PRT comment: David Gauke's speech on long term justice reform
18th Feb 2019
Reacting to David Gauke’s speech at Reform this morning (18 February), Peter Dawson, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said:
“The justice secretary is establishing a reputation as a thoughtful, balanced policy thinker, driven by evidence not
preconception. This speech rightly rejects the pointless language of
tough versus soft, and calls for an informed debate about how to punish
serious crime in ways that are both effective and humane. It deserves a
non-partisan
response,so that we can ultimately achieve a penal system of which the country can feel proud rather than ashamed.
focus on effective alternatives to custody in the community and more punitive sanctions on certain criminals
shift resource to probation with new reforms to be unveiled later this year
harness technology to hit fraudsters where it hurts – in the pocket
In a landmark speech he challenged the “polarising” view that there is only a choice between “soft” and “hard” justice, arguing that the focus should instead be on a system based on evidence of what actually works – “punishments that are punitive, for a purpose”.
In setting out his vision, the Justice Secretary stressed he did not want to reverse tougher sentencing for serious crimes, but urged caution in continuing to increase sentence length as a response to concerns over crime.
Instead, he urged those who shape the system to “take a step back” and ask fundamental questions such as whether our approach to sentencing reduces crime; if prisons currently maximise the chances of rehabilitation; and if we should look at better alternatives to punish and rehabilitate offenders.
He said:
I think now is the time for us as a society, as a country, to start a fresh conversation, a national debate about what justice, including punishment, should look like for our modern times.
Sentencing and community orders
On sentencing, he said that the high rate of reoffending for those on sentences of less than 6 months showed that for them and wider society “prison simply isn’t working”.
There was, he said, “a very strong case to abolish sentences of 6 months or less altogether, with some closely defined exceptions, and put in their place, a robust community order regime”.
Among the problems with short sentences he cited were disruption to the lives of families when women went into custody and – for women and men – the loss of access to benefits and drug or alcohol support services and treatment.
Offenders were less likely to reoffend if they are given a community order, he said, because these orders were “much more effective at tackling the root causes behind criminality”.
He said:
Now, I do not want community orders which are in any sense a ‘soft option’.I want a regime that can impose greater restrictions on people’s movements and lifestyle and stricter requirements in terms of accessing treatment and support. And critically, these sentences must be enforced.
Mr Gauke stressed the vital role technology has to play in effective community orders, and pointed to the recently-announced rollout of a GPS tagging programme to more effectively monitor offenders’ movements.
He continued:
Other new technology and innovations are opening up the possibility of even more options for the future too.For example, technology can monitor whether an offender has consumed alcohol, and enables us to be able to better restrict and monitor alcohol consumption where it drives offending behaviour.We are testing the value of alcohol abstinence monitoring requirements for offenders on licence, building on earlier testing of its value as part of a community order.
Probation
The Justice Secretary pledged to set out more detail on probation later this year, and stated that “if we want to successfully make a shift from prison to community sentences it is critical that we have a probation system that commands the confidence of the courts and the public”.
He said:
In thinking strategically about the future of our justice system I believe in the end there is a strong case for switching resource away from ineffective prison sentences and into probation. This is more likely to reduce reoffending and, ultimately, reduce pressures on our criminal justice system.I am determined to strengthen the confidence courts have in probation to ensure we can make this shift away from short custodial sentences towards more punitive and effective sanctions and support in the community.
Economic crime
Mr Gauke said he was looking not only at more effective punishment for those on short sentences, but also those convicted of more serious crimes such as fraud, where the custody rate has increased from 14.5% in 2007 to over 20% now.
He singled out how fraudsters – whose crimes can be “devastating” for victims – could return to their comfortable lifestyles after prison, but that this could be addressed through “a combination of technology and radical thinking”.
He said:
After serving part of their sentence behind bars, we could, for example, continue to restrict an offender’s movement, their activities and their lifestyle beyond prison in a much more intensive way.And that could also mean a real shift in the standard of living a wealthy criminal can expect after prison.I want to look at how, once a jail term has been served, we can continue to restrict their expenditure and monitor their earnings, using new technology to enable proper enforcement.They would be in no uncertainty that, once sentenced, they wouldn’t be able to reap any lifestyle benefits from their crimes and would need to make full reparation to the community as part of the sentence.
Concluding his speech, Mr Gauke said:
Prison will always play a part in serving as punishment for serious crimes and in rehabilitation, and our reforms will deliver that. But we need to think more imaginatively about different and more modern forms of punishment in the community. Punishments that are punitive, for a purpose.As with our approach to short sentences, ultimately, it’s about doing what works to reduce reoffending and make us all safer and less likely to be a future victim of crime.
Guidance
The Ministry of Justice has introduced a wide range of reforms since David Gauke was appointed Justice Secretary in January 2018, including:
- Restoring stability to the prison estate with a £70 million investment in safety, security and decency.
- This includes £16 million to improve conditions for prisoners and staff and £7 million for new security measures, such as scanners, improved searching techniques, phone-blocking technology and a financial crime unit to target the criminal kingpins operating in prisons.
- More than 4,300 prison officers have been recruited, staffing levels are at their highest since 2012, and there has been a significant focus on prisoner rehabilitation.
- Launching the Education and Employment strategy last year, which focuses prison regimes on rehabilitation and helps set each prisoner on a path to employment for when they are released.
- Reforming the Parole Board to increase transparency, improve the process for victims and, crucially, introducing a reconsideration mechanism to allow any seriously flawed release decision by the Parole Board to be looked at again without the need for judicial review.
- Unveiling the Victims Strategy, which ensures support for victims is aligned to the changing nature of crime, and boosts services at every stage of the justice system.
- Launching a consultation on no fault divorce, to remove the acrimony created by forcing couples to attribute blame when a marriage ends.
- A draft Domestic Abuse Bill, which represents the most comprehensive package ever to tackle abuse, better support victims, and bring more offenders to justice.
- Launching a new vision for the future of legal aid, including £5 million of funding for technical innovation and £3 million to support litigants in person. This Legal Support Action Plan followed the Post Implementation Review of LASPO reforms, prioritising early intervention and broadening the types of support people can access.
- Moving more court processes online, saving time and money as part of the government’s ambitious £1 billion court reform programme, bringing new technology and modern ways of working to the justice system. This includes a new fully accessible online civil money claims service giving the public the ability to make small claims online - with more than 37,000 claims made since its launch in March and user satisfaction at 90% - and a new system for applying for divorce online, which has cut errors in application forms from 40% to less than 1%.
- Investing £15 million in the court estate on more than 170 wide-ranging improvement works across a number of sites before the end of the financial year.
- Introducing the “Upskirting” Bill, protecting victims by making this invasive behaviour a criminal offence punishable by 2 years in prison.
- Publishing a Female Offender Strategy which delivers dedicated support to vulnerable female offenders – diverting them away from short prison sentences wherever possible. This includes £5 million of funding in community services as well as establishing five pilot residential women’s centres across England and Wales.
- Introducing 3 new justice bills into law:
- The Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill means mobile network operators can now detect, block and investigate illegal phone use in prisons - joining the government in the fight against criminals who fuel violence behind bars.
- The Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill doubled the maximum prison sentence from 6 to 12 months for anyone found guilty of assaulting a prison officer
- The Civil Liability Bill will ensure spurious or exaggerated whiplash claims are no longer an easy payday. Compensation will be capped, and settling claims without medical evidence will be banned – with insurers promising to pass on savings to hard-pressed motorists through lower insurance premiums.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/justice-secretary-david-gauke-sets-out-long-term-for-justice
The
Ministry of Justice issues its offender management statistics bulletins
every quarter.
They provide a snapshot of the levels of activity in the prison and probation systems. They are a good source of the latest data for researchers likeme, but often tell a similar story.
They provide a snapshot of the levels of activity in the prison and probation systems. They are a good source of the latest data for researchers like
However, the latest bulletin issued
last Thursday (31 January 2019) reveals a number of changing trends and
is worth a closer look. The bulletin covers the prison population up to
31 December 2018 while other quarterly stats refer the period between
July and September last year.
The Prison Population
After
being relatively stable for the past five years, the prison population
fell in 2018 in marked contrast to the increasing prison population
trend that was observed between the 1950’s and early 2000’s . The latest data shows:
- The total prison population (82,236) has decreased by 3%, compared with the same point in the previous year. This is being driven by fewer people entering prison (“first receptions”), given that there are also fewer prisoners being released.
- In
fact there was an 11% decrease in first receptions in the quarter examined compared to the same quarter the previous year. - 17,136 people were released from prison in the latest quarter, a decrease of 4% on the previous year. This is likely to be a growing trend as the prison population shifts towards those serving longer sentences.
- There was also a 13% increase in the number of people recalled which the MoJ attributes to an increase in Home Detention Curfews, following a change in policy in early 2018.
- The growing epidemic of violence and dissatisfaction with poor conditions is also clearly indicated in the statistics with a total of 54,710 adjudications between July and September 2018 – a jump of 14% on the same quarter in the previous year. 6,003 prisoners were given additional days to their sentences.
- One piece of good news is that the remand population decreased by 9%.
- The number of people serving Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) went down by 18%. However, there are still 2,480 IPPs in prison, 91% of whom have served past the date of their original tariff.
- The number of people serving Extended Determinate Sentences (the replacement for IPP with long, but finite periods of post-release supervision) has already reached 5,065 – an increase of 18% on the previous year.
Probation Caseload
The
total number of offenders on probation was 258,157 at the end of
September 2018, a 3% decrease in the total number of offenders on
probation (court orders and pre and post release supervision) compared with 30 September 2017.
The
overall court order caseload fell by 7% between the quarters ending
September 2017 and 2018, with the Community Order (CO) caseload
decreasing by 5% and the Suspended Sentence Order (SSO) caseload
decreasing by 9%. The number of offenders starting COs showed no
percentage change over this period, while the number of offenders
starting SSOs with requirements decreased by 23%. This may be caused by a
recent instruction to probation officers not to recommend SSOs in
Pre-Sentence reports, leading to more offenders being given COs in their
place. The overall caseload of offenders supervised before or after
release from prison showed no percentage change between the end of
September 2017 and 2018, but those supervised under post release rose by 2%.
Regarding
the number of requirements started under court orders, the latest
quarter has seen a continued rise in the number of accredited programme
requirements under COs, and in terms of combinations of requirements,
rehabilitation combined with unpaid work has seen a further significant
rise under COs.
Of
the court orders terminated in the quarter ending September 2018, 69%
of community orders were terminated successfully (i.e. ran their full
course or were terminated early for good progress); for the supervision
periods of suspended sentence orders, 74% of all those terminated were
terminated successfully over this period.
The
number of Pre-Sentence court reports prepared by the Probation Service
decreased by 13% between the quarter ending September 2018 and the same
quarter in the previous year.
6,240
people were recalled to custody between July and September 2018, 465 of
which were Home Detention Curfew (HDC) recalls, an increase of 4% from
the previous quarter.
It
will be interesting to see to what extent this trend of a falling
probation caseload affects the total budget for the next wave of
Community Rehabilitation Companies that the MoJ is in the process of
procuring.
Comments
It says the number of IPPs have gone down 18%. That's a miracle with so many Parole Hearings being deferred.
Can it be true... doubtful, or am I just being cynical
I’m almost certain it has increased. This number definitely doesn’t include those who have been recalled Current recall rate is almost the same number as those being released
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
On Sunday this week (4 February 2019), Justice Secretary David Gauke announced “sweeping changes” to the parole system following a review of the Parole Board’s rules.
The review was initiated by Mr Gauke following the public concern over the planned release of John Worboys(known as the Black Cab rapist) which blew up just after Mr
Gauke took up his post at Petty France in January 2018. Eventually, a
Judicial Review upheld the application by some of Worboys’ victims which
ruled that the Parole Board should reconsider his release. On
reconsideration, with guidance from the court that information about
additional offences with which Mr Worboys had never been charged should be considered, the Parole Board reversed their decision.
First ever standard practice documents will set out the Parole Board process to improve understanding and transparency- A judge-led process introduced later this year to allow potentially flawed decisions to be reconsidered
- Victim Contact will be
modernised with online opt-in and information sharing
He also announced a “Tailored Review” of the Parold Board to “consdier if more fundamental reforms are necessary”.
Standard Practice
The
new standard practice will clearly set out the approach and processes
normally expected of panel members when conducting a hearing. This will
include the type of evidence considered and how panels should assess
wider allegations of offending, which may not have resulted in a
conviction, and who is responsible for providing such evidence – issues
that were at the heart of the John Worboys case.
Mr
Gauke argued that making the decision process and approaches followed
by the Parole Board more open and transparent will improve understanding
of victims and the public, and give them greater confidence that the
Parole Board relies on robust and thorough risk assessment procedures to
inform its decisions as to whether to release prisoners who have
completed their minimum term.
Following Worboys, the Parole Board was allowed for the first time to provide summaries of its decision-making in individual cases, which it has so far done in over 800 cases.
The reconsideration mechanism
For
the first time, victims will be able to challenge a release decision if
they believe it was fundamentally flawed. They will be able to make a
case for the decision to be reconsidered without needing to resort to
expensive and legally complex judicial review. This process will be
available for decisions relating to all indeterminate sentence
prisoners, including IPP and life sentences, as well as prisoners on
Extended Determinate Sentences. We expect to introduce the process by this summer.
The
first step in the process will be for a dedicated team within the
Prisons and Probation Service to consider whether there is evidence or
indications which support making an application for reconsideration. If
that team concludes that there may have been a legal flaw or significant
mistakes in the process used to reach a decision, they will put
together a formal application to the Parole Board making the case for
reconsideration.
Applications
will be considered by a senior, judicial member of the Parole Board,
who will be named, and will decide whether the case should be looked at
again. If that judicial member agrees that the decision was flawed, they
will direct how the case should be dealt with – either by putting it
back to the original panel to reconsider the evidence, or by ordering an entirely new hearing by a fresh panel.
Victims
will be guided by their dedicated Victim Liaison Officer to help them
submit their case to have a parole decision reconsidered. The process
has been designed to be as straightforward as possible, with electronic
applications wherever possible and more simple paperwork. Once the
Parole Board has notified its decision, there will be a period of 21
calendar days for a reconsideration application to be submitted. You can
see the timeline of the process below.
Although
the press release makes no mention of it, prisoners will also be able
to apply for reconsideration of a decision not to release them.
an evaluation following
a pilot involving 8 police forces, testing the delivery and usage of
the GPS tags. The evaluation was a process evaluation and did not
examine the impact on reoffending of offenders who were fitted with a
tag. The main findings were:
Mr
Gauke linked the GPS tags to the government’s intention to introduce a
presumption against short prison sentences. It will be interesting to
see whether Magistrates’ confidence in community sentences which has
dropped noticeably since the introduction of the split public/private
probation system, will be bolstered by the new tags. Of course, it will be also be
critical whether the tags are just added to the conditions of those who
would have received community sentences anyway or reserved for those at
risk of custody.
Expanding victim contact services
The
review also sets out how victim contact services are being extended to
more people, including victims in cases where a serious charge lies on
file but has not resulted in a conviction – as was the case for many of
Worboys’ victims. It is also now easier for victims to opt-in and out of
the service using a simple online application.
In
September, the Government published the Victims Strategy to further
strengthen victim communication and engagement, and we have rolled out
new training for Victim Liaison Officers, with input from external
services and agencies to increase understanding of the victim’s
experience, and ensure they have the necessary information and skills to
support victims.
Tailored Review for long-term reform
Alongside
today’s publication, the Justice Secretary has also confirmed that he
has launched a Tailored Review of the Parole Board which will consider
what further changes over the longer term would benefit the parole
process. There are no restrictions on the scope of this work, which will
be wide-ranging and will report back by the summer before publishing
its findings.
It
will consider fundamental issues such as the purpose of the Parole
Board, which functions it should deliver, its efficiency and
effectiveness and its structure, including whether it should become a
judge-led tribunal. This also includes assessing whether the Parole
Board should receive additional powers and be monitored by an
independent inspectorate.
Conclusion
The Parole Board has been intent on improving its transparency for some time and these changes allow it to do so.
How
many people – victims and prisoners – take up the opportunity to have
parole decisions reconsidered, we shall have to wait and see. I assume
that the number of decisions which are overturned will have a bearing on
how many applications for reconsideration are made.
Of
course, all this may be a temporary measure – one of the possible
outcomes of the “Tailored Review” is that the legal footing of the
Parole Board changes and it becomes a form of Court or Tribunal.
[You can see the official guidance for a “Tailored Review” here.
https://mailchi.mp/russellwebster/parolechange19?
.................................................................................................................
Last Friday (15 February 2019), Justice Secretary David Gaule announced the national roll out
of new GPS tags
which will provide 24/7 location monitoring of offenders with the stated aims of helping to strengthen supervision, enforce exclusion zones and “give victims greater peace of mind”.
The GPS electronic tagging scheme has been fraught with difficulties and delays. Originally announced by Tony Blair’s government, the Public Accounts Committee described the procurement process as “a catastrophic waste of money” in early 2018.
The new technology is also set to be piloted in London (by the London Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime) to monitor offenders released from prison who have been convicted of knife crimeoffences .
Offenders will have their movements checked against locations of
reported crimes, in an effort to tackle violence in the capital.
DCC Jon Stratford, Gloucestershire Police, NPCC Electronic Monitoring lead:
Location monitoring can be used to:
The new location monitoring capabilities will be in addition to the existing curfew tagging provision already in place, which monitors offenders onlicence
which will provide 24/7 location monitoring of offenders with the stated aims of helping to strengthen supervision, enforce exclusion zones and “give victims greater peace of mind”.
The GPS electronic tagging scheme has been fraught with difficulties and delays. Originally announced by Tony Blair’s government, the Public Accounts Committee described the procurement process as “a catastrophic waste of money” in early 2018.
How GPS tagging will work?
The GPS tags have so far been rolled out to 3 regions, the North West, Midlands and North East, with other regions due to go live in the coming months. The tags will be available across England and Wales by the summer.The new technology is also set to be piloted in London (by the London Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime) to monitor offenders released from prison who have been convicted of knife crime
DCC Jon Stratford, Gloucestershire Police, NPCC Electronic Monitoring lead:
A wide range of offenders will be eligible for the new tags, including those subject to court-imposed bail, community orders and suspended sentence orders, as well as those on Home Detention Curfew and indeterminate sentenced prisoners released by the Parole Board.The potential benefits of using this new technology to better protect victims are recognised by the police service and we’re working closely with the Ministry of Justice to identify a suitable joint implementation programme.
Location monitoring can be used to:
- enforce an exclusion zone – an offender or individual on bail can’t enter a specific location or area
- keep a given distance from a point or address, including victim’s address or that of a known criminal associate
- monitor an offender’s attendance at a certain activity – for
example work or a rehabilitation programme - monitor an offender’s movements to support discussions with probation about an offender’s lifestyle and
behaviours
The new location monitoring capabilities will be in addition to the existing curfew tagging provision already in place, which monitors offenders on
Who will be eligible for tags?
The announcement also set out the criteria for GPS tagging:- Location monitoring will be available for: court-imposed bail,
community orders, suspended sentence orders, home detention curfew cases
and Parole Board cases for life sentences, IPP (imprisonment for public
protection)
offences and extended determinate sentences. - For tags used for ‘court imposed bail’ individual Police forces can choose to roll out the service as soon as it is available in their region. Some forces are keen to proceed with GPS tagging and we will continue to work closely with those who want further information before rolling this service out.
Evaluation findings
The MoJ also published the findings of- Partner agencies were enthusiastic about the prospect of using GPS
location monitoring to help monitor and manage compliance with bail,
sentence, and
licence conditions. - Clear and timely training and guidance for the staff involved in the setup and delivery of the pilot was highlighted as vital to effective delivery.
- The process of fitting tags was thought to have gone smoothly, although some concerns were raised in relation to the time taken to fit tags.
- GPS location monitoring was felt to support the effective management of offenders in the community and individuals on court bail in four key ways: supporting offender rehabilitation, facilitating risk management, informing decisions about whether a wearer should be recalled to custody or court, and providing evidence to either exonerate a wearer or link them to a crime.
- Key learning points include the importance of clear communication across and within partner agencies to enable a consistent approach to delivery, and the need for sufficient time and resources to develop the infrastructure to support the wider rollout of GPS location monitoring.
I’ve walked in an exclusion zone before, not realising… that was before I had the tag on, so I wasn’t really bothered about getting seen. Now, with the tag, I knew full well that if I go in to that exclusion zone, I’m going to get seen no matter what.In his major speech at the Reform Think Tank yesterday,
17TH Feb ,
Working Links, the provider of 3 Community Rehabilitation Companies
went into administration with See tec taking over operation of the
supervision of low and medium risk offenders in the South-West and
Wales.
The probation inspectorate brought forward their publication of
the inspection of Dorset, Devon & Cornwall which made it shockingly
clear how poor provision in those areas is.
In other news, the MoJ annnounced the much delayed roll-out of electronic tags with GPS, so that offenders' locations can be tracked in real time.
There
was also a very critical inspection report of Durham prison and the
first publication in a new series of specially commissioned research by
HMI Probation. The first paper looks to reconcile the desistance and "what works" research.
As always, click on the tile to see the full story.
16TH
Justice Secretary unveils GPS tag rollout to better protect victims
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/justice-secretary-unveils-gps-tag-rollout-to-better-protect-victims
.............................................................................................
"Trapped in the system".
Jay-Z and Meek Mill pledge $50m to free prisoners in the US.
So why cant we do in the UK!
The Reform Alliance, which was inspired by Meek Mill's recent stint in prison for a minor probation violation, hopes to free one million prisoners in five years.
The owners of the New England Patriots and Philadelphia 76ers, Robert Kraft and Michael Rubin, are co-founders.
Reform says it wants to help people who are "trapped in the system".
The
group's "mission" is to "dramatically reduce the number of people who
are unjustly under the control of the criminal justice system, starting
with probation and parole".
"To win, we will leverage our considerable resources to change laws, policies, hearts and minds," it says.
More
than six million people can currently count themselves as part of the
"correctional population" of the USA - which includes people in prisons
and local jails, but is mostly made up of the more than four million people on probation or parole, according to Bureau of Justice statistics.
Probation
is often given as a sentence instead of time in prison and can include
conditions like being on a curfew or going to rehab.
Parole is when an inmate is released early from prison with similar conditions to probation.
Meek Mill has experienced all three: probation, parole and jail.
The
Reform Alliance says his case is an example of the "devastating and
long-lasting effects" that can occur after one interaction with the
criminal justice system.
The rapper was arrested in 2007 - he says wrongfully - for drug and gun charges, aged 19.
He was sentenced in 2009 to between 11 and 23 months in county prison, but was released on parole after five months and put on house arrest.
It
was during this time he started to make his name nationally as a
rapper, signing to Rick Ross's label and releasing a string of hugely
successful mixtapes.
Before long he was a platinum-selling artist.
But
a parole violation for suspected cannabis use resulted in a ban on
touring, and then after failing to get his travel plans approved by the court Meek was sentenced to prison again in 2014.
REFORM
Examples
of parole violations that can land people back in prison range from
being late to appointments with parole officers or missing a curfew, to
things more specific to the crime that was committed - like failing to
attend an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting.
"When you talk about these
so-called technical violations, it's not technical to the kid who can
never see her mum again because she showed up late for a meeting. That's
not technical, that's devastating for that individual child," Reform
Alliance CEO Van Jones said.
Violations over the next few years
resulted in his probation period being extended - it now lasts up until
2023 - as well as the five months in prison which ended in April 2018
and birthed the #FreeMeek movement.
It's people with a similar
story to Meek's, that have been "caught up on probation and parole",
that Reform says it wants to focus on fist
If someone commits a crime they should go to jail'
"Being from the environment I'm from, I don't even think it's possible for you to be an angel," Meek said as the organisation was announced in New York.
"You grow up around murder on a daily basis, you grow up in drug-infested neighbourhoods .
"And
every time I started to further my life with the music industry, there
was always something that brought me back to ground zero," he said.
Pennsylvania
Governor Tom Wolf, who attended the event, said he was a supporter of
criminal justice reforms that are "fair, help our system work better and
smarter, and save crucial taxpayer dollars while balancing public
safety and victim concerns".
Across the US, roughly a third of
people on parole are black, according to Bureau of Justice statistics -
something Jay-Z raised at the event.
"We want to be very clear. If
someone commits a crime they should go to jail. But these things are
just disproportionate and the whole world knows it," he said.
ay-Z has been vocal about Meek's case, writing in the New York Times while he was imprisoned.
"On
the surface, this may look like the story of yet another criminal
rapper who didn't smarten up and is back where he started," he wrote.
"What's
happening to Meek Mill is just one example of how our criminal justice
system entraps and harasses hundreds of thousands of black people every
day.
"I saw this up close when I was growing up in Brooklyn during
the 1970s and 1980s. Instead of a second chance, probation ends up
being a land mine, with a random misstep bringing consequences greater
than the crime. A person on probation can end up in jail over a
technical violation like missing a curfew."
Listen to Newsbeat live at 12:45 and 17:45 every weekday on BBC Radio 1 and 1Xtra - if you miss us you can listen back here.
..................................................................................
The Lib-Dem peer says coalition cuts were necessary but have gone too far – people must be able to access justice
Tom
McNally believes a cross-party consensus needs to be built to establish
a broadly acceptable level of legal aid. He also supports renationalisation of the probation service and fears that the Conservatives are plotting a fresh assault on the Human Rights Act.
A
Liberal Democrat peer, ex-justice minister in the coalition government
and one-time deputy leader of the House of Lords, his experience at the
highest levels of government stretches back more than 40 years. But it
has been cuts to legal aid
– imposed by the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition government – and law
reform that have preoccupied his recent years at Westminster. It is a
legacy about which he harbours
some regrets while remaining refreshingly forthright. His views may
well be tested again when the government publishes its long-awaited
review on the impact of legal aid cuts.
For months in 2012, McNally battled rebellious peers through late-night sittings over contentious clauses
of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (Laspo) Act.
The legislation was not meant to be so draconian, he says. “It was
supposed to be about the rehabilitation revolution. It started off as a
genuine reforming bill but ran into constant demands from No 10 to add
[more] in. That was where ‘punishment of offenders’ came from.” But
parliament passed it and despite what the Labour party has said since
then, “they were [also] committed in the 2010 election to further cuts,”
McNally says.
“We
had consistently thought we were becoming too litigious a society and
that ways must be found to direct people from [that instinct] deep in
the English DNA that everyone is entitled to their day in court. Whether
every man is entitled to his day in court at the taxpayer’s expense is
another question.”
The coalition government’s aim was to reduce civil legal aid,
while retaining advice and representation for those involved in family
court cases involving domestic violence or at immediate risk of losing
their homes. In the end, large areas of civil legal aid were removed from legal aid coverage. These included most cases involving housing problems, family law, immigration, employment disputes and challenges to welfare benefit payments.
McNally, now 75, carries the battle scars from that era. “Every cut to legal aid,” he says, was labelled
a restriction on “access to justice” or a “derogation from Magna
Carta”. “When I first became a minister in 2010, Jeremy Hutchinson QC
came to me and said you must protect legal aid. He said when it was set up it
was the NHS for the legal system. I have always kept in mind that it
was a tremendous step forward. [Clement] Attlee [the Labour postwar
prime minister] said it was something that had to be retained and
sustained. But we have to face up to the fact that it’s not a bottomless
pit.”
McNally
still believes that the cuts to legal aid, from a £2.5bn bill in 2010
to £1.6bn today, were necessary at the time. The lesson he learned from
the 1976 IMF crisis,
when he was a Downing Street adviser, was that cuts should be “hard and
deep” to restore confidence, but not drag on indefinitely. “I said that
to [Nick] Clegg and [David] Cameron.” But in 2016, McNally sought to
forge a political consensus
over the level of legal aid spending in England and Wales, proposing a
royal commission to put the issue beyond dispute. It’s a position he
still holds. “I worry that we are not going to get the legal aid
[funding] right unless we take a hard look on a cross-party basis,” he
says. Although McNally accepts that the cuts have had a “far-reaching”
impact on family courts, he still thinks it was the right thing to do.
“The intention was to get more mediation
into the system,” he says, and he does not believe the state should pay
for “prolonged and devastating battles” fought in courts by feuding
ex-partners.
McNally
admits that at times he found it “extremely difficult to be a small ‘l’
liberal in a justice system at the time there was not much money and
there were lots of hard decisions.”
Whichever
party won the election in 2010 would have had to face the financial
consequences of the 2008 crash, McNally says. And that meant cuts across
the criminal justice system, not just in legal aid. “I enjoyed working
with Ken Clarke. He was a wily old Whitehall warrior and immediately
offered 23% cuts on the Ministry of Justice budget which got him on to
the star chamber committee which looked at the expenses [of other
departments]. But it did mean that the MoJ was faced with what appeared
at the time – and were – draconian cuts.”
That
was not the end of austerity for the MoJ. It was “always a battle in
the face of continuing and draconian cuts matching up the needs of three
key services, courts, probation and prisons,” he says. “There are not a
lot of places to go for cuts. We were continually running up the down
escalator... Within two years the Treasury was back for another 10% cut
in the MoJ budget.”
He points to his attempts with the then justice secretary, Ken Clarke, to end the use of short-term sentences, a proposal adopted successfully in Scotland and now attracting increasing support in England and Wales. “But No 10 said ‘No’,” McNally says.
His
justice team did extract a commitment to end the indeterminate
sentences handed down under the imprisonment for public protection (IPP)
regime. “We realised
that if we ended IPPs that would help reduce prison numbers,” McNally
says. In 2012, he hoped they would be abolishing all IPPs. But a key
clause in Laspo, McNally says, was never brought into effect. “It would
have reversed the burden of proof with IPP prisoners
“We
are now at a stage where the government is defying the will of by
parliament through its slow and cumbersome way of dealing with IPP
prisoners. We never had it in our laws to detain people on the basis
that they might commit a crime – but that’s what we are doing now.”
Thousands of inmates therefore remain imprisoned on IPPs that have long overrun their original, recommended tariff.
McNally
and Clarke also proposed reducing the prison population from 85,000 to
80,000 by the end of that parliament. “Ken was genuinely shocked that in
between him last being responsible for prisoner numbers in the 1990s
and 2010, the number of prisoners had doubled from 42,000 to 85,000.”
McNally lobbied unsuccessfully for the change. “One Conservative
minister told me: ‘This has to pass the Daily Mail test’.”
McNally
would like further reforms, but concedes the chance of getting that
through “without some form of consensus are slim because it slips down
priorities when you are looking at the NHS, education and defence ”.
So what would he change? Partial privatisation
of the probation service, introduced during the coalition era, should
be reversed, McNally believes. “The reform was a compromise,” he says.
“Oliver Letwin’s idea was to fully privatise it. It clearly hasn’t worked. There’s an overwhelming case for bringing [those parts that were privatised ] back into a nationalised system.”
McNally
is alarmed by recent comments about the government’s commitment to the
European court of human rights after Brexit.“That should set alarm bells
ringing,” he says.
He
says: “There’s no doubt, and I have experienced this in government,
there are large and influential sections of the Conservative party who
see anything with ‘Europe’ in the title and their eyeballs start
spinning. It’s one obsession that’s not gone away.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/31/labour-devastating-legal-aid-cuts-access-justice
.................................................................................
Nicolas Sanderson, who was involved in the creation of the sentence, corrprisoners
– a rate that has more than doubled over the past five years.
In advice
to ministers published in 2016, the Parole Board set out policy options
for expediting the release of the remaining IPP population, as well as
dealing with the growing problem of IPP recalls.ects a common mistake. Mark Day says the government should eradicate this stain on our justice system
IPP prisoners are more than twice as likely to self-harm as people
serving determinate sentences,’ writes Mark Day of the Prison Reform
Trust. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/PA
I
would like to correct a widely repeated mistake about the indeterminate
sentence for public protection (IPP), to the effect that it was
“applied far more widely than intended” (‘Psychological torture’: call for reform after jail death, 10 January). I am the former head of policy in the Prison Service, and was involved in the creation of the sentence.
IPP was the invention of David Blunkett in 2001, against the advice of officials. He rejected the scheme for violent or sexual offenders proposed in a Home Office review of sentencing (Making Punishments Work), namely a determinate sentence with a review of the release date by the Parole Board, and a supervisory period that could be extended by the court.
Instead he mandated the IPP and it was applied precisely as intended and as set down in statute ,
with all the consequences that officials pointed out at the time. Most
importantly, its application was mandatory upon the courts on a second
conviction for a sexual or violent offence , however minor the actual behaviour . One of its first uses was where a man had squeezed a woman’s breast at a bus stop,
and had a previous similar conviction: the court was obliged to impose
an IPP. All the problems that have come to pass were glaringly apparent
in that conviction.
Nicolas Sanderson
London
• The mental anguish inflicted on nearly 2,600 people serving the discredited and now abolished IPP is indicated in the shocking self-harm rates for this group. IPP prisoners are more than twice as likely to self-harm as people serving determinate sentences, with 872 incidents of self-harm per 1,000 IPP prisoners – a rate that has more than doubled over the past five years. In advice to ministers published in 2016, the Parole Board set out policy options for expediting the release of the remaining IPP population, as well as dealing with the growing problem of IPP recalls.
Without furtherlegislation
the board estimated that more than 1,000 IPP prisoners will remain
stuck in the system by 2020, eight years after the sentence was
abolished. Proposals for reform include conversion of IPP sentences into
their equivalent determinate sentence, which could start with those on
the shortest tariffs who have experienced the greatest injustice, and
improvements to the licence
conditions and support available to IPP prisoners on release. The
government should finish the job it started and eradicate a stain on our
justice system once and for all.
Mark Day
Head of policy and communications, Prison Reform Trust
IPP was the invention of David Blunkett in 2001, against the advice of officials. He rejected the scheme for violent or sexual offenders proposed in a Home Office review of sentencing (Making Punishments Work), namely a determinate sentence with a review of the release date by the Parole Board, and a supervisory period that could be extended by the court.
Nicolas Sanderson
London
• The mental anguish inflicted on nearly 2,600 people serving the discredited and now abolished IPP is indicated in the shocking self-harm rates for this group. IPP prisoners are more than twice as likely to self-harm as people serving determinate sentences, with 872 incidents of self-harm per 1,000 IPP prisoners – a rate that has more than doubled over the past five years. In advice to ministers published in 2016, the Parole Board set out policy options for expediting the release of the remaining IPP population, as well as dealing with the growing problem of IPP recalls.
Without further
Mark Day
Head of policy and communications, Prison Reform Trust
‘Mental anguish’ and wider problems with IPP sentences.
......................................................................................................
......................................................................................................
Nearly 65% of prisoners at women's jail 'show signs of brain injury'
Call for screening as woman study injuries were caused by domestic violence
Domestic
violence was blamed by 62% of prisoners at Drake Hall with a history of
brain injury. Photograph: Mark Goddard/Getty Images
Nearly
65% of prisoners at a women’s jail may have suffered traumatic brain
injuries at some point in their lives, a study has found.
Research
by the Disabilities Trust and Royal Holloway, University of London,
found that of the 173 women screened at Drake Hall prison in
Staffordshire answering questions about blows to the head, 64% gave
answers consistent with having symptoms of a brain injury. The symptoms
of 96% of the women suggested that these arose from physical trauma.
The work adds to a growing body of research on the over-representation of people with brain injuries in the prison population. In 2012, a university of Exeter report described traumatic brain injury as a “silent epidemic”. In 2010 a study of 200 adult male prisoners found 60% had suffered a head injury.
Research has suggested that traumatic brain injury (TBI) could increase the likelihood of violent behaviour , criminal convictions, mental health problems and suicide attempts.
“The
needs of somebody in prison with TBI are likely to be complex, and the
lack of understanding and identification of a brain injury results in a
higher risk of custody and reoffending,” said the Disabilities Trust.
As
part of its research, the trust established a Brain Injury Linkworker
Service in the prison to provide specialist support to women with a
history of brain injury. 62% of the women supported through the service
said they had sustained their brain injury through domestic violence.
Nearly
half (47%) of the women had been in an adult prison five or more times.
The statistics revealed that 33% had sustained their first injury prior
to their first offence .
The
Disabilities Trust called for the inclusion of brain injury screening
to be a routine part of the induction assessment on entry to prison or
probation services, and for staff to be given basic brain injury
awareness training.
Irene
Sobowale, chief executive of the Disabilities Trust, said the study
built on over five years of research into male offenders and brain
injury. “For the first time in the UK, we have considered the specific
needs and experiences of female offenders, who are some of the most
vulnerable in the criminal justice system,” she said.
“There
is much more work to be done to ensure that women with a brain injury
are provided with effective support to ensure that they can engage in
rehabilitation programmes and reduce the likelihood of reoffending. The
Disabilities Trust looks forward to working with partners and government
to achieve this.”
The
Parole Board has announced today that a recruitment campaign for new members is
now open.
Caroline Corby, Parole Board Chair, said:
Parole Board members play an essential role in the criminal justice system, making decisions on whether a person is safe to release into the community.
If you have an interest in protecting your community and the belief that every prisoner deserves a fair hearing, then you might want to consider applying.
We welcome applications from all backgrounds so that the Parole Board can better reflect the communities it serves.
Indeed, one of the main aims for this campaign is to start to redress the shortage of black and minority ethnic members.
There
are three strands to the campaign, with one for each type of member
being recruited – independent, psychologist and judicial members.
An
independent member can come from a variety of backgrounds and does not
need to have experience working in the criminal justice system to apply.
The independent member campaign is focussed on the North-East, North-West and Yorkshire & the Humber regions of England.
The psychologist and judicial member campaigns are open for people with the eligible qualifications across England & Wales.
We
anticipate that there will be further recruitment campaigns for
independent members covering other regions of England & Wales in the
future.
Please contact Will Aslan on 020 3880 0809 or email comms@paroleboard.gov.uk for interview requests.
Parole
Board members are public appointments. Potential applicants should
visit the Cabinet Office public appointments website to make their
applications:
The independent member campaign is open today (18 January 2019) and closes on 7 March 2019.
The psychologist and judicial member campaigns are open today (18 January 2019) and close on 21 February 2019.
Parole
Board Member appointments are regulated by the Commissioner for Public
Appointments and the recruitment process follows the principles within
the Cabinet Office’s Governance Code on Public Appointments.
It
is anticipated there will be recruitment campaigns for independent
members in other regions of England & Wales in the future. People
can register their interest at workwithus@paroleboard.gov.uk.
Dear Katherine
Regarding
Probation Officers from an article dating back to 2009 Inside Times website
Probation officers friend or foe?
The
general perception of the public, and certainly the media, is that
probation officers fit into the category of those who are more concerned
with offenders than their victims. Veritable ‘do-gooders’ dressed up as
concerned officials of the criminal justice system and, as befitting
do-gooders, likely to be seen as making excuses for criminal and
anti-social behaviour whilst actually achieving very little in response to the public’s concern over crime.
Whilst
the probation service offers little to allay the public’s fear over
crime and provide for public protection, neither does it achieve
anything significant in reducing offending behaviour or attitude change in ex-offenders. Record numbers of released prisoners are subject to licence conditions and many will be recalled to prison by probation officers for non-criminal misdemeanours .
These can include failing to keep an appointment; failing to notify
changes of address; domestic disputes with a partner or alcohol/drug
consumption. Even for uttering a difference of opinion with the
probation officer and whatever is perceived by that individual as
‘behaviour likely to increase the risk of re-offending’, which is at
best a subjective judgement .
In
stark contrast to the former culture of probation work, which saw its
role as assisting and befriending offenders towards leading non-criminal
lifestyles, it is now common practice to hear offenders refer to
probation officers by such non-endearing terms as ‘the enemy’, ‘the
filth’, ‘the odd lot’ ‘the Gestapo’, and other uncomplimentary
adjectives. Indeed, those who put people in prison are very much part of
the state apparatus which seeks to penalise
the mentally disordered, the unemployed and unskilled, the homeless,
and those who have been excluded from and have no stake in society
through poverty and lack of opportunity. They find themselves in prison
warehouses and the consequential revolving door of offending is
therefore seen as being the natural disposal of the unwanted. You
couldn’t make it up.
It is noteworthy that as probation officers become less concerned about an offender’s social standing, inclusion and
rehabilitation and being more punitive and bound up in bureaucracy
(which some offenders equate with vindictiveness), anyone entering many
probation offices for the first time cannot help but be aware of
security measures more in keeping with a prison. CCTV, PIN number locks
on doors for staff, door entry and intercom systems, strengthened glass
which separates callers from probation staff and receptionists, and
waiting room chairs bolted to the floor. What therefore could have led
to such a shift in policy that probation officers now see themselves
almost under siege and fearful that they have had to resort to such
measures?
The answer lies somewhere between many ex-offender’s
perceptions of probation officers as being firmly camped on the other
side of the fence with the very system which excludes them, to
‘fitting-up’ offenders with comments and remarks allegedly made which
then find their way into adverse reports and the forming of opinions
which wouldn’t be out of place in works of fiction, yet form the basis
of the notions of risk and further oppression.
There
is also perhaps some currency in the notion that probation officers are
all too ready to rely on hunches and guesswork in risk assessment
rather than evidence, and what they lack in evidence they are astute at
inventing or fabricating to bolster a higher risk score. This remains common practice to assuage the public’s demand for retribution.
The decision taken by probation, prison governors and managers that probation policy and coercion could be compatible remains
reprehensible, whatever the reasoning. It has led to disadvantaged
ex-offenders being sentenced and coerced by the use of threats into
cognitive behaviourism courses whether they like it or not and taught to
think differently against their will, which is all part of the current
approaches applied by probation staff but which are measures that have
failed miserably in spite of very selective evidence and so-called
‘research’ that probation officers rely on to promote such
interventions.
To
be labelled a criminal, and the effects of ‘labelling’, is widely known
amongst psychologists as a start in the process whereby probation
officers look not for the positives in an ex-offender’s
life, and what is needed to encourage and support, but where the whole
process focuses on all the negatives and the past. Clearly, a
disgraceful re-offending rate of those released from prison (and again
this only applies to those who are caught), a shambolic prison system,
and a cavalier approach by probation staff to the recall of offenders;
the enforcement of ‘tough cure’ just has not worked.
Releasing ex-offenders in the condition in which they were originally caught but just a bit more battle hardened
is a sad indictment of the present policies of both the Prison and
Probation Services in dealing with offenders; but does the Government
really care, let alone the Prison and Probation Services? It seems not.
Sound-bites
and rhetoric are empty of meaning until given effect, and with public
protection being the main focus of probation officers it is something at
which they fail miserably.
It
was former Home Secretary Michael Howard who argued that ‘prison
works’; proposing even more draconian measures for prisoners and
ex-offenders a stand bitterly opposed by the more liberal commentators
including the National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO), whose
members have since gone along in some way with that philosophy and to
which they seemingly hang their collective hats on.
Anthony
Goodman of Middlesex University, in the Probation and Offender
Management Handbook, argues that … ‘there now exists a probation crisis
of confidence because the superficial nature of probation supervision is
patently failing to protect the public; with the Government now
signalling its intention to rely on the voluntary sector to supervise
ex-offenders going on to argue that one day the centrality of knowing,
understanding and working constructively with the offender will have to
be reintroduced and social work with clients reinvented’.
Government
proposals to cut the budget to the Probation Service by an estimated
20% and the need to make efficiency savings has already led to wholesale
redundancies across many probation areas, with many no longer
recruiting trainees; and the response from NAPO? They maintain that such
cutbacks will result in an extra 300,000 crimes a year, with a ‘knock
on’ effect on the Prison Service who are also to be affected with major
plans to cut back on middle management (Governor grades). It is not
clear exactly how NAPO arrived at such a high figure of increased crimes
(more guesswork) for it seems to suggest that they have faith in their
own ability to reduce crime when in fact the reverse is shown to be
true; although if recalling people to prison for failing to keep
appointments, or being seen to have a difference of opinion with one’s
probation officer should count, thus filling up our penal dustbins for
non-criminal activity, then this goes some way towards demonstrating how
ex-offender’s
lives are not being turned around and the public not being protected;
unless of course they subscribe to the stated views of Michael Howard
that ‘prison works’.
........................................................................................................................
what's wrong with this picture
Overall, a quarter of short-sentenced prisoners were released homeless, almost double the rate in October 2016. This increase has disproportionately affected women, with the number sleeping rough after prison rising more than 50% to 7.7% in the last quarter.
“We
are now at a stage where the government is defying the will of by
parliament through its slow and cumbersome way of dealing withissues
Many of you may have met Harry Annison Associate Professor
at Southampton Law School through his research on IPP families to raise
awareness on the ongoing problems related to the IPP sentence
I Ann Horton and Martin Ford attended a parliament meeting
arranged by Harry and discussed support for families, in October 2018 a report
was published ‘The Pains of Indeterminate Imprisonment for Families of IPP
Prisoners’ (available here: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/425364/)
For this project, there are plans to hold some workshops
with family members of IPP prisoners. Workshops are in “”LATE FEB / MARCH
We are interested in a range of experiences: including those
with relatives who remain in prison; those who have been recalled; and those
who have successfully stayed out on licence. Every contribution will be
welcome, and we aim to create a safe and inclusive space where everyone feels
heard and respected.
He is planning for each workshop to be quite small – a
maximum of eight people. And we will look to hold them in different parts of
England and Wales, including
Workshops are **LATE FEB / MARCH
London Manchester, Cardiff,
Southampton. Beyond that probably Southampton, Oxford, Newcastle. And we can
look at other locations if there is interest.
He will gather together the recommendations that emerge from
the workshops, produce a Report, and present them to the organizations. They
will respond to them, and we will then work with them – and you (if you want) –
to refine ideas further and to ensure that action is taken.
if you would be interested in being involved? (And whether
there are other people that you know locally who would also be interested?)
He cannot promise that our project will suddenly resolve the
problems faced by IPP prisoners. And, of course, sadly the loss of prisoners.
But he has been assured by senior representatives of the
Parole Board, prison service and probation service that they are committed to
doing more for families of prisoners, and in particular families of IPP
prisoners – and to take seriously specific actions that our project recommends
on the basis of your experiences and suggestions.
Dates for workshops: possible February/early March. He
is waiting to identify an initial bunch of interested people, before suggesting
specific dates/times to them. I’m well on the way to doing this.
There is a plan to give each participant a £40 Amazon
voucher to recognise their participation. This should cover most people’s
costs,” but if there is exceptional need for additional financial support then
we are certainly open to doing this. (And we’ll provide some tea/coffee, and
some snacks, for the workshop).
Involvement of representatives from government agencies: We
have talked to various people about this. For the initial workshops it will
just be families. In particular to try to make sure that everyone feels able to
participate (we are hearing from quite a lot of people who have had no
engagement with organizations before, so would find it very stressful to do
so). But the project as a whole will absolutely involve representatives from
government agencies, and there is commitment by them to learn from the findings
from the workshop and to try to improve things.
Please do contact harry email if you have any questions or
would like further information Or just want to have a brief chat before you
make a firm decision.
Emails to Harry
ippfam@soton.ac.uk Tel: 02380
594372 and 07814687149. You can also email myself if you have any questions Email
katherinegleeson@aol.com
Dr Harry Annison
Associate ProfessorCo-Director Centre for Law, Policy and Society (CLPS)
Year 2 Co-ordinator
Southampton Law School
University of Southampton
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/law/about/staff/ha1y12.page
Southampton Law School is on LinkedIn. Connect with us https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/11043417/
You might like to know he has published the following
pieces.Inside Time piece: https://insidetime.org/collateral-damage-2/
Inside Time piece: https://insidetime.org/achieving-release/Prison Service Journal article: https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/publications/psj/prison-service-journal-241
Justice Committee submission: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/justice-committee/prison-population-2022/written/95032.html
They have also spoken with a number of journalists and
directors about the issues faced by IPP prisoners. And are in regular contact
with the Parole Board, Prison Service and Probation Service, encouraging them
and assisting them to do more for IPP prisoners and their families
| Pageviews by Browsers
Page views by Operating Systems
|
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-46983805?fbclid=IwAR0Knx063QA6wGNMH1ysn63YruCupyzkeuCYf4Y27Ct0r3LP5QmE0G6oGwY
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/work-with-us-recruitment-campaign-for-new-parole-board-members-now-open
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jan/30/lord-mcnally-cut-legal-aid-mps-justice-system#img-2
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jan/11/mental-anguish-and-wider-problems-with-ipp-sentences#img-1
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/06/nearly-65-of-prisoners-at-womens-jail-show-signs-of-brain-injury?CMP=share_btn_tw
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/justice-secretary-david-gauke-sets-out-long-term-for-justice
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ippkatherinegleeson/
http://www.russellwebster.com/gpstag19/
No comments:
Post a Comment
comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.