1.The media image that is presented of an offender at the time of their convictions little relation to the person they now are, and what they are now like some years after they committed their offence, often bear little relation to the person they now are. 2. Not investigating discrimination. 3. Prisons are lawless places. 4. Fighting to get answers to delays if it not in one area, in another. 5. Very real abject failure by the MoJ (Ministry of Jokers)

“I’m not going to dump on Parole Board colleagues”

Sacked parole chief tells Inside Time he expects big changes to come from high profile case

For many people involved in the criminal justice system, the most unusual aspect of the Parole Board’s overturned decision to release a high profile prisoner recently was that the plan was to release him from a maximum security prison. The normal process for releasing prisoners convicted of the most serious offences serving indeterminate sentences is a staggered, risk assessed gradual reduction in security categorisation. The prison in question is a Cat A prison. The usual procedure would have been a move to a Cat B, or a Cat C and then a period of up to three years in an Open Cat D prison. The prisoner is serving an IPP, Imprisonment for Public Protection, which is effectively a Life Sentence of 99 years. The prisoner’s tariff was 8 years and so far he has served 10.

Nick Hardwick – who was as good as sacked as Parole Board chair after the high court decision to block the prisoner’s release – is reluctant to criticise the panel that made the original decision. “First of all, let’s be really clear,” he says. “The test for the Parole Board is: does this person need to continue to be detained? We’re not required specifically to comment on their categorisation. So, the only choices for the Parole Board are, open prison, release, or stay in prison. The first question the panel has to consider is: do we think the risks this person now poses can be safely managed in the community? If we do, the law says they have to be released. Only if they fail on that hurdle do they then consider: should they be moved to open, and then should they be released.”

” The media image that is presented of an offender at the time of their conviction, and what they are now like some years after they committed their offence, often bears little relation to the person they now are. “

But to release a prisoner from such a high security jail, straight onto the streets after ten years of incarceration, with no testing, no authentic way of assessing risk, with the added risk that sudden freedom might create after walking out of such tight security conditions must be hard to justify? 

Sacked parole chief tells Inside Time he expects big changes to come from high profile case

For many people involved in the criminal justice system, the most unusual aspect of the Parole Board’s overturned decision to release a high profile prisoner recently was that the plan was to release him from a maximum security prison. The normal process for releasing prisoners convicted of the most serious offences serving indeterminate sentences is a staggered, risk assessed gradual reduction in security categorisation. The prison in question is a Cat A prison. The usual procedure would have been a move to a Cat B, or a Cat C and then a period of up to three years in an Open Cat D prison. The prisoner is serving an IPP, Imprisonment for Public Protection, which is effectively a Life Sentence of 99 years. The prisoner’s tariff was 8 years and so far he has served 10.

Nick Hardwick – who was as good as sacked as Parole Board chair after the high court decision to block the prisoner’s release – is reluctant to criticise the panel that made the original decision. “First of all, let’s be really clear,” he says. “The test for the Parole Board is: does this person need to continue to be detained? We’re not required specifically to comment on their categorisation. So, the only choices for the Parole Board are, open prison, release, or stay in prison. The first question the panel has to consider is: do we think the risks this person now poses can be safely managed in the community?

 If we do, the law says they have to be released. Only if they fail on that hurdle do they then consider: should they be moved to open, and then should they be released.”

 “From my experience of being chief inspector of prisons I wouldn’t say that I would place complete reliance on the categorisations decisions of the Prison Service,” says Hardwick. “And secondly, I wouldn’t say the safest way to manage someone’s re-entry into the community is always to do that by sending them to open. I think, particularly if someone has support and monitoring available to them in a community setting that wouldn’t be available to them in an open prison, then the safest thing for the public is to put them in that community setting. I’m not going to criticise the panel. I don’t know what I would have done if I’d been on that panel. 

And I’m not going to try and second guess them. The media image that is presented of an offender at the time of their conviction, and what they are now like some years after they committed their offence, often bears little relation to the person they now are. And what the Parole Board was trying to ascertain is what sort of a person [this prisoner] is now, and given that you can never be certain, are his risks manageable in the community? 

What they weren’t trying to do was retry his original offences. What the court said, what this issue absolutely rests on, was should the panel have gone into the alleged offences? And the panel thought, and the Secretary of State thought, and I thought, was that they couldn’t. What the judge said, was that in this unusual and exceptional set of circumstances, the panel should have questioned him about those allegations, to test some of his other responses. We didn’t think we could do that. The judge has said that with this set of exceptional circumstances you could have done that – and I think probably that’s a good thing. The phrase the judge used was ‘this difficult, troubling case, with many exceptional features’. So I think if the court is saying that, then there’s a real dilemma. You look at the stuff he’s accused of, and you think well how can he possibly be released? On the other hand, do we want the Parole Board determining the guilt of people for offences they haven’t been convicted of? We’re not sure we want that either.”

” What the court said, what this issue absolutely rests on, was should the panel have gone into the alleged offences? And the panel thought, and the Secretary of State thought, and I thought, was that they couldn’t. “

So how then can this dilemma be resolved? How can those things be squared? “What the court said, was look, in this exceptional set of circumstances, it could have been squared,” he says. “What I think is, generally, if I make a very difficult decision, or I write something that is a bit controversial, I don’t finalise it until I’ve asked somebody else to have a look at it. And on that principle, I’m quite happy that somebody else is having another look at this decision, another panel will look at it before it’s finally decided. And I think actually, the process of saying, this is a very big decision, before we go ahead, the victims aren’t happy about it, or sometimes the prisoner isn’t happy about it – it could be both ways – we think here that there are some very unusual features to this, we’re going to have some other people, some judges who haven’t seen it before, have a look. I think that’s quite a good thing.”

The claimants who challenged the decision said that even on the evidence the Parole Board had, the decision to release him was irrational. 

Did he think it was? “The judge said, well it was surprising, it was concerning, but we’re not going to say it was irrational. I think the women in this case, I don’t want to call them victims as that almost diminishes them, I think the women in this case have been fantastic, very feisty, very determined and very brave. And what I think has been very humbling, they’ve been very generous towards the Parole Board – they could have been furious, they haven’t, in public at any rate. And they’ve been quite personally supportive of me, their lawyer has -.I’ve been very moved and humbled by that and very grateful for it. What I’d say to them is what they have done is not merely win this important case, but I think they will have achieved some really big changes in the parole system.” Will he welcome those changes? “Absolutely,” he says. “I think it will be a better system for the challenge. And it won’t just work for victims – I think it will be a more just system.”

” People say you’ll get high profile cases and you’ll get a big row. Well this was a high-profile case, there was no openness in this case, and we got a big row. “

But how open to public scrutiny should the decision-making process be? Isn’t there a danger that every time there is a high profile ‘troubling’ case, decision makers will become too risk averse? “Well I think the system should be opened up, but I think there should be constraints to that. You want prisoners to be candid when they come before you, there are witnesses whose identities need to be protected, but I would say to a lot of prisoners, I’d say look, you did a very terrible thing, that’s why you’re before the Parole Board, the consequence of that is now there’s going to be some stuff happening in public that you’d probably rather wasn’t, but that’s how it is. I think at the very least, the Parole Board should be able to explain its decisions. People say you’ll get high profile cases and you’ll get a big row. Well this was a high-profile case, there was no openness in this case, and we got a big row. Few people know how the parole process works. Lots of people think I make the decisions personally. One of the advantages of opening the system up is that people will be able to put these very controversial cases in a bit more context.”

Will it help the public to have more confidence in the Board, does he think? “Well, look, don’t come to work for the Parole Board if you want to win a popularity contest. It’s a difficult job. When a prisoner comes before the Parole Board it’s because he or she has done something horrendous. [This prisoner] is by no means the worst case to come in front of a Parole panel. There are only around fifty people serving whole life tariffs, the rest, many who have done eye-wateringly terrible things, have got to be released one day.”

” If you’re head of an organisation you should take responsibility for what that organisation does and I take responsibility for the Parole Board. “

How did he feel about being sacked? “Well I wasn’t given any choice to stay. I think you shouldn’t have these sorts of jobs if you aren’t prepared to take responsibility. I’m very clear that if you’re head of an organisation you should take responsibility for what that organisation does and I take responsibility for the Parole Board. I’m not going to dump on the people who work for us.”

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

 

Not investigating discrimination

Is there not a lawful duty/obligation on the Governor to ensure that DIRFs (Discrimination Incident Report Forms) are available for prisoners to pick up at any given time without the need to ask staff for one?

 I have previously had to ask staff for one, and then followed 101 questions about what I wanted it for. This year, I have been watching carefully since the 1st of January 2018, and I’ve not seen one DIRF readily available.

I do not think they are taking DIRF’s seriously here. If you manage to get one and put it in you can be waiting 6-months for a reply, and the standard reply is ‘not suitable, no evidence’. And that is without them speaking to you about the matter you have reported. Who knows how these matters are investigated?

 Prisons are lawless places

There is an expectation on prisoners that we stick to the rules. In fact, there is a need that most prisoners stick to rules and prison law so there is some sort of normality in prison. I would say there is also an expectation that the MoJ and the Prison Service also keep to the rules and the law of the land. They should lead by example; how can they expect prisoners to keep to the rules if they don’t?

With that in mind, I have seen many issues in prison. Even though I am NEBOSH qualified I am not one of those clipboard people who quote health & safety law like some sort of bible. Yet there is good reason why the HSE (Health & Safety Executive) should inspect prisons ASAP. No one is given any manual-handling training but expected to lift heavy weights in all areas of the prison. 

COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health) is not even thought about, no COSHH paperwork is given out. There are not even any kick-boards on landings to stop items falling from height. To be honest, the list is endless, and I don’t want to go on about Health & Safety as there are other laws being broken with regularity, e.g. employment laws and the minimum wage, hygiene laws. I could go on, but I think you catch my drift. Let’s do something about it, now.

It is my understanding that prison law cannot supersede national law. What is law on the outside must also be law on the inside. Someone out in the real world needs to know that prisons do not operate within the law. Prisons are lawless places.

Figting  to get answers to Delays, if it not in one area its in another. 

Any prisoner who has ever felt the need to submit a formal complaint will know very well just how skilled prison staff are at writing extensive answers that state what the complaint is about but do nothing at all to answer the concerns. RecentlyThe questions we ask in our applications, complaints and in our letters to Inside Time are phrased as they are because they are the questions we need answers to. 

A prisoner at HMP Lincoln said he has been told he should have been transferred to a D cat prison within 28-days and asks for clarification of this rule. The reply from HMPPS explains that he was awaiting an OASys but does not seek to clarify the point asked, is it correct that he should be transferred within 28-days or is the 6-month delay he has suffered permitted by the rules?

So, let me ask one more question, HMPPS do you avoid these questions on purpose, or is your obfuscation an unintended symptom of gross ineptitude? Answers on a postcard please and hold the repetitious waffle.

Very real abject failure by the MoJ (Ministry of Jokers).

I’m writing this letter as I promised I would to and for the many pals I left in Swaleside.

We have seen recently, both Liverpool and Nottingham prisons have, rightly, been slammed for the degrading and awful conditions in which prisoners are held. 

Having been in Walton twice, I can only say that it’s about bloody time. Sadly, there has been another suicide there recently.

“Quite why Swaleside, or ‘stabside’ as it is better known amongst prisoners, hasn’t been added to the list of shockingly bad prisons is beyond any of us who have spent time there.”

Following a spate of suicides in Swaleside in 2016-17, HMIP and the internal IMB reports both slammed the prison in all departments. I spent time both on G-wing and later the in-patient’s unit, and I saw the very real failings of the prison.

The level of abuse being meted out by a small, core-group of officers inside Swaleside is nothing short of bullying, with racist and homophobic overtones. I, personally, was assaulted by several officers when on the in-patient’s unit. I was dragged from my wheelchair because I refused to stop writing to the media about my conviction.

I had cases upheld by the PPO regarding my Rule 39 legal mail being opened, and a disability discrimination incident where the head of security had mocked my disability.

The levels of self-harm which are very serious in nature are so bad in Swaleside, and anything up to 60-men self-secluded for their own safety. This alone shows a picture of abject failure by the MoJ (Ministry of Jokers). 

 It is about time someone took up a legal challenge about this inhumane and disgraceful situation.

comments

Eliseo Weinstein It is wonderful to read about someone who is so passionate about the education and safety of prisoners who are caught in our penal system. Not everyone who is locked up is some heartless monster and it do well for others to remember that it could actually happen to any of us, especially with the way things are turning out.

Anonymous On the 29 march 2017 we buried my brother craig baldock after serving 8 years on a ipp sentence with a 2 year tariff they left him in the ocean with no ring and no sign off  shore R.I.P brother.

https://insidetime.org/lawless-places/https://insidetime.org/very-real-failings/

https://insidetime.org/repetitious-waffle/ https://insidetime.org/not-investigating-discrimination/

https://insidetime.org/im-not-going-to-dump-on-parole-board-colleagues/