Verbal and written questions asked at the meeting, notes taken and document submitted. -Doc- Unintended Consequences thematic review by HM Inspectorate of Prisons)
That we could not clearly always identified the reasons why IPP prisoners are turned down for progression apart from a Perceived perspective of risk being too high and/or likely to continue behaviours . This creates a continuous loop of torment that simply never ends for the prisoner.
IPP Cooke denied open condition not always understood
My son has been knocked back at his pre tariff Parole hearing for re categorisation. I've read the decision letter and it doesn't just say his risk is too high but there is nothing in the letter to suggest or point to what he might do for the future to reduce his risk.
They won't allow him the opportunity to prove he is not a risk by moving him to open conditions, yet how else can he prove it?
IPP John Gilbert allowed open condition
On 14 July 2014, the Parole Board decision recommended that JOHN GILBERT was returned to open conditions. The panel’s decision included the following passage:-
You are assessed as a high risk of serious harm to the public and this is unlikely to be reduced until you have been tested in the community.
Both of these examples were high risk but Cooke was denied the opportunity to prove he was not a risk, yet both were assessed as high risk .Cooke has 2 years left to go and shouldn’t be denied the opportunity to prove he is not a danger. In open conditions he could demonstrate this in a controlled and safe manner. Judgments need to be seen to be fair and transparent and judgments need to be easy to read and understand for those with diverse needs. ROTL is only available in open conditions and they haven’t done enough to demonstrate they are not a risk and yet most have done the courses. A few have probation officers that don't put good release plans together and don't know how to progress their prisoners, furthermore the quality of some reports are poor.
Considering there are extremely low reoffending rates for IPP prisoners, estimated at LESS than 1% leads me to ask the following:-
Questions:-
Is the assessment of risk to the public in anyway accurate or fair?
Why are you not taking the low reoffending rates of IPP’s into account? (Reference to the thematic report page 46,47,48 , HM Inspectorate of Prisons unintended consequences, finding a way forward for prisoners serving IPP sentences November 2016)
Question:
ROTL is only available in open conditions and if they haven’t done enough to demonstrate they are not a risk, what else can the prisoner do?
A few Offender Managers don't put strategies together and don't know how to progress their prisoners forward and furthermore the quality of some Oasy’s and community risk management plans are poor, this is clearly an injustice to the prisoner who has no control over such problem
Learning difficulties
Dr Kerensa a chartered forensic psychologist and a specialist in intellectual disability based at HMP Whatton stated that she was rolling out screening for those in prison. Perrie lectures HMPPS College Rugby 6 June 2018. Victims of crime within prison Factors such as impaired cognitive abilities and judgment, physical disabilities, insufficient adaptive behaviours, constant interactions with "protectors" who exploit them, lack of knowledge on how to protect themselves and living in high-risk environments increase the vulnerability and leads to victimization.
Stated was those with learning differences need support and that screening needs to be in all prisons.
Due to lack of reasonable adjustments prisoners with learning differences are left supporting each other with appeals however there is a privacy & safety issue as a result . Mental health treatment for those that need it, especially those on indeterminate sentences results in many of them doing double the sentences because they find it hard to deal with daily life etc….
Those who have done offender courses and are recalled struggle to progress again, so where do you go next? It is difficult to move prisoners to another prison. Many are assessed as unsuitable for accredited programmes so what do they do next to progress?
ROTL is only available in open conditions and they haven’t done enough to demonstrate they are not a risk. A few people don't have amrese to put strategies together and don't know how to progress, furthermore the quality of the reports are poor.
I agree that screening is the correct way forward however inmates do not own up to having learning difference because of fear of being seen a risk. Prisoners with difficulties feel they are being prejudged if they own up, they are also less likely to be offered programmes.
Question: Would it not be easier for the parole board to make a more accurate assessment of risk?
Question: For complex cases would the Solution be to look at hospitals to register prisoners with treatment plans rather than holding them to avoid them falling into the same trap the following year with probation?
Question: Have you voiced your concerns to the justice Ministers on the IPP issues that may take a number of years to resolve this being the case would it not be right to ask the justice Minister for policy change?
Question: If an inmate has completed courses what else can they do to qualify for release or a move to open conditions?
Question: Those who have done offender courses and are recalled can’t work to progress again, so where do they go next?
If the above has happened it is difficult to move prisoners to another prison. Many are assessed as unsuitable for accredited programmes so what do they do next to progress?
ROTL is only available in open conditions and they haven’t done enough to demonstrate their risk is low enough. A few people don't have amerce to put strategies together and don't know how to progress furthermore the quality of the reports are poor.
Question: Do you feel we need to press for a change in the test for release which doesn't need parliamentary authority? We have more people on indeterminate sentences than Germany, France & Spain combined. We either are an island full of dangerous people or we are persecuting people.
Question: What are the complex cases? Who is considered complexet? Are they prisoners with Personality disorders, ADHD, Sex offenders, mental health, learning difficulties or something else? mentioned was those with learning differences however I said that prisons are employing people with learning difficulties are they seen by the prison as a risk or complexet?
this leaflet I picked up from A prison officers training college applying for a job as a Prison Officer your entry if you have learning difficulties and the support you receive for those learning diffrences.
If a prisoner with learning difficulties you are seen as complexed case and risk .Those with learning diffrences and mental health other......do double the sentence and more, if an IPP prisoner. It is wrong on all level its double standards and its discrimination.
Question: Does a prisoner’s behaviour get them breached or influence the decisions to their sentence plan? If so why not take the approach of Warren Hill, not to punish for breaches or bad behaviour and instead put them to work and end segregation and breaches that lead to a longer sentence. Can we roll this model out to other prisons?
Warren Hill Prison
I spoke to the governor of Warren hill Prison since she has been there governor for 3 years and she has done an inspirational job.
Question: Do you feel all prisons need to follow that model?
• 50% attend Open University. 80% progress from Warren Hill.
• She creates a space where they can make mistakes and can survive and swear if they like.
• They are not given punishments for breaches they are just given work. All are given key workers and they don't end up in the segregation unit’s. I feel it’s a must to role this example out to other prisons
Question: What is being done to address treatments and failings in a timely manner?
Treatment plans for sex offenders (Nil)
Personality disorders (Unknown)
Likely to continue behaviours, timely manner
Drug related treatments plans (sparse, if not at all)
Drug Scope, Sector survey 2015-16 makes it very clear that a large proportion of dependent drug users with complex needs face a dramatic cutback in a wide range of services essential to promoting their recovery.
Drug users, over one fifth of respondents felt that access had worsened in the year prior to the survey. Continued http://ippfanilycampaign.blogspot.com/
Mental health in the community (poor)
Hostels places? (Needed)
Redirecting prisoners to other prisons (poor) Issues with prisons wanting to take them, so many problems with courses.
Demand for offending behaviour programmes
Risk management activity (improvements needed).
Help them progress through their custodial term (pilot team is need in all prisons)
Placement’s not enough information from offender managers.
ROTL process how many have progressed on release?
Recalls
Most are not related to reoffending but rather to 'risky' behaviour or breaches. Many IPP have committed minor breaches, breaches rather than crimes considering the extremely low reoffending rates of IPP prisoners as stated on page 47 of the report, estimated at LESS than 1%, is the assessment of risk to the public taking this into account, why?
What I’m trying to understand from the evidence that there is a disproportionate connection regarding the recall of IPPs and determinate prisoners and also a disproportionate level of perceived risk between the two groups?
Question: Is an IPP less of a risk to the public and if so is the calculation of risk being done properly?
Question: How can we identify this? Are you able to explain the cause of the high levels of recalls for IPP’s as it doesn’t appear to reflect their actual danger within reoffending rates?
Last year at the parole meeting you gave us a date for release of the over tariff prisoner by 2018 and others by 2020. Though on Page 50 of the Thematic report by HM Inspectorate of Prisons unintended consequences Nick Hardwick states we should be able to reduce the number of IPP prisoners in prison to about 1,500 by 2020 if effective arrangements are made to reduce their risk and manage them in the community!
Question: Does this mean the parole board in fact have no control over a “timely” resolution since the goal post seemed to of changed now from 1,500 by 2020.
I do believe from the parole denials that IPP’s are less likely to engage positively with the parole process the longer they are held over tariff? Some IPP prisoners have been denied parole 6 times, something is clearly not working!
Question: Do the parole board have knowledge of the difficulties the Post IPP prisoners have and do the parole board look into the back ground of an inmate to try and give a balance of fairness?
Deferrals can be the result of mistakes, lack of information or offender manger not turning up.
Question: you cannot afford to sack poor performing and sparse prison officers should there not be a backup, another person briefed on the case, encase of any issues on the day of a parole hearing?
Offender mangers should know their job, there is no excuse for poor performance this needs urgent attention.
Most parole board members I met are posh; do you feel we need to change the parole board members with everyday people like students and teachers etc?
Question: How are you working with prisoners to make amends to reduce their risk? Do you really have a set date? If you don’t and you feel it going to take a numbers of years to address all the issues perhaps the justice Minister should be made aware and do the right thing rather than lingering it on?
Question: Do you have ideas on modernising risk assessments?
Question: What has been done in the last year to ensure adequate resources and timely support and progression are available to work with IPP prisoners to reduce their said risk?
Question: What more can you do to help IPP prisoners?
Martin I noticed your recent articles regarding Warboy and victims.
Question: But what can you do to get IPP prisoners seen in a better light with the media noting their risk is seriously low?
Question: Can you set up a family support group for the IPP prisoner’s families? families are victims too, they need a place to go share up to date information, just to talk as many have been suicidal and are lost, some have turned to drink due stress and anxiety
meetings to which i attended 05/06/18 to 06/06/18 IPP Event hosted by the Leicester prison and Perrie lectures research group Strategies for prisoners .
-Professor Nick Hardwick discussed facts and that 4 justice Ministers chose to do nothing. Lisa Smith an Associate Professor in Criminology, now working at HMPP’s Psychology services was interesting, she mentioned they interviewed IPP prisoners and have set up a pilot project team to deal with indeterminate sentenced prisoners so that IPP’s can move forward however this has not been rolled out to all prison.
Question Can this model be rolled out to other prisoner in a timely manner?
The number of IPP in custody now to date 2,884
Recalled 84
Pre-tariff data from Lisa Smith shows the number classed as sexual offenders at 1178 (38.8%)
Violence 533 (17.6%)
Weapons 86 (2.8%)
Drugs 3 (0.1%)
Other 55 (1.8%)
Missing 69 (2.3%
Age groups of those recalled
21-24 years (5%)
25-29 years (10. 9%)
30-39 years (51.2%)
40-49 years (26.7%), it goes up as they get older.
• There are 84 offender managers and there leaving at an alarming rate
• 18% of IPP prisoners have not had contact with their offender manager and 28 were not being helped at all
• Prisoners contact with offender supervisor, only 25% were being helped to prepare cases. Some prisons didn't have offender mangers but did have untrained probation officers helping with cases but they never got to know the IPP’s according to the complaints.
• There were also inconsistencies in contact and there was a backlog of reviewing OASy’s assessments.
Those IPP’s that are 10 to 11 years over tariff,
12% of short tariffs are massively over tariff.
Goal posts being moved 83% very over tariff.
36 inspection reports.
15th and 16th of March 2018 the inspection looked at IPP prisoners to find out why they were not progressing
• They looked at offender mangers to see if they were any good.
• What prisons did to demonstrate a risk reduction.
• Moral problems were higher with IPP as well as self harm. Anxiety was high with those with short tariffs as they would see their friends go and they were still there.
• There’s work on ISOS operational support
• The Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS) will work closely with the Parole Board and the National Probation Service to provide operational oversight for IPPs.
• NPS will prioritise cases where psychology is needed and a separate section for woman.
****COHORT CURRENTLY 999 THAT HAVE FAILED AT 2 PAROLE BOARD REVIEWS DATA IS REFRESHED QUARTELY.
• Some have been to six parole hearing but still haven't reduced risk.
• Complete psychology case file reviews identify reasons why such as, struggling treatment planning and are looking to see how they can monitor better. They have a high rate of personality disorders and mental disorders. OPD pathway might be linked to risk or being an IPP so they say we must increase planning.
• 1285 case file reviews have been completed to date; they say they must take a fresh look at cases and do consultations.
• They say the IPP’s trauma is acerbated or made worse and related to risk.
• They say they need to have an offender manger unit, clear sense of a progressive pathway, look at parole to help them progress, avoid delays.
• Give IPP’s and family access to a support group and work with the families
• Monitor IPP prisoners that have had 2 or more reviews, have psychologist meetings, and increase the focus to enable progression to those that struggle. They have included a traffic light system:-*Green to indicate progress easy*Amber engagement issues*Red to classify the case is difficult and to engage treatment work on behaviour.
• Research and evaluation on recall, work on communications strategy for IPPs and family, needs for sex offender officers, and experience of recall project pathway.
• IPPs cost a million pound a year in compensation keeping IPP prisoners in prison over their tariff there is a big problem with deferrals as on the day it can be cancelled then you are sent back. This happens because of a lack of paper work or poor paper work that is given to the parole board, or needing more information but now there and looking at a pilot to keep the cases moving.
February 2018
• NO people are waiting for a hearing they said. 48 was reviewed.
• That offender managers went around prisons to share their information looking at how to review cases, parole board cases and parole board journals.
Professor Leam, A Craig who is a Forensic and Clinical Psychologist gave evidence at the parole board OPD pathway.
• The test for recall is too low, a technical breach and you can be recalled. Must find alternatives to recall and address the lack of community support for mental health. That’s why those with mental health are still in prison, parole is aware of this.
• He talked about delays in HSPS, SARN not available if need, and delays in specialist cases. He talked about the loss of motivation and engagement leading to failing parole, there’s still a lack of courses and mental health leading to desperation in prisoners.
• Also a lack of space’s in hostels (AP’s) and a lack of supportive housing. He spoke about those IPP prisoners released last year but are still in prison just waiting for housing.
• That there is a lack of supportive mentoring and the funding cuts also to circles UK.
Dr Emma palmer, an Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society and a Chartered Forensic Psychologist from Leicester University talked about risk.
• The Parole board predict risk based on experience of behaviour. Clinical professional judgment, age at the time of the offence, substance abuse etc.
• Your risk might change over time* results OGRS scores OASY’s risk, Likelihood of behaviour and Wing assessments.
• Clearly unfair predictions as judged against the same criteria even though they may have changed during their time in custody.
Worboys
4 psychologists agreed on Worboys was a very low risk prisoner. When four psychologists all apparently arrive at similar conclusions regarding the risk assessment should we not question the parole panels?
Question: Are you in agreement that the model is floored?
A category A release that was initially cleared by the parole board only makes others suspicious about fairness and intention. Other Prisoners have had to work their way down.
Question: Have you ideas to change that risk model, if not who can?
IPP policy options suggested
• CONVERSION: Convert all or some IPP sentences to a fixed term sentence with a definite sentence end date
• SUNSET CLAUSE: Establish a provision to provide that all or some post tariff prisoners must be released no later than a certain date
• RISK TEST: Reverse the risk test for some or all IPPs so the Parole Board has to demonstrate the prisoners poses a serious risk rather than the prisoners needing to demonstrate that they do not
• EXECUTIVE RELEASE: Consider using existing powers to release IPP prisoners who have now served more than the current maximum tariff for their sentence
• SHORT TARIFF IPPs: Reverse the risk test for IPPs with an original tariff of less than two years
• RECALLS: End the IPP sentence once the Parole Board has decided release and deal with further offences under normal sentencing provisions and limit license periods
Question: It will take years to fix these issues therefore we have a duty to end the IPP Prisoners suffering. Should the parole board suggest to the justice minister the above issues moreover because they are not going to be timely?
Prison population 30th May2018
On the 10 November 2017The prison population was 86,163, which has a operational capacity of 87,330 (98.7%).
On the 1st June 2018The prison population was 83,254, which now has an operation capacity 86,549 (96.19%) Deaths 40%, and 13% self-inflicted
ROTL CHANGES finalising delays in parole,https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/05/Exeter-UN-letter-and-debrief-for-publication.pdf
The number of IPP prisoners has fallen by 53%.
Since December 2012? There were 2,884 IPP prisoners on 31 March 2018 (not including recalls)88% of those remaining in prison were post tariff or, put another way, 349 had not yet served their tariff 85 with tariffs of over 10 yearsStill 459 in prison with a tariff of less than two yearsRestrictions on ROTL have made risk assessments more difficult. Recalled IPPs increased by19% between March 207 and March 2018 to 847
The prison population
November 2017-18Prison population up from 44,246 June 1993 to 85,134 June 2016
10 Nov 2017 Population 86,163; Op Cap 87,330 (98.7%)
Concerns about violence and disorder in many prisons
Link to reform and governor autonomy agenda
1 June 2018
Prison population down to 83,254. Op Cap 86,549 (96.19%)
Total deaths reduced 13% and self inflicted deaths reduced 40%
ROTL changes
Worboys…
Risk test
When considering the release of prisoners who come before it, the Board is required to determine whether it is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should remain detained HMIP Prisons prisoner Surveys 2016/17
How much time do you spend out of your cell on a weekend?
Average 22% RED 14% BLUE
Open Prison Red 2% Blue 40%
Young adults prisons Red 37% Blue 40%
High security prisons Red 11% Blue13%
Training prisons Red 16% Blue 15%
Local prisons Red 31% Blue 8%
Red less than 2 hours a day (weekdays)% Blue more than 10 hours a day (WEEKENDS)%
Prison staff in last ten years
2007-8 2017 2018 % changed 07-08/17-18
189 deaths in prison custody 344 295 + 56%
2.3 deaths/1000 4.0 3.5 + 52%
84 apparent self-inflicted deaths 115 69 (- 18%)
1 homicides 5 3 -
6,132 prisoners self-harmed 11,000 11,630 + 90%
15,272 assaults 26,022 29,485 + 93%
1,485 serious assaults 3,519 3,856 + 160%
3,279 assaults on staff 6,844 8,429 + 157%
285 serious assaults on staff 789 864 +203%
(POA), Mark Fairhurst, says that the government is “totally misleading the public”
Mark says that the government is “totally misleading the public” over staffing levels. He says that when the recruitment drive began there were 1,500 vacancies in the service, another 3,254 officers had quit since, and that since 2010 the service has lost over 7,000 officers. He says: “Our employer’s own statistics demonstrate that when the much-needed 3,111 recruits are taken into account, we still have a significant deficit of prison officers. Attrition rates in some areas exceed 30 per cent and it is becoming apparent that more and more experienced staff are leaving the service.” The POA say they expect the Prison Service to lose another 1,800 staff this year and if the recruitment campaign was as successful as Mr Gauke claimed, there should be an immediate end to ‘detached duty’ in which an average 200 prison officers a week are transferred to plug staffing gaps in other prisons".
Question: what do you think and what can be done to reassure us?
Structural problems, Government’s privatisation of the probation service has failed though it does not affect IPP prisoners:
The reform was rushed through; the pilots were abandoned and there was no evidence base on which to base the new structure. The split of the service into two parts dealing with high risk (National Probation Service) and medium/low risk (21 new private Community Rehabilitation Companies) offenders created a needlessly fragmented service. The reform was driven by ideology. The MOJ cut costs too drastically and encouraged bidders to win on the basis of price.
Last minute changes in procurement largely excluded voluntary sector organisations with experience of working with offenders. The Justice Select Committee produced a damning report on TR last week (22 June 2018) in which it requested the MoJ to review the current system and come up with alternative models by February 2019. Specific needs of offenders, the issues facing offenders on probation are not all within the gift of probation services to resolve, and therefore a cross-Government approach is needed and organisations need to work together.important component of the Committee’s report is the demand for a review which looks at alternative models. The MOJ has been working on this for well over a year now and the latest rumours to reach me suggest an even more fragmented and complex system is being constructed out of the ashes of TR
Increased risk of suicide and self-harm
A sister had a brother serving an IPP sentence from 2009, he was 4 years over tariff when he got turned down a second time and unfortunately he felt unable to carry on and took his own life last September. The family had no idea what an IPP sentence was and that this was the sentence he had been given, partly due to him being in prison regularly for minor offences and party because he was unable to articulate it to us, especially as we had no idea about prison sentences etc. The family, are devastated the sister particular. She was extremely close to her brother up until a few years before he was given the IPP sentence, when they drifted apart. Now she wants to change things for others who are serving an IPP sentence.
Other notes taken at the meeting
MJ assured us that the PB really has been trying to progress IPPs, and that he has been encouraging the members to do this. From what he said, it seems probable that he was not entirely happy with at least one recent hearing which resulted in a knockback, but which he had expected to have had a positive outcome instead, so he definitely is in favour of getting IPPs out of prison.
Risk
MJ agreed that the serious reoffending rate of IPPs was extremely low, which should be taken into account.
Although there is a problem in the media with people’s reaction to sex offenders (e.g. John Worboys), in fact IPP sex offenders’ reoffending rate is among the lowest in the system.
He said that there was no scientific certainty about calculation of risk. The Parole Board should not assess risk on the basis of courses alone, but should look at other aspects such as support in the community and other indicators.
He mentioned the RADAR project, which is intended to look at the PB’s approach to risk. There is a need to be able to clarify their approach and make it clear to others, and also to make the approach more consistent.
MJ has been trying to ensure that the PB makes decisions without reference to what the media say about risk.
He agreed that the media need to reflect IPPS in a good light considering there a very low risk 1% however felt they was not intrusted in that news but agreed they we need to look at this.
Changes needs to be done in a timely manner and if it’s going to take years to achieve we must ask the justice Minister for a policy change. He said he was going to raise these issues with Minister.
Figures for IPPs was from March 31st 2,884
Main reason for recalls breaches of rules, fail to stay in contact and drugs and drink, though drink is an impossible task to ask of anyone.
He felt strong on parole board members being of different back ground and colour and that it should be look at having members of the public.
I said I wanted to end breaches and model on warren hill. I asked what the breaches was for he said there was 640 summery of reasons. He felt this could be looked at and agreed that warren hill was a good model.
• Recall to be put to the minister if a prisoner is reforming to relax it.
• Sex offender are the lowest risk in the system ( not a danger)
Other complicating factors
1. Immigration status:
MJ agreed that too often the Parole Board and the Home Office just sat back and each waited for the other to make a move where an IPP prisoner was threatened with deportation. He reiterated that the PB should be prepared to direct release whether or not there was a problem of immigration status. He agreed that the prohibition by the MoJ on open conditions (but not on release) for such prisoners, was rather illogical.
2. Recalls
The PB has written to ministers to ask for the possibility of shorter recalls, especially for minor issues.
The recall population is up by 19%. MJ has raised the issue of being consistent for recalls – look at the individual case, especially where there are complex needs. Not every infringement of licence conditions needs to be dealt with by recall.
MJ is seriously concerned about the suicide rate / attempted suicide among IPPs – these cases are often recall cases.
3. ROTL
This is really useful for the PB, to get an idea of how the IPP prisoner is coping in the community.
MJ mentioned the problem of a prisoner being barred from open conditions because of absconding previously. He said that a prisoner should not be judged on his past behaviour, and that the reasons for absconding should be looked at – again, looking at individuals, not just a generic “you absconded, so you’re barred from open conditions”.
IPP recall, the matter was looked at within 28 days and could be dealt with 'on the papers' [but my recollection from the website is of this taking months if not longer, so perhaps this a recent tightening up -if so about time too]
The future?
• Life licence: The PB wants this reformed to give a shorter licence.
• The PB is asking for more power to give directives and sanction prisons / probation etc. when they fail to comply with reasonable requests e.g. having documents available and correct on time for a hearing, or when they fail to do what the PB has asked e.g. carry out review of medication before the next hearing.
• Warren Hill prison – excellent regime and support for IPPs. Possibly 2 more prisons in different parts of the country will be rolling out this programme.
• Need for more diversity on the PB? Ensure there is no prejudice, understand complex needs and disabilities.
• IPP recall, the matter was looked at within 28 days and could be dealt with 'on the papers' [but my recollection from the website is of this taking months if not longer, so perhaps this a recent tightening up -if so about time too]
(* Waiting on Minutes of the meeting i will post once received* )
There are a number of reasons why one would be granted open and the other not.
Google: psi-13-2015-release-on-temporary-licence - Justice.gov.uk
Definition of Restricted ROTL offender3.5 The following offenders are all subject to Restricted ROTL: All indeterminate sentence prisoners (ISPs);It gives you more information in chapter 8, page 97 regarding the conditions of the restricted ROTL and this PSI also goes into detail about the punishments if for any reason there is the slightest issue. Being just 5minutes late could suspend you ROTL’s for 35days if you are on Restricted ROTL and your likely to receive an additional punishment as well, whether it was circumstances beyond your control or not. (Annex L, page 213)
Jez owen
Referred to the Unintended consequences page 7 which states clearly:-
There are three main reasons why decisive action must be taken to improve this situation. Firstly, for many of the IPP prisoners, it is not clear that holding them well beyond their end-of-tariff date is necessarily in the interests of public protection, and therefore there are issues of fairness and justice.
Secondly, the cost to the public purse of continuing to hold the high numbers of IPP prisoners is significant.
Thirdly, the pressures IPPs exert on the system in terms of risk management activity, demand for offending behaviour programmes and parole processes is significant. Resources are being stretched increasingly thinly and there are risks that prisoners will struggle to access the support they need and that delays will increase still further.
From the above I want to clarify what Martin Jones has actually been issued with by the secretary for state to address these points.
1. What extra resources have you been issued by the secretary of state to reduce significantly the delays in the parole process to better help rehabilitate the many prisoners on the IPP sentence?
Main recommendation
The Secretary of State for Justice should take immediate action to ensure adequate resources and timely support are available to work with IPP prisoners to reduce their
risk of harm to others and to help them progress through the custodial system towards consideration for release by the Parole Board (Page 12).
Specifically it states the following two relevant directions to the parole board on page 13:-
To Parole Board for England and Wales
9. The Parole Board information and management systems should be used to identify the reasons why IPP prisoners are turned down for progression and/or release on
Licence and this should inform work in prisons to reduce their risk.
10. Decision-making about the recall decision for IPP sentence prisoners should be expedited.
So the following question’s to Martin Jones is aimed at seeing if those recommendations have been implemented.
2. What has David Guake done since taking up his post to better help the Parole Board make a diagnosis of the actual risk an IPP sentenced prisoner actually represents to the public and how are you evidencing these changes to evaluate their effectiveness to ensure that IPP’s are being effectively rehabilitated.
3. How can you evidence that the rehabilitation needs of long serving IPP prisoners are actually being met?
4. Since the Warboys case what are you doing differently and will this make the system slower or faster?
5. If an Offender Manager doesn’t approve release of an over tariff IPP prisoner are the parole board now more or less likely to still direct release since the Warboys case?
6. Have you expedited the recall decision making regarding IPP sentenced prisoners as recommended within the Unintended Consequences report page 13 and how are you able to evidence this?
3.6 The sentence was intended to ensure that high-risk individuals served a minimum term in prison, during which time they would undertake work to reduce the risk they posed, and at
the point where sufficient risk reduction had been achieved they would be released by the Parole Board. Page 18
Referring to the above section the following questions are directed to better understand how the parole board views its understanding and effectiveness and what they actually see their role regarding its purpose and whether that purpose has changed.
7. I refer to page 18 section 3.6 of the unintended consequences report (read it to clarify) Do you feel this remit has changed bearing in mind a large percentage of IPP’s have been released and recalled for minor breaches of their licence?
8. How effective has it been for the purpose of rehabilitation for additional detention after a recalled IPP comes back up for parole who has not committed a further offense whilst on licence and has this lead to a lesser or more wiliness to engage by the prisoner.
6.13 It is important to emphasise that we are not advocating that IPP prisoners should circumvent the existing arrangements to protect the public around ROTL, but that with current legislation most people serving IPP sentences would have a determinate rather than
indeterminate sentence, and the vast majority are well over tariff. We consider that the
expansion of ROTL to those IPP prisoners in closed conditions deemed eligible may be one
means of progressing those stuck in the prison system towards a safe and more speedy
release. Page 44
The following questions are to see if this has been a direction they have attempted to expedite and whether they have been given the necessary powers to direct this.
9. Has the parole board been able to progress IPP’s better through the ROTL process as recommended in section 6.13 page 44 of the Unintended consequences report (read it to clarify) to better help reintegration into the community and improve rehabilitation whilst protecting the public?
10. Can you give a figure of how many IPP prisoners have been progressed onto ROTL and of those that have how many progressed onto licence successfully.
7.7 the recall rate for IPP prisoners is very high compared with some other categories of
offenders: in 2015, around 500 IPP sentence prisoners were released, but 391 were recalled
in this period. Most of this was not related to reoffending, but rather to 'risky' behaviour such as the use of alcohol/drugs, which can still manifest in the community. In addition, through discussion with recalled IPP prisoners, there is some anecdotal evidence that gaps in the provision of some key community services, for example mental health services, can lead
to a breakdown of the release plan. However, the Parole Board says the serious reoffending
rate for IPP prisoners on release is very low, estimated at less than 1% (page 47)
What I’m trying to understand from this is can we conclude from the evidence that there is a disproportionate correlation regarding the recall of IPPs and determinate prisoners and also a disproportionate level of perceived risk between the two groups? Is an IPP less of a risk to the public and if so is the calculations of risk properly identify this?
11. Considering the extremely low reoffending rates of IPP prisoners as stated on page 47 of the report, estimated at LESS than 1%, is the assessment of risk to the public taking this into account?
12. Are you able to explain the cause of the high levels of recalls for IPP’s as it doesn’t appear to reflect their actual danger within reoffending rates?
13. Would it not be easier for the parole board to make a more accurate assessment of risk posed by over tariff IPP’s by having the argument for continued detention being made by the state?
PART of Nick Hardwicks statement on page 50
We could reduce the number of IPP prisoners in prison to about 1,500 by 2020.
If ministers want to go further and faster than this that will require legislative or policy changes. Options might include: revising the risk test so that prisoners only continue to be detained if there is evidence they remain a danger to the public;– introducing that measure just for ’short-tariff’ IPPs – those who received a tariff of two years or less but remain in prison long after their tariff has expired because they are unable to prove their risk
has reduced;– taking executive action to release IPP prisoners who have now served longer than the maximum current sentence for their offence
14. Do you feel that you are currently still able to deliver the target suggested by Mr Hardwick that you can reduce the IPP population in prison to 1,500 by 2020 and if not why not?
15. Are you able to see if IPP’s are more or less likely to engage positively with the parole process the longer they are held over tariff?
16. Have you seen an increase or decrease since 2016 in the timely delivery of proper assessments and management plans for parole hearings?
Hoping that some of these questions are helpful and from his answers we can put together another letter to Mr Gauke in an effort to help him see sense.
Jez owen
I thought this article below needed bringing to all your attention. Wakenshaw is an IPP and over tariff and his lawyers argument has merit.'Wakenshaw’s lawyers will argue that while the Parole Board is a de facto court under both common law and the ECHR, it does not enjoy the independence usually granted to a court.
"They will quote from Hardwick’s resignation letter, in which he questioned the board’s independence. Speaking to the Guardian in May, he went further, saying: “I think the Parole Board now fails the independence test.”
John
Worboys case shows Parole Board is not independent, court to hear....
Keane Robert
Private probation contracts ended early by government
rivate companies that run probation services are to have their government contracts ended early - after MPs said the system for supervising criminals was in a "mess".
The contracts began in 2015 to manage low-risk offenders in England and Wales, under a partial privatisation by then-Justice Secretary Chris Grayling.
Ministers are proposing further changes and private firms will remain involved.
But Labour said the costly contracts had created an "unprecedented crisis".
It comes after the Commons justice committee said in July that changes to probation had failed, and it was unconvinced private sector firms could ever deliver an effective service.
BBC home affairs correspondent Tom Symonds said the government had hoped that shaking up probation would result in less reoffending. The number of people reoffending has reduced slightly, but those that do are committing crimes more frequently.
'Substantial losses'
The arrangements for managing offenders were overhauled in 2014, with the probation service split in two.
A new state body, the National Probation Service (NPS), was set up to supervise high-risk offenders, with 21 privately run Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) supervising low and medium-risk offenders.
But David Gauke, who became justice secretary in January, said that while the £3.7bn Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) programme had been ambitious and innovative, several CRCs had made "very substantial losses".
Image copyright EPA
Mr Gauke said the amount of work available for the CRCs had been "lower than anticipated and that has had an impact in terms of their income and the services they are able to provide".
He also said he was determined to have a service that reduced reoffending, and could oversee "tough" community sentences with less reliance on "ineffective" short prison terms.
Failure to perform
Existing contracts will now end two years early, in 2020 - and will be replaced with 10 new ones under changes that will cost the government £170m.
This includes £110m that the CRCs owe the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) in fines for failing to meet performance targets - but which they will be allowed to reinvest in services to keep them going for the last two years of their agreements.
The MoJ will also pay £46m over the next two years for services that help offenders immediately after they are released from prison.
The MoJ said it had budgeted to pay firms £2.5bn by 2020 but had only paid out £2.2bn - a saving of £300m - because less work than anticipated was allocated to the CRCs.
This was because there was an increase in the proportion of serious offences which they were ineligible to work on.
Mr Gauke said new contracts would make better use of offending data and would move towards "payment for services delivered", but he ruled out allowing CRCs to take on high-risk cases.
Media playback is unsupported on your device
"People under probation supervision need help to change" says Dame Glenys Stacey
Media playback is unsupported on your device listen here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44973258
A British prisoner is seeking a judicial review because he says he does not have a fair chance of parole following the controversy surrounding the decision to release the serial sex attacker John Worboys.
High court judges ruled in March that the Parole Board’s decision to release Worboys should be quashed and ordered a “fresh determination” in his case. The ruling led to the departure of Parole Board chair Nick Hardwick, whose position was said to be “untenable” by the justice secretary, David Gauke.
Lawyers acting for the prisoner Paul Wakenshaw claim that Hardwick’s removal proves that the Parole Board lacks independence and as such fails to meet the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights
Wakenshaw is also seeking an order postponing the recruitment of a new chair, for which interviews are scheduled to take place next month.
On Thursday the Royal Courts of Justice will consider whether the recruitment process should be suspended until the judicial review claim can be decided.
Like Worboys, Wakenshaw is serving an indeterminate public protection (IPP) sentence. In 2009 he was sentenced to a minimum of six years’ imprisonment for two offences of robbery and for using an imitation firearm. Now three years over that tariff, he is undergoing a parole review and is due to appear before the Parole Board.
IPP sentences were introduced in 2005 by the former home secretary David Blunkett to protect the public against criminals whose crimes were not serious enough to merit a normal life sentence but who were regarded as too dangerous to be released when the term of their original sentence had expired.
High-risk criminals, mainly convicted of violent or sexual offences, were given a tariff (a minimum sentence) instead of a fixed-term sentence. They could only be released at the end of that tariff if the Parole Board was satisfied they could be managed safely in the community.
In 2012, IPP sentences were scrapped by the then justice secretary Kenneth Clarke, who called them a stain on the justice system. More than 3,000 IPP prisoners remain behind bars. Before being released, IPP prisoners must complete offending behaviour courses. But not all jails run the required courses and prisoners can wait years to participate in them.
Wakenshaw’s lawyers will argue that while the Parole Board is a de facto court under both common law and the ECHR, it does not enjoy the independence usually granted to a court.
They will quote from Hardwick’s resignation letter, in which he questioned the board’s independence. Speaking to the Guardian in May, he went further, saying: “I think the Parole Board now fails the independence test.”
It is not the first time the autonomy of the board has been questioned in the courts. In 2008 four prisoners successfully challenged its perceived lack of independence, again citing common and ECHR law.. The secretary of state appealed, but the court of appeal upheld the lower divisional court’s ruling.
In that case – R (Brooke) v Parole Board – the judges concluded: “Neither the secretary of state nor his department has adequately addressed the need for the Parole Board to be and to be seen to be free of influence in relation to the performance of its judicial functions. Both by directions and by the use of his control over the appointment of members of the board, the secretary of state has sought to influence the manner in which the board carries out its risk assessment.”
Wakenshaw’s lawyers acknowledge thatsome changes to the Parole Board were made after the Brooke ruling, but say the overall structure remains largely in place.
Wakenshaw’s lawyer, Dean Kingham, of Swain & Co, said: “The Ministry of Justice classifies the Parole Board as an arms-length body, but often its approach could better be described as hands on. The removal of Hardwick by the minister was a stark example of overt and undue political influence over a supposedly independent body. My client believes that the board will now exercise undue caution, and many prisoners who are safe to be released will not be.”
Deborah Russo, co-director of the Prisoners’ Advice Service charity, said a legal challenge was long overdue and that nothing had substantially changed in the Parole Board since the Brooke case. “The fact that the Parole Board is located within the Ministry of Justice and shares a website within it, is indicative of a lack of independence. Further, the forced resignation of Nick Hardwick is testament to the fact that the actions of the Parole Board are very closely manoeuvered behind closed doors by the MoJ.”
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “The Parole Board is independent from the government and ministers play no role in the decisions that it makes. It would be inappropriate to comment further while legal proceedings are ongoing.”
COMMENTS
Kelly how on earth is A probation officer allowed the power to be judge and jury in their opinion with regards to perceived risk FAIR JUSTICE SYSTEM DONT THINK SO and given the POWER to have someone's parole decision overturned
Mcluckie My argument is with that how can any outside probation say if their client is high or low risk when they clearly have NO dealings with them whilst stuck in he system not even been to meet them face to face either that be on a parole hearing or just a visit? My son's so called probation walked out on her job the day b 4 his last hearing so the manageress had to take the call she stated an I mean from paperwork in front of her that my son was high risk she was asked she was asked have u or any of ur team been to visit -Mr bla bla over the months coming up to his parole? answer NO, have any of ur team had video link wit Mr bla bla ? answer NO, then witout seeing this man who sits here today can u say he is high risk to the public wen here in front of the panel it states this man is a medium to low risk ? well I have in front of me papers stain otherwise, parole board buts in that does clearly NOT state that in his up to date papers then she probation says her computer has crashed emmmmmm beg to differ on that she says she was using 2 computers at one time an both crashed on her.
Rosina It's funny how all the stories are so similar for every one
James Bit random but have any of you IPPers who are now out gone on to have children? I see a lot of posts about SS being involved and banning released IPPs from seeing children so wondering if we would have issues if we got pregnant once mines released (if I’m not too old by then)
I think is really sad that my oh has said if it wasn’t for coming home to me he would be happy to live the rest of his life in prison.... 9 years inside on a 3year IPP sentence so it’s the norm for him now and still no release date in sight
Pullman Social services do get involved but they don't just ban every IPP my hubby is IPP and sees his children all time and social services wud have no reason once released for him to be Ripped unless he was a danger to them which he is not. My man got 15 month tariff for arson on two empty cars, he has now done 13 years nearly he's losing hope he also said if it wasn't for me and kids he would happily stay in jail and throw the towel in, its heart breaking .....
Rumble So sad, it’s disgusting how they cannot task one of those lazy b...rds in parliament to make this a priority and set these boys free. Hang in there you will get your boy home
Piercy Ipp sentence is bull shit they get recalled over nothing how is that fair or right.. They done their time and more.. They get punish more then a murderer it's a joke. Mine got another knock back 15 months he was recalled in 2014 with no new crime it's broken me to levels I never thou it could but he is now trying to reapply again for parole if they give him new date maybe am sick of this system and how they destroy people lives..
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/26/john-worboys-case-parole-board-independent-court#img-1
No comments:
Post a Comment
comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.