Prison Population 2022: planning for the future.>Recent deaths at HMP Nottingham 'symptomatic of wider prison crisis'.> Whitewashing the Probation Service.>Solicitors with knowledge of Determinate cases, recall reviews ...
20 October 2017
The Justice Committee has launched a new inquiry into the prison population, to find out:
Who is in prison and who is expected to be imprisoned over the next 5 years;
The reasons prisoners are there, why they stay there and why they return;
Whether the MoJ and prison services currently have a credible approach to accommodating the changes anticipated.
Over the past 15 years the prison population has risen by 20%. Since May 2017 it has unexpectedly risen by 950, and further increases are expected in the next 5 years.
Pressures on the prison population are driven by a number of factors including sentencing policy and practice; policing priorities; the parole system; and, community based provision including mental health, alcohol and drug treatment services.
At the end of September 2017, 71 of the 117 prisons in England and Wales were overcrowded.
The make-up of the prison population is changing: the numbers in the youth justice system have fallen by 70% in the past 10 years, but David Lammy found in his recent review that the proportion from BAME background has increased.
The increase in older prisoners is expected to continue, drive partly by increases in convictions for historic sex offending.
England and Wales has the highest imprisonment rate in western Europe.
Chair's Comments
Committee Chair Bob Neill said:
"Pressures on the prison population are driven by a number of factors including sentencing policy and practice, policing priorities, the parole system, and community based provision including mental health and drug treatment services – as well as wider issues in society. We aim to find out what has led to the current size and make-up of the prison population, and scrutinise the MoJ's plans for the safe and effective management of prisons over the next 5 years."
Terms of Reference
The deadline for written evidence is Monday 4 December 2017. You can submit evidence using the written submission form.
The evidence received will inform the Committee's future work, including fuller consideration of how best to manage the prison population up to 2022.
What is the current and projected make-up of the (sentenced and unsentenced) prison population in England and Wales up to 2022?
What has led to the current size and make-up of the prison population?
To what extent are these factors taken into account in prison population projections?
What is the Ministry of Justice's existing strategy for managing safely and effectively the prison population?
What are the implications of the likely rise in the population for the resources required to manage prisons safely and effectively?
What impact does reducing reoffending by existing prisoners and those under the supervision of probation services have on the size and make-up of the prison population?
What is Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service's current capacity to manage safely and effectively the prison population?
Government Responses to Justice Committee reports on prisons
The Justice Committee in the 2015-2017 Parliament conducted inquiries into Governor empowerment and prison performance, and on the Prisons and Courts Bill. The latter fell at the dissolution of Parliament and is not expected to be re-introduced as prisons were not included in the Court Reform Bill planned for this session of Parliament.
Please see below for Government Responses to both these reports:
Recent deaths at HMP Nottingham 'symptomatic of wider prison crisis'
Concerns raised about staffing levels and stability at east Midland jail before deaths of five new prisoners over four weeksThere have been 10 deaths at Nottingham prison in the past two years, compared with four deaths in the previous 10 years. Photograph: Christopher Thomond for the Guardian
Five newly arrived prisoners have died over a four-week period at Nottingham prison, where serious concerns have been raised about staffing levels in reception areas.
Ten
prisoners have died in two years, compared with four deaths in the
previous 10 years. Campaigners say the deaths are symptomatic of a
prison system in crisis.
Four of the five inmates who died in
September and October are believed to have taken their own lives. The
death of the fifth prisoner is believed to be drug related.
Nottingham is a category B local prison, with a capacity of 1,060. It
takes prisoners from courts in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire.
In its annual report, published in July, the independent monitoring
board (IMB) at Nottingham expressed concerns about the 30% increase in
prisoners arriving at the prison. The board said it had been told the
number of staff for the reception area would be raised because of the
increase in new arrivals, but the resources were not allocated.
The report said staff were rushed, which created an increased risk to
prisoners in the reception, first night and induction areas. Four of the
five latest deaths occurred in the first night centre and induction
wing.
The IMB said it remained “concerned about the pressures on
reception and the inherent risks to prisoners when vulnerable upon first
entry to prison”.
Last year prison inspectors also raised concerns about new prisoners at
Nottingham. In particular, they said first-night substance misuse work
needed urgent attention. Inspectors also raised concerns about the lack
of stability at the east Midland prison, noting there had been five
governors in four years.
Seven prisoners have died at Nottingham so far this year. There were three deaths in 2016.
Deborah Coles, director of the charity Inquest, said the sudden and
significant increase in deaths at Nottingham were deeply concerning and
symptomatic of a prison system in crisis.
She said prison
inspection and monitoring bodies had raised concerns about the regimes
and conditions at the prison and that these issues had been left to
reach crisis point, with tragic consequences.
“The
fact these deaths occurred within days of arrival at the prison when
prisoners are known to be most vulnerable, raise concerns about the
processes for identifying and managing risk,” she said.
“The only
way to halt the increasing and morally indefensible tide of prison
deaths and violence is to dramatically reduce the prison population,
invest in community alternatives and transform the nature and culture of
prisons, so they become places of last resort, where rehabilitation is
more than a rhetorical fantasy.”
A prison service spokesperson
said transforming prisons into places of safety was its top priority and
it was tackling the challenges head-on.
“HMP Nottingham is
working closely with health colleagues to increase the support available
to vulnerable prisoners and is increasing staffing levels which will
boost safety and stability at the prison – an extra 40 prison officers
have recently been recruited.
“The prison has put a number of
measures in place to tackle the threat of drugs, and across the estate,
we are also taking unprecedented action to stop the supply of drugs,
including training over 300 specialist drug dogs and making it a
criminal offence to possess psychoactive substances.”
On the probation Blog
An attempt to help explain the mysteries and magic that are part and parcel of 'probation'.
Monday, 16 October 2017
Guest Blog 67
Whitewashing the Probation Service
For
the past few years we’ve all been struggling with the changes to the
Probation Service. While we’ve been preoccupied there’s been quite a few
questionable policies and procedures implemented under the radar in
both the NPS and the CRC’s. The strategy that is most insulting to me is
the increasing policisation and prisonisation of the Probation Service.
I may have just made these words up, so by ‘policisation’ and
‘prisonisation’ I mean the turning of Probation Officers into police and
prison officers, or more accurately, turning us into the lackeys of the
police and prison services.
I could start with MAPPA and the
subservient position probation can at times have at these meetings in
comparison to the police and other professionals, particularly at Level 3
meetings. But I have to admit to quite liking MAPPA meetings because
probation still has a say and we all know the meetings would be
pointless without us. I don’t know why IOM and the police have adopted
our ‘Offender Manager’ title. I don’t really mind because I’ve never
referred to myself as an ‘Offender Manager’, which is quite a silly
title since our ethos is historically grounded in rehabilitation,
anti-labelling and generally being quite nice to people on probation to
stop them being ‘offenders’.
We’re
under constant pressure to return people to the Court, recall to prison
and oppose release based on ‘risk’, but we all know we’re not really an
enforcement or risk management agency either. We seem to have put aside
encouraging individuals to be honest, and instead we’re using polygraph
tests and drug tests to trick and force individuals to disclose
information. I even saw an article on the NPS intranet recently
introducing the drive to encourage probation staff to monitor each other
and ‘snitch’ on 'corrupt' probation colleagues (I’ve since stopped
taking home stationery!)
All these things above we’re getting
used to, it’s every day stuff, but there are two things that are really
beginning to irk me most. The first is ARMS assessments which we’re
forced to complete on all on probation offenders convicted of sexual
offences. Now I’m a jobsworth so I was amongst the first in my office to
complete the mandatory ARMS (Active Risk Assessment) training and have
completed one for every relevant individual on my caseload.
I
haven’t done any “required” joint home visits with the police, I can’t
bring myself to voluntarily sit in a police car, marked or unmarked, nor
am I willing to be part of a police interrogation because I’m a
Probation Officer not a police officer. While ARMS may benefit the
police ‘public protection units’ who are the only ones that actually
read it, it is a pointless exercise for probation staff. I’ve completed
my appraisal-linked ARMS quota and I can safely say that ARMS is of no
use to us, particularly as I’ve already completed on each relevant
individual an induction, OASys risk assessment, home visits and multiple
supervision sessions, and more.
The second thing that irks me is
Vetting. I understand the need for CRB checks, DBS checks and all that
sort of stuff, but this process has taken such an intrusive form with
the implementation of Vetting to police standards. For those that
haven’t had the privilege yet, according to the long since implemented
PI 03/2014, while we were preoccupied, this means;
“Once
staff transition to the NPS, they will be subject to the same vetting
checks and requirements as other HQ personnel. Where NPS staff apply to
move to other NOMS HQ and prison locations they will be subject to a
full security vetting check. If NPS staff move to another role within
NPS, vetting will only be required if they are subject to a higher level
of vetting for the post. This will be a minimum level of Enhanced Check
2, but may be higher dependant on the level of risk and type of work
undertaken.”
Now
you may be thinking “well I’m not changing role at the moment so I can
file this PI in the trash with all the other important NPS
instructions”. Well you can’t because our probation directors and unions
have allowed Vetting to be forced upon us. Firstly, Vetting now
replaces CRB/DBS checks now we’re part of the (un)civil service.
Secondly, all ‘offender management’ staff are required to use the police
Visor database as a “reasonable management instruction”, and that’s
whether to want or need to use it or not. For this privilege we all must
be vetted first, and the Vetting itself is a “reasonable management
instruction” too.
“ViSOR
users are now subject to additional Vetting requirements by the police
who as data owners require NOMS staff to undergo Non Police Personnel
Vetting (NPPV) at level 2 or 3 depending on access rights.” PI 03/2014.
So
there we have it, even though we don’t need Visor and it is not
necessary for all probation staff to have access to what is actually a
piss-poor database. The probable truth is that we’re being vetted simply
because police officers and prison officers are vetted, and the
Ministry of Justice probably see it as a way of further sidelining
probation and speeding up our extinction. If any of you, like me, have
been through this process already you’ll know how intrusive, stressful
and worrying it actually is, and that you can fail it.
The
minimum level of Enhanced Check 2 that will being forced upon us
includes PNC and local police intelligence checks, checks on other
non-conviction databases and Special Branch for applicant,
spouse/partner and co-residents (including parents and siblings);
military and Professional Standards checks on the applicant if required;
Credit Reference checks on the applicant, including history of credit
card refusal, debts and CCJ’s. I’ve seen a circular stating this may
adversely affect a small number of staff but I think this could affect a
significant number of probation staff, some with past criminal records,
some with family members or spouses with criminal records, and some
with bad credit histories past and present.
So what do the unions say? Not much, well this is Ian Lawrence’s (Napo General Secretary) position on Vetting;
“Unless
the reason for failure of vetting is such that a disciplinary case is
warranted then no member of staff will lose their employment as a result
of vetting failure. Anyone failing the vetting process would be
redeployed or have a restricted caseload or other adjustments to allow
them to continue to work”.
I’m
going to end by saying that the Probation Service used to represent
rehabilitation and change. Our wealth was largely in the diversity of
our staff group which included people from all walks of life, ranging
from rich-gits and Tory-boys sitting next to ex-soldiers, ex-miners and
those from beyond the fringes of regular society, including the poor,
the underclass, recovered addicts, reformed gang members, and the like.
This all now ends because once again our probation bosses have bowed to
the will of the Ministry of Justice, this time putting police procedures
and prison logic over probation staff and practice. I wonder if Vetting
is why the ex-offender mentors and volunteers have disappeared from the
NPS?
On a side but related note, the recent David Lammy Review
told us that certain groups are more likely to be ‘over-policed’,
stopped and searched, prosecuted and therefore have criminal records. He
concluded as part of his solution that the inequality should be
addressed and even that criminal records should be sealed to help former
offenders combat discrimination and find work.
I
watched our Prime Minister vow to end the racism and discrimination
that certain groups face in every walk of life, including the CJS and
workplace. I am sure the Ministry of Justice will be tasked to get its
house in order because of the bias and discrimination in the justice
system. While the MoJ and the UK in general is trying to achieve what it
couldn’t dating from the MacPherson (Stephen Lawrence) Report and
before, the NPS will be simultaneously dismissing probation officers for
their circumstances and mistakes of yesteryear.
Sadly, I know
many probation staff of all backgrounds that have past criminal
histories, criminal family members and financial problems, mainly due to
bad life choices, and in some cases stemming from the earlier forms of
the discrimination and disadvantage described in the Lammy Review. I
couldn’t think of anyone better placed to support those on probation
facing similar experiences, and to help balance our unfair justice
system, but now that’s only if they are able to get past Vetting. With
the Lammy Review in mind, if those adversely affected by Vetting are
disproportionately originating from working-class family backgrounds,
ethnic minorities or marginalised communities then this could end up
being seen as a ‘whitewashing’ of the Probation Service.
The
majority of what you write is spot on and there is an increased level
of politicisation and prisonisation (i like those words) for our
colleagues. However, I have to correct you on enhanced level 2 vetting-
the amount of detail you are referring to for checks is for Counter
Terrorism Clearance which probation staff are not subject to unless they
work in highly sensitive secondment roles or a vetting contact point.
Enhanced level 2 is a much lower level of vetting and whilst relies of
previous conviction information and social group membership is doesn't
look into the details on your family and friends or your finances. This
is scaremongering amongst staff which is unnecessary.
I
was proud to work for a service that was prepared to employ people who
had, bar the understandable exceptions, employ people who had previous
convictions but I wonder how many of those individuals; professional and
competent practitioners, would now get through civil service vetting.
The Governor of Walton Prison has been removed from his post after a snap inspection, the ECHO can reveal.
A
National Audit Office (NAO) document leaked to the ECHO states that
Peter Francis, who took on the role about three years ago, has left for
“operational reasons” following a recent unannounced inspection by Her
Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP).
Details of the
inspection revealed a bleak picture of prisoners forced to live in
squalor – with cockroaches, filthy toilets and damp-ridden walls within
the ageing complex.
In a section on “the departure of Peter
Francis from his post as governor”, the NAO letter sent anonymously to
the ECHO states: “I have confirmed through discussions with HMPPS (Her
Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service) officials that his removal was
for operational reasons following a recent unannounced inspection by Her
Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for England and Wales (HMIP).”
The
document is signed by Steven Corbishley, director for home affairs and
justice at the National Audit Office. Walton MP Dan Carden said he would
be contacting the Ministry of Justice for clarity on the situation at
the prison. It is not clear what management arrangements are now in
place. On Saturday, we reported on how HMIP had brought up concerns that
too many prisoners were being forced to spend their days inside
squalid, overcrowded cells.
Last
week, the Ministry of Justice’s programme for modernising the prison
estate was thrown into confusion, with justice minister Sam Gyimah MP,
appearing to contradict the head of HM Prisons and Probation Service,
Michael Spurr, about planned prison closures. Speaking at the Prison
Governor’s Association Annual Conference on Wednesday, Michael Spurr
said that he anticipated that “we won’t close any prisons this
parliament”. However, just the following day, when responding to a
question in Parliament, Sam Gyimah said that the commitment to close
prisons over the next few years “very much remains”.
The Prison
Reform Trust highlighted concerns about the viability of the Ministry of
Justice’s prison building programme to HM Treasury, ahead of this
year’s budget, in light of the publication of concerning prison
population projections and a rapid rise in prisoner numbers this summer.
Since May this year growth in the prison population has been extremely
strong—rising by over 1,200 places in only 13 weeks, and it remains
higher than at any other point in the last four years. In a sign of
rising pressures on the prison estate, it was also reported that The
Verne Immigration Removal Centre, would revert back to holding prisoners
in 2018 just three years after a multi-million-pound re-role.
Commenting, Peter Dawson, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said:
"Michael
Spurr, Chief Executive Officer of HM Prisons and Probation Service, has
now publicly admitted what the Prison Reform Trust stated in evidence
to HM Treasury’s consultation on the budget a fortnight ago. A major
plank of the government's prison reform programme has already bitten the
dust. Dilapidated old prisons, rightly damned by the chief inspector's
report on prison conditions earlier this week, will now not be closing.
Some will even be re-opened. ‘New for old’ has turned into ‘new at any
cost’.
“But the uncomfortable truth is that the government was
relying on the savings from closures to finance both the construction
and the running costs of new prisons. No-one knows where the money to
fill that black hole is now going to come from."
Very
interesting blog. VISOR (Violent and Sex Offenders Register) does
require enhanced security access controls (usually available behind two
locked doors), controlled printing etc. If an offender manager does
need to access VISOR they shouldn't need any more security checking than
they currently have (as agreed during its original rollout to
Probation). Access should be controlled with system access control
measures and controlled user management. As you say the strength of
probation is the variety of backgrounds of Probation Officers enabling
empathy and understanding with true rehabilitation measures. Perhaps
this concept of polication and prisonation (thereby losing the third
pillar of the triangle of offender management and rehabilitation) should
be raised with the Judicial Review.
Interserve,
the troubled construction and support services group, has said it is in
“constructive and ongoing discussions with its lenders” in the wake of a
profit warning which wiped two-thirds of its market value.
The
firm said on Monday that it is working to provide greater clarity on
both its current trading and any extra costs that might arise from its
struggling 'Energy from Waste' contracts, which are expected to cost the
firm at least £160m to sort out.
Shares in the company dropped
as much as 8.58pc to 101.25p on Monday, amid concern among investors
that the company could be set to make another profit warning.
Last
month, Interserve warned that business had slowed across the country in
July and August, hitting its expectations for the rest of the year.
It
had originally flagged up problems with a contract to design, procure
and install a gasification plant at a recycling and renewable energy
centre in Glasgow more than a year ago when it warned that it had
experienced problems with its supply chain, leading to delays.
It
originally allocated £70m to pay for the project, before upping the
amount to £160m. Last month, it suggested that the costs will exceed
even that.
Reports over the weekend suggested that a number of
Interserve’s banks, including HSBC and Royal Bank of Scotland, had
called in consultants at EY to advise them over the company’s next
steps. EY is also helping fellow support services firm Carillion to
restructure after its own heavy losses.
The market is still anticipating a statement from new chief executive Debbie White setting out how the business will proceed.
Ms White joined the firm at the beginning of September, following the departure of previous boss Adrian Ringrose.
HA
bloody ha they deserve everything they lose and then they will have to
cap in hand to the government and I guess they will get bailed out to
run the Probation contracts
Parliamentary
outrage about loss of 400+ jobs at Vauxhall, Tory govt promises to "do
what they can" ... NOT a fucking peep when the Tory govt PAID private
companies with UK taxpayer money to get rid of hundreds of probation
service jobs
Yes
indeed, really great blog post, thank you. I am sure I read the chief
inspector of probation saying somewhere that while the NPS isn't doing
so badly, more attention needed to be paid to rehabilitation. Trouble
is, the whole NPS culture is so risk averse, and craven, it seems no-one
of any standing in the senior ranks is prepared to be assertive here.
...................................
JezVery
interesting. Even the probation officers themselves are in a way facing
'perceivef risk' assessments. As a culture we are under this illusion
that perceived risk keeps us all safe. It does nothing of the sort. All
it does is persecute people for being a perceived risk.
Are you a family member supporting someone serving an IPP sentence (Imprisonment for Public Protection)?
The University of Southampton are interested in speaking to more families affected by IPP about their experiences.
Researchers Dr Harry Annison and Dr Rachel Condry are looking to enhance understanding around the impact of the IPP policy process on family members and to explore if, and how, family members have tried to influence the policy debate.
Are you Looking for solicitors with knowledge of the law and policy surrounding Generic Parole Reviews
for ISP and Determinate cases, recall reviews and has a very keen
interest in prisoner adjudications.
Chelsea Turner
Prison Law Consultant
01727 840900
07523 695950
St. Albans
Chelsea is one of Wells Burcombe’s most recent recruits to the Prison Law team and is a very welcome addition. Based in Hackney in East London, she is known within the prison community for her proactive and dedicated approach. She has knowledge of the prison system and prison law which is hard to match within the profession. She possess almost unrivalled knowledge of the law and policy surrounding Generic Parole Reviews for ISP and Determinate cases, recall reviews and has a very keen interest in prisoner adjudications. Her considerable experience working for the public protection casework section has given her a unique insight into the procedures and challenges faced by clients during their Parole process which places her at a distinct advantage when preparing submissions for release. Chelsea is recommended not just for her knowledge, but because she is seen as genuinely caring, highly personable and always motivated.
The Governor of Walton Prison has been removed from his post after a snap inspection, the ECHO can reveal.
A National Audit Office (NAO) document leaked to the ECHO states that Peter Francis, who took on the role about three years ago, has left for “operational reasons” following a recent unannounced inspection by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP).
Details of the inspection revealed a bleak picture of prisoners forced to live in squalor – with cockroaches, filthy toilets and damp-ridden walls within the ageing complex.
In a section on “the departure of Peter Francis from his post as governor”, the NAO letter sent anonymously to the ECHO states: “I have confirmed through discussions with HMPPS (Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service) officials that his removal was for operational reasons following a recent unannounced inspection by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for England and Wales (HMIP).”
The document is signed by Steven Corbishley, director for home affairs and justice at the National Audit Office. Walton MP Dan Carden said he would be contacting the Ministry of Justice for clarity on the situation at the prison. It is not clear what management arrangements are now in place. On Saturday, we reported on how HMIP had brought up concerns that too many prisoners were being forced to spend their days inside squalid, overcrowded cells.
Prison Closure Confusion
Last week, the Ministry of Justice’s programme for modernising the prison estate was thrown into confusion, with justice minister Sam Gyimah MP, appearing to contradict the head of HM Prisons and Probation Service, Michael Spurr, about planned prison closures. Speaking at the Prison Governor’s Association Annual Conference on Wednesday, Michael Spurr said that he anticipated that “we won’t close any prisons this parliament”. However, just the following day, when responding to a question in Parliament, Sam Gyimah said that the commitment to close prisons over the next few years “very much remains”.
The Prison Reform Trust highlighted concerns about the viability of the Ministry of Justice’s prison building programme to HM Treasury, ahead of this year’s budget, in light of the publication of concerning prison population projections and a rapid rise in prisoner numbers this summer. Since May this year growth in the prison population has been extremely strong—rising by over 1,200 places in only 13 weeks, and it remains higher than at any other point in the last four years. In a sign of rising pressures on the prison estate, it was also reported that The Verne Immigration Removal Centre, would revert back to holding prisoners in 2018 just three years after a multi-million-pound re-role.
Commenting, Peter Dawson, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said:
"Michael Spurr, Chief Executive Officer of HM Prisons and Probation Service, has now publicly admitted what the Prison Reform Trust stated in evidence to HM Treasury’s consultation on the budget a fortnight ago. A major plank of the government's prison reform programme has already bitten the dust. Dilapidated old prisons, rightly damned by the chief inspector's report on prison conditions earlier this week, will now not be closing. Some will even be re-opened. ‘New for old’ has turned into ‘new at any cost’.
“But the uncomfortable truth is that the government was relying on the savings from closures to finance both the construction and the running costs of new prisons. No-one knows where the money to fill that black hole is now going to come from."
As you say the strength of probation is the variety of backgrounds of Probation Officers enabling empathy and understanding with true rehabilitation measures.
Perhaps this concept of polication and prisonation (thereby losing the third pillar of the triangle of offender management and rehabilitation) should be raised with the Judicial Review.
Presumably if you pick up the wrong sheet of paper a sniper on the neighbouring rooftop will take you out.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/10/16/troubled-interserve-holding-talks-lenders-following-profit-warning/
The firm said on Monday that it is working to provide greater clarity on both its current trading and any extra costs that might arise from its struggling 'Energy from Waste' contracts, which are expected to cost the firm at least £160m to sort out.
Shares in the company dropped as much as 8.58pc to 101.25p on Monday, amid concern among investors that the company could be set to make another profit warning.
Last month, Interserve warned that business had slowed across the country in July and August, hitting its expectations for the rest of the year.
It had originally flagged up problems with a contract to design, procure and install a gasification plant at a recycling and renewable energy centre in Glasgow more than a year ago when it warned that it had experienced problems with its supply chain, leading to delays.
It originally allocated £70m to pay for the project, before upping the amount to £160m. Last month, it suggested that the costs will exceed even that.
Reports over the weekend suggested that a number of Interserve’s banks, including HSBC and Royal Bank of Scotland, had called in consultants at EY to advise them over the company’s next steps. EY is also helping fellow support services firm Carillion to restructure after its own heavy losses.
The market is still anticipating a statement from new chief executive Debbie White setting out how the business will proceed.
Ms White joined the firm at the beginning of September, following the departure of previous boss Adrian Ringrose.
Are you a family member supporting someone serving an IPP sentence (Imprisonment for Public Protection)?
The University of Southampton are interested in speaking to more families affected by IPP about their experiences.
Researchers Dr Harry Annison and Dr Rachel Condry are looking to enhance understanding around the impact of the IPP policy process on family members and to explore if, and how, family members have tried to influence the policy debate.
For more information speak to:-
email address: H.Annison@soton.ac.uk
email address: rachel.condry@crim.ox.ac.uk
Are you Looking for solicitors with knowledge of the law and policy surrounding Generic Parole Reviews for ISP and Determinate cases, recall reviews and has a very keen interest in prisoner adjudications.
Chelsea Turner