Hi Katherine.
I have noted your name from the IPP Prisoners Families Campaign Blog and am writing to you about a conference we are holding that we thought you/representatives may wish to attend.
The Worcester Diocesan Criminal Justice Affairs Group (CJAG) is holding a conference on IPP prisoners (Imprisonment for Public Protection) on Tuesday 16th October 2018 from 10am-4pm in the open setting of the Great Hall at the Grange, HMP Hewell. For some time now we have been exercised about the plight of IPP prisoners and wanted to focus on the human cost of this sentence. Being a diocesan group, Our two main aims are internally within the Diocese to offer a Christian perspective and provide expert advice on criminal justice matters; and externally to raise public awareness and be catalysts of criminal justice-related social action.
The title of the conference is Searching for a way out - The dilemma of the sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP)
We would like to invite you and any interested colleagues to attend the conference which is aimed at those working in the criminal justice system, those who can influence policy, those concerned about IPP prisoners, mental health professionals and interested people from Faith communities.
We are starting the day with some prisoners speaking about their experience, followed by key note speakers from the Parole Board, the Prison Reform Trust and the National Probation Service. There will be workshops exploring some of the issues in more depth. HMP Hewell is kindly providing the venue and catering so there is no cost for this event.
Thanks
The Worcester Diocesan Criminal Justice Affairs Group
Foreword by the Bishop of Worcester
Justice is one of the four key values the Diocese of Worcester embraces in its vision for what a Jesus-shaped, God-governed church should be doing. I am, therefore, particularly delighted to commend the work of the Criminal Justice Affairs Group, with its focus on how Christian understandings of justice can contribute to the continuing improvement of England’s criminal justice system. A concern with how the system works for individuals is central to a Christian understanding of justice. Such individuals may be victims of crime, criminals, police officers, prisons service staff, people working in the court system and rehabilitation service, and a whole range more, paid and voluntary. Bad systems dehumanise people – a bad justice system ought to be a contradiction in terms. True justice opens up possibilities for the future, for restoration and making amends, for rehabilitation, and for forgiveness. It’s good that in the coming year the group’s work will include a focus on IPP prisoners. This is a group of individuals that has been created and then left behind by poorly-thought through changes in legislation. They have indefinite sentences and they are only able to be released when they can prove they have achieved change through training and education courses. But they aren’t given enough opportunities to go on those courses. Some may still need to be incarcerated, but a just system will offer them hope for change and restoration they currently don’t have. Please pray for them, for the work of the group, and for all who seek to maximise justice for all
file:///C:/Users/Katherine/Downloads/CJAG_Annual_Report%202017-2018.pdf. .........................
https://www.cofe-worcester.org.uk/mission-and-ministry/social-responsibility/criminaljustice
Booking Form return to Diana@fulbrook.co.uk
46% prisons officially rated "of concern"
Last month (26 July 2018), the MoJ published its annual prison performance ratings, which makes public the performance of every prison in 2017/18 split into four categories. Here’s the predictably disappointing summary; as you can see, performance in almost half (46%) prisons is of concern :
Here’s the official description of the performance management system which has changed this year:
The prison performance framework for 2017/18 reflected the changes made in April 2017 to the
responsibility of commissioning for prisons. From 2009/10 to 2016/17, the Prison Rating System was used to assess the in-year performance of prisons. This was replaced by the Custodial Performance Tool (CPT) for 2017/18.
Prison performance ratings for 2017/18 are based on a data-driven assessment of a prison’s performance through the CPT, with ratification by in depth scrutiny of performance over the year through an established moderation process.
Performance in the CPT has been assessed against three main outcome areas that reflect priorities for 2017/18 as set by the Ministry of Justice:
- Public Protection;
- Safety and Order;
- And Offender Reform.
Seventeen commissioned performance measures developed in consultation with HMPPS underpin the three outcome areas. To ensure a balanced view of performance is reflected, a further nineteen shadow measures deemed to be important from an operational perspective also sit within the framework. For the purpose of the CPT these measures have been categorised as the HMPPS Additional Measures. Sufficiently high or low performance in the HMPPS Additional Measures can increase, or decrease, the overall prison performance rating by a band, if this differs to performance in the weighted measures.
The figure below shows the deterioration of performance over recent years:
All prisons deemed to be of serious concern were either Male Category C or Male Local prisons. Around 80% of Male Local prisons and were rated as having performance of concern or of serious concern. Offenders accommodated at Male Local prisons are either on remand or serving short-term custodial sentences, a likely driver to poor performance given environments will be more dynamic than those prisons with longer-term serving offenders, with a limited time to rehabilitate offenders.
All Male Open prisons, Young Offender Institutes and nearly 90% of Long-Term High Security prisons were rated as exceptional or meeting the majority of targets. Whilst around 70% of female prisons were performing exceptionally or were meeting the majority of targets. The remainder were rated as having performance of concern.
Conclusion
These gloomy statistics combined with the news that Birmingham is the third prison to be the subject of the Chief Prison’s Inspector’s “ urgent notification” procedure shows us that Prison Minister Rory Stewart’s “back to basics” prison reform campaign still has a long way to go.
All prison posts are kindly sponsored by Prison Consultants Limited who offer a complete service from arrest to release for anyone facing prison and their family. Prison Consultants have no editorial influence on the contents of this site.
..................................................................
Speech by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the Rt Hon David Gauke MP, at a reception of the Care not Custody coalition, on Thursday, 21 June 2018
Introduction Thank you, Lord Bradley for that introduction. The government continues to be grateful for your work on vulnerable people, those with mental health problems or learning disabilities, within the criminal justice system. Almost ten years on from the important findings of the Bradley Report, I think we have a positive story of change to tell about the treatment of vulnerable offenders in England. I have to say, it’s a real pleasure to be here today and following in the illustrious footsteps of the Prime Minister, who I know addressed this same event as Home Secretary in 2014. With such a wide and varied membership of organisations and professional bodies, the Coalition brings together every agency within the system as well as the third sector to support the government in keeping the ‘care not custody’ promise and, quite rightly, to hold us to account for how effectively we deliver on it. Let me say from the outset that this is something about which I care deeply.
Short sentencing Since I became the Justice Secretary at the beginning of the year, I have been thinking long and hard about the approach we take when it comes to vulnerable prisoners, including those for whom mental health and/or substance abuse play a key role in how they enter the criminal justice system. What is clear to me right now is that the approach we are taking presently is not working. For example, we know that at 66% the reoffending rate for those given immediate custodial sentences of twelve months or less is higher in comparison to community and suspended sentences. And yet, every year around 60,000 offenders are given sentences of less than a year. We know that these relatively short periods in custody have little rehabilitative value for offenders.
Short sentences can also have devastating effects on families, particularly where an offender has children. In the absence of an established wider support network, it can lead to children being taken into care, putting an even greater burden on public services. More alarmingly, international evidence has found that the children of offenders are at increased risk of antisocial behaviour and becoming offenders themselves—perpetuating intergenerational cycles of offending. Often these offenders have complex needs and vulnerabilities, which in many cases relate to the underlying causes of offending. We know that what they need is care not custody, treatment not time, rehabilitation not incarceration. I’m not saying that we need to go soft on crime—not at all. My first priority is protecting the public from its often-devastating effects.
Sentences must be sufficiently punitive, both to act as a deterrent and to maintain confidence. But that is exactly why I’m saying that we need to look again at short sentences—to ensure that they are seen as an absolute last resort and to build confidence in the ability of community alternatives to provide better outcomes for
offenders.
So, it is about time we started to look more broadly at the underlying causes of crime and what actually works to break the cycle of re-offending. In the long-term that is how we will protect the public from crime. Liaison and Diversion Services But there are things happening in the system right now to ensure that vulnerable offenders receive appropriate outcomes to their cases; so that their individual needs are met with the correct punishment to enable rehabilitation, rather than custody being the default option.
We continue to support the rollout of NHS England’s Liaison and Diversion services – so that clinicians can firstly identify people with mental health and/or substance misuse problems and other vulnerabilities who come into contact with the criminal justice system; and secondly refer them into appropriate services to address their needs and help to break the cycle of re-offending. I am grateful to Lord Bradley and other colleagues in the room for their continued engagement and support on this.
The success of Liaison and Diversion services hinges on people – the clinical staff placed at police stations and courts to advise decision-makers within the justice system in real time. That ability to assess and refer vulnerable offenders as they enter the system and pass through it is slowly changing the culture around how vulnerable offenders are charged and sentenced—so that it is tailored to meet their specific needs. In terms of the Care Not Custody pledge, this means that vulnerable offenders, where appropriate, can be diverted away from the criminal justice system altogether. Liaison and Diversion services can act as a proper check and balance to support decision makers in ensuring that where being charged is inappropriate, it is stopped; where a custodial sentence is inappropriate, a conditional caution or community sentence with a treatment requirement can be put in place instead.
It’s also worth noting that my department is working in partnership with the National Police Chiefs Council to simplify the Out of Court Disposals framework so that we can increase the use of conditional disposals – which is another opportunity to provide early intervention. I’m really pleased to say that Liaison and Diversion services are already operating across more than 80% of England and we expect the full roll-out to be complete by 2020/21. Once that happens we can have the confidence that, no matter where vulnerable individuals encounter the criminal justice system, the right intervention can be made to ensure that they are treated according to their needs.
Community Sentence Treatment Requirement Protocol This government has pledged to make data driven, fact informed policy-making the backbone of everything it does. So, I want my department to follow the evidence on this.
A recent study suggests that sentences which have mental health treatment requirements attached to them are associated with significant reductions in reoffending. That’s why we are in the process of working with the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and Public Health England to develop a Community Sentence Treatment Requirement Protocol (or CSTRP), which will set out what is expected of each public agency involved in a case – the courts, probation services and treatment providers.
The protocol is designed to ensure that access to mental health and substance misuse services improves for vulnerable offenders because we know that the need is there. A study
of adult offenders starting community orders in 2009 and 2010, for example, showed that, of those who received a formal assessment, 32% were identified as having a drug misuse need and 38% an alcohol problem.
The same survey found that 35% of people reported having a formal diagnosis of a mental health condition. Despite this obvious need, in 2017, only 538 Mental Health Treatment Requirements were given, which amounts to less than 1% of all treatment requirements commenced as part of a community sentence. During the same year, 8,719 Drug Rehabilitation Requirements and 5, 419 Alcohol Treatment Requirements were given—representing 5% and 3% of all commenced requirements. The CSTRP will build on the Liaison and Diversion assessment, amounting to a proper treatment plan, tailored for each individual offender as they pass through the criminal justice system and complete their sentence. It will also set out a new maximum waiting time for court-ordered treatment so that offenders will be able to hold agencies to account for the treatment they receive and these waiting times will rightly be in line with those we set down for the general population. I’m really pleased to say that the CSTRP is already being tested in five areas across England and I look forward to reporting back shortly on the outcomes of those trials and how—and when—we can roll out the protocol more widely.
Conclusion It’s been a genuine pleasure to be here to address you today. When it comes to the Care Not Custody Coalition I think the clue is in the name – you have come together because you genuinely care about getting the right outcomes in our criminal justice system for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. I think there is a wider debate to be had about sentencing and the usefulness of short sentences in particular. And I don’t think that just applies to vulnerable offenders per se but also female offenders, for whom domestic abuse and rates of self-harm are nearly five times higher than for men in custody.
The rollout of Liaison and Diversion services is ensuring that we have the right clinical staff positioned at the right points throughout the criminal justice system, to better identify vulnerable offenders and ensure they receive punishments with the appropriate courses of treatment attached to them. And with trials of the Community Sentence Treatment Requirement Protocol ongoing, I look forward to us learning the lessons that will mean we can offer tailored treatment to every person with mental health or substance misuse concerns coming through the criminal justice system in the future. In addition, as part of the government’s response to the Lammy Review, we are encouraging more pilots of deferred prosecution models, which can be so crucial in terms of outcomes for vulnerable offenders. As all that work is ongoing I know the Care Not Custody Coalition will continue to be part of the conversation on the treatment of vulnerable offenders. I welcome the scrutiny I know you will give this government as we continue to redraw the balance in favour of care rather than custody. Ultimately, that’s how we will protect vulnerable offenders from the cycle of reoffending and the public from the cycle of crime. Thank you.
The government should follow Scotland’s lead and introduce a presumption against short prison sentences as part of their efforts to restore safety and stability to our struggling jails according to a new briefing, Prison: the facts, published today by the Prison Reform Trust.
The briefing reveals the current scale of the challenge facing the government, with hundreds of people flowing in and out of the prison system on short sentences every week, placing pressure on an already overstretched and overcrowded prison system.
It shows that safety in prisons has deteriorated rapidly during the last six years, with more incidents of self-harm and assaults than ever before. 69 people also took their own lives in the 12 months to March 2018.
Recent inspections at HMPs Nottingham, Liverpool, Wormwood Scrubs and Wandsworth have all shown that problems with safety and overcrowding are particularly acute at local prisons, where large numbers of people are often held for short periods of time—often in poor living conditions, with limited access to rehabilitative courses and opportunities for staff to build constructive and supportive relationships with those in their care.
In 2017 over 37,000 people entered prison to serve a sentence of less than a year, and latest figures show that nearly two-thirds will reoffend within a year of release. Four in five people sent to prison on short sentences last year had committed a non-violent offence.
Rather than tackling the issues contributing to a person’s offending, short spells behind bars can often make them worse, as people lose accommodation, jobs and families, without the time to tackle the issues that got them into trouble in the first place.
In Scotland the introduction of a presumption against the use of short custodial sentences of less than three months has seen a reduction in their use by a third since 2011, and sentences of between three and six months falling by 15%, whilst the number of community sentences has risen by 19%. The Scottish Government has also made a further commitment to extend this presumption to sentences of less than 12 months. Whilst courts are still free to pass short prison sentences, the presumption requires sentencers to record their reasons for doing so.
Meanwhile in England and Wales, recent reforms aimed at providing more support on release to people serving short sentences have, perversely, created further instability. Anyone leaving custody who has served two days or more is now required to serve a minimum of 12 months under supervision in the community.
A series of reports have catalogued the failings of these ‘Through the Gate’ services. Last year 8,825 people on short sentences were recalled back to custody after their release due to breaching the terms of their licence conditions, often for a matter of a few short weeks. Highlighting the inadequacy of support provided to people on release, the House of Commons Justice Committee recently cautioned that “there is a risk that offenders now receive a £46 discharge grant and a leaflet rather than just £46.”
Recent statements by justice secretary David Gauke, and prisons minister Rory Stewart regarding the need to reduce the use of short prison sentences are extremely welcome, but both have stopped short of calling for the introduction of a legislative presumption, as is the case in Scotland.
The Prison Reform Trust estimates that if a presumption was introduced it could see 13,500 fewer people entering prison each year—allowing vital breathing space for our prison system to focus on those who absolutely need to be there, whilst delivering better outcomes for victims, society, and people in trouble with the law.
Commenting, Peter Dawson, director of the Prison Reform Trust said:
“It has been good to hear both the Secretary of State for Justice and the minister with responsibility for sentencing speak in public about the futility of short prison sentences and the urgent need to reduce their use. This is true even for those cases where sentencers have ‘lost patience’ with a repeat offender—sending them to prison still makes matters worse in the long term. Ministers should follow their own evidence and introduce a presumption against the use of these destructive sentences once and for all.”
.....................................
is the parole board disadvantaging the IPP prisoners by making these statements like this applications to for new parole board members surely all prisoners are a risk, not just one set.
We are looking for outstanding individuals for the posts of
Judicial Parole Board Member
Reference number: PAT 150049 -
PAROLE BOARD - JUDICIAL
(please
use the above reference in all correspondence)
Location: The
Parole Board is based in London; the roles are home based, with hearings held
in HMP establishments across England & Wales
Term of
appointment: 5 years, with the possibility of re-appointment
Time
commitment: At least 69 days a year. Much of this time
commitment will be undertaking hearings, but a proportion is preparation which
can be done flexibly. Additional capacity is welcome subject to availability of
work.
Remuneration: Fee paid
at daily rate of £320 per day for casework. See Appendix 1 for full details.
Closing date for
applications is noon on Monday 21 May
Alternative
format versions of this candidate information pack are available on request
from the Public Appointments Team, contact details as above.
1. Introduction
A Message from the Chief Executive of the Parole Board
Thank you for your interest in becoming a Member of the
Parole Board.
You may already have some idea about the important work
of the Parole Board and the following pages will tell you more about the
Board’s purpose and the nature of the role.
The Parole Board is an independent court like body, whose
main aim is to protect the public by risk assessing prisoners to decide whether
they can be safely released into the community. Our decisions are of critical
importance to victims, individual prisoners and their families, but also have a
wider role to play in contributing to the prison reform process while
maintaining public confidence in the justice system.
We are now looking to appoint up to 20 new members. We
are looking for people with a genuine interest in the work we do and who
possess the competencies, skills and judgement to make an effective and
critical contribution to the Board’s work. Parole Board decisions are of
critical importance to public confidence in the criminal justice system.
We have some eligibility and qualifying criteria for this
role. These are set out later in this
document, together with a description of the types of cases we deal with to
give you a feel for the nature of our work. Please read these carefully before
you submit an application.
If you
have further questions about this post, you are welcome to contact Stephanie
McIntosh, Director Member Development & Practice at Stephanie.Mcintosh@paroleboard.gov.uk
or call her on 0203 965 5079.
If you
believe you have the experience and qualities we are seeking, I hope you
consider applying for this important position.
Martin Jones
Chief Executive, Parole Board for England and W
2. About the Parole Board
The Parole Board aims to:
Make risk
assessments which are rigorous, fair and timely with the primary aim of
protecting the public and which contribute to the rehabilitation of prisoners
where appropriate.
Demonstrate
effective and accountable corporate governance by maintaining strong internal
control, setting clear objectives and managing corporate risk as well as
delivering best value by optimum use of resources.
Promote the
independence of and public confidence in the work of the Board, while
effectively managing change.
The Parole Board for England and Wales was established in
1968 under the Criminal Justice Act 1967. It became an independent Executive
Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB) on 1 July 1996 under the Criminal Justice
and Public Order Act 1994. The Parole Board's role is to make risk assessments
about prisoners, to decide who may safely be released into the community, or
where requested, to make recommendations to the Secretary of State for their
transfer to open prison condition.
A NDPB is an independent public body which has a
role in the process of national Government.
It is not a government department or part of one.
It operates at arm's length from Government.
Appointments to the boards of these public bodies are
known as public appointments.
The Parole Board has responsibility for considering the
following types of cases:
Indeterminate sentences
These include life sentence prisoners
(mandatory life, discretionary life and automatic life sentence prisoners and
Her Majesty's Pleasure detainees) and prisoners given indeterminate sentences
for public protection (IPP). The Parole Board considers whether prisoners
are safe to release into the community once they have completed their tariff
(the minimum time they must spend in prison) and also whether they are safe to
re-release following recall to prison for a breach of their life licence
conditions (the rules which they must observe upon release).
Determinate sentences
These include prisoners given extended sentences
for public protection (EPP) for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005 and
discretionary conditional release (DCR) prisoners serving more than 4 years
whose offence was committed before 4 April 2005. The Parole Board considers
whether these prisoners are safe to release into the community once they have
completed the minimum time they must spend in prison. The Board also
considers any determinate sentence prisoner referred by the Secretary
of State, following recall to prison for a breach of their parole licence
conditions (the rules which they must observe upon release), as to whether they
are safe to re-release into the community.
Location
You will sit on both paper and oral panels. Paper panels
are conducted by a single member and usually take place at home. Oral hearings
can be 3, 2 or 1 member panels. The oral panels mainly take place in prisons,
although some take place via a video link with the panel situated in the Parole
Board’s offices currently at 52 Queen Anne’s Gate, London, or elsewhere, as
needed. The hearings generally consider release or re-release after recall of
life sentence and high-risk prisoners.
You will be expected to travel as required to hear cases or attend
Parole Board related events. This may
entail an occasional overnight stay, for which expenses will be reimbursed at
the prevailing rates.
The
Parole Board manages the caseload on a regional basis across England and Wales.
There are four regions:
North East, North West, Yorkshire and Humberside
East Midlands, West Midlands
South, South East, East Anglia and London
South West, South Central and Wales
There are vacancies across all regions, although we are
particularly seeking members in regions other than London and the South East.
The prisons located within each region are listed at Appendix 2.
3. The role of the Judicial Parole Board Member
The key task of all members of the Parole Board is to
make rigorous, fair and timely risk assessments about individual cases which
have the primary aim of protecting the public and which contribute to the
rehabilitation of offenders where appropriate.
You will
be required to provide at least 69 days commitment annually, much of this time
commitment will be undertaking hearings, but a proportion is preparation which
can be done flexibly. Additional capacity is welcome subject to availability of
work.
You will
be supported by a mentor during your first year, with ongoing training and
development.
Primarily
you will undertake oral hearings with colleagues but you will also have the
opportunity to develop other roles within the Parole Board and undertake work
such as paper panels and case management.
This is a
senior position where it is expected individuals will use their risk assessment
and risk management skills, to work independently and in consultation with
other Parole Board colleagues in deciding if an offender should receive parole.
The
Parole Board works in a digital environment and it essential that applicants
are IT literate.
IT
equipment, training and on-going support services are provided.
As a
Judicial Member of the Parole Board for England & Wales you will:
Analyse and critically evaluate information in order to
identify continuing risk/dangerousness in an individual offender’s case, where
information may come from a variety of sources including electronic dossiers,
electronic updates and evidence given at oral hearings.
Apply knowledge and judgement to offenders’ cases in
order to decide whether they can safely be released into the community and to
set conditions where release is appropriate.
Assess cases when they are first referred to the Parole
Board and set directions, where necessary, to ensure effective management of
those cases that are sent to oral hearings.
Take an active part in oral hearings as a panel member,
questioning witnesses as appropriate, weighing evidence to inform the panel’s
assessment of risk.
Work collaboratively with other panel members in order to
make judgements about the available evidence and to provide a concise and
structured summary of relevant factors in reaching a decision or
recommendation.
Use Parole Board IT effectively to access electronic
dossiers, draft reasoned summaries and decisions, to communicate with other
panellists and executive staff, and to keep up-to-date with current case
information, relevant developments and best practice guidance.
Be responsible for your own personal development by
accessing training, guidance and information offered by the Parole Board and
contributing positively wherever possible to the effective running of the
organisation.
Carry out all casework for which you have been trained
and accredited, keeping up your practice in these areas, whether carrying out
work on paper panels, case management, oral hearings or any other casework.
Be an effective ambassador for the Parole Board when
representing it at hearings or any other event.
Travel as required to the headquarters in London or
Prisons throughout the country, or for other Parole Board related events, with the
occasional overnight stay.
Eligibility
To be
eligible for this role you must be:
A retired High Court Judge; or
A Circuit Judge, who retired in the three years preceding
the closing date for applications, or is currently serving and will be retired
by 30th September 2018.
There are circumstances in which an individual will not be considered for
appointment.
People who have received a prison sentence or suspended
sentence of three months or more in the last five years;
In certain circumstances, those who have had an earlier
term of appointment on the Parole Board terminated; and
You should not be employed in the UK civil service.
Essential
criteria
The
essential criteria below will be tested throughout the recruitment process.
Demonstrable ability to conduct effective evidence-based
decision making, weighing facts and evidence, analysing and critically
evaluating large volumes of complex information and identifying key issues,
within tight deadlines and working on your own initiative.
Demonstrable independence of mind and sound judgement,
with the ability to make evidence based decisions that are accurately
documented.
Excellent interpersonal skills: the ability to gain
respect and maintain rapport through effective communication and influencing
skills – with the confidence to challenge opinions where necessary, work
collegiately and resolve differences to reach sound decisions.
Excellent communication skills, both written and oral:
the ability to communicate sensitively and effectively with a wide range of
individuals, varying your approach as necessary and treating others with
respect, to listen actively and evaluate replies in order to probe issues.
Excellent written skills: the ability to draft
well-formed written accounts which summarise evidence in support of a decision
or recommendation.
Demonstrable high standards of corporate and personal
integrity and conduct, such as a strong commitment to equal opportunities, and
the ethos of supporting the wider public or community good through your
contributions.
High levels of time management, organisational and
administrative skills, together with strong personal motivation and commitment
to professional self-development.
Evidence of experience of any aspect of the criminal
justice system and an understanding of the importance of the victim’s
perspective.
4. Other important
appointment information
Tenure: Public appointments are offered on a fixed
term basis. We do this to ensure that the leadership of our public bodies is
regularly refreshed and the Parole Board can benefit from new perspectives and
ideas.
The
appointment will run for 5 years with the possibility of reappointment for a
further term subject to satisfactory appraisal and at the discretion of Ministers.
In line
with the Governance Code for Public Appointments, there is a strong presumption
that no individual should serve more than two terms or serve in any one post
for more than ten years.
This
accords with the Principles of Public Appointments, in particular that of
Diversity: “Public appointments should reflect the diversity of the
society in which we live and appointments should be made taking account of the
need to appoint boards which include a balance of skills and backgrounds”.
Remuneration: Remuneration
is taxable and subject to Class 1 National Insurance contributions. The role is
not pensionable and your remuneration may be abated if you receive a public
service pension.
The work is fee paid.
Remuneration is taxable and fee-paid members have no pension
rights. Details of the fee structure is
at Appendix 1.
Retired judicial members will be required to provide at
least 69 days annually and will be supported with ongoing training and
development. You may give more time if
there is work available. There is no
guarantee of work. The time commitment includes preparation time for panels,
which can be undertaken at home and in the evenings, to fit in with your other
responsibilities. You will also be required to attend prisons for oral hearings
during office hours.
Travel and Subsistence - Members are
entitled to claim for those travel costs necessarily and actually incurred on
Parole Board business at the normal public service rates. Where no extra
expense is incurred, no reimbursement is due. Members are also entitled to
claim subsistence payments to reimburse them for any additional expenditure
incurred while away from home on Parole Board business.
Attendance at Parole Board meetings - There
is an expectation that members will attend training and development events
organised by the Parole Board, and, where appropriate, contribute to the
development of the organisation through consultation, pilot projects and
non-casework activity, such as mentoring, training and quality assessment. Fees are payable for time spent on Parole
Board business.
Performance Appraisal: All members will
be subject to regular monitoring and appraisal of their performance. This will include an initial appraisal after
completion of the first year of membership.
Standards in Public Life: Public
appointees are required to uphold the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s
Seven Principles of Public Life (see Appendix 3). You are also expected to adhere to the Code of Conduct for board members of public bodies.
5. Advisory Assessment Panel membership
The Panel
will be:
Bill Loft, Arms Length Bodies Senior Finance Business
Partner, Ministry of Justice (Panel Chair)
Tania Hornibrook, Head of Operational Casework, Parole
Board
John Harrow, Judicial Parole Board Member
Nicolina Andall, Independent representative
The
interim Parole Board Chair, will provide oversight of this campaign and will
report to Ministers on the outcome of the interviews. Ministers are responsible
for making the appointment
6. The appointment process and time line
The
figure below sets out the key stages and timings in the process.
Induction Training
Candidates who are successful in their applications will be required to
attend a three day residential training event in Derbyshire, from 23 to 26
October 2018.
Please
note that it may not be possible to provide specific, individually tailored feedback
following the sift stage but we will provide, on request, feedback to those who
are interviewed.
If you
accept an invitation to interview, we will take two references in advance of
the interview. By providing the details
of two referees you are consenting to us approaching them in this way.
If you
cannot attend an interview on one of the dates shown, please advise us as soon
as you can. Please note that we do
not pay travel expenses to attend interviews.
The
Secretary of State or another Minister may ask to meet each of the candidates
before or after interview.
If called
for interview the Advisory Assessment Panel will explore your experience and
expertise to determine whether you meet the essential criteria for the role.
You may
be required to take part in an exercise during the interview slot. If any preparation is required, this will be
confirmed in your invitation to interview letter.
Security Clearance
For successful candidates, confirmation of appointment
will be subject to basic clearance checks, covering confirmation of identity
and right to work in the UK plus a criminal record check. This will involve
completion of several paper and electronic forms and can take up to five
weeks to process following acknowledgement of receipt of completed forms by
the vetting team.
7. How to apply
To make an application, please send:
A CV (maximum two sides of A4) detailing your
qualifications, employment history and any appointments or offices you hold.
Please also provide your preferred contact number and email address.
A personal statement addressing the three statements
below. Please consider
the role and criteria carefully in preparing your statement. Please limit your responses to 250 words per
question.
Give an example of a situation when you had to plan and
manage your own time to balance various work priorities and to ensure you met
challenging deadlines. What steps did you take to ensure completion of the
task?
Give an example of a time when you were confronted by a
situation where diversity and fairness were issues and were likely to be
compromised. What was the situation, what specifically did you do and what was
the outcome?
Please say why this appointment is of interest to you and
outline particular experiences and skills which could enable you to make a
significant contribution to the work of the Parole Board.
Assessment process
Please consider the role and selected criteria carefully
in preparing your statement, see appendix 4 for details on which of the
criteria you will be assessed on at the sift stage, and which during the
interview process.
Information from Advisory Assessment Panels indicates
that applications which offer specific and tailored examples against the
criteria, making clear the candidate’s role in achieving an outcome, are often
the strongest.
Supporting Documents
Please also complete and return the following supporting
documents:
potential conflicts of interest: You should declare any actual or potential
conflict of interest or anything which might cause embarrassment should you be
appointed. The Advisory Assessment Panel may wish to explore these further with
you if you are shortlisted for interview. Conflicts
might arise from a variety of sources such as financial interests or share
ownership, membership of, or association with, particular bodies or the
activities of relatives or partners. If
you need further advice, please contact Anna Payne at PublicAppointmentsTeam@justice.gov.uk.
note of public appointments – please list
any appointments currently held;
referee details – please give names/contact details
of two referees (who will be contacted if you are shortlisted for interview);
the political activity declaration form – in
line with the Governance Code for Public Appointments, details of any declared
activity will be made public if you are appointed; and
the equal opportunities monitoring form –
information is requested for monitoring purposes only and plays no part in the
selection process. It will be kept
confidential and will not be seen by the Advisory Assessment Panel.
Please
send your CV, personal statement and supporting documents to:
If you
have any questions about any aspects of this post, you are welcome to
contact:
8. Diversity and
equality of opportunity
We
encourage applications from all candidates regardless of ethnicity, religion or
belief, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability or gender identity. We particularly welcome applications from
women, those with a disability and those from a black or ethnic minority
background.
We would
also particularly welcome applications from those currently working in, or with
experience of, the private sector, and those who have not previously held
public appointments.
We want
to explore the widest possible pool of talent for this important position.
Arrangements for candidates with a disability
Guaranteed Interview Scheme
There is a guaranteed
interview scheme (GIS) for candidates with disabilities who meet the minimum
selection criteria.
The
MoJ is a disability confident employer; further information can found here
Adjustments:
If you have a disability and require adjustments to help you if you are
called to attend an interview, please contact: Anna Payne in the Public
Appointments Team (by e-mail PublicAppointmentsTeam@justice.gov.uk
to discuss further). Please quote PAT 150049- PAROLE
BOARD-JUDICIAL in any correspondence.
To
discuss any adjustments that you may require if appointed, please contact:
Campaign Manager, Kathy Malvo by e-mail at kathleen.malvo@justice.gov.uk
.
9. Complaints Process
If you have a complaint about any
aspect of the way your application has been handled, we would like to hear from
you. In the first instance please write to or e-mail the Public Appointments
Team at the address or e-mail address given below quoting the appropriate
reference number.
Maggie Garrett, Ministry of Justice, Head of the Public Appointments
Team, ALB Division, 2.54, 102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9AJ.
Complaints must
be received by the Public Appointments Team within 12 calendar months of the
issue or the closure of the recruitment competition, whichever is the later.
We will
acknowledge your complaint within two working days of receipt and reply as
quickly and clearly as possible; within 20 working days of receipt. We
will tell you if we cannot meet this deadline for any reason and provide an
expected reply date.
Taking it
further: If you are still concerned after receiving your reply you
can write to:
Commissioner
for Public Appointments, Room G/8, Ground Floor, 1 Horse Guards Road,
London,
SW1A 2HQ.
The Commissioner for Public
Appointments regulates and monitors appointments to public bodies to ensure
procedures are fair. More information about the role of the Commissioner, the
Governance Code for Public Appointments and the complaints process is available
at http://publicappointmentscommissioner.independent.gov.uk/
Alternatively, please contact the
Commissioner’s office on 020 7271 0831 for a
printed copy of the complaints process.
Commissioner
for Public Appointments Survey
The
Commissioner for Public Appointments would like to find out what you think of
the public appointments process. When you have completed the process, the
Commissioner would appreciate a few minutes of your time to complete this
survey:
Checklist
Please refer to the table below to
ensure you send us all the necessary information.
Documents
to be completed and sent
|
Tick
|
Your CV
|
|
Supporting
Statement
|
|
Completed
Supporting Documents
·
potential conflicts of interest;
·
public appointments held;
·
referee details
·
political activity declaration form; and
·
the equal opportunities form
|
|
Your
personal Information
We will
process your application in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 and
the Ministry of Justice’s Information Charter, which can be found at
Your data
will be held securely and access will be restricted to those dealing with your
application or involved in the recruitment process. By submitting your
application, you are giving consent to your data being stored and processed for
the purpose of the recruitment process, diversity monitoring and, if
successful, your personal record.
Appendix 1 Parole
Board Members’ Fees – Effective 7th September 2015
Paper panels and casework
|
|
Member Case Assessment (MCA) Panels – Per day (mixed cases)
|
£
|
Panel member (one bundle of cases, totalling 8 hours
notional*)
* A MCA bundle is based on an 8 hour working day, with
case types having the following notional time allocations:
·
Standard determinate sentence recall case = 1 hour
·
Indeterminate Sentence Prisoners review/recall case = 2
hours
·
Discretionary Conditional Release/Extended sentences
for Public Protection/Extended Determined Sentence/Extended Sentence Prisoner
annual review case = 2 hours
|
320
|
Part
bundles – per case bundle equal to 2 hours notional
|
80
|
MCA Panels – Specialist Member Consultation
|
|
Day rate (based on 8 hours working from home)
|
345
|
Pro
rata – hourly rate
(part hours
to be claimed to the nearest quarter hour)
|
43
|
MCA Duty member
|
|
Per day (based on 7 hours at Queen Anne’s Gate)
|
320
|
Pro rata – per hour
(part hours to be claimed to the nearest quarter hour)
|
46
|
Oral hearings
|
|
Oral Hearing - Panel Chair
|
|
Allocation fee -
per case
|
68
|
Preparation fee – per case
|
91
|
Conduction fee – per day of hearings
|
365
|
|
|
Specialist Chair
|
|
Allocation fee -
per case
|
70
|
Preparation fee – per case
|
94
|
Conduction fee – per day of hearings
|
375
|
|
|
Specialist Co-panellist
|
|
Preparation fee – per case
|
65
|
Conduction fee – per day of hearings
|
345
|
|
|
Co-panellist
|
|
Preparation fee – per case
|
60
|
Conduction fee – per day of hearings
|
320
|
|
|
Adjournments
|
|
Adjournment when the case is re-convened at oral
hearing:
1 x preparation
fee (per case) + 1 x conduction
fee (per day) at the prevailing rate for role of each member of the panel
|
|
|
|
Complex single case hearings
|
|
Single case listed for 4.5 hours or more at oral
hearing:
2 x preparation fee (for the single case) in addition
to the 1 x conduction fee (per day) at the prevailing rate for role of each
member of the panel. (Chair will also
be entitled to 1 x allocation fee, as standard).
|
|
|
|
Non-casework activity
|
|
Enhanced non-casework
Mentoring
|
|
Day rate – based on 7 hours at a location
|
300
|
Pro rata – per hour
|
43
|
Advanced approval by email from a senior manager is
required for all enhanced non-casework claims. A fixed time
allowance will be set for the specific work commissioned at this level of
fee.
The enhanced rate applies for:
Sitting on a Parole Board governance committee:
Management Committee, Standards Committee, Audit & Risk Committee, Review
Committee.
Quality assurance: Practice observation, MCA quality
assurance, case review and other initiatives.
Delivering training, coaching, mentoring and other
development activities.
|
|
Standard non-casework
|
|
Day rate – based on 7 hours at a location
|
250
|
Pro rata – hourly rate
|
36
|
The standard rate applies for:
Attending conference and member events
Attending training, learning and development events
Attending meetings, focus groups or other activities at
the invitation of the Parole Board.
|
|
Appendix 2 HMP Establishments by Region
Region 1: North East, North West, Yorkshire and
Humberside
Deerbolt (YOI) Durham
Holme House Kirklevington
Grange
Low Newton Northumberland
Altcourse Lancaster
Farm
Kirkham Preston
Haverigg Wymott
Garth Hindley
Buckley Hall Kennet
Liverpool
Risley Styal
Thorn Cross Manchester
Forest Bank Frankland
Wetherby Wealstun
Leeds Askham
Grange
Wakefield New
Hall
Doncaster Moorland
Hatfield (Moorland Open) Lindholme
Hull Humber
Full Sutton Lincoln
Morton Hall North
Sea Camp
Region 2: East and West Midlands
Foston Hall Gartree
Glen Parva Leicester
Lowdham Grange Nottingham
Ranby Sudbury
Whatton Birmingham
Brinsford Drake
Hall
Dovegate Featherstone
Hewell Oakwood
Stafford Stoke
Heath
Swinfen Hall Werrington
Long Lartin Onley
Ryehill Stocken
Region 3: South, South East, East Anglia and London
Bure Norwich
Hollesley bay Warren
Hill
Wayland Highpoint
North
Highpoint South Whitemoor
Littlehey Peterborough
Bedford The
Mount
Chelmsford Rochester
Sheppy Cluster Cookham
Wood
Maidstone East
Sutton park
Dover Blantyre
House
Downview High
Down
Lewes Send
Bronzefield Ford
Pentonville Wormwood
Scrubs
Feltham Wandsworth
Brixton Thameside
Belmarsh Isis
Region 4: South Central, South West, Wales, Northern
Ireland and Scotland
Woodhill Grendon
Spring Hill Bullingdon
Huntercombe Haslar
Isle of White Cluster Erlestoke
Leyhill Eastwood
Park
Bristol Ashfield
Guys Marsh Portland
The Verne Channings
Wood
Exeter Dartmoor
Usk Berwyn
Prescoed Cardiff
Parc Swansea
Scotland Northern
Ireland
Appendix 3 - The
seven principles of public life
All
candidates for public appointments are expected to demonstrate a commitment to,
and an understanding of, the value and importance of the principles of public
service. The seven principles of public life are:
Selflessness
Holders of public office should act solely in terms
of the public interest.
Integrity
Holders of public office must avoid placing
themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try
inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take
decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves,
their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and
relationships.
Objectivity
Holders of public office must act and take
decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without
discrimination or bias.
Accountability
Holders of public office are accountable to the
public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the
scrutiny necessary to ensure this.
Openness
Holders of public office should act and take
decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld
from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.
Honesty
Holders of public office should be truthful.
Leadership
Holders of public office should exhibit these
principles in their own behaviour. They should actively promote and robustly
support the principles and be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it
occurs.
Appendix 4 – Essential Criteria
Parole Board Member 2018
Essential Criteria
|
Assessment at which stage of the recruitment process?
|
Sift
|
Interview process
|
Demonstrable
ability to conduct effective evidence-based decision making, weighing facts
and evidence, analysing and critically evaluating large volumes of complex
information and identifying key issues, within tight deadlines and working on
your own initiative.
|
|
✔
|
Demonstrable independence of mind and sound judgement,
with the ability to make evidence based decisions that are accurately
documented.
|
|
✔
|
Excellent interpersonal skills: the ability to gain respect
and maintain rapport through effective communication and influencing skills –
with the confidence to challenge opinions where necessary, work collegiately
and resolve differences to reach sound decisions.
|
|
✔
|
Excellent communication skills, both written and oral:
the ability to communicate sensitively and effectively with a wide range of
individuals, varying your approach as necessary and treating others with
respect, to listen actively and evaluate replies in order to probe issues.
|
|
✔
|
Excellent
written skills: the ability to draft well-formed written accounts which
summarise evidence in support of a decision or recommendation.
|
✔
|
|
Demonstrable
high standards of corporate and personal integrity and conduct, such as a
strong commitment to equal opportunities, and the ethos of supporting the
wider public or community good through your contributions.
|
✔
|
✔
|
High
levels of time management, organisational and administrative skills, together
with strong personal motivation and commitment to professional self-development.
|
✔
|
✔
|
Evidence
of experience of any aspect of the criminal justice system and an
understanding of the importance of the victim’s perspective.
|
✔
|
|
Specialist
knowledge and experience: demonstration of relevant knowledge and skills by
psychiatrists / retired judges
|
|
✔
|
Rt Hon David Gauke MP Secretary of State for Justice
102 Petty France
London SW1H 9AJ
19 March 2018
Dear Secretary of State, Parole Review I am pleased to attach a paper from Dr Thomas Guiney, a colleague at the Prison Reform Trust but also a leading authority on the history of parole in this country, in response to the review of parole that you announced in January. The review was set up in response to an extreme media reaction to a particular decision. Those who live and work in our prisons will be only too familiar with the history of ill-judged policy responses with long term consequences that tend to result in those circumstances. Indeed, the fact that the Parole Board finds itself in the position of considering the case in question at all owes much to a bad law borne of hard cases around the turn of the century.
So while the Prison Reform Trust welcomes the opportunity the review gives to take stock, it is essential that any decisions that flow from it take account of their likely long term consequences for the individuals most affected. It is plainly right that the experience of victims of crime should be central, but the history of parole shows that prisoners too have suffered through the failings of the system as a whole. It is prisoners who have routinely not been given the opportunity to be released on time when their punishment has been served and to make a success of their life following release. There should be no confusion that the aim of the parole system (as distinct from the Board) should be to protect the public and meet the legitimate rights of the parolee by implementing a timely plan for their safe release. We should regard a failure to release a prisoner at their earliest parole eligibility date as a failure of the system both in custody and in the community to use the time available to prepare properly. This country is very unusual in Europe in the number of people sent to prison on indeterminate sentences – twice as many as the next three European comparators combined.
Given our predilection for sentences containing such a measure of uncertainty for the person serving them, there is a particular burden on the agencies responsible for both risk reduction and risk management. Our national failure to meet those obligations following the introduction of the IPP sentence, but also in relation to many other life sentence prisoners, remains a scandal. The Parole Board, just as much as the prisoners before it, has been the recipient of an inadequate service too often, and the opportunity should be grasped as part of this review to set higher expectations of both prison and probation services. Prisoners watching and reading the media coverage that prompted this review will have been dismayed by its potential to affect their already moderate chances of securing release and its
corrosive impact on the attitudes they are likely to encounter in the communities to which they will eventually return. The behaviour of the media in response to the Worboys case is perhaps unsurprising, and in any event beyond the scope of this review. But the prejudicial public commentary of those with direct power to influence the Board’s operation, both now and in the future, should be a cause for concern. A clear line should have been drawn – and observed by all government spokespeople – between the procedural concerns in relation to victim issues, and the merits of the decision itself. It is reasonable to assume that none of those commenting had read the 363 page dossier, nor benefitted from the training and experience of the 3 member Parole Board panel that did. But the media’s conclusion that the decision must be wrong was unhesitatingly endorsed. The threat to the independence of a body charged with the most difficult and emotionally charged of decisions is both real and severe. So the decisions taken in the light of this review must have regard to that threat and take the opportunity to bolster the protection the Parole Board needs if it is to meet its obligations to all of us, whether victim, prisoner or just a member of the society in which released offenders will build their future. Some greater protection than the good judgement of the individual in charge of the Ministry of Justice is essential. Our recommendations therefore encompass both procedural changes which could be implemented relatively swiftly, and much more fundamental reform of the standing of the Parole Board and its relationship to ministers.
They are:
• To reconstitute the Parole Board as a two-tier legal tribunal under the auspices of Her Majesty’s Courts
and Tribunal Service (HMCTS).
• To place far greater emphasis on improving public understanding of the parole system, and sentence progression more generally.
• To publish a parole compact that sets out, in clear and accessible terms, what prisoners, victims and the general public can expect from the Parole Board and partner agencies.
• To establish an easy use information management system providing public access to select, and quality assured information, held by the Parole Board.
• To follow the New Zealand example and publish brief but informative summaries setting out the reasoning behind parole decisions and the conditions placed upon a parole licence.
• To review the operation of determinate sentence recall cases and adopt a standardised system based upon a fixed recall period (not exceeding a percentage of the overall sentence). We look forward to the opportunity to discuss these recommendations and to conclusions that will benefit all those people affected by the way the parole system currently operates. Peter Dawson Director
Page 1 of 14
Prison Reform Trust response to the Ministry of Justice Review of the Law, Policy and Procedure Relating to Parole Decisions1
The Prison Reform Trust (PRT) is an independent UK charity working to create a just, humane and effective penal system. We do this by inquiring into the workings of the system; informing prisoners, staff and the wider public; and by influencing Parliament, government and officials towards reform. The Prison Reform Trust provides the secretariat to the All Party Parliamentary Penal Affairs Group and has an advice and information service for people in prison.
The Prison Reform Trust's main objectives are:
• reducing unnecessary imprisonment and promoting community solutions to crime • improving treatment and conditions for prisoners and their families
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/
Summary
This briefing paper responds to the Ministry of Justice review of the ‘Law, Policy and Procedure Relating to Parole Decisions’.
It sets out the available background information to the John Worboys case and situates this parole decision within a wider criminal justice context, with reference to the current sentencing framework in England and Wales. It goes on to examine the problematic status of the Parole Board and discusses how greater transparency can be delivered in a way that is consistent with public protection, respect for the rule of law and human rights. This briefing builds the case for understanding transparency and accountability as mutually interdependent and calls for far greater emphasis upon release planning to promote constructive prison regimes, post-release supervision and the wider community infrastructure needed to support long-term desistance in the community. It concludes with a consideration of resource implications and the case for reform of determinate recall cases in the interests both of justice and economy.
On the basis of the analysis set out in this paper the Ministry of Justice review team is invited to consider the following recommendations:
i. To reconstitute the Parole Board as a two-tier legal tribunal under the auspices of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS). ii. To place far greater emphasis on improving public understanding of the parole system, and sentence progression more generally. iii. To publish a parole compact that sets out, in clear and accessible terms, what prisoners, victims and the general public can expect from the Parole Board and partner agencies. iv. To establish an easy use information management system providing public access to select, and quality assured information, held by the Parole Board. v. To follow the New Zealand example and publish brief but informative summaries setting out the reasoning behind parole decisions and the conditions placed upon a parole licence. vi. To review the operation of determinate sentence recall cases and adopt a standardised system based upon a fixed recall period (not exceeding a percentage of the overall sentence).
1 Prepared by Dr Thomas Guiney. Visiting Fellow, Mannheim Centre for Criminology, London School of Economics and Political Science
Page 2 of 14
1. Introduction
The Prison Reform Trust welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Ministry of Justice Review of the ‘Law, Policy and Procedure Relating to Parole Decisions’. The decision to release John Worboys has generated considerable public interest and this has exposed longstanding weaknesses in the operation of parole as currently organised. The parole system is one of the most common areas of enquiry to the Trust’s dedicated prisoner ‘advice and information service’, and this briefing paper is intended as a constructive contribution to current debate which, it is hoped, will help place the parole system on a more secure footing so that justice is not only done, but seen to be done for prisoners, victims, and the wider community.
There is little doubt that the parole system is in urgent need of modernisation, but recent history should serve as a warning against the dangers of rushing through wide-ranging reforms on the basis of high profile or exceptional cases. The termination of prison sentences is critical to the effective operation of the criminal justice system and even small changes in law, policy and procedure can result in far recaching, and unintended consequences. While the overwhelming majority of men and women sent to prison will return to the community at some point in their lives, a growing number are serving indeterminate and extended determinate sentences that are subject to a system of discretionary release administered by the Parole Board. For those living with this uncertainty the parole system can represent a barrier as well as a bridge between prison and the community.
It is now 50 years since the Parole Board was first established and both public and legal expectations are now significantly higher. If the Parole Board, and the institutions it relies upon, are to respond effectively to these competing demands they must be equipped with the right tools for the job, and this paper sets out a vision for a twenty-first century parole system in England and Wales that is:
• independent from government • pro-active in building public understanding of how parole decisions are made • consistent in enforcing the rights of victims, prisoners and the wider community • transparent in its activities • accountable to the public, and supported by others to perform this role effectively • affordable
2. Background to the review
In 2009, John Worboys was found guilty of 19 sexual offences against 12 victims. He received an indeterminate sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) and ordered to serve a minimum tariff of 8 years imprisonment before his case could be considered by the Parole Board.
Since the offences committed by John Worboys first came to light, public interest has extended far beyond the sentence of the court. Criticism has been levelled at historic failures in how the police respond to allegations of sexual assault, the evidentiary challenges of successfully prosecuting complex sexual offence case in court and the overall experience of victims at each stage of the criminal justice process. The decision of the Parole Board has become a lightning rod for public anger but the integrity of the justice process cannot rest on one body alone:
• In 2010, the Police Complaints Commission2 called for wide-ranging changes in how the police deal with victims of sexual offences. • Following a successful legal action3 for damages and declarations arising out of alleged failures by the Metropolitan Police Service and the Greater Manchester Police to conduct effective investigations into allegations of serious crime, it was revealed that between 2002 and 2008 2 Police Complaints Commission. Findings of investigation into Met handling of Worboys case, 20 January 2010 3 [2015] EWCA Civ 646. This judgement was upheld by the Supreme Court [2018] UKSC 11
Page 3 of 14
police suspected that John Worboys was responsible for over 105 rapes and sexual assaults on women who were passengers in his cab. • In January 2018, the Crown Prosecution Service4, issued a statement confirming that files relating to 83 separate complainants were originally referred to the CPS. Of those, 14 complainants formed part of the trial with the remainder adjudged not to have passed the necessary evidential test. Following the conviction of John Worboys, the CPS were informed of a further 19 complainants by the Metropolitan Police Service but only one file was subsequently referred to prosecutors and this did not pass the evidential test.
Following a review of his case the Parole Board announced in January 2018 that Worboys would be released from prison. Taking into account time spent on remand, Worboys had spent almost 10 years in custody, the equivalent of a determinate custodial sentence of almost 20 years. In accordance with Parole Board rules the conditions placed upon his licence were not made public. However, in a subsequent statement the Chairman of the Parole Board, Professor Nick Hardwick, indicated that the case had been considered by a three-member panel, was chaired by an experienced female member, and included representation from a parole board psychologist. The panel considered a dossier of 363 pages and heard evidence from four psychologists as well as prison and probation staff. The Secretary of State was represented and Worboys was questioned in detail. The panel also considered a written statement from one victim.
The case was reported widely in the media. In a statement issued in Parliament on the 19 January 2018 the Secretary of State for Justice5, David Gauke, responded to public concern and announced a review of the ‘Law, Policy and Procedure Relating to Parole Decisions’. While little detail has been made public on how the review will be conducted, the Ministry of Justice has published terms of reference which make clear it will focus on the following four areas:
• The law, policy, guidance and practice relating to challenges to Parole Board decision-making, specifically whether there should be a mechanism to allow parole decisions to be reconsidered. • The transparency of Parole Board decision making. • Victim involvement in Parole Board hearings. • Arrangements for communicating with victims.
Since that time, the Justice Committee has convened a one-off oral evidence session on the work of the Parole Board and a number of parties, including several victims, the Sun newspaper, and the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan have been given leave to pursue an application for judicial review against the Parole Board. The hearing, which began on the 13 Mach 2018, will examine the ‘reasonableness’ of the decision to release Worboys and consider whether Rule 25 of the Parole Board Rules 2016, which prohibits publication of the reasons for release or detaining inmates, is legal.
The initial findings of the MOJ review are not expected until ‘Easter 2018’. However, a ‘rapid factfinding exercise’, undertaken by HM Chief Inspector of Probation6 at the request of the Secretary of State for Justice, has recently found that whilst the National Probation Service (NPS) had broadly complied with Probation Guidance on providing timely and relevant information to victims, the overall quality of correspondence was poor and opportunities for victims to participate fully in the parole decision-making process were missed. Dame Glenys Stacey also reported that the Parole Board decision in the Worboys case broke in the press before some victims had received and read their advanced notification, whilst many more women with a direct interest in the case, but not participants in the Victim Contact Scheme, first learnt of the decision through the media.
4 Crown Prosecution Service statement on John Worboys, 5 January 2018 5 Hansard: Parole Board: Transparency and Victim Support, 19 January 2018, Volume 634 6 HM Inspectorate of Probation (2018) Investigation into the policy and process followed by the victim contact scheme in the case of John Worboys
Page 4 of 14
3. The parole system in context
Whilst recognising the issues of principle raised in the Worboys case it is important to place this decision within its appropriate context. In 2016/17 the Parole Board concluded 5,184 cases, of which 872 were recommended for moves to open conditions (17%), 1,825 cases were refused (35%), and 2,468 were recommended for release (48%).7 Overall, the Parole Board has a strong track record of protecting the public from serious harm. In the last four calendar years less than 1% of the total number of decisions made by the Parole Board have resulted in a serious further offence, as specified in Schedule 5 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, being notified to the Board.8 Recent figures released by the Ministry of Justice also indicate that a small proportion of offenders serving indeterminate sentences go on to commit a further offence, serious or otherwise, following their release (Table 1).
Table 1: Adult proven reoffending data, by custodial sentence length, 2013-2016Q19 2013 2014 2015 2016 Q1 Indeterminate sentence for public protection Number of reoffenders 53 43 68 18 Number of offenders in cohort 389 376 453 137 Mandatory life prisoner Number of reoffenders 8 4 8 2 Number of offenders in cohort 172 113 185 51 Other life Number of reoffenders 7 17 11 2 Number of offenders in cohort 93 90 102 26 All Number of reoffenders 68 64 87 22 Number of offenders in cohort 654 579 740 214 While the Worboys decision has proved deeply unpopular, the administration of justice demands that the Parole Board is empowered to make difficult decisions. Since the abolition of the IPP sentence in 2012 there has been growing pressure on the government to resolve the precarious legal position of IPP prisoners held post-tariff and the Parole Board has a central role to play in this process. It has worked closely with partner agencies to increase the rate at which IPP prisoners have been released and many more prisoners now have detailed management plans where the risk is not yet judged to be manageable in the community. Nonetheless, recent analysis by PRT indicates that considerable challenges remain and this process would be jeopardised if the Worboys case begins to harden the risk-appetite of the Board:
• Despite its abolition in 2012, over four-fifths (86%) of people in prison currently serving an IPP sentence are still there despite having passed their tariff expiry date—the minimum period they must spend in custody and considered necessary to serve as punishment for the offence.10 • Many people in prison don’t know if, or when, they might be released. 10,378 people are currently in prison serving an indeterminate sentence—accounting for 14% of the sentenced prison population, up from 9% in 1993.11
7 Parole Board (2017) Annual Report and Accounts for 2016/17/. London: HMSO 8 Parole Board (2017) Annual Report and Accounts for 2016/17/. London: HMSO 9 Reoffenders: Written question – 123846. http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answersstatements/written-question/Commons/2018-01-19/123846 10 Table 1.9a, Ministry of Justice (2017) Offender management statistics quarterly: April to June 2017, London: MOJ 11 Table 1.1, Ministry of Justice (2017) Offender management statistics quarterly: April to June 2017, London: MOJ and Ministry of Justice (2013) Story of the prison population: 1993–2012 England & Wales, London: MOJ
Page 5 of 14
• 16% of people currently serving an IPP have a tariff of less than two years, and 41% have a tariff of between two and four years. 513 people are still in prison despite being given a tariff of less than two years—over half of these (277 people) have served eight years or more beyond their original tariff.12
Like all criminal justice agencies, the Parole Board has struggled to manage a growing and increasingly complex workload, at a time of significant pressure upon criminal justice expenditure. The total net expenditure of the Parole Board increased from £16.1m in 2015/16 to £19.2m in 2016/17. In part, this reflects the significant cost of complying with the Supreme Court decision in Osborn,13 which held that the Board had erred in not offering IPP prisoners the option of an oral hearing. A recent enquiry by the National Audit Office (NAO)14 found that following Osborn, demand for oral hearings conducted by the Parole Board increased by 48% between 2012-13 and 2014-15, and this resulted in a significant backlog of cases. In December 2016, 3,081 prisoners on indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for public protection (IPP prisoners) were in prison beyond their tariff expiry date, and while the backlog of cases awaiting review has now been cleared the Board has paid out in excess of £1.1 million in compensation claims to prisoners since 2011-12 as a result of delayed hearings.
While the terms of reference set by the Ministry of Justice have been narrowly defined, it should be noted that many of the challenges facing the parole system are shaped, to a significant degree, by repeated changes at the top end of the sentencing framework. These reforms have radically extended the scope of indeterminate sentences and are likely to result in a growing number of prisoners serving extended determinate sentences. In England & Wales more than twice as many people are serving indeterminate sentences than in France, Germany and Italy combined15 and sentencing tariffs have increased significantly in recent years. The average minimum term imposed for murder has risen from 12.5 years in 2003 to 21.3 years in 2016.16 The Trust, has long called for a managed reduction in the use of indeterminate sentences, particularly for public protection reasons, as part of a careful application of the proportionality principle. Parallels can be found in the academic literature. Bottoms and Brownsword17 have argued that indeterminate sentences for public protection should only be imposed in exceptional circumstances where the danger to the public is “vivid”, based upon a threefold assessment of seriousness, the frequency and immediacy of the threat to the public, and the certainty of future offending. As a recent report by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons18 indicates, few IPP prisoners held post tariff would appear to satisfy this test.
The overuse of indeterminate sentences must be ended as a matter of urgency and this should be accompanied by a far greater emphasis on effective release planning. As originally conceived, the parole system was justified on the basis of a ‘recognisable peak’ in an individual’s rehabilitation where the interests of the community were better served by the careful reintegration of the offender back into the community, rather than continued incarceration and the slow creep of institutionalisation.19 Over time this burden of proof has been almost completely inverted for the growing cohort of prisoners serving life sentences and some extended determinate sentences for public protection. For example, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment Offenders Act 2012 places a legal duty upon the Parole Board to determine whether it is ‘satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public’ that the
12 Ministry of Justice (2014) Freedom of Information request 89346, London: Ministry of Justice and House of Lords written question HL2315, 6 November 2017 13 Osborn Booth and Reilly v The Parole Board. [2013] UKSC 61 14 NAO (2017) Investigation into the Parole Board, HC 1013. London: HMSO 15 Table 7, Aebi, M., et al. (2017) Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics, Survey 2015, Strasbourg: Council of Europe and Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics, Survey 2014 16 Ministry of Justice (2014) Freedom of Information request 89346, London: Ministry of Justice and House of Lords written question HL2315, 6 November 2017 17 Bottoms, A. and Brownsword, R (1983). Dangerousness and Rights. In Hinton, J (ed) Dangerousness: Problems of Assessment and Prediction. London: Allen and Unwin 18 HM Inspector of Prisons (2016) Unintended consequences: Finding a way forward for prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection. A Thematic Review. London: HMSO 19 Guiney, T (forthcoming) An Idea Whose Time Had Come? The Creation of a Modern System of Parole in England and Wales, 1960-1968 Prison Service Journal.
Page 6 of 14
prisoner should remain detained. Over time, the gradual hardening of the pathways to release has resulted in over reliance on prison as a place of containment and undermined attempts to build a stronger strategic focus on the community infrastructure needed to support the desistance process in the longterm. No risk can be alleviated in its entirety and prisons have a very poor track record in preparing prisoners for their eventual release. The greatest public protection will always come from the successful and permanent reintegration of individuals into the community so that they are lead law abiding and constructive lives.
4. The independence of the Parole Board
The Parole Board for England and Wales is an independent non‑departmental public body. It works in partnership with a wide-range of criminal justice agencies, such as Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), to ‘carry out risk assessments on prisoners to determine whether they can be safely released into the community’. The core work of the Parole Board has evolved over time and it is now primarily orientated towards the cases of prisoners serving indeterminate sentences, some extended determinate sentences and many recall decisions (see Table 2 below)
Table 2: Workload of the Parole Board Indeterminate Mandatory life Discretionary life Automatic life sentence prisoners Her Majesty’s Pleasure detainees Indeterminate of imprisonment for public protection Indeterminate sentence of detention for public protection Determinate Discretionary conditional release (DCR) prisoners serving more than four years whose offence was committed before 4 April 2005 Extended sentence for public protection (EPP) prisoners sentenced before 14 July 2008 Prisoners given an extended determinate sentence (EDS) after 3 December 2012 Prisoners given a sentence for offences of particular concern (SOPC) on or after 13 April 2015, who have committed a qualifying offence. Recall The recall of cases that fall in to the aforementioned categories The Parole Board also decides whether determinate prisoners referred by the Secretary of State for Justice following recall to prison for a breach of their licence
The Parole Board has become a more court like body, and since the Supreme Court decision in Osborne it has made great strides in seeking to comply with the European Convention of Human Rights and common law expectations in relation to the right to a fair trial. The Parole Board frequently describes itself as a ‘court-like body’ in public facing communications20 but in reality, the quasi-judicial status of the Parole Board remains deeply problematic. The Board is sponsored by the Ministry of Justice and the Public Protection Casework Section plays a central role in the administration of the parole process. The Secretary of State for Justice retains the power to approve member appointments and issue policy directions to the Parole Board (although this power has not been used since the Parole Board Rules 2016 were issued).
As the caseload of the parole system has grown in complexity the quasi-judicial status of the Parole Board has been the subject to repeated legal challenge21. In the landmark case of R v Brooke22 the Court of Appeal held that the Parole Board was not sufficiently independent from the Secretary of State for Justice to discharge its responsibilities in accordance with the rule of law. Affirming the judgement of the Divisional Court, the (then) Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips expressed his view that, 20 More transparent decisions on parole. Martin Jones, Chief Executive of the Parole Board. 1 March 2018 http://www.russellwebster.com/martinjones3/ 21 Padfield, N (2017) The role of the Parole Board. Independent Monitor, September 2017. 22 [2008] EWCA Civ 29
Page 7 of 14
“Neither the Secretary of State nor his department had adequately addressed the need for the board to be and to be seen to be free of influence in relation to the performance of its judicial functions. Both by directions and by the use of his control over the appointment of members of the board the Secretary of State had sought to influence the manner in which the board carried out its risk assessment. The close working relationship between the board and the unit acting as its sponsor had tended to blur the distinction between the executive role of the former and the judicial role of the latter”.
Following this judgement sponsorship of the Parole Board was moved from the National Offender Management Service (as it then was) to the Access to Justice Directorate of the Ministry of Justice. In June 2009, the government announced a public consultation on the parole system and in the accompanying discussion paper ‘The Future of Parole’ invited views from the public on whether the Parole Board should be reconstituted as a court, tribunal or another form of arm’s length body. Unfortunately, no proposals for reform were forthcoming. The consultation ended shortly before preelection Purdah for the 2010 General Election and no further action was taken when these restrictions were lifted.
As Professor Nicola Padfield,23 has noted, there is still ‘unfinished business’ when it comes to the status of the Parole Board. In light of recent events, the government should revisit the decision in Brooke and take steps to re-constitute the Parole Board as an independent (and inquisitorial) tribunal under the auspices of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Far from a purely legal exercise, such a move would deliver many of the practical improvements envisaged by the current review. A two-tier tribunal structure would create a clear legal pathway for the appeal of parole judgements (where leave is granted by a first-tier tribunal) and in many cases this would dispense with the often time-consuming, and prohibitive costs associated with the judicial review process. Administration by the Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) would bring the Parole Board into line with comparable bodies such as the Mental Health Tribunal and may deliver a range of associated benefits, such as greater legal expertise, the timeliness of reports and access to a wider pool of expert witnesses.
The Parole Board has already made incremental moves in this direction and now is the right time to complete this process. Above all else, a tribunal structure would help secure the independence of the Parole Board and insulate the system from any semblance of political interference (real or perceived). High-profile parole decisions will continue to attract public interest and in a more politicised penal climate it is perhaps inevitable that politicians will be drawn into public debate. We should protect their right to do so, but the integrity of the parole system is surely damaged when the Chairman of the Conservative Party declares publicly that his government is doing ‘everything it can’ to keep Worboys in prison24; when the Secretary of State for Justice takes the unprecedented step of seeking legal advice to challenge the judgement of its own agency; and a former Labour Lord Chancellor, Charles Falconer, writes in a national newspaper that “the system for releasing prisoners on parole is letting out those who are unsafe”.25
The liberty of the individual is a cornerstone of our liberal democratic system and a tribunal structure would help restore a clear dividing line between the distinct roles of the executive and the judiciary. As the Conservative home affairs spokesman (and future lord Chancellor Lord Hailsham) observed during the very first parliamentary debate on the creation of a parole system in England and Wales,
‘…we do not think that this subject should be a matter within the day-to-day responsibilities of a political Minister. We believe that it should be not only detached from politics, as I am 23 Padfield, N (2016) Justifying Indefinite Detention - on what grounds? Criminal Law Review. Pp.797-822 24 Worboys case: Government 'doing all it can' to keep rapist in jail. BBC, 14 January 2018 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk42678572 25 Charles Falconer. British justice is in flames. The MoJ’s fiddling is criminal. The Guardian 6 February 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/06/british-justice-collapse-moj-prisons-probation-legal-aid-lordchancellor-charles-falconer
Page 8 of 14
sure that the right hon. Gentleman and any likely successor would make it, but should be seen to be detached from politics. We think that it should not be in the hands of either officials or Ministers responsible for the ordinary conditions of incarceration. We do not think that it should be in those hands administratively’.
26
5. Transparency
Since the parole system was first established by the Criminal Justice Act 1967, the operation of parole has been viewed as secretive and paternalistic: parole was positioned as a ‘privilege and not a right’, there were no oral hearings, prisoners were not informed of the reasons why their applications had been unsuccessful and the Home Secretary reserved the right to overturn the recommendation of the Parole Board if it was deemed to be in the public interest. We have come a long way in this regard, but there remains a general lack of public understanding about how parole decisions are made, by whom and on the basis of what evidence. The difficulties faced by victims have been well documented but experience suggests that prisoners also have very little understanding of their sentence pathway, how they will progress through the prison estate and the steps they should take to work towards their eventual release.
The parole review presents a real opportunity to return to first principles and design a parole process that is genuinely transparent, accessible and publicly engaged. The parole system has always operated on the basis of public trust and the ongoing renewal of this social compact demands that victims and the general public have a better understanding of the parole system. The critical point is that greater transparency must be delivered in such a way that does not undermine the primary aims of the parole system. The publication of detailed licence conditions, such as place of residence or the identity of the supervising officer, is very likely to undermine supervision and compliance, infringe human rights law and might in some instances encourage vigilantism. Similarly, giving victims the final say over parole releases would certainly introduce arbitrariness into the administration of justice and should be resisted. Victims may sometimes be co-defendants, friends or family members. The most forgiving victims have been known to pardon the most heinous crimes.
In seeking an appropriate balance, PRT advocate the following changes that will help to equip the Parole Board with the tools it will need to discharge this critical criminal justice function in a rapidly changing climate:
I. Greater emphasis upon improving public understanding of the parole process, and the sentencing pathway more generally. This will require considerable investment in accessible and plain English content, available across a range of mediums, to explain the end-to-end journey of the parole process; the role of the Parole Board and worked examples of how decisions are made.
II. The publication of a parole compact that sets out, in clear and accessible terms, what prisoners, victims, and the general public can expect from the Parole Board and the various agencies with a stake in the delivery of the parole system.
III. The Worboys case has exposed a concerning asymmetry in the public presentation of parole decisions. Where the Parole Board is satisfied that risk can be managed adequately in the community considerable emphasis is placed upon crafting licence conditions that will minimise any residual risk to the public and trigger a prompt response from supervising agencies if an individual’s behaviour begins to deteriorate. It is therefore regrettable that Rule 25 of the Parole Board Rules 2016 currently prohibits the Board from publishing information, even in general terms, on the licence conditions imposed in individual cases. Such a position is clearly unsustainable and may be detrimental in the long-run if it serves to undermine public confidence in the parole system. The government should look again at the Parole Board rules with a view to empowering the Parole Board to explain its decisions to the public. For the reasons outlined 26 Hansard: HC Deb 12 December 1966 vol 738 c76
Page 9 of 14
above the government should resist pressure to publish the specific licence conditions imposed in individual cases. Instead it should follow the example set by many common law jurisdictions that publish a concise 1-page public statement containing a short overview of the case, the reasoned opinion of the Board and a high-level statement of the conditions placed upon the licence. A recent example from the New Zealand Parole Board is set out at Appendix 1.
IV. There will always be interest in high-profile parole decisions and the Parole Board must be equipped with the tools it needs to respond to public interest and explain its decisions. But in the long-term transparency must mean more than an updated website. Internationally, the Parole Board of Canada and New Zealand Parole Board have made great strides in establishing publicly accessible information management systems that provide access to select, and quality assured information, held by the Parole Board. Levels of access differ, but this will often include the status of individual cases, Parole Board listings, transcripts from parole hearings and a summary of key decisions following the template outlined above.
V. Since the parole review was announced there has been significant discussion of who should be able to access information about the parole process. PRT take no view on victim liaison and whether this should be managed by the National Probation Service or police commissioned victim services, but a system which seeks to fine tune levels of public access according to the status of the individual is unconvincing. Such attempts are almost certainly arbitrary and unworkable in practice. As already happens with Crown Court listings, registered users should be able to access basic information on Parole Board hearings and delays. With regards to more sensitive information, such as the outcome of individual cases, it is absolutely right that government make full use of embargoes to ensure that signatories to the Victim Contact Scheme are informed and given adequate time to digest a decision before public announcements are made. However, controversial decisions will always come to the attention of the press eventually and the approach outlined here would ensure that the system is opened up, not just to the benefit of victims and the media but also for family, friends and loved ones who often feel detached from the decision-making process.
The changes outlined above will almost certainly require additional investment in new technology but experience suggests that greater transparency will only succeed if it is accompanied by culture change and new ways of working. Such changes are long overdue in the criminal justice system.
The Parole Board has taken welcome steps to improve engagement with academic researchers and further moves in this direction should be encouraged. Parole Board decision-making should be opened up to greater outside scrutiny and international exchange, steps should be taken to improve the quality and accessibility of data pertaining to parole outcomes and performance. Greater emphasis should be placed upon user engagement with victims and prisoners, friends and family with meaningful opportunities to feedback their experiences and recommend changes. The roll out of video-conferencing may offer a good place to start in this regard.
6. Accountability and effectiveness
PRT welcome the determination to learn lessons from the Worboys case and improve the transparency of parole decision-making. However, it should be made absolutely clear that transparency and accountability are inter-dependent and should be treated as such. Greater transparency invites far greater scrutiny of the criminal justice system and further moves in this direction will only succeed if the Parole Board is supported to perform that function to the highest possible standards.
The Parole Board has always been reliant upon a complex network of delivery agencies including prisons, probation, the Ministry of Justice and other local agencies, such as the police and Local Authority, through Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA). At present this interface is not functioning adequately. A series of reports by the criminal justice inspectorates reveal a penal
Page 10 of 14
system that is overcrowded, under-resourced and in many cases failing short of basic standards of care.27 This pervasive operational fatigue has affected parole decision-making. The Prison Reform Trust information and advice service receives numerous calls from many prisoners who have not been given sufficient opportunity pre-tariff to access relevant courses, suffered from significant delays in transfers to more suitable prisons and inadequate support to help them progress through the prison system in order to demonstrate a reduction in risk. A prison system in chaos harms all those it holds, but none more so than those whose release date is uncertain. It is no surprise that rates of self-harm are highest amongst IPP prisoners.
28
These failings have been the subject of repeated challenge. In the 2012 case of James, Wells and Lee v The United Kingdom29 the European Court of Human Rights held that detention could become arbitrary, and contrary to Article 5.1 (a right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, where there was insufficient opportunity provided for an IPP sentence prisoner to demonstrate they had mitigated their risk at tariff expiry or soon after. More recent judgements by the Supreme Court have significantly circumscribed the scope of this decision30 but there is little doubt that underinvestment in our prisons and probation services have made the job of the Parole Board significantly harder than it ought to be.
A thematic inspection of IPP prisoners by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons31 found that many prisons did not provide good quality offender management to support IPP prisoners in their progression, including timely assessment and ongoing contact with their offender supervisors. It went on to note that not all IPP prisoners could access the relevant offending behaviour programmes which enable them to demonstrate a reduction in their risk and offered a damning assessment of current practice;
Failures in the criminal justice and parole systems have resulted in far too many people with IPP sentences being held in prison for many years after their tariff (minimum term) has expired. They have been denied the opportunity to demonstrate whether they present a continuing risk to the public, or to have this properly assessed. IPP sentences have not worked as intended and the current situation in which many prisoners find themselves is clearly unjust.
Ongoing issues with the timeliness and quality of parole reports, OASys scores and expert statements have also caused significant disruption to the administration of parole. In 2016/17, approximately a quarter of all parole cases were adjourned or deferred with more than one in ten deferred on the day of the hearing itself. As the Chairman of the Parole Board has noted, some are necessary to meet requirements for additional information or because of unexpected circumstances but, as he goes on to observe, ‘too many are the result of different parts of the system, including the Parole Board itself, failing to work effectively together to ensure that all of the information needed to progress the case are prepared in enough time to conclude the case on the date planned’.
As demands for greater transparency increase so should our demands for accountability from a system that is currently falling short of the minimum standards required to deliver clean, safe, and purposeful prison environment that provides opportunities for rehabilitation and progression to robust supervision in the community. A greater emphasis is needed on responsibility, accountability and multi-agency working throughout the system; prisoners need to understand why they have been denied parole if they are to take an active role in their rehabilitation. There is little recourse against prisons that do not engage
27 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons. Urgent Notification in respect of HMP Nottingham https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/01/17jan-sofs-nottingham-letter-anddebrief-pack-for-publication.pdf 28 'Self-harming rise' among prisoners on indefinite sentences. BBC 23 June 2016. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36598560 29 European Court of Human Rights (2013) Judgement in the case of James, Wells and Lee v. The United Kingdom. (2013) 56 EHRR 12 30 R (Haney, Kaiyam, Massey and Robinson) v Secretary of State for Justice. [2014] UKSC 66. 17 Dec 2014 31 HM Inspectorate of Prisons (2016) Unintended consequences: Finding a way forward for prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection. London: HMSO
Page 11 of 14
with inspectorate improvement plans and the Parole Board has little power to compel the actions required to progress a prisoner’s risk management plan.
There is no magic bullet to address the current accountability and effectiveness gap, but elsewhere the Trust has argued that a more strategic approach to the management of the criminal justice system, premised upon a managed reduction in the prison population, should be built upon the following principles:
i. A local service: an acknowledgement that, even in the face of a prison population dominated by people serving very long sentences, imprisonment should be considered primarily a local service, delivering for and accountable to a local community.
ii. Managing demand: a radical rethinking of sentencing is required. In a time of austerity, a continuing fixation with ever longer sentences is hard to understand in the absence of any evidence that longer sentences have any impact on either deterring crime or securing better post custody outcomes. The startling increase in sentence lengths for serious crime in recent years has been the single biggest factor in ensuring that the size of the prison population consistently outstrips our ability to resource a system capable of delivering a decent or effective service.
iii. A permeable boundary: a fresh approach is needed to estate planning. ROTL has the potential to transform our idea of what a prison is able to deliver, and the extent to which the prison estate must cater for very particular needs and specialisms by bringing services in rather than sending prisoners out. A much greater use of ROTL for many more prisoners across the whole of what is called the “resettlement” estate would not only transform the rehabilitative quality of their regimes but also generate a powerful incentive to good institutional behaviour.
iv. Active citizenship in prison: the prison estate should be designed with an expectation that prisoners should play a more responsible role in prison life. As a design principle, this should inform how new prisons are built but it should also inform regime design, expecting prisoners to involve themselves in identifying and solving problems within the prison, and undertaking roles which reflect a commitment to the place in which they are living..
7. Resource implications
There is no doubt that the changes outlined in this paper will have significant resource implications. Additional investment will be required from the Ministry of Justice to drive through a long overdue transparency agenda. However, given the significant financial pressures still facing the Department – which is expected to make a further £600m in savings by the end of the decade32 - it may be necessary to free up and reinvest existing resources more efficiently. In this respect, the parole review presents a welcome opportunity to rationalise the cases that are subject to discretionary release by the Board.
A priority should be to revisit the value of Parole Board involvement in determinate recall cases, given that the Board is not party to the original release decision. Since Osborn and the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014, the number of determinate recall cases managed by the Parole Board has increased significantly from 738 cases in 2011/12 to 1,891 cases in 2015/16, representing 36% of all cases (see Figure 1). Determinate recall cases make up a growing proportion of Parole Board business and in recent times steps have been taken to streamline decision-making in these cases.
• In the cases of determinate sentence prisoners who are recalled, a single member of the Parole Board will initially consider their case on the papers. During this review, which should take place 28 days after the prisoner’s return to custody, the Parole Board can direct release on the papers alone, without the need for convening an oral hearing.
32 HM Treasury. Autumn Budget 2017 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/661480/autumn_budget_2017_web.pdf
Page 12 of 14
• The Parole Board has experimented with options to deal with determinate recall cases by way of executive release. As part of the National Parole System Action Plan, NOMS committed to increase the number of Executive releases for determinate recall prisoners, in order to reduce the number of referrals, and demand for oral hearings at the Parole Board. • In August 2016, the Parole Board and PPCS launched a short pilot with twelve Parole Board members, to test whether a cohort of cases could be referred to NOMS to reconsider Executive Release as an option. However, the pilot ceased at the end of November 2016 due to the low impact of this work.
Figure 1: Parole Board, Change in Case Mix
These operational changes have not yielded the savings that were hoped for and a more wide-ranging review of determinate recall cases is now needed. In the past three decades the caseload of the Parole Board has been re-orientated towards the most serious offences and the complexity of these cases has necessitated greater use of automatic release for the majority of prisoners serving fixed-term sentences. In this policy context, determinate recall must be considered anomalous and is often unjust in its operation.
33
The review offers a unique opportunity to revisit the management of determinate recall cases and take steps to remove these cases from the Parole Board caseload. This can only be achieved if the government moves to implement a standardised system of recall and release for offenders serving fixed term prison sentences. This would entail a fixed recall period (not exceeding a certain percentage of the overall sentence) with the emphasis upon preparing the individual for release and ensuring robust riskmanagement systems are in place to actively manage individuals in the community. A clear recall framework would promote greater ‘truth in sentencing’ and free up significant resources that could be used to pursue the wide-ranging and ambitious programme of reform outlined above.
33 Padfield, N and Maruna, S (2006) The revolving door at the prison gate: Exploring the dramatic increase in recalls to prison. Criminology & Criminal Justice. Vol: 6(3): 329–352
Page 13 of 14
Appendix 1: A recent decision by the Parole Board of New Zealand
CORNES - James William - 14/12/2017
Parole Hearing Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002
James William CORNES
Hearing: 14 December 2017 at [withheld] via AVL to NZPB Offices, Wellington
Members of the Board: • Judge D Mather – Panel Convenor • Ms F Pimm • Ms M More
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1. Mr Cornes is serving a sentence of four years six months. He was convicted of no further than 19 burglaries and a charge of possessing burglary instruments. He offended over a period of some six months in 2014.
2. He has no offending history in New Zealand but a significant offending history in Australia. He has served a number of prison sentences there.
3. The last Board in February 2016 noted the importance of Mr Cornes undertaking necessary rehabilitative treatment and deferred him for next consideration of parole for close to two years.
4. Over that period he has completed the medium intensity rehabilitation programme (MIRP). Questions arose as to the genuineness of his commitment to that programme, but on further enquiry it appears that he did make considerable gains. He was recently assessed for the short motivational programme (SMP). The outcome of that was it was not considered necessary that he do the SMP because he was able to identify his learnings from the MIRP and the consequences of his decisions.
5. He has been working outside the wire in the piggery since April 2016. Over that time he has gained a number of work related skills and also impressed staff with his work ethic.
6. He has completed a detailed safety plan.
7. Very recently he received a work offer from a dairy farmer in [withheld] who has previously employed released prisoners. Accommodation is provided. Community Corrections have assessed this proposal as suitable as the employer has been very supportive of other offenders in similar situations.
8. We take into account the extent of Mr Cornes offending, the length of his sentence, and the time remaining until his sentence end date. He reverted to crime very soon after he arrived in New Zealand but he appears to have been provided with quite inadequate support at that time. As indicated above he has made positive progress since starting this sentence.
9. In our view no undue risk will arise if Mr Cornes is released now subject to a range of special conditions. He raised the need for alcohol and drug conditions, and given that there is no evidence of alcohol or drugs featuring in his offending, we will not impose conditions in that
Page 14 of 14
regard. A three month curfew is in our view appropriate particularly if it allows him to work around the farm property.
10. Given the background and the risks associated with the early period following release, we consider it appropriate to obtain a monitoring report after three months. On receipt of that report the Board can then decide whether to require Mr Cornes’ attendance at a further monitoring hearing.
11. On this basis we direct Mr Cornes’ release on parole on [withheld]. At this point we will impose both standard and special release conditions until sentence end date only. That can be the subject of review over the next 12 months.
(1) To attend, participate in and adhere to the rules of a Departmental maintenance group to the satisfaction of a Probation Officer. (2) From [withheld] to 20 March 2018 not to stay away overnight 10pm to 6am daily from the [withheld] where you are living and working without prior written approval of a Probation Officer. (3) To reside at [withheld] and not to move from that address without the prior written approval of a Probation Officer. (4) To notify a Probation Officer before starting, terminating or changing your position or place of employment. (5) You are not to have contact or otherwise associate with the victim(s) of your offending, directly or indirectly, unless you have the prior written consent of your Probation Officer. (6) If required, to comply with any direction made under section 29B(2)(b) of the Parole Act 2002 to attend a hearing at a time and place to be notified to you, to enable the Parole Board to monitor your compliance with your release conditions.
Judge D Mather Panel Convenor
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/PressPolicy/News/vw/1/ItemID/549?dm_i=47L,5RY6Q,EGK2Y1,MJ97Y,1
https://mailchi.mp/russellwebster/hmpratings18?e=24805ba81c
|
It is interesting that the slope of the blue line in this year’s projection is virtually the same as it was in last year’s projection. In other words, the big difference is where the projection is starting from, not in the trends it predicts around sentencing and release.
