IPP Prisoners Familys Campaign

Justice for Ipp Prisoners

Total Pageviews

293594

Tuesday, 13 March 2012

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill feb 12

Posted by katherine Gleeson at March 13, 2012

Email This BlogThis!Share to X Share to Facebook Share to Pinterest

No comments:

Pages

Home
Solicters whom have won cases for IPP prisoners......

About Me

katherine Gleeson

View my complete profile

Founder: Katherine Gleeson. Media interest or other contact katherinegleeson@aol.com

Facebook: "IPP "Petition.Thank you for your support.

Blog Archive

► 2024 (4)
- ► October (2)
- ► May (1)
- ► April (1)

► 2023 (3)
- ► December (1)
- ► April (2)

► 2022 (1)
- ► November (1)

► 2021 (4)
- ► October (1)
- ► May (1)
- ► January (2)

► 2020 (10)
- ► December (1)
- ► October (2)
- ► September (1)
- ► August (1)
- ► June (1)
- ► May (1)
- ► April (3)

► 2019 (16)
- ► December (1)
- ► November (2)
- ► September (1)
- ► July (2)
- ► June (1)
- ► May (2)
- ► April (2)
- ► March (1)
- ► February (2)
- ► January (2)

► 2018 (51)
- ► December (2)
- ► November (2)
- ► September (3)
- ► August (4)
- ► July (8)
- ► June (6)
- ► May (9)
- ► April (5)
- ► March (6)
- ► January (6)

► 2017 (120)
- ► December (6)
- ► November (8)
- ► October (20)
- ► September (9)
- ► August (18)
- ► July (10)
- ► June (7)
- ► May (10)
- ► April (5)
- ► March (8)
- ► February (7)
- ► January (12)

► 2016 (80)
- ► December (7)
- ► November (11)
- ► October (6)
- ► September (8)
- ► August (13)
- ► July (9)
- ► June (7)
- ► May (9)
- ► April (1)
- ► March (2)
- ► February (3)
- ► January (4)

► 2015 (41)
- ► December (13)
- ► November (11)
- ► October (6)
- ► September (1)
- ► April (6)
- ► March (4)

► 2014 (21)
- ► October (3)
- ► September (3)
- ► July (2)
- ► June (5)
- ► April (8)

► 2013 (23)
- ► November (1)
- ► October (2)
- ► August (1)
- ► June (5)
- ► February (3)
- ► January (11)

▼ 2012 (71)
- ► December (6)
- ► October (14)
- ► September (4)
- ► July (1)
- ► June (8)
- ► April (6)
- ▼ March (12)
- ► February (20)

CAMPAIGN LINKS

IPP Petition, 38 Degrees.....

learing diffrences

dyslexia group.increase awareness and understanding

Contact form or contributers

Name

Email *

Message *

Subscribe To

Posts

Atom

Posts

Comments

Atom

Comments

IPP PRISONERS INJUSTICE

Translate

Pages

Home
Solicters whom have won cases for IPP prisoners......
Sir David Calvert-Smith - Chairman of the Parole B...

End the MentaLTorture

Wednesday 28th August 2019 We would like to go through some of the problems that DPP/IPP prisoners face and the causes that generate a negative influence on both the prisoner and their family. We have divided up the stages an IPP goes through and refer to specific areas in the process that cause a detrimental impact and the flaws within the system that discriminate more against IPPs than the rest of the prison community. We wish to highlight these areas to you, the representatives of the parole process in an effort to steer you within your remit to be more aware of what IPPs face and hopefully in so doing help you balance your decisions respectively. We have therefore divided this up into four categories: - 1) Oasys reports • The problems with scoring and negativity that discriminate against IPPs • Mental health problems, a report written eleven years ago and how it identifies the problems we see today. • Mental health of IPP prisoners, one discussion on Wayne Bell. 2) The Prison Environment • Disadvantaged and suffering significant mental harm • Poor mentoring, easy to manipulate, why many give up 3) Parole • Stress of the process • Why a growing number no-longer want to take part • The change in the process that has created more worry and distress • Remaining impartial 4) The Approved Premises • An environment where IPPs are particularly vulnerable and are far more likely to be recalled 5) The threat of recall • The disadvantages of being an IPP on licence 6) Deaths Conclusion • The things that need to be done to help DPP/IPP prisoners complete their journey through the justice system. 1) Oasys report writing. A quote from PSO_2205 page 45:- 4.1.6 There is limited evidence about which factors predict the risk of serious harm. When assessing the risk of further offending, the best predictor of future behaviour is considered to be past behaviour. This is also a good starting point when considering the risk of harm. This small extract explains the negative bias within the base of Oasys report writing. It is why all Oasys reports will focus for the most part and in conclusion, about negative aspects. While it would be true to say that this is the way the reports are written for all prisoners, the impact on the assessments are particularly damaging for indeterminate sentenced prisoners. Those that choose to read these reports can be exposed to some very harmful emotions, the reports themselves can damage the mental health of the prisoner because every event that happens within the prison environment will always carry negative implications within the report. IPPs are in a hostile environment for a period of time that has been undefined. This in itself causes harmful effects, yet the issues are considerable and were well known as far back as 2008. The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health wrote a report in 2008 called ‘In the Dark, The mental health implications of Imprisonment for Public Protection.” https://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/sites/default/files/in_the_dark.pdf This report went into considerable detail about the problems this sentence had and more importantly the effects it was having on the mental health of the prisoners all those years ago when the sentence was still being issued. The report highlighted problems that are now all too clear but the problem is: even after all this time the same problems are still there. They have in some incidences been addressed but still the problems keep coming up again and again. Courses. Limited places, limited availability. For an IPP, getting on a course can have a detrimental effect on family connections as they frequently have to move to other prisons. Due to the time periods during parole hearings (18 months or so) a course could be completed early on and then as the next parole hearing looms into view, a new Oasys suddenly recommends the need for yet another course to be completed before release. There is also inequality within the ability to access a course - prisoners may be deemed unsuitable for mental health related issues. There have also been incidents that simply should not be allowed to happen. I can personally recall an over- tariff IPP being turned down for release because he was physically too ill to attend a course. He was diagnosed with leukaemia and could barely get out of bed. Regardless of the reason, his probation officer repeatedly told him that he would not be released because he wouldn’t do the course and that the reason for his refusal was irrelevant. He died from his illness, never securing release. This is also the case of Wayne Bell. Mental health is also a barrier and this was picked up on within the Sainsbury Centre report. It is even more relevant now and so I want to quote the relevant section to you on page 37:- It refers to the OASys assessment Oasys is used to assess offenders needs in ten areas relating to offending behaviour, each of which is scored during an offender assessment. These areas are: accommodation; education, training and employment); financial management; relationships; lifestyle and associates; drug misuse; alcohol misuse; emotional wellbeing; thinking and behaviour; and attitudes. If an individual offender’s score in any of these areas exceeds the set threshold, it is recorded as being a ‘criminogenic need’, which means that it is so significant it must be specifically addressed in order to reduce their likelihood of reoffending. Significantly more IPP prisoners have a criminogenic need in all ten need categories than in the total population or among life prisoners. Thinking and behaviour needs are their biggest problem area. This has been exacerbated by the prison environment and the psychological damage the sentence is having on the prisoner. This is something the report also picked up on The indeterminate nature of the IPP sentence seemed to have a significant impact on the emotional wellbeing and mental health of prisoners. Not having a release date, and not knowing whether their efforts in prison would have any bearing on the Parole Board’s considerations, had a forcible impact on prisoners’ mental health. A great many prisoners spoke of the frustration caused by indeterminacy, and many said that they had to manage the constant ‘not knowing’. This was described by one prisoner as the ‘stress of helplessness’. Another said: “I’ve seen this sentence destroy people, people going off the edge because of what the sentence makes people do.” For one prisoner the only way to not ‘lose the plot’ was to ‘numb’ himself:” Last October at the conference at The Grange (HMP Hewell), four IPPs made it clear they were struggling to maintain any real hope of release and their mental health was suffering as a consequence. We have knowledge of an IPP prisoner who has been in prison on an IPP sentence since he was 17. He is now 26 and some 6 or 7 years’ over-tariff. He already had mental health issues on coming to prison, and these have recently been re-diagnosed as PTSD, which of course often is characterised by irrational outbursts of anger. He is now really struggling mentally, even with medication, in the prison environment and the uncertainty of the IPP sentence, so for this reason too his behaviour is not perfect. Although he has never taken drugs or even smoked as a way of numbing the pain, he has said that his approaching parole hearing will be his last, as he just cannot face any longer in prison. One way or another, he is going to give up if he does not get released this time. So my point here is to make it clear that prisoners are being discriminated by the Oasys report because at no point in its assessment is it balanced against the nature of this sentence. The prisoner does not know when they will be released if ever, this causes potentially significant mental harm. IPPs either allow the trauma to overwhelm them and many have taken their lives, or they develop coping mechanisms to help release their distress. Some self-harm, some have been known to use Spice. Many immerse themselves into as much as possible to prevent the reality from bringing on the fear and despair that stalks them day after day. It therefore is unfair to judge an IPP prisoner so harshly when they get into minor skirmishes or trouble whilst within a hostile environment. But that’s exactly what the Oasys does. Any adjudication is brought to bear, even brought up in parole hearings. Negative mandatory drug tests are also pressed against them even though it’s virtually impossible to avoid inhaling the stuff. Prison officers are frequently affected by passive inhalation of Spice and passive inhalation is very likely to cause a positive result in a MDT, despite the misinformation contained within PSO 3601,8.50 page 11. The research referred to is well out of date. The potential consequences of a positive MDT affect the IPPs more than anyone as they are held potentially indefinitely. Every knock back damages them and that is why I would ask all board members to balance events within the estate with a degree of understanding. The prisoner’s behaviour within the prison environment does not represent a true reflection of how they would behave outside it. Indeed, I would argue that if one of us was to venture within their environment and act as we do out here, we would not last very long. Due to the considerable time many of these prisoners have served over their tariff dates, a considerable amount will have become institutionalised. The fear of release becomes just as daunting to them as the fear of never being released. Noted in the mental health interim report page2016 page 1, However, mental health problems lie on a spectrum, and most of this new interest is at one end of the spectrum, with far less attention given to those at the other end of the spectrum, those with the most severe forms of mental illness. Yet those with the most severe forms of mental illness have the greatest needs, and continue to be the most neglected and discriminated against. Furthermore, they are also the group who are the most likely to be subject to the influence and powers of the Mental Health Act (MHA) What can you do? • There can be occasions where the physical health of a prisoner should outweigh the need for a course to be completed. After all we are now holding prisoners well into their senior years and in deteriorating health, so promote a more balanced approach. It is far more important to get elderly IPPs out of prison, especially if they are in poor health. On licence they will be able to access better health provisions and ‘offender related work’ can be done whilst in the community. • Mental health related issues should not impede the progress of IPPs in obtaining release. Currently it does and it comes into conflict with equality rights. OMs should be asked to incorporate risk strategies to mediate the risk score as soon as it becomes known in the pre-hearing review. 2) The Prison Environment I have already touched on the prison environment and its damaging effects but there are a few more points to bring up in this area.  IPP’s are punished more harshly than any other prisoner type within the estate. There were 204,715 adjudication outcomes in 2018, up 7% We have a particularly harsh adjudication system here in England and Wales. Scotland no longer adds extra time but we do. Last year a total of 380,169 additional days were awarded as punishment and added to sentences Adjudications for an IPP are particularly damaging as they can knock them back at parole regardless as to whether the punishment warranted extra days or not. Being knocked back potentially means around another 547 days behind bars. They can do everything they can to avoid getting into trouble but the longer they are in the more likely they are to get what is called a nicking. The fear of this does not help keep them focused on being of good behaviour, instead it causes paranoia based mainly on the environment they are forced to endure. Anyone who wants to get them into trouble can and does regularly, as they are frequently in a poor mental state already. This makes them malleable to those wishing to exploit them. So they give up on trying to keep squeaky clean and in so doing resign themselves to the fact that prison is all that is guaranteed anyway, so why make their life in it harder than it needs to be. Doing jobs for free Spice, hiding contraband for free canteen. The little things that make prison life a bit easier, knowing that if someone picks on you, that you are protected and others will support you. Slowly you feel safer in prison and the thought of release brings on fear, no support and no one watching your back when you’re released.  Inadequate mentoring Prison officers are given 10weeks at best of rudimentary training, unlike countries like Norway who spend three years training their officers. How to restrain, how to turn a key, how to count, how to keep yourself safe, all important things a prison officer must learn; but how to rehabilitate, how to support someone experiencing a mental breakdown, how to instil trust, all fall by the way side. IPPs need extra support and that requires time and effort, time that our officers cannot spare. They are too busy getting movement underway from wings, supervising the servery, getting wings locked down and so on. Time to sit down and spend real time with people that need help with transfers, getting listed onto courses, getting their medication and help contacting family simply isn’t there. These are issues vitally important to an IPP prisoner; there is no default release date. Letting go of all these worries becomes easier than trying to achieve the things that are needed to comply with sentence plans. That’s why so many give up and instead focus on the only life that is guaranteed. Where I am pleased to see a significant recruitment drive regarding prison officers I am disappointed with the quality of training given. Many experienced officers have left and worryingly a large number of new recruits leave every year. This is in part to significant shortfalls in the quality of the training being given. What can you do? As the Parole Board and therefore with little or no influence on prison systems, there is little you can do but the little you can do still may make a significant difference. • Acknowledge the efforts of the prisoner when it is due but also acknowledge the harsh reality that they are attempting to do it in. • Lower your threshold of required engagement with sentence plans; instead assess whether the prisoner could do such work in the community? • Ask them whether they are willing to comply with the strict licence they will be under? Critically these are fundamentally important questions that need to be answered, ensure they have the opportunity to answer them directly. I would advocate a more positive approach to the possibility that people can adapt in a more therapeutic environment and behaviour work will be much more beneficial and relevant. We need to rehabilitate, not institutionalize. 3) Parole There are of course three parts to parole; all will be traumatic for a DPP/IPP prisoner who is desperately seeking to obtain release. They will have a copy of their Oasys and they would have already done everything they could do to achieve what has been asked of them. As the day draws closer an unwelcome report will undoubtedly be shoved under their door. A newer, revised Oasys. This rarely brings good news, there is always at least something more negative on it, whether it’s the revelation of a nicking that they thought wouldn’t show up, or perhaps a detrimental statement from an officer that has taken a dislike to them. A common update involves yet more work, another course or a revoking of the support for release by either the outside offender manager or the one within. The prospect of another 18 month knock back floods like bleach into their minds, Oasys reports delivered without support bring about suicidal thoughts and sleepless nights. Then the hearing itself, which usually arrives after days and nights of anxiety. When you look into their bloodshot eyes, what do you see? During that hearing do you consider what they have had to endure? Of course not. Your remit is trimmed to a specific requirement, an independent assessment on risk to the public. Whilst you may advise the secretary of state on a slightly wider remit, your primary focus is risk to the community, and whether any perceived risk can be effectively mitigated. But please do not prejudge even in your mind the person that stands before you. Engage with them as much as you are permitted to, and be understanding if they seem somewhat distant. Remember the environment they are in, ask them when they received the latest copy of their Oasys and confirm the date of the report. Speak to them as an equal. When you evaluate any evidence be sure to assess its reliability and where possible be sure to get the prisoner’s view. Take their evaluation seriously and thank them for it. Don’t dismiss it lightly; give them the benefit of the doubt. Life in prison is tough enough. For an IPP that is desperate to do what is needed to obtain release, this parole hearing is more than its name suggests. It’s another trial to them; they are back in the court room on trial for crimes they have not committed. In their own mind they will know whether they consider themselves a threat to society and where they are certain they are not, the frustration they will feel can be overwhelming. All they can do to convince you is courses and do their best to stay out of trouble. If only -some have told me - I could show them a polygraph, to prove to them I am no danger to anyone. After the hearing is arguably the toughest period for an IPP: will they grant me release, will I get a Cat D? Days of anguish, maybe questions from family, desperate to know, desperate to hear some good news that perhaps Dad is coming home at last. A step forward but wait they must. When it arrives it’s rare that they receive the essential support that they need. In most cases it’s a letter dumped on their bunk or pushed under their door after bang up. There in that envelope lies their fate; at the precipice of a critical high emotional event they are left alone to face the reality of your decision. A cell bell there may be but it rarely can be pushed without consequences these days. Help is not something that is openly given - especially from the night shift. Whatever the outcome, it brings on extreme emotions. One recent suicide was an IPP who had been granted release. As I mentioned before, the longer they are in the more the uncertainty of how they will cope on the outside will grow. In light of the changes made to the parole process and the rights of the victims to challenge your decision if you grant release comes yet another hurdle and potentially a devastating one for an IPP. After receiving your decision, after telling their friends and family that finally they are coming out, there is the very real prospect that you could change your mind. This potentially could push them over the edge. Any challenge to a release decision needs to be robustly defended, yet the IPP has no legal representative to help defend it. This is something you do between yourselves. Remember this is like being on trial all over again for the prisoner and they will be in a very vulnerable emotional state. What can you do? There is potentially a considerable amount that you can do in this traumatic period for IPPs. • Recognise their struggle, that this is a potentially extremely emotional time for those still determined to try and progress within the system. Confirm when they received their copy of the latest Oasys report. • Always try to involve them as much as you can during the hearing and engage with them. Give them a clear indication of when your decision will be made and do your utmost to ensure they are given support at that critical time, regardless of the decision. I would strongly suggest that you write a letter to accompany the decision ensuring it is written in a supportive way. It’s very likely they will have to face your decision alone and it can cause serious distress. • Before making your decision be more mindful of the environment they have had to endure and be more focused on giving them a chance to progress. • Where release is not granted look at the category, would a cat D help them, even when a move to a cat D is unlikely, recommending it would still give the prisoner hope that they are at least making progress. This can help them to find the courage to carry on. • When you are forced to look at a parole decision again, when you know all eyes are watching you and the tabloids are very much on the victim’s side, it is vital that you remain impartial. Defend the right to be impartial and whole-heartedly defend your decision where it is appropriate. Be mindful of the effect of this process on both the prisoner and the prisoner’s family when a challenge is made. A victim will also be affected but the views of the victim should not influence an impartial decision regarding a perception of risk that the prisoner now represents. Allowing such an influence turns the evaluation of risk into a means to inflict retribution. Please remain impartial and do not be swayed by political interference. 4) The Approved Premises A quote from PSI 32-2014 approved premises, page 7:- Point 13 Indeterminate-sentence offenders should not be released from prison until their risk of harm has reduced to a level where it can be managed safely in the community. This generally means that they will be below the normal entry threshold for AP residence. Offender managers should be careful to avoid recommending AP residence to the Parole Board unless there is an overwhelming reason to. This point is even further strengthened by point 14 Determinate-sentence offenders will be released automatically at a fixed point in their sentences, regardless of risk. APs are therefore much more likely to be suitable for these offenders than for those released under indeterminate sentences Why then when the PSI makes it clear that the approved premises is not meant for an IPP sentenced prisoner are they being used so extensively for them? The answer appears to be that they are being used as a settlement tool, a place for them to go first in order to seek more permanent accommodation even when family have offered to put them up. That however makes curfews more difficult to monitor and reduces significantly the ability to supervise them effectively - at least that’s the argument. Yet their perceived risk scores had to be low enough to be considered for release in the first place. The approved premises have high recall rates; it is where the prisoner will most likely be recalled. For a DPP/IPP prisoner, the risk of recall is even higher as they are unfairly discriminated against in the AP. A quote from Pi_27-2014 page 19. Point 6.2 When making a request to recall an indeterminate sentence offender on licence, there must be evidence that there is an increased risk of harm to the public before recall is agreed. The NPS/YOT must take into account the extent that the offender’s behaviour presents an increased risk of sexual or violent harm to others, regardless of the type of index offence for which he or she was originally convicted. Recall to prison does not depend upon a prosecution and conviction for a fresh offence, nor whether or not the licensee is to be tried for an offence The importance of perceived protection of the public has come at the detriment of fairness with DPP/IPP sentenced prisoners; their index offence should be taken into account, especially where the index offence warranted only a low minimum tariff. Sadly the problem is still further exacerbated by: - 6.4 Where the offender displays violent/sexual behaviour which in itself represents a risk of harm to the public, the need to recall in order to protect the public is clear and unambiguous. In other cases, the behaviour may not be of a violent or sexual nature, but does present a clear causal link to the behaviour exhibited in the index offence(s). For example, the offender may have resumed substance abuse or re-established contact with other criminal associates both of which might be identified as critical risk factors, then invariably recall must be sought. As many of these prisoners have served significantly long periods in prison, they may have made many friends during that time and most likely lost a lot of friends in the community. It isn’t at all surprising then that they may contact people that they know. It is also not at all surprising that some turn to drugs or alcohol when they return to the community, this could well be a coping mechanism for stress. IPPs will need support in areas such as getting benefits sorted, seeking employment and finding suitable accommodation, all of which the OM needs to be actively involved in. These are the stress areas; helping them through these areas will give them a good chance. Many are out of touch with modern technology and sadly do not get the training they need before they are released so it is vital they get this upon release. Local adult learning services can help with this and OMs need to source placements to help IPPs get back up on their feet and move forward. IPPs, like life sentenced prisoners will suffer with anxiety and may feel uncomfortable in some environments so it is vital significant effort is invested in helping them. Yet more often than not, when the IPP is clearly struggling with the pressures of life in the community, for example after the pressure is building for them to find suitable move on accommodation, this is the point at which they are invariably recalled. They exhibit behaviour that constitutes concern, irritability, short temperedness and perhaps even failing the very low alcohol limit for residency at an AP, that being the legal drive limit. There is also another problem with APs for IPPs. They are vulnerable here to bullying by other residents. The residence is populated by other ex-prisoners, which creates a prison-like environment; especially when people are up to no good. Where drugs are in use there are invariably money-related issues like borrowing. This can lead to disagreements. Where someone on an IPP sentence is known to others in the AP, this can be used as a way to control. If the IPP doesn’t want to loan someone money or hide stash they can be threatened. Most prisoners know IPPs can be recalled much more easily than determinate sentence prisoners can. It is easy to mislead staff at an AP by pretending to pass on information about another resident, and whether there is any truth to it or not a report will be written and sent to the relevant OM. So here we have a clear inequality problem which is consistent with the treatment of DPP/IPPs all through their sentence. Here though at this point is the real cruncher. They got parole down to hard work and patience yet here they see all that effort come to nothing when they are sent back. That’s why many feel they are set up to fail from the beginning. The misused Good Behaviour condition Quote from Pi20-2012 Licence conditions page 5 2.4 The “Good Behaviour” condition (listed in 2.3 as vi) is designed to cover the majority of eventualities. For example, it can be used to deal with activities which are thought to be leading to reoffending, associating with other known offenders, inciting hatred in respect of extremist offenders, and any behaviour or incident that might give rise to an increased risk of serious harm or re-offending. This is a licence condition that is used far too frequently especially on DPPs/IPPs. What can you do? Your remit is clear and the PSI is of course meant to be followed. What sadly happens, due in part to the fact that too many offender managers are young and have limited life experience, is that there is no fair assessment based on the situation in which the alleged breach of good behaviour has occurred. The Good Behaviour condition is so broad and ambiguous that it is down to interpretation. It also unfairly discriminates against IPPs. so please: - • Promote a tightened remit for the Good Behaviour Condition; you have seen yourselves at recall reviews the problems of this condition. A proper assessment should be done before a breach is made using this condition to ensure there is not undue pressure being placed on the licensee by another resident, or where the behaviour can be linked to stress, for example to achieving benefits or housing or where there is evidence of bullying within the AP, a strategy should be pursued to mitigate the problem. This could involve recalling the instigator or moving them. Where the instigator cannot be identified then alternative accommodation should be sorted for the IPP. Recall should not be an option in cases where the IPP is being bullied, or there is evidence to suggest it. 5) The Threat of Recall I have already touched on the problems of recall but it is the threat of recall that is a real handicap to rehabilitation in the community for IPPs Many have been recalled more than twice and this has a dramatic effect on their confidence in the fairness of their supervision in the community. While some accept they were to blame, many feel let down and unfairly treated. They resign themselves to the reality as they see it. With many negative experiences it is not surprising they have a negative outlook on life. The facts and figures do not help either. The Prison Reform Trust’s report: “Prison the facts 2019” states: - “There are a further 1,063 people serving an IPP sentence who are back in prison having been previously released—a 26% increase in only a year. There are 2,403 yet to be released as of this summer and 91% (that is 2,198) have served their tariff and worryingly over 50% of those had a tariff of four years or less. As already mentioned, many are spending significant time in Approved Premises and fail to find suitable move-on accommodation. Sometimes IPPs are bounced around different Approved Premises over a period of many months before finally ending up being recalled. It would seem at times a vast amount of pressure is being placed on them to locate suitable accommodation, a daunting task considering many have spent such a long time in custody and are out of touch with society. This can push many back into a depressive and defeatist state of mind. Any wonder so many are on medication for depression and PTSD? Whilst in the hostel it is vital that there is a net of support around the IPP to help them through the gauntlet of obstacles in their way. If family ties are still strong, then family should be invited round regularly and should be allowed into supervision meetings. This means planning even before release occurs, firstly identifying if family can be involved with the release plan and that will involve attempting to locate suitable accommodation near family to enable them to take a more active part during release. At the AP the IPP should be able to talk in confidence with their supervising officer; in particular, there should be more effort to ensure they feel safe within the premises. Where they are not, no detrimental consequences should affect them where they have stated they are concerned for their safety. Seeking medical support within the community The need to seek not just a GP but in a lot of cases mental health support when released should be a top priority. However, the IPP should not suffer detrimental effects, such as increasing risk scores where mental health reports are being viewed by the OM. The fact that mental health support is being sorted out should in itself show compliance, Addressing issues relating to mental health can take years to resolve and in many cases they never are resolved. It is vital that the OM is very mindful of this, it is better for them to be getting the treatment they need in the community because they will not get such support in prison. Currently there is too much emphasis on perceived risk scoring; every last bit of information appears to be being used to increase the risk scores during the AP stay. The OMs are requesting almost daily reports, wanting anything that can be interpreted as negative to be reported. This creates pressure on hostel staff which can create a bias attitude towards IPPs. What can you do? • Actively encourage OMs to seek more involvement where possible from family. Discourage the use of Approved Premises, it should not be necessary. OMs should try harder to locate accommodation and where possible utilise support from family and mitigate the risk to the community using suitable licence conditions especially where family are willing to help. • Direct OMs to provide more effort in finding the support a DPP/IPP prisoner needs within the community • Request that additional time should be given to OMs to spend actively helping IPPs to obtain suitable accommodation and where necessary seek more support through local area provisions, such as charities and sheltered accommodation. • Where the local housing allowance is not enough to secure a flat and the prisoners’ perceived risk is too high for them to live in a house share, councils can be approached to provide additional funding under the discretionary housing payment (DHP). • Discourage an over analytical approach on risk scoring whilst IPPs reside at the AP. Not every event necessarily needs to affect scoring. AP staff’s focus should be on progressing and supporting the IPP. MAPPA meetings are there to assess a more comprehensive assessment of risk, where intelligence can be used to give a more comprehensive picture. The AP provides a reason to be more tolerant. You know where they will be at set times, and whereas recall should always remain an option, it should be an absolute last resort whilst they are at a hostel. All other options should be tried first and recorded. Agenda for 28/08/19 Parole Board Meeting re parole hearings Introduction of my perspective and reasons for our agenda Continued delays/over tariff, reports not being completed and recall. Delays or deferrals we can agree only add to IPP prisoners’ frustration and the sense of not being in control of their own destiny. There are still knock backs and new targets set. Some IPP prisoners 6 / 7 years over tariff are only now having PIPE or pc courses being mentioned. The test for “proving” reduced future risk is impossible, and is a danger to health. One lad was recalled by probation for poor behaviour seeing a friend Tim Bowman from Durham was instructed not to see his friends by probation, but he was lonely and just wanted to play football. An estimated figure of 900 recalled if figures are correct and most without apparent sufficient reason to be recalled. What has been finalised in the last year in this area? In the mental health interim report page2016 page 1. It states the government remains committed to making progress on recommendations and legislative change and are confident to deliver our vision in a way that does not need legislation! The report has numbers of recommendations not followed. We feel the reality is the prison estate will need at least 10 years to make real progress. The Parole Board have duty of care and a need to push the issues with government for a change as a prisoner’s mental state is affected and like a prisoner of war, he / she does not know when the war will end, which makes it worse mentally. The report mentioned is now 2 years old. The Independent Monitoring Board raised their concerns to me by e-mail, copy if required. They are concerned for those IPP prisoners held post tariff with no clear idea of release, with hurdles, courses and moves to therapeutic centres, so that their members have raised the whole area of IPP to know what questions that they need to be asking of the OMU departments and the governors of the establishment they monitor. This suggests all is not transparent or understood, and they want to know who and what to ask if they want to help and support IPP prisoners better. Helen.bootman@amib.or.uk IPP prisoners’ process and sentence is causing frustration and suffering. There has been such a huge number of suicides / deaths that we are seriously concerned there is a flawed process for safety and health. Inside Times for prisoners has taken to asking prisoners for £10.00 each to pay for a human rights lawyer. Quote from an IPP prisoner: • “For those of us who have spent up to fifteen years in prison we have almost reached the point of no return – depending on age of course, in terms of finding work, starting a family of our own and establishing a social circle. As for the rest of us, we are already into the foothills of this whilst it is very wrong for the Parole Board to attempt to console us by stating ‘more IPPs are being released than ever before’, when historically they’ve hardly released any of us”. .https://insidetime.org/on-the-ipp-wire-july-2019/. Example of an IPP prisoner’s experience • Danny Weatherspoon from Newcastle was sentenced to serve 15 months 2007. He is now aged 31 with 2 suicide attempts. All his attempts for parole keep failing and he has been asking what more does he have to do than what he has already done finally to prove he is not a risk? Courses handed down by the judge he had done and he has not been informed of anything else he should do. The failing process has created desperation/mental health issues so that prisoners want to end their life. This is serious and will continue while the issues are unresolved. This can only mean they revert to high risk and so then the vicious circle begins again. ttps://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2019/16-august/comment/opinion/prisoners-who-have-to-prove-they-can-be-freed Question • What can you give prisoners to prove reduced risk, apart from the courses? Question • What does the Parole Board think about a pilot project to add independent judge/ magistrate to weigh up the facts at a parole hearing? If this works to help progress, then this could be rolled out more widely. Question • Are the Parole Board concerned about the sentence affecting mental health through its processes and causing frustration and suffering? • What steps have the Parole Board taken with government in the last couple of months due to the amount of deaths? Despite all the money being pumped to the prison estate along with new prison officers the death toll rises. • Does the Parole Board feel it is time for legislation change, as the death toll continues to rise and change needs to happen quickly? We feel the root cause of the problem for many IPP prisoners in the early part of the sentencing regime was that the individuals were not being assessed before being labelled as dangerous, the initial legislation dictating that certain crimes demanded an IPP sentence, the judges did not have discretion over the idea and thus was born the problem. IPP sentences were handed down with the "hope" that the system would manage the rehabilitation of the individual. We know that idea was completely miss-founded. In fact, the opposite has happened to many who remain in the system. psychologically abused, sometimes arbitrarily moved to worse circumstances just when things were looking hopeful. The small financial compensation paid in some cases does not do make up for this. To all intents and purposes they are victims. We know that the judges both here in the UK and at Strasbourg in the European Court of Human Rights have determined that IPP sentences at a certain point are unethical. But many feel message that the continued detention of persons under the IPP is a contravention of human rights. It is quite clear that the justification the government is making not to alter the status quo is that the parole board are hearing the necessary cases. However, this does not change the fact that when a person is in jail on an IPP they are serving a life sentence for crimes that do not currently attract a life sentence. To the average person this would appear to be a miscarriage of justice. That is a very serious fact and should be reiterated to any official at any stage. I think that there should be a standard text read out at any parole board hearing that states this. Statement: IPP Prisoner IPP sentence. 7 ½ years over tariff. Enhanced status throughout sentence. No adjudications. Holds down a position of responsibility in workshop. Awaiting parole hearing after 7 deferrals/adjournments (each time due to reports not being completed or witnesses not turning up.) In the meantime, OM changes four times. OS recommending release. Prison psychologist recommending release. Independent psychologist recommending release. Probation recommending open. Outcome: yet another knockback …… a worthy reason why so many IPPs lose all hope. The Parole Board stated to the BBC News in April it was handling IPP prisoner Wayne Bell’s case. We are very concerned about Wayne Bell’s mental state, the fact that he stopped walking and eating. He has suffered a mental breakdown. He has continued to state he doesn’t want to live anymore and he is too ill. This has been long standing and as a result he does not have the mental capacity to go before a parole hearing. He stopped communicating. His father said there was no justification for being over tariff that long and his courses were over-subscribed (evidence from state the same. The amount of years over tariff does not justify sending IPP prisoners insane and then to their deaths. Speaking with Wayne’s father, this has all taken a toll on him. He is now terminally ill and has a short time to live and wants to spend the months he has left with his son). AMIMB AGM 7 conference 11th October 2016 on IPP prisoners stated “the serious further offence rate is less than 0.1%. Wayne who was a kid when he entered never had a chance to date a girl or have children. Question • Can you give them answers? Prisoners continue to write about the same processing issues, some are no longer with us. We are here further years on with the same problems and this demonstrates there still is a large problem. Question • Do you have an alternative way to communicate more efficiently and in a timely manner? Does the Parole Board have a separate data base for administering the process of IPP prisoners full time? If so how many staff are involved and how do you monitor and deal with them? Who are “they”? • Can the Parole Board tell us who is managing risk? Rehabilitation Give IPP prisoners the opportunity to attend appropriate accredited programmes to address their offending behaviour in order to gain release and support with reading if necessary. Question • If the Prison Service cannot provide these resources, will the Parole Board release prisoners, as they should not be penalised? • Those who have not done the courses have no other way to prove reduced risk for release. Do you agree that a solution should be created? - otherwise there is no end bar to work towards and the bar will keep moving? There is no reason to keep a person 10 years beyond their tariff unless you are holding them for their complex disability which is discrimination. Rehabilitation means to return someone to a good, health, or normal life or condition after they have been in prison. Many have mental health issues a said 215 prisoners have come home in a box. Parole Board minutes of the 2016 meeting: The IPP family campaign was given an end date for over tariff IPP prisoners 2018 and 2020 for the complex prisoners. This gave those over tariff hope but now we are 2 years on with an approx. 2,402 IPP prisoners still over tariff and not released. Question • Do you have an end date for over tariff prisoners? • If there is no date GPS is the only option or we will have 2000 if not 1500 still inside by 2020. • In the Greenfield Tower disaster, we had 74 deaths and that led to a public enquiry. So far we have 174 IPP deaths (but the true number may be higher, due to the slow process of accessing information). Does the Parole Board feel this needs a public inquiry? The Parole Board and transparency It important if we are to have transparency that there should be clear researched figures in areas such as mental health disabilities published. Families have had to find out from freedom of information about the numbers of deaths of IPP prisoners and If the families were made aware the process was causing such mental health problems, they would have been able to support and assist their family member further. Question • How is the Parole Board going to address prisoners and families? • In the parole meeting 2016, the growing death toll of IPP prisoners was not mentioned. Was the Parole Board aware? And if so, when (if at all) did the Parole Board investigate and take action? 15TH February 2019 the new tagging was introduced to keep the public safe and to give greater peace of mind. The purpose was to reduce violence and monitor behaviour. IPP are eligible for the new GPS tagging Question • Since it was introduced how many IPP prisoners have been put on this GPS? If none, why not? This would be a great scheme for those over tariff and considering the deaths they should not have to wait, as they have served well over their sentence. Whose responsibility is it to give the GPS? If it is discretional what is the discretion based on? • Can you shorten the licence if this has not already been done, for those with learning differences or mental health problems, to stop these people being recalled over and over thus affecting their mental health further and becoming trapped and potentially returning to prison to their death? The Traffic light pilot project This was introduced sometime back to identify why IPP prisoners were not progressing and to support them going forward. The colours being green yellow and red, red being complex IPP. Why are complex prisoners left to last when there the most vulnerable? Questions • Has the pilot project been abandoned? Or since its introduction how many prisons has it been rolled out to? • How many IPP prisoners have progressed out as a result. • What was learned from the project? Was the public made aware of the pilot project being public funds? 10 prison project/ How do you reduce challenging or abuse behaviour • How do you do you achieve this if a person is on the spectrum or has mental health? Recommendations not carried out Wormwood Scrubs was twice asked 10 years apart after each of two deaths by suicide to carry out actions based on recommendations by the coroner. However, these recommendations were not met. Do you think recommendation should know longer be a recommendation but a requirement for the health and safety of prisoners? Those with disabilities such as autism and other communication disabilities, poor with social skills, repetitive behaviours, ADHD, inherited hyperactivity and impulsivity. Autism can affect behaviour in an environment which is not normal and as a result those with this disability can be put at a disadvantage especially if not diagnosed. They can also have sentences added as a result of their disability. Question • How far does training for prison officers about such disabilities go? • How often does it take place and when did it start? Supporting an argument for a legislative change • In the early part of the IPP sentencing regime the individuals were not being assessed before being labelled as dangerous. • the initial legislation dictated that certain crimes demanded an IPP sentence, the judges did not have discretion over the idea and thus was born the problem. • IPP sentences were handed down with the "hope" that the system would manage the rehabilitation of the individual. We know that idea was completely unfounded. In fact, the opposite has happened to many who remain in the system. They have been physically abused, psychologically abused, sometimes arbitrarily moved to worse circumstances just when things were looking hopeful. • The small financial compensation paid in some cases does not make up for this. To all intents and purposes IPP prisoners are the victims of torture. This is relevant, but perhaps the larger strategic aim could be clearer. What I mean is that in the big picture judges both here in the UK and at Strasbourg in the European Court of Human Rights have determined that IPP sentences at a certain point are unethical. The message needs to be that the continued detention of persons under the IPP is a contravention of human rights. It is quite clear that the justification the government is making not to alter the status quo is that the parole board are hearing the necessary cases. However, this does not change the fact that when a person is in jail on an IPP they are serving a life sentence for crimes that do not currently attract a life sentence. To the average person this would appear to be a miscarriage of justice. That is a very serious fact and should be reiterated to any official at any stage. I think that there should be a standard text read out at any Parole Board hearing that states this. I will put this idea to the law firms that I am in communication with. Whilst I accept that the IPP sentence law is not the fault of the Parole Board and that the Parole Board has previously spoken out about this law – for example, Nick Hardwick, the former CEO of the Parole Board - it still remains the fact that the Parole Board holds the ultimate decision and hence the responsibility for the situation that thousands of IPP prisoners are remaining years over tariff; alongside the practice of Offender Managers / Supervisors and psychologists and their input at parole hearings. The Parole Board may pride itself on the very negligible rate of reoffending of prisoners that they have released but the issue here today is not about the prisoners to whom they have given the decision of release. It is about the thousands of IPP prisoners that they continue to detain which is extremely detrimental, having resulted in the massive suicide of prisoners. The mental and psychological torture of the IPP prisoner, the absolute mental decline and total loss of hope and the self-harming of prisoners often results in an understandably destructive type of behaviour which takes up time and resources within the prison and contributes further to the already overcrowding of prisons and the extreme anguish suffered not just by the prisoners but the family and friends of such prisoners. The practice, issues and concerns that we would like to raise with the Parole Board from our direct insight and experience of the dealings of an IPP prisoner are as follows: “It is absurd that a defunct prison scheme can keep prisoners in jail beyond their original terms” . Ref: Kenneth Clarke who managed to abolish the IPP law Every Parole Board Panel member we want to have specific training, knowledge and insight into the history of the IPP law and the effect that this law has had on IPP prisoners. o More so with the new recruitment of Parole Board Panel members so they have full awareness of the detrimental effect of this law and any prolonged imprisonment. o Such training should include testimonies from people who have suffered from this law or from relatives or friends who have lost somebody that has died / committed suicide because of this law. o Statistics should be presented on the self-harm and suicide rates amongst this category of prisoners following prolonged imprisonment so that each Parole Board Panel member has the increased self-awareness and insight into its direct effects. o Coroners’ Inquests have already reported that the effects of this IPP law significantly contributed to the suicide of such prisoners. Parole Board Panel members should also have the full awareness that this law was passed on prisoners by default for who it was not the intention for which is well documented and that they should re-train their thinking and the labelling of such prisoners when categorised “as the most violent of prisoners” and therefore not to have any primary subconscious bias influencing their decision making The Parole Board as I understand acts as judiciary court: as such, judicial conduct and compliance should incorporate the following: - Judicial independence is a prerequisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial independence in both its individual and institutional aspects. 1. Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made. 2. Integrity is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. 3. Propriety, and the appearance of propriety, are essential to the performance of all of the activities of the judge. 4. Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the courts is essential to the due performance of the judicial office. 5. Competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of judicial office. (Ref https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/judicial-conduct-and-complaints.html) Question • How much does the Parole Board actually uphold the above principles in ensuring impartiality, integrity, propriety, equality, competence and diligence? For example: - • Impartiality - does the Parole Board already have a pre-bias with the very fact that they are dealing with an IPP prisoner, since it appears that any mention of an IPP prisoner will always happen to include the statement that they are “the most violent of offenders” when defence is made by authorities about this law or decision making is challenged, despite it already being established that this is not the case, as this law was passed on thousands of prisoners for whom it was not intended? • What are your statistics for having released determinate prisoners early who had committed similar index offences, yet these IPP prisoners have already served their tariff and then their sentence is just being prolonged, resulting in what could be an equivalent of an extended 20-year sentence if they are already 10 years over tariff, based on the principle that usually a determinate prisoner may be released having served just half their sentence? • If I’m correct and IPP prisoners are a 1% risk of committing another crime, then why are they a perceived risk? “High risk” is put into documents putting them all in the same bracket which affects the prisoner’s mental state. How can we change this? There is nothing at all that can justify such countless prisoners being for example 10 years over tariff, because this alone reinforces the fact that prolonged imprisonment is not serving any purpose whatsoever and it is actually barbaric. It is the direct decision making and ineffective action of the Parole Board we feel has allowed this. Having endured prolonged imprisonment, the risk of reoffending can only be seen as a perceived risk and not an actual risk as stated, especially so when being in prison in such a false environment does not permit risk to be assessed with any level of accuracy. Everyone in prison can be a perceived risk and we cannot tar everyone with the same brush. This assessment of risk angers IPP prisoners. Prisoners have a risk assessment and this is filled out when entering prison. Probation fill out another risk assessment near end of sentence. However, the two risk assessments are the same paper written the same way. How can this paper reflect a prisoner’s change? Often their assessment is completed by the ever-changing probation who don’t know them and have little training filling in the risk assessment. Thus it can be open to a misleading interpretation of the questions. We attended a conference held by the Church of England (Date October 16th 2018 HMP Hewell) They were people from a variety of backgrounds there, as well as Faith Geary (Parole Board). In one of the rooms along with a judge there were representatives from the probation service. One of their complaints was that the risk assessment questions did not deviate from the prisoner’s first risk assessment which was completed on the prisoner when entering prison and ten years on the prisoner was given the same risk assessment with the same questions: no deviations or options even if he had changed. She further stated she had only 2-weeks’ training and others one week’s training to understand the risk assessment and she still didn’t understand the terminology. She had to Google the meaning of the words. She said what was needed was longer training and wording to be made easier to understand. Question • If probation feel that something is not working such as the mentioned risk assessments wording, probation officers don’t necessarily report everything to their manager. Why not have Survey to support what work and does network staff can fill out independently and send without going through managers. Question • Do you think one or two weeks is enough training and what can be done to change this? I find this alarming, and to make things to make things worse they felt they did not have enough experience of the prisoner to know whether or not he was a perceived risk. They had little idea of what the IPP sentence meant or where to find the information. Another thought all IPPs were sex offenders and were a danger, as she read this in government documentation. Surely the risk assessment must have different written options to reflect change in a prisoner, rather than giving probation no option but to fill in the same form completed on a prisoner when he first entered prison? Questions • Does the risk assessment need updating to reflect change in a prisoner? • Does the risk assessment continually penalise those that are vulnerable, such as those with complex disabilities, as the assessor has no option but to fill in the option perceived risk despite being over tariff? Can we see a risk assessment document? • Why can’t the parole board have a yearly anonymous survey from management, for example, for probation staff that they must fill in independently on which options are working or failing? Offender Managers’ / Supervisors reports Questions • As a prisoner applies for parole the available evidence on him is handed into the Parole Board. Does the inmate get a copy in time to defend and argue his corner and submit a response? • Most importantly: are vulnerable prisoners and / or those with disabilities or literacy issues supported in a timely manner and how much extra help do they get for the disability (reasonable adjustments). Parole Board stated that inmates did not have to do the courses but is there a contradiction? Questions • And exactly how impartial is the Parole Board in their thinking in the management of risk? Are you governed by HMPPS who seem to be compulsive about “courses” that have to be completed and Offending Behaviour Programmes? • Propriety and integrity - How much propriety does the Parole Board really have? Are you really acting independently? • Can you give us an end date for IPP prisoners over tariff? Previously in 2016 we were told 2018, and 2020 for complex prisoners We hope as an independent Parole Board you do not allow yourself selves to be influenced by public pressure such as your recent publication of Guidance for Parole Board members on the consideration of allegations which have been made against a prisoner in the John Worboys case (this report needs to be directly challenged but that is a separate issue!). I think you may agree the current processes in the IPP sentence are fundamentally flawed: this is illustrated specifically in the situation of IPP prisoners, resulting in them being years over tariff. Equality of treatment to all We do not think the Parole Board gives the IPP prisoner a fair parole hearing or ensures equality, talking of the current practice and processes of the parole. The current Parole Board processes are inherently flawed and need to be addressed and if the Parole Board is independent then address the issues and be independent, setting your own standards and challenging the government in the legislation or the practice of other professions that may hinder this. If the Parole Board is to make the ultimate decision in deciding if an IPP prisoner is safe to be released, then the Parole Board should be absolute in being proactive to ensure that by the time of the parole hearing then all standards have been achieved in order for them to make this decision. This is definitely not happening! Questions • What are your thoughts on a pilot project for IPP prisoners.? To support prisoners going forward to add a judge or retired judge to sit on the parole panel. If the pilot project speeds up the process safely this could be rolled out to the prison estate. • How much are the Parole Board challenging or validating the reports submitted by Probation Officers also known as Offender Managers / Supervisors and psychologists? • How proactive is the Parole Board in reviewing and evaluating their own practice? And how often is this done? • Is there a process to identify flaws in reports and ensure that satisfactory impartial reports are submitted to them on a timely basis? Processes of the Parole Board that need to be addressed: I understand that the current Parole Board process is usually that when a prisoner is in their parole window the Parole Board process starts with an expectation that it takes 6 months for the organisation and preparation for the actual Parole Board hearing. In this 6 months, reports are prepared by the witnesses and the prisoner, then a Parole Board hearing will take place of which the average approximate time of a parole hearing would be about 2 to 3 hours giving the opportunity for all to have a say. It is now established that victims of a crime can have an input for the parole hearing by giving statements or being interviewed by the Parole Board panel prior to the hearing regards their concerns of any release conditions. I will challenge the above current process in relation to an IPP prisoner, in the name of Impartiality, Propriety and Integrity, Equality, Competence and Diligence. An IPP prisoner may have waited 2 years for a Parole Hearing. In reference to Steven Trudgill a Coroner’s inquest highlighted that in the prevention of future deaths there are other potentially vulnerable prisoners who are still on IPPs within the prison system at significant risk of continuing self-harm after serving their tariff since they find themselves in a system where the parole hearings that provide the only means by which they could be released are infrequent only occurring two or three years. Even though the Parole Board may say that the next application for parole should be in 12 months or 18 months, this is only for the START of the process, so the reality of the wait is rarely less than 2 years. This is unacceptable. Additionally, there is a current case where a prisoner has been waiting 10 months since he received his parole dossier and STILL has not got a hearing date. This is apparently because there are not enough members of the board available with psychiatric qualifications. This situation is bound to affect more and more IPP prisoners, due to the high incidence of mental health issues. Question • What steps is the Board taking to ensure that sufficient provision is made for ALL prisoners to have a prompt hearing, especially given the length of time they already have to wait between hearings. And let’s look at the case of Tommy Nichol whereby it is reported that he died after almost six years in prison. Tommy was transferred to HMP The Mount after spending time at HMP Erlestoke following a Parole Board review of his sentence in June 2015. The review concluded that Tommy should do further ‘motivational and psychological’ work before release. Tommy expressed frustration about this decision, and about not being able to do the required programmes ahead of the review. The next Parole Board review was not due until February 2017, nearly two years later. Therefore, the hope and expectation that a prisoner will hold for a pending parole hearing would be exceptional and then having their hopes completely dashed again would be torture, especially maybe having to wait for another 2 years for another chance. I understand that the Parole Board do not actually set the time of the next parole hearing, and it is set by HMPPS and that they can’t give the actual directions as to what needs to be done. Questions • The Parole Board come up with a suggestion as to why a prisoner should remain incarcerated but can’t give any timescale or in fact actually direct when or what they think they should specifically have to do to “make them safe” to be released by the next parole hearing. Why? • Can the Parole Board challenge the logic of the process that can only be causing delays, mental health problems and further deaths? A life can be seriously and disastrously affected by the very extremeness of imprisonment and civil liberties taken away by the power that the Parole Board has been given - especially in the cases of IPPs - extending the sentence after the tariff has been served, often this can be based on loose broad suggestions and no time scale. This brings the integrity of the Parole Board into question when taking on such a powerful position but only being allowed to do half a job; bringing the whole process into question with the prisoner who is then then left to languish in prison for an indefinite time of up to another possible 2 years until the next parole hearing. In light of the above cases any preparation for a parole hearing should be paramount, particularly so for an IPP. I can understand Tommy Nichol when he expressed his frustration about his decision and not being able to do the required programmes ahead of the review, I can only imagine how sickening it must be to hear this, having served his time. Those with mental health the family are unaware if their son daughter has adequate representation before the hearings and not being prepared is another knock back of 2 years. Those who are vulnerable need extra support than those without a disability. Mental health comes under a IC10 such they need reasonable adjustments and are the prisoners aware of this? including people with a mental illness such as schizophrenia, dyspraxia, ADHD bipolar disorder or depression. To insure there is no barriers are getting the right support. This should also include planning ahead to agree arrangements in case they become unwell and support should be reviewed regularly. https://www.choiceforum.org/docs/noms.pdf Questions • Did the Parole Board panel ever directly ask Tommy himself what his thoughts were as to what would make him safe to be released, what support he perceived he would need upon release or indeed had such as family or friends? • It is up to the prisoner to prove they are not a risk. Can the Parole Board give them the tools to do so? And make this clear to IPP inmates how perceived risk can come to an end. • Why do IPPs over tariff have to wait for a parole hearing after all the time they have had in prison doing nothing then go through suggestions to do “motivational and psychological” work again? None of the above suicides should ever have happened! The reasoning that is given to hold a prisoner for potentially another 2 years to do nonspecific “so called motivational and psychological work” IPPs are over tariff and in the most demotivating environment possible, whereby the Offender Managers then forget about them and the Offender Supervisors only see them sporadically and then it is left for these probation services to put their own interpretation on this. And let’s look at the case of Charlotte Nokes, when once again the Parole Board came up with the same suggestion of TC and psychological support after having served her tariff, thus prolonging her imprisonment, and so Charlotte became another statistic of suicide. We feel the Parole Board need to gather the evidence as to what the personal results are following their suggestions such as doing the so called motivational and psychological work resulting being incarcerated in prison for another potential 2 years, and how it actually affects the prisoner - because if they did, they would soon gather that it is having nothing but a very negative detrimental effect. Questions • Are lessons ever going to be learnt by the Parole Board following the deaths and suicides and self-harm so far following the prolonging of prison or do they still believe that this will reduce the risk of reoffending making them safer to be released? • The judicial review of Mordecei v Parole Board 4 years ago found the Parole Board to have acted irrationally. The Parole Board’s decision was criticised for placing too much reliance on an old psychologist’s report and Judge Elizabeth Cooke also considered the way in which the Parole Board had viewed the Claimant’s attempts at suicide. She stated that ‘the level of suicidal tendency among prisoners serving IPP is high. The reasons for that are obvious. If a Parole Board panel is to regard that very tendency as a reason not to transfer them to open conditions, the panel must take great care to explain why it takes that view”. Has any of this been taken on board since? Any organisation of integrity should be monitoring and evaluating the effects of their decision making. Question • Please could you provide your statistics / evaluations monitoring the decisions of not approving release and the consequent effects of these decisions with the qualitative evaluation of how the prisoner’s behaviour changed, as an evaluation on how effective your suggestions and decision making and practice are. This is what every good organisation with integrity should do. EVERY EFFORT AND THINKING SHOULD BE DIRECTED TOWARDS GETTING THESE PRISONERS OUT OF PRISON AND REHABILITATED AND INTEGRATED BACK INTO SOCIETY AND REPAIR THE DAMAGE ALREADY DONE. Any “motivational psychological work” can be achieved and supervised in the community, and also any counselling services for the psychological trauma that such prisoners have experienced following their prolonged imprisonment can be accessed in the community, making them safe to be released because of their “so called perceived risk” We feel the Parole Board is making ineffective decisions and that they can change their practice. Nothing can justify all these prisoners being years over tariff, which is proof in itself that it is ineffective. IPP prisoners are coming home in in a wooden box and will continue to do so until we act. The following is a statement is by an IPP prisoner (now released) about the mental health issues caused by the IPP sentence: - “I received an IPP sentence for armed robbery and I received a 4-and-a-half-year tariff and served 10 and a half years before they released me. The IPP sentence was born in order to protect the public from people who may cause life threatening circumstances. But the sentence itself I believe has put the public in more danger than before it was introduced. For myself and for the crime I committed I would say the sentence maybe justified. But the problem I have seen as an IPP orderly and an induction orderly in various prisons up and down the country is at the beginning April 2005 the judges, the probation service and the prison authorities didn’t understand the sentence. And they were giving out IPP sentences for crimes that didn’t warrant the sentence. Which meant the prison service were not ready or prepared for the amount of IPPs they received. So IPP sentenced prisoners could not access the courses they had to do to reduce their risk. Now the problem with this is that many IPP sentenced prisoners are not really villains and therefore they don’t have mind set to deal with an IPP sentence. So because they didn’t have mind-set to deal with the sentence they became very frustrated, angry, depressed which sometimes led them to have outbursts. Then on top of that when IPPs received an adjudication for any matter at all, the adjudications were held against us and we were told that we are not lowering our risk. And so IPPs were knocked back at parole hearings. And so once again IPPs became frustrated, angry, depressed which sometimes led to outbursts. So it was a never ending circle and IPPs could not get released. And here’s the problem the criminal justice system does not understand that the IPP SENTENCE is causing IPPs serious psychological problems which are sometimes to blame for their misbehaviour the extra sanctions. When a person receives an IPP it has a devastating effect on the IPP’s mental and psychological wellbeing. And so provisions should have been put in place to teach and explain to IPPs how to deal with the sentence to stop them from becoming mentally and psychologically damaged. Because once IPP becomes mentally and psychologically damaged they are no longer responsible for their actions. And therefore the IPP sentence is now danger of creating the risk of monsters. Because now many IPPs have lost their families, their children and their friends, and so have nothing left to live for. Which is why you hearing now that thousands of IPPs say they don’t want to go home because they have nothing to go out to. What IPP sentence has done is institutionalise prisoners. And one more thing before I sign off. The IPP was brought in to prevent prisoners from causing life threatening circumstances to the public. But some IPP prisoners have adjudications against them, which are held against them at their parole hearings. Which are not life threatening in the least. So why are they held against us?” Questions • How are the parole board ensuring that the reports by Offender Supervisors and Managers and psychologists are submitted on a timely basis? • Do they have a standardised preformat on establishing how often and when the Offender Supervisors / Managers have actually met the prisoner? It is known that the Offender Managers barely know the prisoner, having had very little contact throughout their imprisonment, especially so when probation officers are reallocated to cases only making contact just prior to the parole hearing, then submitting very significant reports as to whether or not to recommend release and making judgements on the prisoner from one meeting producing reports which can be seen as unreliable if a probation officer barely knows the prisoner. Questions • Does the Parole Board ever question when a probation officer presents a psychologist’s formulation of which I have established that such a formulation is made when the psychologist had never met the prisoner, and has no background history; but then formulates a theory and recommendation which goes against all principles of the British Society of Psychologists in the concept of a formulation? Is their opinion then influenced by it? If so, this brings into question the diligence and competence of the Parole Board in accepting such information when they should be directly challenging such practice. • Does the Parole Board question the type of recommendations that are made by psychologists and probation officers such as Offending Behaviour courses or Therapeutic Community as a reason to be detained further despite the amount of time prisoners have already been in prison, having served their tariff and longer? Does the Parole Board keep their independence and impartiality in actually questioning the effectiveness of such courses or are they again being partial and influenced by the propaganda that HMPPS may present regards these courses, but with even HMPPS now recognising that such courses are not a necessity? The Parole Board should particularly note the words of Sam Gyimah when undersecretary 3 years ago in a copy of a letter that I had sent from him to my local MP when he states that: - “It is important to remember that it is not mandatory for Indeterminate Sentence Prisoners to complete accredited offending behaviour programmes in order to achieve release. Accredited offending behaviour programmes are only one of the interventions available to help reduce prisoner's risks. Other options may include work and employment; education and training; one to one work with psychologists or Offender Supervisors; or non-accredited offending behaviour programmes. It should also be borne in mind that completion of an accredited programme is no guarantee that risk has been reduced" This is also echoed even prior to that by Dr Jo Bailey, the lead psychologist for the operations directorate of the former National Offender Management Service. She had the foresight to emphasise that “participation in offending behaviour management courses is neither necessary nor sufficient to achieve release”. She explains that the Prison Service uses seven so-called pathways to reduce re-offending as a basis for sentence planning targets of individuals: (i) accommodation, (ii) education, training, employment, (iii) mental and physical health, (iv) drug and alcohol misuse, (v) finance, benefit and debt, (vi) children and families of offenders and (vii) attitudes, thinking and behaviour. Those involved in the risk assessment and management of offenders are to apply a holistic approach through the pathways model, as a means of achieving and demonstrating a reduction in the risk of re-offending. Questions • Does the Parole Board take into consideration in their decision-making that upon release a prisoner will need the stability of an income just to ensure the very basics in life to afford food and pay for heating and visit probation/bus fare, a base that they can call home, support from family members or other support networks such as groups, structure in their life such as a job to go to or again a support group, rehabilitation services in support of any drug or alcohol issues, counselling services or community psychiatric services such as a community psychiatric nurse should they have known mental health problems or social worker to address any social issues such as housing or commissioning day-care, carers etc and so on for which there are ample resourceful services e.g Nacro, Mind, Samaritans, Shelter, Job coaches to help gain employment alongside numerous other not for profit organisations as well as the NHS and Local Authorities which should be the factors which support the decision-making of the Parole Board in risk assessment. • Is it not the duty of the Parole Board to ensure that in any reports that they have received by probation officers all these factors have been explored and provisionally organised for release - such as by a check list by the time of the parole hearing - in order to make a fair decision and not just having suggestions by probation services or psychologists such as Offending Behaviour courses. And let us once again question the so called Offending Behaviour courses or Therapeutic Communities by which the Parole Board will keep a prisoner detained further. It is a very disruptive process to get on to one of these with usually a change of prison and a long waiting list only to be told that they are not suitable for it. • Does the Parole Board check how effective these Offending Behaviour type courses are with their own independent qualitative research whereby a prisoner can honestly answer without fear of repercussions from their probation officers, especially In light of the sex offender courses found not to be working and in fact going on them making things worse? We are all aware that SOTP got abandoned, as research showed that it actually increased reoffending, but then it was replaced with a similar type course. And I seriously have to question the whole concept of a Therapeutic Community whereby it is intended for those who have had traumatic earlier life experiences to have to expose this in front of other prisoners, alongside sharing your crimes, and then to be challenged by each other. This can result in being voted out of the Therapeutic Community, thus experiencing further rejection, and if not then being expected to live in harmony together. This could (re)traumatise the most grounded of us, so if I can question this, why is the Parole Board not doing so, and why does the Parole Board want to detain a prisoner further for this despite the fact that they have served their tariff. This was one of the programmes that the Parole Board suggested alongside psychology services that never happened in the case of Charlotte Nokes - who then went on to commit suicide. Every effort and thinking should be to get these prisoners out of prison, supported and integrated back into society, by which any so called risk will be minimised. The Parole Board should be writing out with a standardised form to Probation services at the very minimum 1 year before and make it their priority to actually check that that any so called sentence plan which is SMART (the very fundamentals of any type of planning is that it is Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely) based on the above seven principles plus learning basic IT skills in preparation for this now very technological world that we live in is in action and that plans are being made in preparation for release, so that all is achieved by the time of the parole hearing: not to just to wait until 6 months before when a person is in their parole hearing window, whereby the prisoner has just been left to languish in prison in the meantime. Question • Tommy Nichol was quite right at being frustrated about his decision, and not being able to do the required programmes ahead of the review. What can the Parole Board do in order to get the justice department to recognise this?! When a prisoner is being detained, having served their tariff, with all civil liberties being taken away from them while they are in a very adverse environment, prolonging it does not help to reduce any so-called risk. Far too many parole hearings have been deferred because nothing was actually organised or achieved by the time of the hearing. Therefore, in the name of justice I see it is as the duty of the Parole Board to be proactive, competent and diligent and have the propriety to ensure that all has been prepared and achieved by the time of the parole hearing and not just to wait until 6 months to start the process for reports to be submitted. Questions • 2 years on: What current actions have been taken to resolve this? IPP prisoners are giving up hope and these unnecessary delays are disturbing, as the death toll is rising. • Do the Parole Board question whether they are giving these IPP prisoners a fair hearing; even recognising themselves that fairness may be particularly difficult to achieve, as panel hearings do not have the safeguards that are present in criminal proceedings (as stated from their report published regarding how to deal with allegations made against a prisoner). (above we suggested a pilot project adding a judge) Reports are submitted from Offender Managers who as well noted often barely see the prisoner when inside, who fail to set and implement any sort of measurable sentence plan, who fail to engage with prisoner's friends or family members, who are seen as biased and fail to complete assessments on prisoners and are more than willing to take on board any allegation as fact without any objectivity, who submit reports based on their conversations with psychologists when psychologists have not even met the prisoner and then do not even show the prisoner such reports. Despite all this the Parole Board never seem to question the validity of the reports by probation officers or psychologists. Question • Do you feel changes can be made to prevent preconception? Should each report or assessment by an Offender Manager, psychologist or other professional be confidential from each other so as not just to agree and go along with each other? It is true that the prisoner can give written submissions, but how many prisoners get guidance in this or get assistance if they have difficulty in expressing themselves, or are able to concentrate on such an important document when having to cope and contend with the effects of daily prison life or be in the right frame of mind if suffering from mental health anxiety, depression? This includes those with learning differences who have to rely on their legal representative who are not trained in all elements of mental health and disabilities whom take out the very personal element of their thoughts and feelings to their situation. Thus the only real chance for a prisoner to express themselves is in the oral hearing. I am estimating that an average parole hearing will be for a maximum of 3 hours. In these 3 hours there will be the Offender Manager, Offender Supervisor, possibly a psychologist, the prisoner and his legal representative. In this time all areas of his imprisonment will be explored, so for each person to have their say gives the prisoner 35 minus approximately to have their say… and that is supposed to be a fair hearing? This can be made worse by non-trained solicitors who are not scribes for those with dyspraxia for hidden disability who need extra time under the discrimination act Hearing of IPP prisoners with hidden disabilities dyspraxia dyslexia personality disorders schizophrenia Asperger’s including mental illness depression and dependency… Questions • How many were given reasonable adjustments at their hearing (a duty under the Equality Act) Reasonable meaning appropriate for those who are disadvantaged. • How many people were given an intermediary/ scribe at their hearing? Not to be given reasonable adjustments is discrimination, as the inmate as a consequence has a very limited say. Furthermore, prisoners at a hearing in the presence of the probation officers can find it extremely difficult, should they have concerns about their probation officer. If they do this will be held against them as it is seen as the prisoner who has the problem and not the probation officer. Question • Can the Parole Board at the very least give the prisoner an opportunity to speak on a one to one with Parole Board members with just their legal representative and intermediary present? This is so that the prisoner can express themselves more freely, not in the presence of their probation officer and supervisors, and hence being less intimidated by them. Then the Board can ask the prisoner directly what actually their perception is of their situation such as prison life and hopes for the future? So whilst victims of a crime quite rightly can have a say regards the effects of a crime and future considerations regarding the release of an offender at a parole hearing either in the form of a statement or a presentation by themselves to the Parole Board then can we have equally a witness in support of a prisoner’s release such as family and friends. They should be able to have a say regards the future support in ensuring that a prisoner can be safely released into the community either in the form of a statement or a presentation by themselves to the Parole Board? It had to be publicly highlighted in cases such as James Ward or Wayne Bell who have very supportive families who could ensure and support a safe release into the community but family was not asked to come to their parole hearings and they had to go public for any sort of action to be taken and to be heard. Lord Forming (white paper) stated too that family and friends who can support release should very much be a part of the Parole Board process; but it appears to be extremely difficult to do with no encouragement or advice on how to have some sort of input. Question • So does the Parole Board think that it is fair when just the victims have the opportunity to have a say about release conditions? What can the Parole Board do to make this balanced/fair? Changes have been introduced within the prison system that a prisoner now should have a key worker prison officer allocated to them during their imprisonment. It should be mandatory or an option for the prisoner that this prison officer can sit in and have a very significant input at the parole hearing. I firmly believe that the prison officers who are in everyday contact with a prisoner observing their daily behaviour, conduct and knowing the prisoner through consistent contact are the people that have the better knowledge of the prisoner as opposed to the probation officers who have a very significant say at a prisoner’s parole hearing yet have had barely seen them and then totally misrepresent the prisoner. If the key worker is there, they can directly challenge what the probation officer says. Question • Can it be added on documentation that this can be the case? Also the prison officer has the full awareness of the daily challenges faced by prisoners and the very reality of prison life and prison culture to be taken into consideration, of which probation officers don’t seem to have any idea. So if all the above was taken into consideration then just maybe the prisoner might get a fair hearing. For every family member or friend of an IPP prisoner who has committed suicide, they have to live with this for the rest of their lives, which is something I can only imagine that they will never get over and the injustice of it will eat away at them for the rest of their lives. Detention of IPP prisoners Question • How does the Parole Board as an independent body review the lawfulness of detention after an IPP prisoner’s period of punishment? Can you give us some example? With reference to the briefing paper no:6086 6th June 2019 As at March 2019, approximately 2,400 prisoners were still in prison serving IPPs. The majority are beyond the expiry of their original tariff. A further 1,063 were in prison at that time, having been recalled. Question: • Of those 1,063, how many were recalled due to a new conviction? (To clarify, a conviction for an offence done whilst on licence in the community) The Parole Board, in evidence to the Justice Committee’s inquiry on the prison population, suggested the following concerning IPPs: - two options which are already open to the probation service:  the suspension of supervision after four years of good behaviour on licence,  the cancellation of the licence after ten years’ good behaviour, upon application Question: • How many DPP/IPP prisoners have benefited from the probation service suspending their supervision after four years of good behaviour on licence? Question: • How many DPP/IPP prisoners have benefited from the same after ten years of good behaviour on licence? Question: • Although there is no requirement to do so, how many probation officers make assessments of perceived danger (Oasys Reports) without visiting the IPP prisoner in person? (Answer ideally as a percentage) ‘Of IPP prisoners who have never been released, the majority (91% at the latest count) have passed their tariff expiry date. Of these, around two thirds (64%) were more than 5 years over the expiry of their original tariff length. One in five (20%) of those who were over their tariff length were over it by 8 years or more’ Question: • What is the total expenditure concerning over tariff detention on all DPP/IPPs to date? Question: • How many DPP/IPPs have died in total whilst in custody and of those how many were over the minimum tariff term? Question: • Of those who have died in custody, how many committed suicide? Last know figures FOI IPP deaths from MOJ 2005: 0 2006: 2 2007: 7 2008: 9 2009: 7 2010:12 2011: 14 2012: 10 2013:12 2014: 19 2015: 16 2016:11 2017: 26 2018: 22 2019: ? Total deaths:167 FOI IPP suicides from MOJ 2005: 0 2006: 2 2007: 4 2008: 4 2009: 3 2010:3 2011: 5 2012: 3 2013: 6 2014: 7 2015: 4 2016: 3 2017: 7 2018: 5 2019: ? Total deaths: 56 Question: • How many of the DPP/IPPs released have been sent to an Approved Premises upon release? Question: • Of those DPP/IPPs sent to Approved Premises upon release, how many as a percentage spent longer than 3 months there? Question: • Of those DPP/IPPs sent to an Approved Premises upon release, how many as a percentage were recalled whilst residing at the Approved Premises? Question: • What are the three most common reasons for recalling an DPP/IPP prisoner whilst residing at an Approved Premises? (Where this was for a licence condition please specify which one) Question: • How many DPP/IPPs have committed suicide whilst on licence in the community? (Where this has occurred? Please clarify if they were residing at an Approved Premises at the time) Question: • As the Parole Board commented on the success of Warren Hill’s program in the June 2018 meeting and the fact that two other prisons had been found to roll out Warren Hill’s program, can the Parole Board give us an update and provide us with the DPP/IPP release rate for the prisons concerned? Question: • Can you please clarify how many DPP/IPP prisoners have currently withdrawn their involvement in the parole process? Question: • In relation to the last question, can the Parole Board explain what happens in this case? (To clarify, as the Parole Board’s focus is based primarily on the perceived risk the prisoner poses, can the Parole Board still direct release where the prisoner has withdrawn from taking an active part in the parole process) Question: • If the answer to the above question is yes, can the Parole Board state in how many cases it has had to make an assessment in this situation and clarify if release was granted or not? Future statistics Question: • Can the parole board give a prediction based on the current release rate and recall rate, with the assumption there is no change in the test for release or legislative change, how many DPP/IPP will still be in the criminal justice system in 2025? Question: • Based on the current trend concerning release and recall and the above mentioned assumptions, can you supply a prediction on when all DPP/IPPs will complete their progression through the justice system? APPENDIX 1: Wayne Bell Subject: Re: Wayne Bell. Mental health Wayne Bell A3484AC Address, Ranby Prison HMP Retford, Nottingham DN22 8EU Wayne has been ill for 2 years. The family had noticed Wayne deteriorating whilst asking for the mental health team at the prison to assess him, because Wayne was acting very strangely: calling the house regularly, saying irrational things. That was the time my mum was calling the chaplain at the prison, asking him to keep an eye on Wayne. He was also calling the house phone and laughing down the phone. This was out of character for Wayne. The family called the prison numerous times and had very serious concerns and the sister was worrying a lot about her brother, to the point she was begging the prison staff to re assess him for mental health issues. They continuously told me he was fine and that he was okay which led my mum and dad to have sleepless nights. Several months later my mum and dad got a call from St George's Hospital to say Wayne had been found in a catatonic state. Why was he found in that state, when we had already brought to their attention that Wayne wasn't fit mentally? St George’s Hospital called the family and told them to prepare themselves for what they were going to see. He has lost all of his weight and he is unrecognisable. The family was getting different accounts of his state. There seemed to be no accountability. Question • If Wayne does not have the capacity to act independently, what other method is left for him? Question • Does the Parole Board have a plan to rehabilitate? What does that need to be for Wayne or is he stuck in a hospital forever? Question • Why has Wayne never been given an intermediary or support for his mental health? Question • Why has Wayne been sent to a prison hospital with no contact from family solicitors or any representative? Question • Is there an option to place Wayne on tag, like the system the previous Justice Secretary said he rolled out to keep public safe. Can that be done for Wayne? Question • Is the Parole Board aware that Wayne has finished all his courses and programmes but is massively over his sentence and keeps on being punished? Question • Wayne has finished his courses and programs but how does that help him in his condition? • When will Wayne ever get a release date? Question • 13 years later: now he is in hospital, have you got a detailed plan for his rehabilitation or are you just playing it by ear? The sentence he has served has made him vulnerable rather then helped him. This sentence has caused Wayne serious mental health problems, as well as cutting him off from his family. The hospital can’t tell us if he is okay, if he has eaten and if he’s coping, as when Wayne was sentenced we weren’t really informed about this sentence. We believed Wayne would be home in 2 years. We are asking the Parole Board for his release. In the past Wayne had become a victim of others because he's vulnerable. He has had to defend himself and has likely had infringements; but that should not have caused a person to be over tariff by ten years. There seems to be no accountability to his case. Due to breach of privacy issues the family is cut off from him and they don't know where they stand. They are concerned that Wayne will come home in a box, and that prison is not the correct place for him. Wayne has been in the media and the media have spoken to the Parole Board The reply was, “We are looking into his case”. This was a month or so back. Wayne does not know it yet but his father is terminally ill with cancer. He does not have long to live. His father wants to spend the little time he has left with his son. I have enclosed his father’s medical certificate stating his illness. Appendix 2: Conference notes Tuesday 16th October 2018. The Grange, HMP Hewell Worcester Diocese Criminal Justice Affairs Group: IPP Conference Searching for a way out: the dilemma of the sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) Video: the voice of IPP prisoners • There were 4 prisoners interviewed, all over tariff, having served between 8 and 12 years already, although the tariffs were 3 years or less. • The main points which came across were that their mental health had suffered severely - at least one confessed to having suicidal thoughts, and all clearly struggled to retain any hope of release. • The subject of recall came up, and the opinion was that recall was put into practice far too often and for insufficient reasons. Facts and figures: Professor Jackie Hodges (Univ. of Warwick) • The criminal justice system in the IPP sentence moved from a focus on what has already happened to a “preventive” focus, which meant a focus on the risk of reoffending. • In 2017 there were still 3,350 IPPs still in prison. The Parole Board and IPPs: Faith Geary Key aim of the PB: “Maintaining fairness and increasing confidence in parole” • The original Parole Board over 50 years ago was merely an advisory body, but is now an independent court-like body which orders the release of prisoners. Its sole focus is risk. • In 2015 it had significant problems, including a huge backlog of hearings, with too few Parole Board members for the number of hearing requested. • An increase in funding allowed extra PB members to be appointed. • The introduction of electronic information sharing also improved the efficiency of getting information to PB members. • The PB is trying to avoid deferrals on the day and to keep the overall deferral rate down, as well as react more swiftly to recalls, so that recalled IPP prisoners do not necessarily have to wait for months before having a chance for release again. • In March 2018 there were about 2 300 IPP prisoners still in custody. • The most difficult group of IPP prisoners to assess for release are those with mental health or other specific needs, because of the necessity of finding appropriate specialist support in the community. • The John Worboys case has had an impact on public and governmental confidence in the PB, despite the new initiatives such as greater transparency about the PB decisions. • However, the PB cannot bow to public opinion. It must always make its decisions based on the facts available at the time of the hearing. Probation and IPPs: Sarah Chandler Key issues: 1. Expediting release of IPPs 2. Striking the balance between desire to release more IPPs, and need for public protection Expediting release • Get a sentence plan early in the sentence to get IPP prisoner ready for parole (IT’S A BIT LATE FOR THIS NOW – THEY ARE ALMOST ALL OVER TARIFF!!) • Get individuals into the right prison for release – where possible prioritise IPPs for treatment • Increase the involvement of psychology colleagues in reviewing core files and designing treatment pathways • Offer increased access to electronic monitoring to give Prole Board confidence in risk management plans post-release • Case File Reviews (CFRs) – these are NOT risk assessments, but are to be completed on all prisoners who are over tariff, have had 2 parole hearings, are currently in closed conditions and have not progressed to open conditions after 2 or more post-tariff parole reviews. These prisoners should be prioritised by probation. • Improve availability of suitable risk-assessed accommodation, including follow-on accommodation after approved premises • ETE (Education, Training, Employment) opportunities are vital, as well as access to mental health services NOTES • Changes in the Probation Service mean that offender management is moving more directly into the prisons. This restructuring is also likely to mean that there will be frequent changes of probation officer during an offender’s sentence. This means that probation officers will have to work much harder at getting to know the prisoner and establishing a working relationship built on trust, much more quickly. • On a more positive note, it was emphasised that probation can now change the licence conditions and do NOT have to recall prisoners for breaches. Probation can make the conditions more or less severe, depending on the individual. It remains to be seen how well this will work in practice. IPPS – hope for release: Ryan Harman, Mark Day, Marc Conway (Prison Reform Trust) Marc Conway, an IPP prisoner released just a few days before the conference, spoke movingly and vividly about his experiences. He is now working for the PRT. Mark Day spoke about the work of the PRT and about the situation of IPPs.  2,745 IPPs in prison in March 2018.  2,434 have already served their tariff – almost 90%.  Over 1,500 (nearly two-thirds of those over tariff) had a tariff of 4 years or less. • Release rate for IPPs have increased sharply in the past 3 years. • Even so, the current Parole Board predictions foresee around 2,000 IPPs still in custody in 2020, with the most optimistic prediction being around 1,500. • A reduction below 1,000 by that date would require legal intervention. • Rory Stewart (Prisons minister) has said there is no prospect of legislation. • Recalls are also a huge problem – the rate has gone up, and over 900 IPP prisoners are currently in prison on recall. • One recall issue is that if a person makes an allegation about an IPP prisoner on licence (even if it is untrue), the prisoner can be recalled. Mark shared quotes from IPP prisoners which showed the mental stress the sentence has on them. Self-harm incidents per 1,000 prisoners for 2017:-  Lifers 403  Determinate 421  IPPs 872 Policy options for the PRT • Convert IPP sentences to determinate sentences, starting with the shortest tariff first • “sunset provision” – all IPP sentences become determinate at a fixed point • Change the release test • Change the licence period • Encourage a paper review for recalled IPPs • Change criteria for recall The PRT has already produced research on the IPP sentence (“Unjust Deserts: imprisonment for public protection”), and has given evidence to the Justice Committee, as well as trying to raise public awareness of prison issues generally. Future research could include reasons for IPP recalls – why are they so high. Workshop - Hope and Opportunity: building a rehabilitative culture with people serving indeterminate sentences: Dr. Jamie Bennett, Governor HMPGrendon and Springhill HMP Grendon is a series of therapeutic communities where prisoners are encouraged to play an active part in the process of their own change and that of their peers. Very high proportion of IPP prisoners. Prisons with opportunity IPP prisoners often have multiple needs and vary significantly in terms of their offences, background and ability to engage with interventions in order to reduce their risk. Only 26% of IPP prisoners reported that a member of staff had helped them prepare for release. KEY QUESTIONS • Do we understand the needs of IPP prisoners? • What services should be available to people serving IPP sentences? • How can we provide these services? • How can we ensure the right people access these services? Prisons with hope • A rehabilitative culture is one where all the aspects of our culture support rehabilitation; they contribute to the prison being safe, decent, hopeful and supportive of change, progression and stopping offending. A rehabilitative culture is not about being nicer to people but about working in a way that supports the evidence for what can help reduce offending. • Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Enabling Environments award: quality mark given to those who can show that they are achieving an outstanding level of best practice in creating and sustaining a positive and effective social environment. • Places where positive relationships promote well-being for all participants • Places where people experience a sense of belonging • Places where all people involved contribute to the growth and well-being of others • Places where people can learn new ways of relating • Places that recognise and respect the contributions of all parties in helping relationships 2 prisons have the full award (Springhill is one), others have units with the award. KEY QUESTIONS • What regimes and environments are best suited to support people serving IPP sentences? • How can a sense of hope be sustained in conditions of indeterminacy? • How can hope be sustained in the face of challenges, frustration and rejection? Grendon tries to provide hope in a number of ways:- • Collaborative relationships e.g. staff selected (with prisoner participation in the selection) for their ability to work positively with prisoners, ongoing support supervision and training for staff, shared social spaces such as eating together • Nurturing positive self-identity e.g. use of first names as a norm, opportunities for meaningful activities, prisoner involvement in organising, hosting and delivering events • Safety and security e.g. community and peer involvement in establishing rules, resolving conflict and responding to rule violations • Installation of a sense of hope e.g. celebrating successes of individuals through certificates, letters and ceremonies, inviting model residents and ex-residents to give testimony of their individual journeys Plenary: Robert Jones, Archdeacon of Worcester Some suggestions for possible ways forward to improve conditions for IPP prisoners – while not forgetting the need also to focus on the political aim of getting the sentence abolished • Possibly have a wing just for IPP prisoners? • Longer visits to enable prisoners to maintain family relationships • Phones in cells • Less moving around Conclusion Currently we are failing to rehabilitate these prisoners. We are also guilty of not given them a fair chance. While the protection of the public is at the top of your list, it should not cloud your efforts in doing everything possible to achieve rehabilitation and re-integration. Thank you for taking the time to listen to the problems that some of the most vulnerable people in our society face. Please continue your efforts to improve the system. If we leave things the way they are there will continue to be hundreds of IPPs still in the justice system ten years from now. That is something we cannot allow to happen. Sourced information https://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/sites/default/files/in_the_dark.pdf https://www.justice.gov.uk/offenders/psos https://www.justice.gov.uk/offenders/probation-instructions http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Bromley%20Briefings/Prison%20the%20facts%20Summer%202019.pdf http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/PressPolicy/News/IPPs https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/805271/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-q4-2018.pdf https://insidetime.org/adjudication-for-a-failed-mandatory-drug-test/ https://www.choiceforum.org/docs/noms.pdf The independent review of the Mental Health 2018 Acthttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/703919/The_independent_Mental_Health_Act_review__interim_report_01_05_2018.pdf?_ga=2.104197952.1366448145.1566741599-2083423716.1564249037 Katherine Gleeson, Ann Hortion, Jeremy Owen , Siobhan Ryan.- Founder: Katherine Gleeson IPP Family Campaign, Blog/blogger group, IPP Petition Facebook

katherine Gleeson. Powered by Blogger.

Total Pageviews

Tuesday, 13 March 2012

No comments:

Post a Comment

Pages

End the MentaLTorture