  themself .

 The outgoing head of the family courts in England and Wales has raised concerns about access to family courts and said help for litigants who had to represent themselves due to cuts to legal aid was “woefully inadequate”.
 https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jul/27/access-to-justice-in-family-courts-inadequate-says-outgoing-head


 Government admits role in Birmingham prison failure

 prisoners lived in squalid. Roger Swindells, from the prison’s independent monitoring board, wrote to the MoJ about the poor state of HMP Birmingham earlier in the summer, saying both the MoJ controllers and G4S were responsible.prison authorities had failed to get a grip of new psychoactive substances, such as spice, which he said caused “crazy aggressive behaviour”.Stewart, who said last week he would resign if conditions in 10 public sector prisons did not improve, declined to add HMP Birmingham to that list.

 “I’m not going get into giving a blank cheque to resign over every prison in the country,” he said.The chief inspector, Peter Clarke, said it was a “reasonable conclusion” that the MoJ had failed in its oversight of HMP Birmingham and that there had been an “abject failure” of contract management.

“How is it that in 18 months a prison which is supposedly being run under the auspices of a tightly managed contract, how has that been allowed to deteriorate?” he said on Today.Steve Gillan, the general secretary of the Prison Officers Association called on the justice minister David Gauke to resign and said the government should halt all prison privatisations and open a public inquiry into why the government has missed a succession of warnings from staff.

 Gillan said ministers should be held responsible for privatising a prison for ideological reasons.“We have always faced a political ideology from government and now we are seeing the realities.“There should be no blame attached to prison officers and related grades at Birmingham for this crisis. The blame must lay with government for their ridiculous policies that have caused the prison crisis, not just at Birmingham but up and down the country,” he said. 


Theresa May sack  minister David Gauke though the general secretary of the Prison Officers Association called on the justice minister David Gauke to resign. 


 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/aug/20/government-admits-role-in-birmingham-prison-failure-g4s

Tuesday 21 August 2018

1. IPP conference is Searching for a way out - The dilemma of the sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP). 2. Booking form. 3. Around 80% of Male Local prisons and were rated as having performance of concern or of serious concern. 4. Speech by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. 5. Restore stability to our jails .6. Disadvantaging the IPP prisoners

                       


Houses of Parliament


Hi Katherine.
I have noted your name from the IPP Prisoners Families Campaign Blog and am writing to you about a conference we are holding that we thought you/representatives may wish to attend.





The Worcester Diocesan Criminal Justice Affairs Group (CJAG) is holding a conference on IPP prisoners (Imprisonment for Public Protection) on Tuesday 16th October 2018 from 10am-4pm in the open setting of the Great Hall at the Grange, HMP Hewell. For some time now we have been exercised about the plight of IPP prisoners and wanted to focus on the human cost of this sentence. Being a diocesan group, Our  two main aims are internally within the Diocese to offer a Christian perspective and provide expert advice on criminal justice matters; and externally to raise public awareness and be catalysts of criminal justice-related social action.


The title of the conference is Searching for a way out - The dilemma of the sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP)

We would like to invite you and any interested colleagues to attend the conference which is aimed at those working in the criminal justice system, those who can influence policy, those concerned about IPP prisoners, mental health professionals and interested people from Faith communities.
We are starting the day with some prisoners speaking about their experience, followed by key note speakers from the Parole Board, the Prison Reform Trust and the National Probation Service. There will be workshops exploring some of the issues in more depth. HMP Hewell is kindly providing the venue and catering so there is no cost for this event.

Thanks
The Worcester Diocesan Criminal Justice Affairs Group

Foreword by the Bishop of Worcester

Justice is one of the four key values the Diocese of Worcester embraces in its vision for what a Jesus-shaped, God-governed church should be doing. I am, therefore, particularly delighted to commend the work of the Criminal Justice Affairs Group, with its focus on how Christian understandings of justice can contribute to the continuing improvement of England’s criminal justice system. A concern with how the system works for individuals is central to a Christian understanding of justice. Such individuals may be victims of crime, criminals, police officers, prisons service staff, people working in the court system and rehabilitation service, and a whole range more, paid and voluntary. Bad systems dehumanise people – a bad justice system ought to be a contradiction in terms. True justice opens up possibilities for the future, for restoration and making amends, for rehabilitation, and for forgiveness. It’s good that in the coming year the group’s work will include a focus on IPP prisoners. This is a group of individuals that has been created and then left behind by poorly-thought through changes in legislation. They have indefinite sentences and they are only able to be released when they can prove they have achieved change through training and education courses. But they aren’t given enough opportunities to go on those courses. Some may still need to be incarcerated, but a just system will offer them hope for change and restoration they currently don’t have. Please pray for them, for the work of the group, and for all who seek to maximise justice for all

file:///C:/Users/Katherine/Downloads/CJAG_Annual_Report%202017-2018.pdf.                   .........................
https://www.cofe-worcester.org.uk/mission-and-ministry/social-responsibility/criminaljustice




Booking Form return to Diana@fulbrook.co.uk











46% prisons officially rated "of concern"








Last month (26 July 2018), the MoJ published its annual prison performance ratings, which makes public the performance of every prison in 2017/18 split into four categories. Here’s the predictably disappointing summary; as you can see, performance in almost half (46%) prisons is of concern :

Here’s the official description of the performance management system which has changed this year:
The prison performance framework for 2017/18 reflected the changes made in April 2017 to the
responsibility of commissioning for prisons. From 2009/10 to 2016/17, the Prison Rating System was used to assess the in-year performance of prisons. This was replaced by the Custodial Performance Tool (CPT) for 2017/18.
Prison performance ratings for 2017/18 are based on a data-driven assessment of a prison’s performance through the CPT, with ratification by in depth scrutiny of performance over the year through an established moderation process.
Performance in the CPT has been assessed against three main outcome areas that reflect priorities for 2017/18 as set by the Ministry of Justice:
  1. Public Protection;
  2. Safety and Order;
  3. And Offender Reform.
Seventeen commissioned performance measures developed in consultation with HMPPS underpin the three outcome areas. To ensure a balanced view of performance is reflected, a further nineteen shadow measures deemed to be important from an operational perspective also sit within the framework. For the purpose of the CPT these measures have been categorised as the HMPPS Additional Measures. Sufficiently high or low performance in the HMPPS Additional Measures can increase, or decrease, the overall prison performance rating by a band, if this differs to performance in the weighted measures.
The figure below shows the deterioration of performance over recent years:
All prisons deemed to be of serious concern were either Male Category C or Male Local prisons. Around 80% of Male Local prisons and were rated as having performance of concern or of serious concern. Offenders accommodated at Male Local prisons are either on remand or serving short-term custodial sentences, a likely driver to poor performance given environments will be more dynamic than those prisons with longer-term serving offenders, with a limited time to rehabilitate offenders.
All Male Open prisons, Young Offender Institutes and nearly 90% of Long-Term High Security prisons were rated as exceptional or meeting the majority of targets. Whilst around 70% of female prisons were performing exceptionally or were meeting the majority of targets. The remainder were rated as having performance of concern.

Conclusion

The prison ratings bulletin also contains the rating for every single establishment. 
These gloomy statistics combined with the news that Birmingham is the third prison to be the subject of the Chief Prison’s Inspector’s “urgent notification” procedure shows us that Prison Minister Rory Stewart’s “back to basics” prison reform campaign still has a long way to go.
All prison posts are kindly sponsored by Prison Consultants Limited who offer a complete service from arrest to release for anyone facing prison and their family. Prison Consultants have no editorial influence on the contents of this site.
..................................................................



Speech by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the Rt Hon David Gauke MP, at a reception of the Care not Custody coalition, on Thursday, 21 June 2018  

Introduction Thank you, Lord Bradley for that introduction.  The government continues to be grateful for your work on vulnerable people, those with mental health problems or learning disabilities, within the criminal justice system. Almost ten years on from the important findings of the Bradley Report, I think we have a positive story of change to tell about the treatment of vulnerable offenders in England. I have to say, it’s a real pleasure to be here today and following in the illustrious footsteps of the Prime Minister, who I know addressed this same event as Home Secretary in 2014. With such a wide and varied membership of organisations and professional bodies, the Coalition brings together every agency within the system as well as the third sector to support the government in keeping the ‘care not custody’ promise and, quite rightly, to hold us to account for how effectively we deliver on it. Let me say from the outset that this is something about which I care deeply. 

Short sentencing Since I became the Justice Secretary at the beginning of the year, I have been thinking long and hard about the approach we take when it comes to vulnerable prisoners, including those for whom mental health and/or substance abuse play a key role in how they enter the criminal justice system.  What is clear to me right now is that the approach we are taking presently is not working. For example, we know that at 66% the reoffending rate for those given immediate custodial sentences of twelve months or less is higher in comparison to community and suspended sentences.  And yet, every year around 60,000 offenders are given sentences of less than a year. We know that these relatively short periods in custody have little rehabilitative value for offenders.
Short sentences can also have devastating effects on families, particularly where an offender has children. In the absence of an established wider support network, it can lead to children being taken into care, putting an even greater burden on public services. More alarmingly, international evidence has found that the children of offenders are at increased risk of antisocial behaviour and becoming offenders themselves—perpetuating intergenerational cycles of offending.  Often these offenders have complex needs and vulnerabilities, which in many cases relate to the underlying causes of offending. We know that what they need is care not custody, treatment not time, rehabilitation not incarceration. I’m not saying that we need to go soft on crime—not at all. My first priority is protecting the public from its often-devastating effects.
Sentences must be sufficiently punitive, both to act as a deterrent and to maintain confidence. But that is exactly why I’m saying that we need to look again at short sentences—to ensure that they are seen as an absolute last resort and to build confidence in the ability of community alternatives to provide better outcomes for
offenders. 
So, it is about time we started to look more broadly at the underlying causes of crime and what actually works to break the cycle of re-offending.  In the long-term that is how we will protect the public from crime. Liaison and Diversion Services But there are things happening in the system right now to ensure that vulnerable offenders receive appropriate outcomes to their cases; so that their individual needs are met with the correct punishment to enable rehabilitation, rather than custody being the default option. 
We continue to support the rollout of NHS England’s Liaison and Diversion services – so that clinicians can firstly identify people with mental health and/or substance misuse problems and other vulnerabilities who come into contact with the criminal justice system; and secondly refer them into appropriate services to address their needs and help to break the cycle of re-offending. I am grateful to Lord Bradley and other colleagues in the room for their continued engagement and support on this.
The success of Liaison and Diversion services hinges on people – the clinical staff placed at police stations and courts to advise decision-makers within the justice system in real time. That ability to assess and refer vulnerable offenders as they enter the system and pass through it is slowly changing the culture around how vulnerable offenders are charged and sentenced—so that it is tailored to meet their specific needs. In terms of the Care Not Custody pledge, this means that vulnerable offenders, where appropriate, can be diverted away from the criminal justice system altogether. Liaison and Diversion services can act as a proper check and balance to support decision makers in ensuring that where being charged is inappropriate, it is stopped; where a custodial sentence is inappropriate, a conditional caution or community sentence with a treatment requirement can be put in place instead.
It’s also worth noting that my department is working in partnership with the National Police Chiefs Council to simplify the Out of Court Disposals framework so that we can increase the use of conditional disposals – which is another opportunity to provide early intervention.  I’m really pleased to say that Liaison and Diversion services are already operating across more than 80% of England and we expect the full roll-out to be complete by 2020/21. Once that happens we can have the confidence that, no matter where vulnerable individuals encounter the criminal justice system, the right intervention can be made to ensure that they are treated according to their needs. 
Community Sentence Treatment Requirement Protocol This government has pledged to make data driven, fact informed policy-making the backbone of everything it does. So, I want my department to follow the evidence on this.
A recent study suggests that sentences which have mental health treatment requirements attached to them are associated with significant reductions in reoffending.  That’s why we are in the process of working with the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and Public Health England to develop a Community Sentence Treatment Requirement Protocol (or CSTRP), which will set out what is expected of each public agency involved in a case – the courts, probation services and treatment providers. 
The protocol is designed to ensure that access to mental health and substance misuse services improves for vulnerable offenders because we know that the need is there. A study
of adult offenders starting community orders in 2009 and 2010, for example, showed that, of those who received a formal assessment, 32% were identified as having a drug misuse need and 38% an alcohol problem.
The same survey found that 35% of people reported having a formal diagnosis of a mental health condition. Despite this obvious need, in 2017, only 538 Mental Health Treatment Requirements were given, which amounts to less than 1% of all treatment requirements commenced as part of a community sentence. During the same year, 8,719 Drug Rehabilitation Requirements and 5, 419 Alcohol Treatment Requirements were given—representing 5% and 3% of all commenced requirements.   The CSTRP will build on the Liaison and Diversion assessment, amounting to a proper treatment plan, tailored for each individual offender as they pass through the criminal justice system and complete their sentence.  It will also set out a new maximum waiting time for court-ordered treatment so that offenders will be able to hold agencies to account for the treatment they receive and these waiting times will rightly be in line with those we set down for the general population.  I’m really pleased to say that the CSTRP is already being tested in five areas across England and I look forward to reporting back shortly on the outcomes of those trials and how—and when—we can roll out the protocol more widely. 
Conclusion It’s been a genuine pleasure to be here to address you today. When it comes to the Care Not Custody Coalition I think the clue is in the name – you have come together because you genuinely care about getting the right outcomes in our criminal justice system for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. I think there is a wider debate to be had about sentencing and the usefulness of short sentences in particular. And I don’t think that just applies to vulnerable offenders per se but also female offenders, for whom domestic abuse and rates of self-harm are nearly five times higher than for men in custody.
The rollout of Liaison and Diversion services is ensuring that we have the right clinical staff positioned at the right points throughout the criminal justice system, to better identify vulnerable offenders and ensure they receive punishments with the appropriate courses of treatment attached to them.  And with trials of the Community Sentence Treatment Requirement Protocol ongoing, I look forward to us learning the lessons that will mean we can offer tailored treatment to every person with mental health or substance misuse concerns coming through the criminal justice system in the future.  In addition, as part of the government’s response to the Lammy Review, we are encouraging more pilots of deferred prosecution models, which can be so crucial in terms of outcomes for vulnerable offenders. As all that work is ongoing I know the Care Not Custody Coalition will continue to be part of the conversation on the treatment of vulnerable offenders. I welcome the scrutiny I know you will give this government as we continue to redraw the balance in favour of care rather than custody. Ultimately, that’s how we will protect vulnerable offenders from the cycle of reoffending and the public from the cycle of crime. Thank you. 


     




The government should follow Scotland’s lead and introduce a presumption against short prison sentences as part of their efforts to restore safety and stability to our struggling jails according to a new briefing, Prison: the facts, published today by the Prison Reform Trust.

The briefing 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.
It shows that safety in prisons has deteriorated rapidly during the last six years, with more incidents of self-harm and assaults than ever before. 69 people also took their own lives in the 12 months to March 2018.

Recent inspections at HMPs Nottingham, Liverpool, Wormwood Scrubs and Wandsworth have all shown that problems with safety and overcrowding are particularly acute at local prisons, where large numbers of people are often held for short periods of time—often in poor living conditions, with limited access to rehabilitative courses and opportunities for staff to build constructive and supportive relationships with those in their care.

In 2017 over 37,000 people entered prison to serve a sentence of less than a year, and latest figures show that nearly two-thirds will reoffend within a year of release. Four in five people sent to prison on short sentences last year had committed a non-violent offence.

Rather than tackling the issues contributing to a person’s offending, short spells behind bars can often make them worse, as people lose accommodation, jobs and families, without the time to tackle the issues that got them into trouble in the first place.

In Scotland the introduction of a presumption against the use of short custodial sentences of less than three months has seen a reduction in their use by a third since 2011, and sentences of between three and six months falling by 15%, whilst the number of community sentences has risen by 19%. The Scottish Government has also made a further commitment to extend this presumption to sentences of less than 12 months. Whilst courts are still free to pass short prison sentences, the presumption requires sentencers to record their reasons for doing so.

Meanwhile in England and Wales, recent reforms aimed at providing more support on release to people serving short sentences have, perversely, created further instability. Anyone leaving custody who has served two days or more is now required to serve a minimum of 12 months under supervision in the community.

A series of reports have catalogued the failings of these ‘Through the Gate’ services. Last year 8,825 people on short sentences were recalled back to custody after their release due to breaching the terms of their licence conditions, often for a matter of a few short weeks. Highlighting the inadequacy of support provided to people on release, the House of Commons Justice Committee recently cautioned that “there is a risk that offenders now receive a £46 discharge grant and a leaflet rather than just £46.”

Recent statements by justice secretary David Gauke, and prisons minister Rory Stewart regarding the need to reduce the use of short prison sentences are extremely welcome, but both have stopped short of calling for the introduction of a legislative presumption, as is the case in Scotland.

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.

Commenting, Peter Dawson, director of the Prison Reform Trust said:

“It has been good to hear both the Secretary of State for Justice and the minister with responsibility for sentencing speak in public about the futility of short prison sentences and the urgent need to reduce their use. This is true even for those cases where sentencers have ‘lost patience’ with a repeat offender—sending them to prison still makes matters worse in the long term. Ministers should follow their own evidence and introduce a presumption against the use of these destructive sentences once and for all.”
.....................................



is the  parole board disadvantaging the IPP prisoners by making these statements like this  applications to for new parole board members surely all prisoners are a risk, not just one set.





We are looking for outstanding individuals for the posts of
Judicial Parole Board Member
Reference number: PAT 150049 - PAROLE BOARD - JUDICIAL
            (please use the above reference in all correspondence)
Location: The Parole Board is based in London; the roles are home based, with hearings held in HMP establishments across England & Wales
Term of appointment: 5 years, with the possibility of re-appointment
Time commitment: At least 69 days a year. Much of this time commitment will be undertaking hearings, but a proportion is preparation which can be done flexibly. Additional capacity is welcome subject to availability of work.
Remuneration: Fee paid at daily rate of £320 per day for casework. See Appendix 1 for full details.
Closing date for applications is noon on Monday 21 May
Applications should be submitted to the Ministry of Justice Public Appointments Team via PublicAppointmentsTeam@justice.gov.uk.

Alternative format versions of this candidate information pack are available on request from the Public Appointments Team, contact details as above.

TwitterHYPERLINK "https://twitter.com/mojpublicappts" Follow us to keep up to date with public appointments vacancies.
All public appointments are advertised on the Cabinet Office’s Public Appointments website (http://publicappointments.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/) and the Public Appointments Twitter feed (@publicappts).
1. Introduction

 A Message from the Chief Executive of the Parole Board

Thank you for your interest in becoming a Member of the Parole Board.

You may already have some idea about the important work of the Parole Board and the following pages will tell you more about the Board’s purpose and the nature of the role.

The Parole Board is an independent court like body, whose main aim is to protect the public by risk assessing prisoners to decide whether they can be safely released into the community. Our decisions are of critical importance to victims, individual prisoners and their families, but also have a wider role to play in contributing to the prison reform process while maintaining public confidence in the justice system.

We are now looking to appoint up to 20 new members. We are looking for people with a genuine interest in the work we do and who possess the competencies, skills and judgement to make an effective and critical contribution to the Board’s work. Parole Board decisions are of critical importance to public confidence in the criminal justice system.
 
We have some eligibility and qualifying criteria for this role.  These are set out later in this document, together with a description of the types of cases we deal with to give you a feel for the nature of our work. Please read these carefully before you submit an application.

If you have further questions about this post, you are welcome to contact Stephanie McIntosh, Director Member Development & Practice at Stephanie.Mcintosh@paroleboard.gov.uk or call her on 0203 965 5079.

If you have questions about the appointment process, you can contact the Public Appointments Team at: PublicAppointmentsTeam@Justice.gov.uk, or call Kathy Malvo on 020 3334 3124.

If you believe you have the experience and qualities we are seeking, I hope you consider applying for this important position.


Martin Jones
Chief Executive, Parole Board for England and W


2. About the Parole Board

The Parole Board aims to:

  • Make risk assessments which are rigorous, fair and timely with the primary aim of protecting the public and which contribute to the rehabilitation of prisoners where appropriate.
  • Demonstrate effective and accountable corporate governance by maintaining strong internal control, setting clear objectives and managing corporate risk as well as delivering best value by optimum use of resources.
  • Promote the independence of and public confidence in the work of the Board, while effectively managing change.
    The Parole Board for England and Wales was established in 1968 under the Criminal Justice Act 1967. It became an independent Executive Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB) on 1 July 1996 under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The Parole Board's role is to make risk assessments about prisoners, to decide who may safely be released into the community, or where requested, to make recommendations to the Secretary of State for their transfer to open prison condition.
    A NDPB is an independent public body which has a role in the process of national Government.
    It is not a government department or part of one. It operates at arm's length from Government.
    Appointments to the boards of these public bodies are known as public appointments.
    The Parole Board has responsibility for considering the following types of cases:
    Indeterminate sentences

    These include life sentence prisoners (mandatory life, discretionary life and automatic life sentence prisoners and Her Majesty's Pleasure detainees) and prisoners given indeterminate sentences for public protection (IPP). The Parole Board considers whether prisoners are safe to release into the community once they have completed their tariff (the minimum time they must spend in prison) and also whether they are safe to re-release following recall to prison for a breach of their life licence conditions (the rules which they must observe upon release).
    Determinate sentences

    These include prisoners given extended sentences for public protection (EPP) for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005 and discretionary conditional release (DCR) prisoners serving more than 4 years whose offence was committed before 4 April 2005. The Parole Board considers whether these prisoners are safe to release into the community once they have completed the minimum time they must spend in prison. The Board also considers any determinate sentence prisoner referred by the Secretary of State, following recall to prison for a breach of their parole licence conditions (the rules which they must observe upon release), as to whether they are safe to re-release into the community.
    Location
    You will sit on both paper and oral panels. Paper panels are conducted by a single member and usually take place at home. Oral hearings can be 3, 2 or 1 member panels. The oral panels mainly take place in prisons, although some take place via a video link with the panel situated in the Parole Board’s offices currently at 52 Queen Anne’s Gate, London, or elsewhere, as needed. The hearings generally consider release or re-release after recall of life sentence and high-risk prisoners.  You will be expected to travel as required to hear cases or attend Parole Board related events.  This may entail an occasional overnight stay, for which expenses will be reimbursed at the prevailing rates.

    The Parole Board manages the caseload on a regional basis across England and Wales. There are four regions:

  • North East, North West, Yorkshire and Humberside

  • East Midlands, West Midlands

  • South, South East, East Anglia and London

  • South West, South Central and Wales

    There are vacancies across all regions, although we are particularly seeking members in regions other than London and the South East. The prisons located within each region are listed at Appendix 2.

    3. The role of the Judicial Parole Board Member
    The key task of all members of the Parole Board is to make rigorous, fair and timely risk assessments about individual cases which have the primary aim of protecting the public and which contribute to the rehabilitation of offenders where appropriate.

    You will be required to provide at least 69 days commitment annually, much of this time commitment will be undertaking hearings, but a proportion is preparation which can be done flexibly. Additional capacity is welcome subject to availability of work.
    You will be supported by a mentor during your first year, with ongoing training and development.
    Primarily you will undertake oral hearings with colleagues but you will also have the opportunity to develop other roles within the Parole Board and undertake work such as paper panels and case management.
    This is a senior position where it is expected individuals will use their risk assessment and risk management skills, to work independently and in consultation with other Parole Board colleagues in deciding if an offender should receive parole.
    The Parole Board works in a digital environment and it essential that applicants are IT literate.
    IT equipment, training and on-going support services are provided.

    As a Judicial Member of the Parole Board for England & Wales you will:
  • Analyse and critically evaluate information in order to identify continuing risk/dangerousness in an individual offender’s case, where information may come from a variety of sources including electronic dossiers, electronic updates and evidence given at oral hearings.

  • Apply knowledge and judgement to offenders’ cases in order to decide whether they can safely be released into the community and to set conditions where release is appropriate.

  • Assess cases when they are first referred to the Parole Board and set directions, where necessary, to ensure effective management of those cases that are sent to oral hearings.

  • Take an active part in oral hearings as a panel member, questioning witnesses as appropriate, weighing evidence to inform the panel’s assessment of risk.

  • Work collaboratively with other panel members in order to make judgements about the available evidence and to provide a concise and structured summary of relevant factors in reaching a decision or recommendation.

  • Use Parole Board IT effectively to access electronic dossiers, draft reasoned summaries and decisions, to communicate with other panellists and executive staff, and to keep up-to-date with current case information, relevant developments and best practice guidance.

  • Be responsible for your own personal development by accessing training, guidance and information offered by the Parole Board and contributing positively wherever possible to the effective running of the organisation.

  • Carry out all casework for which you have been trained and accredited, keeping up your practice in these areas, whether carrying out work on paper panels, case management, oral hearings or any other casework.

  • Be an effective ambassador for the Parole Board when representing it at hearings or any other event.

  • Travel as required to the headquarters in London or Prisons throughout the country, or for other Parole Board related events, with the occasional overnight stay.

    Eligibility

    To be eligible for this role you must be:

  • A retired High Court Judge; or

  • A Circuit Judge, who retired in the three years preceding the closing date for applications, or is currently serving and will be retired by 30th September 2018.

    There are circumstances in which an individual will not be considered for appointment.
  • People who have received a prison sentence or suspended sentence of three months or more in the last five years;
  • In certain circumstances, those who have had an earlier term of appointment on the Parole Board terminated; and

  • You should not be employed in the UK civil service.

    Essential criteria

    The essential criteria below will be tested throughout the recruitment process.

  • Demonstrable ability to conduct effective evidence-based decision making, weighing facts and evidence, analysing and critically evaluating large volumes of complex information and identifying key issues, within tight deadlines and working on your own initiative.

  • Demonstrable independence of mind and sound judgement, with the ability to make evidence based decisions that are accurately documented.

  • Excellent interpersonal skills: the ability to gain respect and maintain rapport through effective communication and influencing skills – with the confidence to challenge opinions where necessary, work collegiately and resolve differences to reach sound decisions.

  • Excellent communication skills, both written and oral: the ability to communicate sensitively and effectively with a wide range of individuals, varying your approach as necessary and treating others with respect, to listen actively and evaluate replies in order to probe issues.

  • Excellent written skills: the ability to draft well-formed written accounts which summarise evidence in support of a decision or recommendation.

  • Demonstrable high standards of corporate and personal integrity and conduct, such as a strong commitment to equal opportunities, and the ethos of supporting the wider public or community good through your contributions.

  • High levels of time management, organisational and administrative skills, together with strong personal motivation and commitment to professional self-development.

  • Evidence of experience of any aspect of the criminal justice system and an understanding of the importance of the victim’s perspective.


    4. Other important appointment information

    Tenure: Public appointments are offered on a fixed term basis. We do this to ensure that the leadership of our public bodies is regularly refreshed and the Parole Board can benefit from new perspectives and ideas.
    The appointment will run for 5 years with the possibility of reappointment for a further term subject to satisfactory appraisal and at the discretion of Ministers.
    In line with the Governance Code for Public Appointments, there is a strong presumption that no individual should serve more than two terms or serve in any one post for more than ten years.
    This accords with the Principles of Public Appointments, in particular that of Diversity: “Public appointments should reflect the diversity of the society in which we live and appointments should be made taking account of the need to appoint boards which include a balance of skills and backgrounds”.
    Remuneration: Remuneration is taxable and subject to Class 1 National Insurance contributions. The role is not pensionable and your remuneration may be abated if you receive a public service pension.

  • The work is fee paid.  Remuneration is taxable and fee-paid members have no pension rights.  Details of the fee structure is at Appendix 1.

  • Retired judicial members will be required to provide at least 69 days annually and will be supported with ongoing training and development.   You may give more time if there is work available.  There is no guarantee of work. The time commitment includes preparation time for panels, which can be undertaken at home and in the evenings, to fit in with your other responsibilities.  You will also be required to attend prisons for oral hearings during office hours.

  • Travel and Subsistence - Members are entitled to claim for those travel costs necessarily and actually incurred on Parole Board business at the normal public service rates. Where no extra expense is incurred, no reimbursement is due. Members are also entitled to claim subsistence payments to reimburse them for any additional expenditure incurred while away from home on Parole Board business.

  • Attendance at Parole Board meetings - There is an expectation that members will attend training and development events organised by the Parole Board, and, where appropriate, contribute to the development of the organisation through consultation, pilot projects and non-casework activity, such as mentoring, training and quality assessment.  Fees are payable for time spent on Parole Board business.

    Performance Appraisal: All members will be subject to regular monitoring and appraisal of their performance.  This will include an initial appraisal after completion of the first year of membership.

    Standards in Public Life: Public appointees are required to uphold the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s Seven Principles of Public Life (see Appendix 3).  You are also expected to adhere to the Code of Conduct for board members of public bodies.


    5. Advisory Assessment Panel membership
    The Panel will be:
  • Bill Loft, Arms Length Bodies Senior Finance Business Partner, Ministry of Justice (Panel Chair)
  • Tania Hornibrook, Head of Operational Casework, Parole Board
  • John Harrow, Judicial Parole Board Member
  • Nicolina Andall, Independent representative

    The interim Parole Board Chair, will provide oversight of this campaign and will report to Ministers on the outcome of the interviews. Ministers are responsible for making the appointment

    6. The appointment process and time line
    The figure below sets out the key stages and timings in the process.

    Induction Training

    Candidates who are successful in their applications will be required to attend a three day residential training event in Derbyshire, from 23 to 26 October 2018.
    Please note that it may not be possible to provide specific, individually tailored feedback following the sift stage but we will provide, on request, feedback to those who are interviewed.
    If you accept an invitation to interview, we will take two references in advance of the interview.  By providing the details of two referees you are consenting to us approaching them in this way.
    If you cannot attend an interview on one of the dates shown, please advise us as soon as you can.  Please note that we do not pay travel expenses to attend interviews.
    The Secretary of State or another Minister may ask to meet each of the candidates before or after interview.
    If called for interview the Advisory Assessment Panel will explore your experience and expertise to determine whether you meet the essential criteria for the role.
    You may be required to take part in an exercise during the interview slot.  If any preparation is required, this will be confirmed in your invitation to interview letter.


    Security Clearance
    For successful candidates, confirmation of appointment will be subject to basic clearance checks, covering confirmation of identity and right to work in the UK plus a criminal record check. This will involve completion of several paper and electronic forms and can take up to five weeks to process following acknowledgement of receipt of completed forms by the vetting team.


    7. How to apply

    To make an application, please send:

  • A CV (maximum two sides of A4) detailing your qualifications, employment history and any appointments or offices you hold. Please also provide your preferred contact number and email address.

  • A personal statement addressing the three statements below.  Please consider the role and criteria carefully in preparing your statement.  Please limit your responses to 250 words per question.

  • Give an example of a situation when you had to plan and manage your own time to balance various work priorities and to ensure you met challenging deadlines. What steps did you take to ensure completion of the task?

  • Give an example of a time when you were confronted by a situation where diversity and fairness were issues and were likely to be compromised. What was the situation, what specifically did you do and what was the outcome?

  • Please say why this appointment is of interest to you and outline particular experiences and skills which could enable you to make a significant contribution to the work of the Parole Board.

    Assessment process

    Please consider the role and selected criteria carefully in preparing your statement, see appendix 4 for details on which of the criteria you will be assessed on at the sift stage, and which during the interview process.

    Information from Advisory Assessment Panels indicates that applications which offer specific and tailored examples against the criteria, making clear the candidate’s role in achieving an outcome, are often the strongest.

    Supporting Documents
    Please also complete and return the following supporting documents:
  • potential conflicts of interest:  You should declare any actual or potential conflict of interest or anything which might cause embarrassment should you be appointed. The Advisory Assessment Panel may wish to explore these further with you if you are shortlisted for interview. Conflicts might arise from a variety of sources such as financial interests or share ownership, membership of, or association with, particular bodies or the activities of relatives or partners.  If you need further advice, please contact Anna Payne at PublicAppointmentsTeam@justice.gov.uk.
  • note of public appointments – please list any appointments currently held;

  • referee details – please give names/contact details of two referees (who will be contacted if you are shortlisted for interview);

  • the political activity declaration form – in line with the Governance Code for Public Appointments, details of any declared activity will be made public if you are appointed; and

  • the equal opportunities monitoring form – information is requested for monitoring purposes only and plays no part in the selection process.  It will be kept confidential and will not be seen by the Advisory Assessment Panel.

    Please send your CV, personal statement and supporting documents to:
    PublicAppointmentsTeam@justice.gov.uk quoting reference PAT 150049-PAROLE BOARD - JUDICIAL in the subject line of your email.   We will acknowledge receipt.

    If you have any questions about any aspects of this post, you are welcome to contact:
    Campaign Manager, Kathy Malvo, by email at Kathleen.malvo@justice.gov.uk.

    8. Diversity and equality of opportunity

    We encourage applications from all candidates regardless of ethnicity, religion or belief, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability or gender identity.  We particularly welcome applications from women, those with a disability and those from a black or ethnic minority background.

    We would also particularly welcome applications from those currently working in, or with experience of, the private sector, and those who have not previously held public appointments.

    We want to explore the widest possible pool of talent for this important position.

    Arrangements for candidates with a disability

    Guaranteed Interview Scheme

    There is a guaranteed interview scheme (GIS) for candidates with disabilities who meet the minimum selection criteria.
    The MoJ is a disability confident employer; further information can found here
    Adjustments: If you have a disability and require adjustments to help you if you are called to attend an interview, please contact: Anna Payne in the Public Appointments Team (by e-mail PublicAppointmentsTeam@justice.gov.uk to discuss further).  Please quote PAT 150049- PAROLE BOARD-JUDICIAL in any correspondence.
    To discuss any adjustments that you may require if appointed, please contact: Campaign Manager, Kathy Malvo by e-mail at kathleen.malvo@justice.gov.uk .

    9. Complaints Process
    If you have a complaint about any aspect of the way your application has been handled, we would like to hear from you. In the first instance please write to or e-mail the Public Appointments Team at the address or e-mail address given below quoting the appropriate reference number.
    Maggie Garrett, Ministry of Justice, Head of the Public Appointments Team, ALB Division, 2.54, 102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9AJ.

    Complaints must be received by the Public Appointments Team within 12 calendar months of the issue or the closure of the recruitment competition, whichever is the later.
    We will acknowledge your complaint within two working days of receipt and reply as quickly and clearly as possible; within 20 working days of receipt. We will tell you if we cannot meet this deadline for any reason and provide an expected reply date.

    Taking it further: If you are still concerned after receiving your reply you can write to:

    Commissioner for Public Appointments, Room G/8, Ground Floor, 1 Horse Guards Road,
    London, SW1A 2HQ.

    The Commissioner for Public Appointments regulates and monitors appointments to public bodies to ensure procedures are fair. More information about the role of the Commissioner, the Governance Code for Public Appointments and the complaints process is available at http://publicappointmentscommissioner.independent.gov.uk/

    Alternatively, please contact the Commissioner’s office on 020 7271 0831 for a printed copy of the complaints process.

    Commissioner for Public Appointments Survey

    The Commissioner for Public Appointments would like to find out what you think of the public appointments process.  When you have completed the process, the Commissioner would appreciate a few minutes of your time to complete this survey:
    http://publicappointmentscommissioner.independent.gov.uk/candidate-survey/. Your response will be anonymous and will inform the Commissioner's ongoing work with Government Departments to improve the public appointments process.

  • Checklist
    Please refer to the table below to ensure you send us all the necessary information.


Documents to be completed and sent
Tick
Your CV

Supporting Statement

Completed Supporting Documents
·         potential conflicts of interest;
·         public appointments held;
·         referee details
·         political activity declaration form; and
·         the equal opportunities form




  • Your personal Information

    We will process your application in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Ministry of Justice’s Information Charter, which can be found at


    Your data will be held securely and access will be restricted to those dealing with your application or involved in the recruitment process. By submitting your application, you are giving consent to your data being stored and processed for the purpose of the recruitment process, diversity monitoring and, if successful, your personal record. 


Appendix 1                Parole Board Members’ Fees – Effective 7th September 2015




Paper panels and casework


Member Case Assessment (MCA) Panels – Per day (mixed cases)
£

Panel member (one bundle of cases, totalling 8 hours notional*)

* A MCA bundle is based on an 8 hour working day, with case types having the following notional time allocations:

·         Standard determinate sentence recall case = 1 hour
·         Indeterminate Sentence Prisoners review/recall case = 2 hours 
·         Discretionary Conditional Release/Extended sentences for Public Protection/Extended Determined Sentence/Extended Sentence Prisoner annual review case = 2 hours


320

Part bundles – per case bundle equal to 2 hours notional

80
MCA Panels – Specialist Member Consultation

Day rate (based on 8 hours working from home)
345

Pro rata – hourly rate
(part hours to be claimed to the nearest quarter hour)
43
MCA Duty member

Per day (based on 7 hours at Queen Anne’s Gate)
320
Pro rata – per hour
(part hours to be claimed to the nearest quarter hour)
46



Oral hearings


Oral Hearing - Panel Chair


Allocation fee -  per case
68
Preparation fee – per case
91
Conduction fee – per day of hearings
365


Specialist Chair


Allocation fee -  per case
70
Preparation fee – per case
94
Conduction fee – per day of hearings
375


Specialist Co-panellist

Preparation fee – per case
65
Conduction fee – per day of hearings
345


Co-panellist

Preparation fee – per case
60
Conduction fee – per day of hearings
320


Adjournments


Adjournment when the case is re-convened at oral hearing:
1 x preparation  fee (per case)  + 1 x conduction fee (per day) at the prevailing rate for role of each member of the panel



Complex single case hearings


Single case listed for 4.5 hours or more at oral hearing:
2 x preparation fee (for the single case) in addition to the 1 x conduction fee (per day) at the prevailing rate for role of each member of the panel.  (Chair will also be entitled to 1 x allocation fee, as standard).






Non-casework activity



Enhanced non-casework
Mentoring

Day rate – based on 7 hours at a location
300
Pro rata – per hour
43
Advanced approval by email from a senior manager is required for all enhanced non-casework claims.   A fixed time allowance will be set for the specific work commissioned at this level of fee.
The enhanced rate applies for:
Sitting on a Parole Board governance committee: Management Committee, Standards Committee, Audit & Risk Committee, Review Committee.
Quality assurance: Practice observation, MCA quality assurance, case review and other initiatives.
Delivering training, coaching, mentoring and other development activities.

Standard non-casework

Day rate – based on 7 hours at a location
250
Pro rata – hourly rate
36
The standard rate applies for:
Attending conference and member events
Attending training, learning and development events
Attending meetings, focus groups or other activities at the invitation of the Parole Board.







Appendix 2                HMP Establishments by Region

Region 1: North East, North West, Yorkshire and Humberside



Deerbolt (YOI)                                              Durham

Holme House                                               Kirklevington Grange

Low Newton                                                 Northumberland

Altcourse                                                      Lancaster Farm

Kirkham                                                        Preston

Haverigg                                                       Wymott

Garth                                                            Hindley

Buckley Hall                                                 Kennet

Liverpool                                                      

Risley                                                           Styal

Thorn Cross                                                 Manchester

Forest Bank                                                  Frankland

Wetherby                                                      Wealstun                                                     

Leeds                                                            Askham Grange

Wakefield                                                     New Hall

Doncaster                                                     Moorland

Hatfield (Moorland Open)                            Lindholme

Hull                                                               Humber

Full Sutton                                                    Lincoln

Morton Hall                                                   North Sea Camp



Region 2: East and West Midlands



Foston Hall                                                   Gartree

Glen Parva                                                   Leicester

Lowdham Grange                                        Nottingham

Ranby                                                           Sudbury

Whatton                                                        Birmingham

Brinsford                                                       Drake Hall

Dovegate                                                      Featherstone

Hewell                                                          Oakwood

Stafford                                                        Stoke Heath

Swinfen Hall                                                 Werrington

Long Lartin                                                   Onley

Ryehill                                                          Stocken



Region 3: South, South East, East Anglia and London



Bure                                                              Norwich

Hollesley bay                                                Warren Hill

Wayland                                                       Highpoint North

Highpoint South                                            Whitemoor

Littlehey                                                        Peterborough

Bedford                                                        The Mount

Chelmsford                                                  Rochester

Sheppy Cluster                                            Cookham Wood

Maidstone                                                     East Sutton park

Dover                                                           Blantyre House

Downview                                                    High Down

Lewes                                                           Send

Bronzefield                                                   Ford

Pentonville                                                    Wormwood Scrubs

Feltham                                                        Wandsworth

Brixton                                                          Thameside

Belmarsh                                                      Isis



Region 4: South Central, South West, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland



Woodhill                                                        Grendon

Spring Hill                                                     Bullingdon

Huntercombe                                               Haslar

Isle of White Cluster                                     Erlestoke

Leyhill                                                           Eastwood Park

Bristol                                                           Ashfield

Guys Marsh                                                 Portland

The Verne                                                    Channings Wood

Exeter                                                           Dartmoor

Usk                                                               Berwyn

Prescoed                                                      Cardiff

Parc                                                              Swansea

Scotland                                                       Northern Ireland








Appendix 3 - The seven principles of public life

All candidates for public appointments are expected to demonstrate a commitment to, and an understanding of, the value and importance of the principles of public service. The seven principles of public life are:

Selflessness

Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.

Integrity

Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

Objectivity

Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.

Accountability

Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.

Openness

Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.

Honesty

Holders of public office should be truthful.

Leadership

Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.









Appendix 4 – Essential Criteria

Parole Board Member 2018
Essential Criteria
Assessment at which stage of the recruitment process?
Sift

Interview process
Demonstrable ability to conduct effective evidence-based decision making, weighing facts and evidence, analysing and critically evaluating large volumes of complex information and identifying key issues, within tight deadlines and working on your own initiative.


Demonstrable independence of mind and sound judgement, with the ability to make evidence based decisions that are accurately documented.


Excellent interpersonal skills: the ability to gain respect and maintain rapport through effective communication and influencing skills – with the confidence to challenge opinions where necessary, work collegiately and resolve differences to reach sound decisions.

Excellent communication skills, both written and oral: the ability to communicate sensitively and effectively with a wide range of individuals, varying your approach as necessary and treating others with respect, to listen actively and evaluate replies in order to probe issues.

Excellent written skills: the ability to draft well-formed written accounts which summarise evidence in support of a decision or recommendation.

Demonstrable high standards of corporate and personal integrity and conduct, such as a strong commitment to equal opportunities, and the ethos of supporting the wider public or community good through your contributions.

High levels of time management, organisational and administrative skills, together with strong personal motivation and commitment to professional self-development.
Evidence of experience of any aspect of the criminal justice system and an understanding of the importance of the victim’s perspective. 

Specialist knowledge and experience: demonstration of relevant knowledge and skills by psychiatrists / retired judges









Rt  Hon  David  Gauke  MP   Secretary  of  State  for  Justice  
102  Petty  France
London  SW1H  9AJ

19  March  2018  

Dear  Secretary  of  State,   Parole  Review   I  am  pleased  to  attach  a  paper  from  Dr  Thomas  Guiney,  a  colleague  at  the  Prison  Reform  Trust   but  also  a  leading  authority  on  the  history  of  parole  in  this  country,  in  response  to  the  review  of   parole  that  you  announced  in  January.     The  review  was  set  up  in  response  to  an  extreme  media  reaction  to  a  particular  decision.  Those   who  live  and  work  in  our  prisons  will  be  only  too  familiar  with  the  history  of  ill-­judged  policy   responses  with  long  term  consequences  that  tend  to  result  in  those  circumstances.  Indeed,  the   fact  that  the  Parole  Board  finds  itself  in  the  position  of  considering  the  case  in  question  at  all  owes   much  to  a  bad  law  borne  of  hard  cases  around  the  turn  of  the  century.

 So  while  the  Prison  Reform   Trust  welcomes  the  opportunity  the  review  gives  to  take  stock,  it  is  essential  that  any  decisions   that  flow  from  it  take  account  of  their  likely  long  term  consequences  for  the  individuals  most   affected.  It  is  plainly  right  that  the  experience  of  victims  of  crime  should  be  central,  but  the  history   of  parole  shows  that  prisoners  too  have  suffered  through  the  failings  of  the  system  as  a  whole.  It  is   prisoners  who  have  routinely  not  been  given  the  opportunity  to  be  released  on  time  when  their   punishment  has  been  served  and  to  make  a  success  of  their  life  following  release.     There  should  be  no  confusion  that  the  aim  of  the  parole  system  (as  distinct  from  the  Board)  should   be  to  protect  the  public  and  meet  the  legitimate  rights  of  the  parolee  by  implementing  a  timely  plan   for  their  safe  release.  We  should  regard  a  failure  to  release  a  prisoner  at  their  earliest  parole   eligibility  date  as  a  failure  of  the  system  both  in  custody  and  in  the  community  to  use  the  time   available  to  prepare  properly.  This  country  is  very  unusual  in  Europe  in  the  number  of  people  sent   to  prison  on  indeterminate  sentences  –  twice  as  many  as  the  next  three  European  comparators   combined.

 Given  our  predilection  for  sentences  containing  such  a  measure  of  uncertainty  for  the   person  serving  them,  there  is  a  particular  burden  on  the  agencies  responsible  for  both  risk   reduction  and  risk  management.  Our  national  failure  to  meet  those  obligations  following  the   introduction  of  the  IPP  sentence,  but  also  in  relation  to  many  other  life  sentence  prisoners,   remains  a  scandal.  The  Parole  Board,  just  as  much  as  the  prisoners  before  it,  has  been  the   recipient  of  an  inadequate  service  too  often,  and  the  opportunity  should  be  grasped  as  part  of  this   review  to  set  higher  expectations  of  both  prison  and  probation  services.   Prisoners  watching  and  reading  the  media  coverage  that  prompted  this  review  will  have  been   dismayed  by  its  potential  to  affect  their  already  moderate  chances  of  securing  release  and  its
corrosive  impact  on  the  attitudes  they  are  likely  to  encounter  in  the  communities  to  which  they  will   eventually  return.  The  behaviour  of  the  media  in  response  to  the  Worboys  case  is  perhaps   unsurprising,  and  in  any  event  beyond  the  scope  of  this  review.  But  the  prejudicial  public   commentary  of  those  with  direct  power  to  influence  the  Board’s  operation,  both  now  and  in  the   future,  should  be  a  cause  for  concern.  A  clear  line  should  have  been  drawn  –  and  observed  by  all   government  spokespeople  –  between  the  procedural  concerns  in  relation  to  victim  issues,  and  the   merits  of  the  decision  itself.  It  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  none  of  those  commenting  had  read   the  363  page  dossier,  nor  benefitted  from  the  training  and  experience  of  the  3  member  Parole   Board  panel  that  did.  But  the  media’s  conclusion  that  the  decision  must  be  wrong  was   unhesitatingly  endorsed.  The  threat  to  the  independence  of  a  body  charged  with  the  most  difficult   and  emotionally  charged  of  decisions  is  both  real  and  severe.  So  the  decisions  taken  in  the  light  of   this  review  must  have  regard  to  that  threat  and  take  the  opportunity  to  bolster  the  protection  the   Parole  Board  needs  if  it  is  to  meet  its  obligations  to  all  of  us,  whether  victim,  prisoner  or  just  a   member  of  the  society  in  which  released  offenders  will  build  their  future.  Some  greater  protection   than  the  good  judgement  of  the  individual  in  charge  of  the  Ministry  of  Justice  is  essential.   Our  recommendations  therefore  encompass  both  procedural  changes  which  could  be   implemented  relatively  swiftly,  and  much  more  fundamental  reform  of  the  standing  of  the  Parole   Board  and  its  relationship  to  ministers.

They  are:  
  •   To  reconstitute  the  Parole  Board  as  a  two-­tier  legal  tribunal  under  the  auspices  of   Her  Majesty’s  Courts
 and  Tribunal  Service  (HMCTS).  
•   To  place  far  greater  emphasis  on  improving  public  understanding  of  the  parole   system,  and  sentence  progression  more  generally.    
•   To  publish  a  parole  compact  that  sets  out,  in  clear  and  accessible  terms,  what   prisoners,  victims  and  the  general  public  can  expect  from  the  Parole  Board  and   partner  agencies.
  •   To  establish  an  easy  use  information  management  system  providing  public  access  to   select,  and  quality  assured  information,  held  by  the  Parole  Board.
•   To  follow  the  New  Zealand  example  and  publish  brief  but  informative  summaries   setting  out  the  reasoning  behind  parole  decisions  and  the  conditions  placed  upon  a   parole  licence.
•   To  review  the  operation  of  determinate  sentence  recall  cases  and  adopt  a   standardised  system  based  upon  a  fixed  recall  period  (not  exceeding  a  percentage   of  the  overall  sentence).   We  look  forward  to  the  opportunity  to  discuss  these  recommendations  and  to  conclusions  that  will   benefit  all  those  people  affected  by  the  way  the  parole  system  currently  operates.       Peter  Dawson   Director


Page 1 of 14 
Prison Reform Trust response to the Ministry of Justice Review of the Law, Policy and Procedure Relating to Parole Decisions1 
The Prison Reform Trust (PRT) is an independent UK charity working to create a just, humane and effective penal system.  We do this by inquiring into the workings of the system; informing prisoners, staff and the wider public; and by influencing Parliament, government and officials towards reform. The Prison Reform Trust provides the secretariat to the All Party Parliamentary Penal Affairs Group and has an advice and information service for people in prison. 
The Prison Reform Trust's main objectives are:  
• reducing unnecessary imprisonment and promoting community solutions to crime • improving treatment and conditions for prisoners and their families 
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/ 
Summary 
This briefing paper responds to the Ministry of Justice review of the ‘Law, Policy and Procedure Relating to Parole Decisions’.  
It sets out the available background information to the John Worboys case and situates this parole decision within a wider criminal justice context, with reference to the current sentencing framework in England and Wales. It goes on to examine the problematic status of the Parole Board and discusses how greater transparency can be delivered in a way that is consistent with public protection, respect for the rule of law and human rights. This briefing builds the case for understanding transparency and accountability as mutually interdependent and calls for far greater emphasis upon release planning to promote constructive prison regimes, post-release supervision and the wider community infrastructure needed to support long-term desistance in the community. It concludes with a consideration of resource implications and the case for reform of determinate recall cases in the interests both of justice and economy. 
On the basis of the analysis set out in this paper the Ministry of Justice review team is invited to consider the following recommendations: 
i. To reconstitute the Parole Board as a two-tier legal tribunal under the auspices of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS). ii. To place far greater emphasis on improving public understanding of the parole system, and sentence progression more generally.   iii. To publish a parole compact that sets out, in clear and accessible terms, what prisoners, victims and the general public can expect from the Parole Board and partner agencies. iv. To establish an easy use information management system providing public access to select, and quality assured information, held by the Parole Board. v. To follow the New Zealand example and publish brief but informative summaries setting out the reasoning behind parole decisions and the conditions placed upon a parole licence. vi. To review the operation of determinate sentence recall cases and adopt a standardised system based upon a fixed recall period (not exceeding a percentage of the overall sentence).

1 Prepared by Dr Thomas Guiney. Visiting Fellow, Mannheim Centre for Criminology, London School of Economics and Political Science

Page 2 of 14 
1. Introduction  
The Prison Reform Trust welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Ministry of Justice Review of the ‘Law, Policy and Procedure Relating to Parole Decisions’. The decision to release John Worboys has generated considerable public interest and this has exposed longstanding weaknesses in the operation of parole as currently organised. The parole system is one of the most common areas of enquiry to the Trust’s dedicated prisoner ‘advice and information service’, and this briefing paper is intended as a constructive contribution to current debate which, it is hoped, will help place the parole system on a more secure footing so that justice is not only done, but seen to be done for prisoners, victims, and the wider community. 

There is little doubt that the parole system is in urgent need of modernisation, but recent history should serve as a warning against the dangers of rushing through wide-ranging reforms on the basis of high profile or exceptional cases. The termination of prison sentences is critical to the effective operation of the criminal justice system and even small changes in law, policy and procedure can result in far recaching, and unintended consequences. While the overwhelming majority of men and women sent to prison will return to the community at some point in their lives, a growing number are serving indeterminate and extended determinate sentences that are subject to a system of discretionary release administered by the Parole Board. For those living with this uncertainty the parole system can represent a barrier as well as a bridge between prison and the community.  

It is now 50 years since the Parole Board was first established and both public and legal expectations are now significantly higher. If the Parole Board, and the institutions it relies upon, are to respond effectively to these competing demands they must be equipped with the right tools for the job, and this paper sets out a vision for a twenty-first century parole system in England and Wales that is: 
• independent from government • pro-active in building public understanding of how parole decisions are made • consistent in enforcing the rights of victims, prisoners and the wider community • transparent in its activities  • accountable to the public, and supported by others to perform this role effectively • affordable 

2. Background to the review 
In 2009, John Worboys was found guilty of 19 sexual offences against 12 victims. He received an indeterminate sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) and ordered to serve a minimum tariff of 8 years imprisonment before his case could be considered by the Parole Board.  
Since the offences committed by John Worboys first came to light, public interest has extended far beyond the sentence of the court. Criticism has been levelled at historic failures in how the police respond to allegations of sexual assault, the evidentiary challenges of successfully prosecuting complex sexual offence case in court and the overall experience of victims at each stage of the criminal justice process. The decision of the Parole Board has become a lightning rod for public anger but the integrity of the justice process cannot rest on one body alone: 
• In 2010, the Police Complaints Commission2 called for wide-ranging changes in how the police deal with victims of sexual offences.  • Following a successful legal action3 for damages and declarations arising out of alleged failures by the Metropolitan Police Service and the Greater Manchester Police to conduct effective investigations into allegations of serious crime, it was revealed that between 2002 and 2008                                                            2 Police Complaints Commission. Findings of investigation into Met handling of Worboys case, 20 January 2010 3 [2015] EWCA Civ 646. This judgement was upheld by the Supreme Court [2018] UKSC 11

Page 3 of 14
police suspected that  John Worboys was responsible for over 105 rapes and sexual assaults on women who were passengers in his cab.  • In January 2018, the Crown Prosecution Service4, issued a statement confirming that files relating to 83 separate complainants were originally referred to the CPS. Of those, 14 complainants formed part of the trial with the remainder adjudged not to have passed the necessary evidential test. Following the conviction of John Worboys, the CPS were informed of a further 19 complainants by the Metropolitan Police Service but only one file was subsequently referred to prosecutors and this did not pass the evidential test. 

Following a review of his case the Parole Board announced in January 2018 that Worboys would be released from prison. Taking into account time spent on remand, Worboys had spent almost 10 years in custody, the equivalent of a determinate custodial sentence of almost 20 years. In accordance with Parole Board rules the conditions placed upon his licence were not made public. However, in a subsequent statement the Chairman of the Parole Board, Professor Nick Hardwick, indicated that the case had been considered by a three-member panel, was chaired by an experienced female member, and included representation from a parole board psychologist. The panel considered a dossier of 363 pages and heard evidence from four psychologists as well as prison and probation staff. The Secretary of State was represented and Worboys was questioned in detail. The panel also considered a written statement from one victim.  
The case was reported widely in the media. In a statement issued in Parliament on the 19 January 2018 the Secretary of State for Justice5, David Gauke, responded to public concern and announced a review of the ‘Law, Policy and Procedure Relating to Parole Decisions’. While little detail has been made public on how the review will be conducted, the Ministry of Justice has published terms of reference which make clear it will focus on the following four areas:  
• The law, policy, guidance and practice relating to challenges to Parole Board decision-making, specifically whether there should be a mechanism to allow parole decisions to be reconsidered. • The transparency of Parole Board decision making. • Victim involvement in Parole Board hearings. • Arrangements for communicating with victims. 
Since that time, the Justice Committee has convened a one-off oral evidence session on the work of the Parole Board and a number of parties, including several victims, the Sun newspaper, and the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan have been given leave to pursue an application for judicial review against the Parole Board. The hearing, which began on the 13 Mach 2018, will examine the ‘reasonableness’ of the decision to release Worboys and consider whether Rule 25 of the Parole Board Rules 2016, which prohibits publication of the reasons for release or detaining inmates, is legal. 
The initial findings of the MOJ review are not expected until ‘Easter 2018’. However, a ‘rapid factfinding exercise’, undertaken by HM Chief Inspector of Probation6 at the request of the Secretary of State for Justice, has recently found that whilst the National Probation Service (NPS) had broadly complied with Probation Guidance on providing timely and relevant information to victims, the overall quality of correspondence was poor and opportunities for victims to participate fully in the parole decision-making process were missed. Dame Glenys Stacey also reported that the Parole Board decision in the Worboys case broke in the press before some victims had received and read their advanced notification, whilst many more women with a direct interest in the case, but not participants in the Victim Contact Scheme, first learnt of the decision through the media.

4 Crown Prosecution Service statement on John Worboys, 5 January 2018 5 Hansard:  Parole Board: Transparency and Victim Support, 19 January 2018, Volume 634 6 HM Inspectorate of Probation (2018) Investigation into the policy and process followed by the victim contact scheme in the case of John Worboys

Page 4 of 14
3. The parole system in context 
Whilst recognising the issues of principle raised in the Worboys case it is important to place this decision within its appropriate context. In 2016/17 the Parole Board concluded 5,184 cases, of which 872 were recommended for moves to open conditions (17%), 1,825 cases were refused (35%), and 2,468 were recommended for release (48%).7 Overall, the Parole Board has a strong track record of protecting the public from serious harm. In the last four calendar years less than 1% of the total number of decisions made by the Parole Board have resulted in a serious further offence, as specified in Schedule 5 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, being notified to the Board.8 Recent figures released by the Ministry of Justice also indicate that a small proportion of offenders serving indeterminate sentences go on to commit a further offence, serious or otherwise, following their release (Table 1). 
Table 1: Adult proven reoffending data, by custodial sentence length, 2013-2016Q19  2013 2014 2015 2016 Q1  Indeterminate sentence for public protection     Number of reoffenders 53 43 68 18 Number of offenders in cohort 389 376 453 137      Mandatory life prisoner     Number of reoffenders 8 4 8 2 Number of offenders in cohort 172 113 185 51      Other life      Number of reoffenders 7 17 11 2 Number of offenders in cohort 93 90 102 26      All      Number of reoffenders 68 64 87 22 Number of offenders in cohort 654 579 740 214   While the Worboys decision has proved deeply unpopular, the administration of justice demands that the Parole Board is empowered to make difficult decisions. Since the abolition of the IPP sentence in 2012 there has been growing pressure on the government to resolve the precarious legal position of IPP prisoners held post-tariff and the Parole Board has a central role to play in this process. It has worked closely with partner agencies to increase the rate at which IPP prisoners have been released and many more prisoners now have detailed management plans where the risk is not yet judged to be manageable in the community. Nonetheless, recent analysis by PRT indicates that considerable challenges remain and this process would be jeopardised if the Worboys case begins to harden the risk-appetite of the Board:  
• Despite its abolition in 2012, over four-fifths (86%) of people in prison currently serving an IPP sentence are still there despite having passed their tariff expiry date—the minimum period they must spend in custody and considered necessary to serve as punishment for the offence.10 • Many people in prison don’t know if, or when, they might be released. 10,378 people are currently in prison serving an indeterminate sentence—accounting for 14% of the sentenced prison population, up from 9% in 1993.11

7 Parole Board (2017) Annual Report and Accounts for 2016/17/. London: HMSO 8 Parole Board (2017) Annual Report and Accounts for 2016/17/. London: HMSO 9 Reoffenders: Written question – 123846. http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answersstatements/written-question/Commons/2018-01-19/123846 10 Table 1.9a, Ministry of Justice (2017) Offender management statistics quarterly: April to June 2017, London: MOJ 11 Table 1.1, Ministry of Justice (2017) Offender management statistics quarterly: April to June 2017, London: MOJ and Ministry of Justice (2013) Story of the prison population: 1993–2012 England & Wales, London: MOJ

Page 5 of 14
• 16% of people currently serving an IPP have a tariff of less than two years, and 41% have a tariff of between two and four years. 513 people are still in prison despite being given a tariff of less than two years—over half of these (277 people) have served eight years or more beyond their original tariff.12 
Like all criminal justice agencies, the Parole Board has struggled to manage a growing and increasingly complex workload, at a time of significant pressure upon criminal justice expenditure. The total net expenditure of the Parole Board increased from £16.1m in 2015/16 to £19.2m in 2016/17. In part, this reflects the significant cost of complying with the Supreme Court decision in Osborn,13 which held that the Board had erred in not offering IPP prisoners the option of an oral hearing. A recent enquiry by the National Audit Office (NAO)14 found that following Osborn, demand for oral hearings conducted by the Parole Board increased by 48% between 2012-13 and 2014-15, and this resulted in a significant backlog of cases. In December 2016, 3,081 prisoners on indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for public protection (IPP prisoners) were in prison beyond their tariff expiry date, and while the backlog of cases awaiting review has now been cleared the Board has paid out in excess of £1.1 million in compensation claims to prisoners since 2011-12 as a result of delayed hearings.  

While the terms of reference set by the Ministry of Justice have been narrowly defined, it should be noted that many of the challenges facing the parole system are shaped, to a significant degree, by repeated changes at the top end of the sentencing framework. These reforms have radically extended the scope of indeterminate sentences and are likely to result in a growing number of prisoners serving extended determinate sentences. In England & Wales more than twice as many people are serving indeterminate sentences than in France, Germany and Italy combined15 and sentencing tariffs have increased significantly in recent years. The average minimum term imposed for murder has risen from 12.5 years in 2003 to 21.3 years in 2016.16 The Trust, has long called for a managed reduction in the use of indeterminate sentences, particularly for public protection reasons, as part of a careful application of the proportionality principle. Parallels can be found in the academic literature. Bottoms and Brownsword17 have argued that indeterminate sentences for public protection should only be imposed in exceptional circumstances where the danger to the public is “vivid”, based upon a threefold assessment of seriousness, the frequency and immediacy of the threat to the public, and the certainty of future offending. As a recent report by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons18 indicates, few IPP prisoners held post tariff would appear to satisfy this test.  

The overuse of indeterminate sentences must be ended as a matter of urgency and this should be accompanied by a far greater emphasis on effective release planning. As originally conceived, the parole system was justified on the basis of a ‘recognisable peak’ in an individual’s rehabilitation where the interests of the community were better served by the careful reintegration of the offender back into the community, rather than continued incarceration and the slow creep of institutionalisation.19 Over time this burden of proof has been almost completely inverted for the growing cohort of prisoners serving life sentences and some extended determinate sentences for public protection. For example, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment Offenders Act 2012 places a legal duty upon the Parole Board to determine whether it is ‘satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public’ that the
12 Ministry of Justice (2014) Freedom of Information request 89346, London: Ministry of Justice and House of Lords written question HL2315, 6 November 2017 13 Osborn Booth and Reilly v The Parole Board. [2013] UKSC 61 14 NAO (2017) Investigation into the Parole Board, HC 1013. London: HMSO 15 Table 7, Aebi, M., et al. (2017) Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics, Survey 2015, Strasbourg: Council of Europe and Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics, Survey 2014 16   Ministry of Justice (2014) Freedom of Information request 89346, London: Ministry of Justice and House of Lords written question HL2315, 6 November 2017 17 Bottoms, A. and Brownsword, R (1983). Dangerousness and Rights. In Hinton, J (ed) Dangerousness: Problems of Assessment and Prediction. London: Allen and Unwin 18 HM Inspector of Prisons (2016) Unintended consequences: Finding a way forward for prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection. A Thematic Review. London: HMSO 19 Guiney, T (forthcoming) An Idea Whose Time Had Come? The Creation of a Modern System of Parole in England and Wales, 1960-1968 Prison Service Journal.
Page 6 of 14
prisoner should remain detained. Over time, the gradual hardening of the pathways to release has resulted in over reliance on prison as a place of containment and undermined attempts to build a stronger strategic focus on the community infrastructure needed to support the desistance process in the longterm. No risk can be alleviated in its entirety and prisons have a very poor track record in preparing prisoners for their eventual release. The greatest public protection will always come from the successful and permanent reintegration of individuals into the community so that they are lead law abiding and constructive lives.  

4. The independence of the Parole Board 
The Parole Board for England and Wales is an independent non‑departmental public body. It works in partnership with a wide-range of criminal justice agencies, such as Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), to ‘carry out risk assessments on prisoners to determine whether they can be safely released into the community’. The core work of the Parole Board has evolved over time and it is now primarily orientated towards the cases of prisoners serving indeterminate sentences, some extended determinate sentences and many recall decisions (see Table 2 below) 

Table 2: Workload of the Parole Board Indeterminate Mandatory life Discretionary life Automatic life sentence prisoners Her Majesty’s Pleasure detainees Indeterminate of imprisonment for public protection  Indeterminate sentence of detention for public protection Determinate Discretionary conditional release (DCR) prisoners serving more than four years whose offence was committed before 4 April 2005 Extended sentence for public protection (EPP) prisoners sentenced before 14 July 2008 Prisoners given an extended determinate sentence (EDS) after 3 December 2012 Prisoners given a sentence for offences of particular concern (SOPC) on or after 13 April 2015, who have committed a qualifying offence. Recall The recall of cases that fall in to the aforementioned categories The Parole Board also decides whether determinate prisoners referred by the Secretary of State for Justice following recall to prison for a breach of their licence 

The Parole Board has become a more court like body, and since the Supreme Court decision in Osborne it has made great strides in seeking to comply with the European Convention of Human Rights and common law expectations in relation to the right to a fair trial. The Parole Board frequently describes itself as a ‘court-like body’ in public facing communications20 but in reality, the quasi-judicial status of the Parole Board remains deeply problematic. The Board is sponsored by the Ministry of Justice and the Public Protection Casework Section plays a central role in the administration of the parole process. The Secretary of State for Justice retains the power to approve member appointments and issue policy directions to the Parole Board (although this power has not been used since the Parole Board Rules 2016 were issued).  

As the caseload of the parole system has grown in complexity the quasi-judicial status of the Parole Board has been the subject to repeated legal challenge21. In the landmark case of R v Brooke22 the Court of Appeal held that the Parole Board was not sufficiently independent from the Secretary of State for Justice to discharge its responsibilities in accordance with the rule of law. Affirming the judgement of the Divisional Court, the (then) Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips expressed his view that,                                                             20 More transparent decisions on parole. Martin Jones, Chief Executive of the Parole Board. 1 March 2018 http://www.russellwebster.com/martinjones3/ 21 Padfield, N (2017) The role of the Parole Board. Independent Monitor, September 2017. 22 [2008] EWCA Civ 29

Page 7 of 14 
“Neither the Secretary of State nor his department had adequately addressed the need for the 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 had sought to influence the manner in which the board carried out its risk assessment. The close working relationship between the board and the unit acting as its sponsor had tended to blur the distinction between the executive role of the former and the judicial role of the latter”. 

Following this judgement sponsorship of the Parole Board was moved from the National Offender Management Service (as it then was) to the Access to Justice Directorate of the Ministry of Justice. In June 2009, the government announced a public consultation on the parole system and in the accompanying discussion paper ‘The Future of Parole’ invited views from the public on whether the Parole Board should be reconstituted as a court, tribunal or another form of arm’s length body. Unfortunately, no proposals for reform were forthcoming. The consultation ended shortly before preelection Purdah for the 2010 General Election and no further action was taken when these restrictions were lifted.  

As Professor Nicola Padfield,23 has noted, there is still ‘unfinished business’ when it comes to the status of the Parole Board. In light of recent events, the government should revisit the decision in Brooke and take steps to re-constitute the Parole Board as an independent (and inquisitorial) tribunal under the auspices of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Far from a purely legal exercise, such a move would deliver many of the practical improvements envisaged by the current review. A two-tier tribunal structure would create a clear legal pathway for the appeal of parole judgements (where leave is granted by a first-tier tribunal) and in many cases this would dispense with the often time-consuming, and prohibitive costs associated with the judicial review process. Administration by the Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) would bring the Parole Board into line with comparable bodies such as the Mental Health Tribunal and may deliver a range of associated benefits, such as greater legal expertise, the timeliness of reports and access to a wider pool of expert witnesses. 

The Parole Board has already made incremental moves in this direction and now is the right time to complete this process. Above all else, a tribunal structure would help secure the independence of the Parole Board and insulate the system from any semblance of political interference (real or perceived). High-profile parole decisions will continue to attract public interest and in a more politicised penal climate it is perhaps inevitable that politicians will be drawn into public debate. We should protect their right to do so, but the integrity of the parole system is surely damaged when the Chairman of the Conservative Party declares publicly that his government is doing ‘everything it can’ to keep Worboys in prison24;  when the Secretary of State for Justice takes the unprecedented step of seeking legal advice to challenge the judgement of its own agency; and a former Labour Lord Chancellor, Charles Falconer, writes in a national newspaper that “the system for releasing prisoners on parole is letting out those who are unsafe”.25  
The liberty of the individual is a cornerstone of our liberal democratic system and a tribunal structure would help restore a clear dividing line between the distinct roles of the executive and the judiciary. As the Conservative home affairs spokesman (and future lord Chancellor Lord Hailsham) observed during the very first parliamentary debate on the creation of a parole system in England and Wales,  

‘…we do not think that this subject should be a matter within the day-to-day responsibilities of a political Minister. We believe that it should be not only detached from politics, as I am                                                            23 Padfield, N (2016) Justifying Indefinite Detention - on what grounds? Criminal Law Review. Pp.797-822 24 Worboys case: Government 'doing all it can' to keep rapist in jail. BBC, 14 January 2018 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk42678572 25 Charles Falconer. British justice is in flames. The MoJ’s fiddling is criminal. The Guardian 6 February 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/06/british-justice-collapse-moj-prisons-probation-legal-aid-lordchancellor-charles-falconer

Page 8 of 14
sure that the right hon. Gentleman and any likely successor would make it, but should be seen to be detached from politics. We think that it should not be in the hands of either officials or Ministers responsible for the ordinary conditions of incarceration. We do not think that it should be in those hands administratively’.

26
5. Transparency 
Since the parole system was first established by the Criminal Justice Act 1967, the operation of parole has been viewed as secretive and paternalistic: parole was positioned as a ‘privilege and not a right’, there were no oral hearings, prisoners were not informed of the reasons why their applications had been unsuccessful and the Home Secretary reserved the right to overturn the recommendation of the Parole Board if it was deemed to be in the public interest. We have come a long way in this regard, but there remains a general lack of public understanding about how parole decisions are made, by whom and on the basis of what evidence. The difficulties faced by victims have been well documented but experience suggests that prisoners also have very little understanding of their sentence pathway, how they will progress through the prison estate and the steps they should take to work towards their eventual release. 

The parole review presents a real opportunity to return to first principles and design a parole process that is genuinely transparent, accessible and publicly engaged. The parole system has always operated on the basis of public trust and the ongoing renewal of this social compact demands that victims and the general public have a better understanding of the parole system. The critical point is that greater transparency must be delivered in such a way that does not undermine the primary aims of the parole system. The publication of detailed licence conditions, such as place of residence or the identity of the supervising officer, is very likely to undermine supervision and compliance, infringe human rights law and might in some instances encourage vigilantism. Similarly, giving victims the final say over parole releases would certainly introduce arbitrariness into the administration of justice and should be resisted. Victims may sometimes be co-defendants, friends or family members. The most forgiving victims have been known to pardon the most heinous crimes.  

In seeking an appropriate balance, PRT advocate the following changes that will help to equip the Parole Board with the tools it will need to discharge this critical criminal justice function in a rapidly changing climate: 
I. Greater emphasis upon improving public understanding of the parole process, and the sentencing pathway more generally. This will require considerable investment in accessible and plain English content, available across a range of mediums, to explain the end-to-end journey of the parole process; the role of the Parole Board and worked examples of how decisions are made.  
II. The publication of a parole compact that sets out, in clear and accessible terms, what prisoners, victims, and the general public can expect from the Parole Board and the various agencies with a stake in the delivery of the parole system.  

III. The Worboys case has exposed a concerning asymmetry in the public presentation of parole decisions. Where the Parole Board is satisfied that risk can be managed adequately in the community considerable emphasis is placed upon crafting licence conditions that will minimise any residual risk to the public and trigger a prompt response from supervising agencies if an individual’s behaviour begins to deteriorate. It is therefore regrettable that Rule 25 of the Parole Board Rules 2016 currently prohibits the Board from publishing information, even in general terms, on the licence conditions imposed in individual cases. Such a position is clearly unsustainable and may be detrimental in the long-run if it serves to undermine public confidence in the parole system. The government should look again at the Parole Board rules with a view to empowering the Parole Board to explain its decisions to the public. For the reasons outlined    26 Hansard: HC Deb 12 December 1966 vol 738 c76

Page 9 of 14
above the government should resist pressure to publish the specific licence conditions imposed in individual cases. Instead it should follow the example set by many common law jurisdictions that publish a concise 1-page public statement containing a short overview of the case, the reasoned opinion of the Board and a high-level statement of the conditions placed upon the licence. A recent example from the New Zealand Parole Board is set out at Appendix 1. 
IV. There will always be interest in high-profile parole decisions and the Parole Board must be equipped with the tools it needs to respond to public interest and explain its decisions. But in the long-term transparency must mean more than an updated website. Internationally, the Parole Board of Canada and New Zealand Parole Board have made great strides in establishing publicly accessible information management systems that provide access to select, and quality assured information, held by the Parole Board. Levels of access differ, but this will often include the status of individual cases, Parole Board listings, transcripts from parole hearings and a summary of key decisions following the template outlined above.  

V. Since the parole review was announced there has been significant discussion of who should be able to access information about the parole process. PRT take no view on victim liaison and whether this should be managed by the National Probation Service or police commissioned victim services, but a system which seeks to fine tune levels of public access according to the status of the individual is unconvincing. Such attempts are almost certainly arbitrary and unworkable in practice. As already happens with Crown Court listings, registered users should be able to access basic information on Parole Board hearings and delays. With regards to more sensitive information, such as the outcome of individual cases, it is absolutely right that government make full use of embargoes to ensure that signatories to the Victim Contact Scheme are informed and given adequate time to digest a decision before public announcements are made. However, controversial decisions will always come to the attention of the press eventually and the approach outlined here would ensure that the system is opened up, not just to the benefit of victims and the media but also for family, friends and loved ones who often feel detached from the decision-making process. 
The changes outlined above will almost certainly require additional investment in new technology but experience suggests that greater transparency will only succeed if it is accompanied by culture change and new ways of working. Such changes are long overdue in the criminal justice system.

The Parole Board has taken welcome steps to improve engagement with academic researchers and further moves in this direction should be encouraged. Parole Board decision-making should be opened up to greater outside scrutiny and international exchange, steps should be taken to improve the quality and accessibility of data pertaining to parole outcomes and performance. Greater emphasis should be placed upon user engagement with victims and prisoners, friends and family with meaningful opportunities to feedback their experiences and recommend changes. The roll out of video-conferencing may offer a good place to start in this regard.  
6. Accountability and effectiveness 
PRT welcome the determination to learn lessons from the Worboys case and improve the transparency of parole decision-making. However, it should be made absolutely clear that transparency and accountability are inter-dependent and should be treated as such. Greater transparency invites far greater scrutiny of the criminal justice system and further moves in this direction will only succeed if the Parole Board is supported to perform that function to the highest possible standards.  

The Parole Board has always been reliant upon a complex network of delivery agencies including prisons, probation, the Ministry of Justice and other local agencies, such as the police and Local Authority, through Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA). At present this interface is not functioning adequately. A series of reports by the criminal justice inspectorates reveal a penal

Page 10 of 14
system that is overcrowded, under-resourced and in many cases failing short of basic standards of care.27 This pervasive operational fatigue has affected parole decision-making. The Prison Reform Trust information and advice service receives numerous calls from many prisoners who have not been given sufficient opportunity pre-tariff to access relevant courses, suffered from significant delays in transfers to more suitable prisons and inadequate support to help them progress through the prison system in order to demonstrate a reduction in risk. A prison system in chaos harms all those it holds, but none more so than those whose release date is uncertain. It is no surprise that rates of self-harm are highest amongst IPP prisoners.
28 
These failings have been the subject of repeated challenge. In the 2012 case of James, Wells and Lee v The United Kingdom29 the European Court of Human Rights held that detention could become arbitrary, and contrary to Article 5.1 (a right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, where there was insufficient opportunity provided for an IPP sentence prisoner to demonstrate they had mitigated their risk at tariff expiry or soon after. More recent judgements by the Supreme Court have significantly circumscribed the scope of this decision30 but there is little doubt that underinvestment in our prisons and probation services have made the job of the Parole Board significantly harder than it ought to be.  

A thematic inspection of IPP prisoners by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons31 found that many prisons did not provide good quality offender management to support IPP prisoners in their progression, including timely assessment and ongoing contact with their offender supervisors. It went on to note that not all IPP prisoners could access the relevant offending behaviour programmes which enable them to demonstrate a reduction in their risk and offered a damning assessment of current practice; 

Failures in the criminal justice and parole systems have resulted in far too many people with IPP sentences being held in prison for many years after their tariff (minimum term) has expired. They have been denied the opportunity to demonstrate whether they present a continuing risk to the public, or to have this properly assessed. IPP sentences have not worked as intended and the current situation in which many prisoners find themselves is clearly unjust. 
Ongoing issues with the timeliness and quality of parole reports, OASys scores and expert statements have also caused significant disruption to the administration of parole. In 2016/17, approximately a quarter of all parole cases were adjourned or deferred with more than one in ten deferred on the day of the hearing itself. As the Chairman of the Parole Board has noted, some are necessary to meet requirements for additional information or because of unexpected circumstances but, as he goes on to observe, ‘too many are the result of different parts of the system, including the Parole Board itself, failing to work effectively together to ensure that all of the information needed to progress the case are prepared in enough time to conclude the case on the date planned’.   

As demands for greater transparency increase so should our demands for accountability from a system that is currently falling short of the minimum standards required to deliver clean, safe, and purposeful prison environment that provides opportunities for rehabilitation and progression to robust supervision in the community. A greater emphasis is needed on responsibility, accountability and multi-agency working throughout the system; prisoners need to understand why they have been denied parole if they are to take an active role in their rehabilitation. There is little recourse against prisons that do not engage
                                                           27 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons. Urgent Notification in respect of HMP Nottingham https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/01/17jan-sofs-nottingham-letter-anddebrief-pack-for-publication.pdf 28 'Self-harming rise' among prisoners on indefinite sentences. BBC 23 June 2016. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36598560 29 European Court of Human Rights (2013) Judgement in the case of James, Wells and Lee v. The United Kingdom. (2013) 56 EHRR 12 30 R (Haney, Kaiyam, Massey and Robinson) v Secretary of State for Justice. [2014] UKSC 66. 17 Dec 2014 31 HM Inspectorate of Prisons (2016) Unintended consequences: Finding a way forward for prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection. London: HMSO

Page 11 of 14
with inspectorate improvement plans and the Parole Board has little power to compel the actions required to progress a prisoner’s risk management plan.  
There is no magic bullet to address the current accountability and effectiveness gap, but elsewhere the Trust has argued that a more strategic approach to the management of the criminal justice system, premised upon a managed reduction in the prison population, should be built upon the following principles: 
i. A local service: an acknowledgement that, even in the face of a prison population dominated by people serving very long sentences, imprisonment should be considered primarily a local service, delivering for and accountable to a local community.  

ii. Managing demand: a radical rethinking of sentencing is required. In a time of austerity, a continuing fixation with ever longer sentences is hard to understand in the absence of any evidence that longer sentences have any impact on either deterring crime or securing better post custody outcomes. The startling increase in sentence lengths for serious crime in recent years has been the single biggest factor in ensuring that the size of the prison population consistently outstrips our ability to resource a system capable of delivering a decent or effective service. 
iii. A permeable boundary: a fresh approach is needed to estate planning. ROTL has the potential to transform our idea of what a prison is able to deliver, and the extent to which the prison estate must cater for very particular needs and specialisms by bringing services in rather than sending prisoners out. A much greater use of ROTL for many more prisoners across the whole of what is called the “resettlement” estate would not only transform the rehabilitative quality of their regimes but also generate a powerful incentive to good institutional behaviour.
 
iv. Active citizenship in prison: the prison estate should be designed with an expectation that prisoners should play a more responsible role in prison life. As a design principle, this should inform how new prisons are built but it should also inform regime design, expecting prisoners to involve themselves in identifying and solving problems within the prison, and undertaking roles which reflect a commitment to the place in which they are living.. 
7. Resource implications 
There is no doubt that the changes outlined in this paper will have significant resource implications. Additional investment will be required from the Ministry of Justice to drive through a long overdue transparency agenda. However, given the significant financial pressures still facing the Department – which is expected to make a further £600m in savings by the end of the decade32 - it may be necessary to free up and reinvest existing resources more efficiently. In this respect, the parole review presents a welcome opportunity to rationalise the cases that are subject to discretionary release by the Board. 

A priority should be to revisit the value of Parole Board involvement in determinate recall cases, given that the Board is not party to the original release decision. Since Osborn and the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014, the number of determinate recall cases managed by the Parole Board has increased significantly from 738 cases in 2011/12 to 1,891 cases in 2015/16, representing 36% of all cases (see Figure 1). Determinate recall cases make up a growing proportion of Parole Board business and in recent times steps have been taken to streamline decision-making in these cases. 
• In the cases of determinate sentence prisoners who are recalled, a single member of the Parole Board will initially consider their case on the papers. During this review, which should take place 28 days after the prisoner’s return to custody, the Parole Board can direct release on the papers alone, without the need for convening an oral hearing.    
32 HM Treasury. Autumn Budget 2017 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/661480/autumn_budget_2017_web.pdf

Page 12 of 14
• The Parole Board has experimented with options to deal with determinate recall cases by way of executive release. As part of the National Parole System Action Plan, NOMS committed to increase the number of Executive releases for determinate recall prisoners, in order to reduce the number of referrals, and demand for oral hearings at the Parole Board.  • In August 2016, the Parole Board and PPCS launched a short pilot with twelve Parole Board members, to test whether a cohort of cases could be referred to NOMS to reconsider Executive Release as an option. However, the pilot ceased at the end of November 2016 due to the low impact of this work. 

Figure 1: Parole Board, Change in Case Mix  
These operational changes have not yielded the savings that were hoped for and a more wide-ranging review of determinate recall cases is now needed. In the past three decades the caseload of the Parole Board has been re-orientated towards the most serious offences and the complexity of these cases has necessitated greater use of automatic release for the majority of prisoners serving fixed-term sentences. In this policy context, determinate recall must be considered anomalous and is often unjust in its operation.
33  
The review offers a unique opportunity to revisit the management of determinate recall cases and take steps to remove these cases from the Parole Board caseload. This can only be achieved if the government moves to implement a standardised system of recall and release for offenders serving fixed term prison sentences. This would entail a fixed recall period (not exceeding a certain percentage of the overall sentence) with the emphasis upon preparing the individual for release and ensuring robust riskmanagement systems are in place to actively manage individuals in the community. A clear recall framework would promote greater ‘truth in sentencing’ and free up significant resources that could be used to pursue the wide-ranging and ambitious programme of reform outlined above.
 33 Padfield, N and Maruna, S (2006) The revolving door at the prison gate: Exploring the dramatic increase in recalls to prison. Criminology & Criminal Justice. Vol: 6(3): 329–352

Page 13 of 14
Appendix 1: A recent decision by the Parole Board of New Zealand
CORNES - James William - 14/12/2017 
Parole Hearing Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002 
James William CORNES 
Hearing: 14 December 2017 at [withheld] via AVL to NZPB Offices, Wellington 
Members of the Board: • Judge D Mather – Panel Convenor • Ms F Pimm • Ms M More 

DECISION OF THE BOARD 
1. Mr Cornes is serving a sentence of four years six months.  He was convicted of no further than 19 burglaries and a charge of possessing burglary instruments.  He offended over a period of some six months in 2014. 
2. He has no offending history in New Zealand but a significant offending history in Australia.  He has served a number of prison sentences there. 
3. The last Board in February 2016 noted the importance of Mr Cornes undertaking necessary rehabilitative treatment and deferred him for next consideration of parole for close to two years. 
4. Over that period he has completed the medium intensity rehabilitation programme (MIRP).  Questions arose as to the genuineness of his commitment to that programme, but on further enquiry it appears that he did make considerable gains.  He was recently assessed for the short motivational programme (SMP).  The outcome of that was it was not considered necessary that he do the SMP because he was able to identify his learnings from the MIRP and the consequences of his decisions. 
5. He has been working outside the wire in the piggery since April 2016.  Over that time he has gained a number of work related skills and also impressed staff with his work ethic. 
6. He has completed a detailed safety plan. 
7. Very recently he received a work offer from a dairy farmer in [withheld] who has previously employed released prisoners.  Accommodation is provided.  Community Corrections have assessed this proposal as suitable as the employer has been very supportive of other offenders in similar situations. 
8. We take into account the extent of Mr Cornes offending, the length of his sentence, and the time remaining until his sentence end date.  He reverted to crime very soon after he arrived in New Zealand but he appears to have been provided with quite inadequate support at that time.  As indicated above he has made positive progress since starting this sentence. 
9. In our view no undue risk will arise if Mr Cornes is released now subject to a range of special conditions.  He raised the need for alcohol and drug conditions, and given that there is no evidence of alcohol or drugs featuring in his offending, we will not impose conditions in that

Page 14 of 14    
regard.  A three month curfew is in our view appropriate particularly if it allows him to work around the farm property. 
10. Given the background and the risks associated with the early period following release, we consider it appropriate to obtain a monitoring report after three months.  On receipt of that report the Board can then decide whether to require Mr Cornes’ attendance at a further monitoring hearing. 
11. On this basis we direct Mr Cornes’ release on parole on [withheld].  At this point we will impose both standard and special release conditions until sentence end date only.  That can be the subject of review over the next 12 months. 

(1) To attend, participate in and adhere to the rules of a Departmental maintenance group to the satisfaction of a Probation Officer. (2) From [withheld] to 20 March 2018 not to stay away overnight 10pm to 6am daily from the [withheld] where you are living and working without prior written approval of a Probation Officer. (3) To reside at [withheld] and not to move from that address without the prior written approval of a Probation Officer. (4) To notify a Probation Officer before starting, terminating or changing your position or place of employment. (5) You are not to have contact or otherwise associate with the victim(s) of your offending, directly or indirectly, unless you have the prior written consent of your Probation Officer. (6) If required, to comply with any direction made under section 29B(2)(b) of the Parole Act 2002 to attend a hearing at a time and place to be notified to you, to enable the Parole Board to monitor your compliance with your release conditions. 
Judge D Mather Panel Convenor

http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/PressPolicy/News/vw/1/ItemID/549?dm_i=47L,5RY6Q,EGK2Y1,MJ97Y,1
https://mailchi.mp/russellwebster/hmpratings18?e=24805ba81c