Prisons Minister Rory Stewart
Prisons Minister Rory Stewart has reiterated his promise to resign and I say good riddance . He has not made any ignificant improvements with IPP prisoners or in lowering levels of violence and drugs in ten of the worst performing prisons in England and Wales.
I'm waiting for him to go he has done nothing to support policy change for IPP prisoners and has stated this. He is feeble and lacks back bone. A man was employed to manage a job who has failed those created injustices once more. There has been no update on the so called pilot project to help IPP prisoners since last year. A pilot project they said they was rolling out but where is the evidence? Where are the updates from parole on this Support on helping get out. Has the pilot plains failed due to poor follow ups and lack of transparency ?
I'm waiting for him to go he has done nothing to support policy change for IPP prisoners and has stated this. He is feeble and lacks back bone. A man was employed to manage a job who has failed those created injustices once more. There has been no update on the so called pilot project to help IPP prisoners since last year. A pilot project they said they was rolling out but where is the evidence? Where are the updates from parole on this Support on helping get out. Has the pilot plains failed due to poor follow ups and lack of transparency ?
PRISONS CRISIS:
2017-2018 almost 50,000 incidents of self-harm // 87 self-inflicted deaths // Record drug finds // 30,000 assaults // 10,000 assaults on staff and it goes on
...................................................................................................
Unlawful sentence
An open letter to David Gauke, Rory Stewart and the new CEO of HMPPS, Jo Farrar.
In 2012, the European Court of Human Rights ruled the IPP
sentence to be unlawful. The British government accepted this decision
and abolished the sentence under the powers of the LASPO Act 2012. You
can dress it up as much as you like but the fact is the British
government acknowledged that this sentence was unlawful, otherwise they
would not have abolished it. It is still an unlawful sentence. My
sentence has not been lawful since 2008, when tariffs below 2-years were
abolished. Yet, I still remain incarcerated on a recall.
The parole of a high-profile prisoner and the surrounding
publicity, plus the sacking of Nick Hardwick has proved that the Parole
Board is not independent and direct employees of the MoJ. This also
proves that the MoJ, HMPPS and the Parole Board all bow to public and
media pressure, and let public opinion be the first choice in their
decision-making.
They are all heavily reliant on so-called risk-reduction
work and Offending Behaviour Programmes (OBPs), which have been
evidenced not to work and, in some cases, have made offenders worse.
Even Dr Jo Bailey, lead psychologist for the Operations Directorate
HMPPS has stated that all OBPs are voluntary and emphasises that
participation in OBPs is neither necessary nor sufficient to achieve
release.
The LASPO Act 2012 also introduced the Tariff Expired
Removal Scheme (TERS), where any foreign national prisoner serving an
IPP sentence will be, in effect, released from prison once they have
served their minimum tariff; without the need to do any OBP work, sit
any Parole Hearing and they will never get recalled to prison because
they are not subject to Life Licence. This, along with the fact that I
am being unlawfully detained, means that I want to be released from
prison without the need to sit a Parole Hearing, do any OBPs and without
any licence conditions – because if my sentence has been ruled unlawful
then the licence is unlawful too.
I am prepared to spend the rest of my life in prison
because I will not engage with Probation or the parole process. I will
not be complicit in this unlawful sentence. I am being detained not for
what I have done but for what I might do in the future. This is
internment, and I now regard myself as a political prisoner and a
hostage to the British State.
Both my grandfathers fought in the war and one died at
Dunkirk for this country, which I once loved. But I would renounce my
citizenship in a heartbeat if I could find another country willing to
accept me. So, what are your plans for someone like me?
....................................................................................................
I have attempted to have someone to look at my conviction by sending letters to David Gauke, Justice Secretary – No Reply.
*I have written to CCRC – Can’t help due to me not having had an appeal turned down.
*Police Complaints – pointless. IOPCC – pointless.
*Local MP Gill Furniss – to no avail.
*Prime Minister – no politician can get involved in a legal case.
*CPS – also pointless.
I tried a local solicitor in Doncaster, they can’t get legal aid to fund a visit to see me. I am 66 years old, of previous good character, and feel angry that I am having seven years of my life stolen
I am unable to get legal aid for an appeal as I own my own home. This takes me over the threshold. I could sell my home to hire a good legal team, however even if my appeal was successful in overturning my convictions, I would end up homeless. As many of you will know, the chances of overturning a conviction are extremely low. I’m frustrated that I find myself in a Catch 22 situation. Like many prisoners I feel my case has several non-disclosure elements.
https://insidetime.org/taking-my-home/
.................................................................................................................
Gauke’s outlandish parole proposals
Prisoners may have read recently that Justice Secretary David Gauke has said victims of crime in England and Wales will now be given new rights to challenge Parole Board decisions to release life sentence prisoners and violent offenders.
Instead of having to go to court and challenge decisions by way of judicial review, victims will now be able to apply to the MoJ to appeal against decisions. This outlandish and unlawful change in policy has come about following the public outcry last year.
The Secretary of State for Justice is by this action effectively reducing the role of the Parole Board to that of an advisory panel which recommends rather than “directs” release. In practice it will effectively return the release mechanism for indeterminate sentences back into the hands of the executive.
Such arbitrary action is incompatible with article 5(4) of ECHR which requires decisions regarding detention post tariff/minimum term to be carried out by a court like body with the powers re-quired by such a court (see, Thynne, Wilson and Gunnel v UK [1990] 1WLR 134).
It is also unlawful under s116 of LASPO 2012 which stipulates that the Parole Board ‘directs’ rather than recommends release.
For a legal challenge to be successful it must be brought by someone awaiting release as they would have clearer standing.
My advice to any and all lifers is that if a challenge is not brought against this policy, we could be dragged back 30 years to a system whereby Parole Boards were merely consulted by the Justice Secretary as to the suitability of prisoners for release on parole. Think hard and act to prevent this from happening.
Andrew Sperling page 19
Even more change
https://insidetime.org/even-more-change-to-the-parole-process/?fbclid=IwAR0-MZQfTsXOZJeQL1Wz43UQ5wziXKVl67P97vc9Jm9L6zgwLTZa9TVgpfc
.....................................................................................................................
We all know that when the IPP sentence was imposed that it was not intended for a prisoner with minor crimes. The Minister of justice is aware of this but continues to manipulate the truth via the media, on risk, to cover up their failings.
IPP
Prisoners remained concealed under these deficiencies while inmates go mental
to seek justice. I can say I am ashamed and embarrassed off the Minister of
justice to “Trap those in a system!
“We are now at a stage where the UK government is defying the will of parliament through persistent failing and slow and timeless cumbersome way of dealing with IPP prisoners.
https://ippfanilycampaign.blogspot.com/2019/03/ipp-prisoners-family-left-in-limbo-by.html?spref=fb&fbclid=IwAR1yo5uJLUHtE-BLWT0p0qZC5mEQQHf-E6dPH5cQzpq0FNLzWxWF1pgV4kI“We are now at a stage where the UK government is defying the will of parliament through persistent failing and slow and timeless cumbersome way of dealing with IPP prisoners.
.............................................................................................................................................
Its a large scale problem that the queen needs queen to be aware of and being her prison. Action is needed.
Like many others, I am sick and tired of writing to MPs and Ministers and then being passed on to the MoJ so they can fob me off.
I want real answers to what they are going to do to correct the injustices done to people like myself who, wrongly, received an IPP sentence? The sentence was designed to retain people who were prolific offenders who kept getting short custodial sentences, and it was in order to give time to deliver the interventions they required to break the cycle. This is my first custodial sentence and I have now served 8-years of a 5-year tariff.
“Never having served a previous custodial sentence, I should not have been given an IPP in the first place. Surely it is an admission that the system does not work if they think an IPP is warranted for someone who has never served a prison sentence?”
How can I have a risk of reoffending within 12-months if I was on unconditional bail for 15-months before I was charged? And in that time, I committed no offences nor breached any of my sign-on rules. I have always fully adhered to previous community orders, yet now apparently I cannot be managed in the community. This is all bull shine and a complete fantasy on their part.
The government need to admit that I, and many others like me, need our sentences revoked and reverted to a standard determinate sentence to correct this. No more talk, we need action. The abolition of IPP should have been retrospective and, by it not being so, the government knowingly and willingly are abusing our family’s human rights as well as ours, yet nobody is doing anything about it.
Comments
Corrigan Couldn't have said it better myself.
Horton Absolutely spot on.
......................................................................................................
The current model for the delivery of probation services in England and Wales is irredeemably flawed, and a major rethink is needed to create a system that is fit for the future, according to Dame Glenys Stacey, in her final annual report before she finishes her three year tenure as Chief Inspector of Probation.
In a lengthy report which cements Dame Glenys’ reputation for straight talking she depicts a sector under exceptional strain:
- both the public-sector National Probation Service (NPS) and privately-owned Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) are failing to meet some of their performance targets. The NPS is performing better overall, whereas eight out of ten CRCs inspected this year received the lowest possible rating – ‘Inadequate’ – for the implementation and delivery of probation supervision. In too many cases, there is not enough purposeful activity.
- the probation profession has been diminished. There is a national shortage of qualified probation professionals, and too much reliance on unqualified or agency staff.
- in the day-to-day work of probation professionals, there has been a drift away from practice informed by evidence. The critical relationship between the individual and the probation worker is not sufficiently protected in the current probation model.
Dame Glenys said:
Probation must be delivered locally, yet the service is now split at a local level. Despite capable leaders, there has been a deplorable diminution of the probation profession and a widespread move away from practice informed by evidence. This is largely due to the impact of commerce, and contracts that treat probation as a transactional business. Professional ethics can buckle under such pressures, and the evidence we have is that this has happened to some extent.
The Chief Inspector is clear that although the intention to terminate CRC contracts early and move to better-funded and better-structured contracts will improve matters, it will not be enough.
Any new probation model must focus on quality. In my view, effective probation work is most likely when good leaders are free to manage, motivate and develop professional staff, who are in turn able to build challenging but supportive relationships with offenders. Specialist and local services are also crucial to help offenders turn their lives around.
With the MoJ still in the process of deciding on the form of the next iteration of Transforming Rehabilitation (conflicting messages keep emerging from Petty France about the extent and nature of private sector involvement) Dame Glenys makes a timely appeal for probation structures to be built on four key design principles:
- probation services to be evidence based. Work to reduce reoffending should draw on research and evidence, and new initiatives should be evaluated and the results added to the evidence base.
- probation services that meet both the needs of victims and the individuals under supervision. Probation work should be of the right quality, whoever is providing it.
- an integrated and professional service. The probation service should have enough qualified professionals with access to the right facilities, services and information (and, where necessary, protections) to enable them to do their jobs well.
- a probation service able to command the confidence of the judiciary, victims, the professional staff employed and the wider public.
The report
The report is 108 pages long and divided into two main sections. The first provides a detailed summary of the role and organisation of the probation service. One might think that this is superfluous in an annual report but the section makes sense for two main reasons:
- It provides an authoritative and up-to-date description of the work of probation; in itself an invaluable resource as anyone who has ever had to try to explain what probation is for to people from outside (or sometimes even inside) the criminal justice system is likely to agree.
- It gives a clear account of the significant changes which have taken place in probation over the last decade, both in terms of government expectations and the demographic and offending histories of those supervised by the service.
The section pulls together the latest data with specially commissioned graphics and will form the basis of another blog post next week. As a taster, see the graphic above which condenses the probation service’s workflow in such a helpful manner.
The second section presents a systematic evaluation of the current provision with an emphasis on the many failings of the current system with a focus on how things need to change. Again, I will provide more details in a subsequent blog post.
Conclusion
This report is written explicitly to urge ministers to redesign the probation service in line with the principles set out above. Taken with the recent National Audit Office report which also highlights the dangers of a split service, the MoJ will find it hard to argue that it has not received helpful advice on the future of probation. The aspect of Dame Gleny’s report which I personally find most heartening is her insistence that for many years probation worked well and that if the new system allows probation staff to use their experience and skills and focus on their interactions with the offenders they supervise (rather than have an eye on the requirements of commercial contracts), it will do so again. I will leave the last word to the outgoing Chief Inspector:
Services of the right quality are most likely if probation leaders are able to lead, motivate, engage and develop a sufficient number of probation professionals who in turn can exercise their professional judgement in each case and tailor supervision in each case, with access to a range of specialist services to meet needs in each case. Leaders can then be held fully to account for delivery, for the service’s adherence to the evidence base and for value for money.
Experience has shown that it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible to reduce the probation service to a set of contractual measures. I urge the government to consider carefully the future model for probation services.
In the interests of transparency, I should declare that I am a member of the HMI Probation Advisory Board. https://mailchi.mp/russellwebster/dgs19?e=20b779e6c8
.....................................................................................................................
‘I’m afraid of being stuck here and I’m afraid of getting out’
A new study of women serving indeterminate sentences has called on the government to convert imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentences to fixed terms sentences, and to reverse the burden of proof on parole boards so they have to demonstrate prisoners pose a risk.
The research for the Griffin Society by solicitor Sarah Smart provides the first empirical study of women IPP prisoners drawing on interviews with nine women. Smart works for Women in Prison. Each of the prisoners she interviewed had served at least twice her tariff and one had served eleven times her tariff. Despite IPPs, introduced by New Labour under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, being scrapped in 2012, there are still nearly 2,600 prisoners locked up under the old discredited regime.
continued
* https://www.thejusticegap.com/im-afraid-of-being-stuck-here-and-im-afraid-of-getting-out/?fbclid=IwAR300f2pnYLhqcgxB7rPA1JMHFErY5LPgw-a0gbn-MTRrMZu96NPCcYeyl4
Jez The sentence is abhorrent and the damage its causing is irreversible. In my view the sentence doesn’t discriminate on gender, if you are on it the effects are potentially catastrophic regardless of gender and spread across to friends and family as well
.....................................................................................................
Pages 70 to 72 are about IPPs.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmjust/483/483.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3DcoIlTQ-A8qcn2VTgQyQHCSzxNSuQ2KHc6uT7_4PbFxCLbOhqN-IMw1k
......................................................................................................................
A matter of perspective
Evan P – HMP Lewes
I’ve spent over three years in prison now and have found
that as time passes, my views on the justice system in our country have
slowly started to shift. There are undoubtedly serious problems with
British justice, not least the recent disclosure scandal. The inhumane
IPP Sentence and the stain that we know as “Double Jeopardy”.
Making addicts
Harder time, Having been in prison for 4-years, I have come to realise
the natural progression of prison life; that bad prisoners get moved
off the wing, either to the block or other prisons, leaving the quiet,
long-term prisoners in peace.
But it would appear that the governors here are not happy
with this situation, their attitude is to put the troublemakers in with
the quiet model prisoners in the hope that some sense might rub off on
the troublemakers. Forgive my language, but this is total horseshit. All
the bad prisoners do is bully the quiet ones, extort money and cause
mayhem for everyone.
They smoke Spice, set light to their cells, urinate on the
landings, etc. When will the governors realise that all they are doing
is causing grief for prisoners and staff alike? Spice addicts should all
be on a separate wing so that they can be monitored and helped to get
off this evil substance, not helped to buy more. All we seem to do is go
around in moronic circles.
........................................................................................................................
Prisons often lack accessibility for those with disabilities Older and Disabled Prisoners Rory Stewart has no duty of care but and though failing is still paid?
This project seeks to reform inadequate prison healthcare services, advocating for the protection of older and disabled prisoners in England and Wales. Currently, the prison system lacks sufficient staffing and resources necessary to secure prisoners' right to health. By providing free legal advice and support through telephone, mail, and face-to-face outreach clinics, PAS will ensure that the medical and healthcare needs of chronically ill, disabled and older prisoners are rightfully met.
Challenge
People 60 years and older are the fastest growing age demographic in the prison system, yet are often overlooked and underrepresented. This increase creates a need for more specialized, long term healthcare, as 60% of older prisoners report having a chronic illness or disability. PAS regularly sees these conditions ignored, medical appointments cancelled, and treatments delayed, with mental and physical health issues exacerbated. Prisoners' right to health must no longer be neglected.Solution
Through the legal expertise and intervention of our lawyers, we will advocate for prisoner health to be properly assessed, with basic healthcare services, like seeing a GP or dentist, provided in a timely manner. Prisons often lack accessibility for those with disabilities and fail to provide medical services for older prisoners requiring special care. We aim to support these prisoners who suffer from poor health services by ensuring that auxiliary aids, wheelchair access, and specialized care.Long-Term Impact
Potential long term impacts include: (1) Creating a safe and healthy environment for all prisoners so they may rehabilitate in prison and after their sentence is served; (2) Maintaining a lifestyle post-conviction that is free from addiction, infection, and disability that may be prevented through reformed Prison Health Services; (3) Improved mental health and physical well-being for all prisoners through shorter hours spent in cells, timely medical appointments, and proper auxiliary aids.Additional DocumentationThis project has provided additional documentation in a PDF file (projdoc.pdf).https://www.globalgiving.org/projects/legal-advice-for-prisoners/?fbclid=IwAR0uBwfz8f5_DUPnr1amJitMcsaZrI6XsSuVnw8LhT80hg7LRuZyoK5PmWsIn-cell phones
It is promising to see that David Gauke and the Ministry
of Justice wish to improve family ties. Their solution to this being a
ten-million-pound expenditure on in-cell telephones. Let’s look at this
closer. Whilst it will mean improved accessibility to a phone, at times
when families are more likely to be home (e.g. after 6pm) call costs in
comparison to prisoner’s wages will mean many prisoners cannot afford to
utilize their in-cell phones.
Particularly in adult prisons where call costs are almost
double that of costs in young-offenders units. Who says age
discrimination doesn’t exist in the prison system? Next, why install
archaic technology/ why not install a fibre optic line and put in up to
date IT. Yes, we all know how panic stricken the public and Neanderthal
prison management are about prisoners accessing the IT. Like it or not
though, in-cell IT across the prison estate will happen sooner rather
than later. Plus, the benefits will outweigh the ill-perceived
negatives. Prisoners held hundreds of miles from family could use Skype
type services instead of visits. Email would all but replace prisoners’
letters, reducing the need of censor’s departments.
Prisoners could access on-line education courses – the
only proven method of reducing re-offending. Internal applications etc.
could be completed online freeing up wing staff’s time. Contact with
probation would be greatly increased and improved, reducing costs to the
public purse. Lastly, aspects of rehabilitation courses could be run
on-line reducing the need for so many prison psychologists, yet another
saving to the public purse. Whilst creating greater accessibility for
prisoners.
So, Mr Gauke if you really do wish to introduce measures
to improve prisons and reduce re-offending, do it properly and install
modern technology. Not only will it help achieve your aims in a superior
manner, it will save the prison system and the public purse millions of pounds each year in the long run.
......................................................................................................................
The plight of women on indeterminate prison sentences (IPPs)
New Griffins Society research examines the impact of women stuck in prison having served more than twice their IPP tariff.
New research
by Sarah Smart for the Griffins Society sheds a light on women serving
Indeterminate Sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPPs).
I’ve had the privilege of talking to Sarah who undertook detailed
face-to-face interviews with nine women all of whom remain in prison
having served at least twice and as many as eleven (yes, 11 – that’s not
a typo) times their tariff and it’s fair to say that the research makes
for a very disturbing read.
Everyone (including the government)
acknowledges that IPPs are unjust but those sentenced to indeterminate
sentences are still bound by the original legislation, even though it
was repealed in 2012.
I summarise the main findings below but
don’t feel that I’ve been able to convey fully the plight of these women
and urge interested readers to consult the full report.
Findings
- All of the women spoke about the lack of information on IPP at the time of sentencing and their continued struggle to understand the sentence.
- All of the women distinguished their tariff lengths (which they all judged as fair) from the length of time actually spent in custody. The indeterminate element was what caused most frustration and affected their ability to progress.
- There were widespread feelings of anger that the sentence had been abolished, but they were still in custody. This led to lack of confidence in the system and affected willingness to engage.
- The women all experienced significant losses during their sentence, with five of the nine losing children into local authority care. Five of the nine had also experienced significant bereavements in the post-tariff period of their sentence.
- All of the women spoke about the adverse effect of the sentence on their mental health, which affected their ability to engage in regime and risk reduction work – it is only by being assessed as engaging fully in this work that they are likely to be recommended for release.
- Six of the nine women had tried to commit suicide multiple times during the sentence.
- Accessing interventions was problematic due to poor availability, including lack of appropriate courses, and past trauma and anxiety making it difficult to engage.
- Parole Board hearings were immensely stressful for the women and three had a majority of paper hearings, despite being entitled to oral hearings. The approach of individual boards had an impact on the women and their perception of due process.
- All the women said that simply ‘having a date’ would make the most difference.
Case study
I have reproduced in full below a case study of one of the nine women; Bessie is not her real name.
Bessie’s
case highlights some particular issues around early intervention,
missed opportunities and special needs. Bessie presented as intensely
vulnerable and described herself as a “quiet, shy person” who was
“picked on and bullied a lot” at school. She was sent to a special
school for secondary schooling but the promised 1-1 help
never materialised. At 11, she was referred by her school for an autism
screening, but her father did not pursue this due to his view that she
would “get over it”. After school, she found employment, but got
involved in a coercive relationship and then began drinking heavily. She
turned to sex work to fund her alcoholism. Her mother died and soon
after she became pregnant. Having given birth, she had no local family
support and a lack of professional support and quickly became
overwhelmed. She was on medication for depression. She attempted
suicide, and was referred for specialist support, but as a single mother
struggled to make the appointments due to having to get three different
buses and finding care for her baby, so only went 3 or 4 times. So
began the descent into chaos that led to her index offence.
Five years over her tariff, she became ill and had to go out for treatment, which challenged her institutionalisation:
It wasn’t until I started going out to hospital that I realised “Oh there is an outside here.” Because…this was like the first car I’d been out in, I dunno, years, and going into the hospital and smelling the coffee. My mates warned me at first saying, “Oh you’ll probably have children staring at you because you’ve got handcuffs”, but it didn’tbother me, it gave me a lift, like a buzzing feeling, like a happy feeling that there is an outside, there is chance of getting outside and then that made me talk when I was on the TC.” [before I felt] “I don’t want to go out, what’s the point of going out?” but then, having seen the outside world, she felt “Yes, there is something going on out there which I could quite easily fit back in. So, it’s completely opened me up and I think there’s a difference there.
Bessie shows how institutionalisation had affected her ability to engage with interventions. An additional barrier
to progress for Bessie was her undiagnosed autism. This was finally diagnosed last year, 10 years into her
sentence.
She has since received some specific support from psychologists around
understanding and expressing emotions and social interacting, but before
this was unable to effectively access interventions, as her 7 years
over tariff demonstrate.
Recommendations
The report calls
for the MoJ to convert all or at least some IPP sentences to a fixed
term sentence and make provision for all or some post-tariff prisoners
to be released by a certain date. It also makes a set of recommendations
for managing IPP prisoners:
- Each prison should have a designated IPP caseworker in recognition of the complex needs of this group of prisoners.
- Professionals who work with IPP prisoners should talk with women about the lived reality of serving an IPP sentence and consider their feelings and experiences in their casework.
- Training for professionals supporting IPP prisoners should be developed in collaboration with IPP prisoners and their families.
- Specific materials and programmes to address female sex offending behaviour and facilitate risk reduction should be developed.
- The Parole Board should monitor the number of IPP prisoners choosing paper parole decisions.
- HMPPS should ensure that IPP women over tariff who have been reviewed at national level are informed of this fact and updated about progress and additional reviews.
- Other avenues of support should be investigated by prisons in recognition that Offending Behaviour Programmes may not necessarily, or solely, remove barriers to release.
- Mental health and offending risk needs should be integrated into programmes of help that can be evaluated and rolled out in joint work between NOMS and health providers in prisons.
......................................................................................................
David Gauke’s ‘landmark reform’ what a about policy change for IPP prisons you can start there.
Victims still have no veto on decisions to release
Under the new plans, victims who want to challenge a
decision to release a particular prisoner would be able to apply to the
Justice Secretary, on the basis that the ruling was “fundamentally
flawed”. The case would initially be examined by officials at HM Prison
and Probation Service, an agency of the Ministry of Justice, who will
consider whether there could have been serious mistakes or legal flaws
in the ruling. If the Justice Secretary decides that there is a case for
the decision to be reviewed he will refer the appeal to a judge at the
Parole Board. The judge would apply similar thresholds to the bar needed
to successfully launch a judicial review, based on illegality,
irrationality and procedural unfairness, according to officials.
The judge would be able to either ask the original panel
to review its decision or order a fresh hearing by a new panel. The new
system will apply from this summer to those with the most serious
convictions, particularly those serving indeterminate sentences.
Prior to the recent announcement of changes to the parole
system of England and Wales by Justice Secretary David Gauke, I met up
with Parole Board chief Martin Jones at the Board’s new offices in
London’s Canary Wharf. I’d interviewed both previous Chairs of the
Parole Board for the Guardian newspaper and for Inside Time. Sir David
Calvert-Smith, a former Director of Public Prosecutions and High Court
Judge was Chair from 2012 to 2016. He was followed by Professor Nick
Hardwick, a former Chief Inspector of Prisons who was Chair until he was
sacked by David Gauke in March 2018 following a controversial decision
by the Board to release a high profile prisoner. The current Chair is
Caroline Corby, a former non-executive director of the Criminal Cases
Review Commission (CCRC) and children’s fiction writer.
The first thing I ask Martin Jones when we meet was ‘what
is the difference between the role of the Chair of the Board and his
role as Chief Executive Officer (CEO)?’ “The way I would describe the
difference in the roles is I’m full-time. I’m here five days a week,
sometimes seven days a week, running the organisation day to day. I’m
responsible for ensuring we’re running the show properly, getting
hearings on in good time, ensuring we manage our performance and
spending our money well, money that we get from the public. And then the
Chair is responsible most of all for the overall strategy of the
organisation. They tend to be here one or two days a week. They will
quite often be the media face of the organisation.”
As a journalist, I’ve been aware that in the three years
he’s been CEO he has generally managed to stay under the public radar.
“Absolutely,” he says. “Ideally, you would just see the organisation
functioning well and I should not be visible. Obviously when I go to
give evidence at Parliamentary Select Committees I am visible and get
brought along because I understand best the workings of the
organisation.”
Diversity
The Parole Board attracts criticism for many reasons I
say, but one really important thing is the obvious lack of diversity
among panel members. The Board is too white, too middle-class and hardly
representative of the people it has to make often life-changing
decisions about. Inside Time regularly gets letters precisely to that
effect, I tell him. “I have to say that I don’t think our diversity
make-up is good enough,” he says.
“At the moment less than five per cent
of Board members are from a Black or Minority Ethnic background. That’s
incredibly low when you look at the make-up of the general population,
and indeed the prison population – yet we know there is significant
over-representation from those groups in our prisons. That means if you
are a Black or Asian prisoner applying for parole there is virtually no
prospect of you seeing anyone other than a white person to determine
your liberty. I think that goes right to the heart of confidence in the
system. Whilst I’m absolutely sure that all of our members are trained
to make independent, impartial decisions I think there’s just a
perception problem. So we’ve launched a new recruitment campaign and
we’re absolutely determined to get better results. The way we are doing
that is two-fold: we’ve completely re-engineered the process to make
sure we get the best possible candidates; and we’ve been running a whole
series of outreach activities in an effort to attract more applicants
from those under-represented communities. The next recruitment campaign
is going to be more regional than national. We’re recruiting
particularly in the north east and north west of England where we need
quite urgently to get new members in. We believe that way we can make
some real difference in our diversity make-up.”
Paid or not paid?
I always wondered if Parole Board members were paid, and
how many of them there are. “Currently we have around 240 members making
the decisions,” he says. “They are public appointed; appointed
ultimately by ministers and they are paid a daily rate. Some are judges,
but the majority are simply independent members. You don’t need to come
from the criminal justice system to be a Parole Board member.” What
about ‘Lay members’? “We’re quite egalitarian,” he says, “All members
get paid exactly the same as judges. The reality is there is an element
of law about our decisions, but actually it’s about common sense –
looking at the evidence and making a fair decision. We provide detailed
training on how to do it. But in reality it’s listening to people.” So
how exactly does a panel judge whether someone is safe to be let out
into the community? “We have a statuary release test that we have to
apply in every case,” he says, “And that release test is whether the
parole applicant’s continued detention is necessary for the protection
of the public. We are dealing with people, and the Parole Board only
deals with people who have committed serious offences.”
Risk
“Generally speaking, it’s the most difficult twenty-five
per cent of the prison population who come before us. When we deal with
those cases we look at three things. We look at the offence: what’s the
person’s background, what’s their history, why are they in prison? Then
we look at who is the person today? And I’m a firm believer that people
are capable of change. We have to look at the risk they present today,
not the risk they presented ten, twenty or thirty years ago. And finally
we have to look at the future. A key point for me is that out there I
don’t think that anyone is risk free – I don’t think I’m risk free. I
think there could be circumstances in which anybody could be involved in
a serious incident. For us deciding to release someone from prison is
how do we manage that risk out here? The Parole Board releases thousands
of people every year, and we know, if you look at the figures, the rate
at which our decisions prove to be wrong, where people commit a serious
offence after we’ve made a decision to release them, is a fraction of
one per cent. 99.5 per cent of our decisions prove to be right. That
should give people confidence in our decision-making process. Ideally
we’d want a zero failure rate, but we do make these decisions incredibly
carefully. We have to do so in a way that’s fair, for the prisoner and
for victims and the public.”
Hope for IPPs
There are still thousands of people in prison serving
Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) – a sentence which has been
abolished. It seems profoundly unfair, I say, that someone serving a
mandatory life sentence is better placed to make progress than someone
serving a discretionary life sentence, which effectively an IPP order
is. Those serving an IPP now surely are in the most need of hope. Is
there anything hopeful for them in the pipeline? “My assessment is that
the legacy of IPPs is a legacy of failure. The sentence itself failed.
The fact that it was only in place for six years I think is a pretty
damning indictment of the problems that beset the IPP sentence right
from the off. I do think it’s left a dreadful legacy. I do feel
extremely sorry for people who got scooped up in that sentence. The
amount of time many of them have been in prison completely outweighs the
seriousness of the offence they committed. But I think there is hope.
The hope I would give people is this – the Parole Board has released
more IPP prisoners over the last three years than it ever has before.
The number of IPPs is now down by sixty per cent over the last five
years. I think that’s real progress. Clearly we can’t reach back and
repair the damage of the past. But we have encouraged our members to
take an honest view using the test, as I said before, of looking at real
risk. For somebody that’s been in prison for ten years longer than
expected, unsurprisingly their behaviour in prison can be chaotic. Prison itself is not good for your mental health.”
Stuck in the middle
“Parole Board members have received extensive material on
the reality of the IPP sentence. Ultimately, our decision has to be
about risk. Some IPP prisoners should not have got the sentence in the
first place, that’s pretty clear to everybody. I think there is a hard
core of people who have committed really grave offences who probably
would have got a discretionary life sentence had the IPP not been
available. But my real concern are those who are stuck in the middle,
stuck by virtue of the sentence, caught in this really difficult circle.
What the Parole Board has been doing has been encouraging members to
take a much more problem-solving approach. In other words, what are the
obstacles in the way of that prisoner being progressed, and that has
reaped some dividends for us.
The way out
“One prison I rate really highly is Warren Hill. They have
a Progression Regime there where really, really positive work is going
on identifying prisoners who have repeatedly failed at parole hearings,
working on preparations for release – and actually what they have found
is a much higher release date than what would have been expected in an
ordinary regime. That regime is being extended to other parts of the
country. I’m absolutely certain by doing this we will be giving those
people hope. When I went to Warren Hill and spoke to prisoners that’s
exactly what they told me. One said, ‘Until I arrived here and began
this work I had no hope, but now I can see a way out of this sentence.”
.....................................................................................................................
last year HM Inspectorate of Prisons is to carry out the first Independent Review of Progress (IRP) of prisons where inspections have revealed ‘serious concerns’ Following a damning report showing little improvement of conditions seen but we prisoners and family have not seen any significant change or urgency. https://insidetime.org/still-much-to-do/
.............................................................................................................
https://insidetime.org/unlawful-sentence/
https://insidetime.org/parole-revolution-justice-secretary-david-gaukes-landmark-reform/
https://insidetime.org/mailbites-april-2019/
http://guerillawire.org/justice/the-plight-of-women-on-indeterminate-prison-sentences-ipps/
No comments:
Post a Comment
comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.