Monday, 16 September 2019

Those given IPP setence, the shocking Death toll is a National Scandal.

Below is the figures from the MOJ but looking into the numbers a bit more for sure that these numbers are said to be inaccurate. The total deaths are 215, with 72 of those by suicide. The news is shocking and I am very concerned as to the figures and how this group of prisoners died i personally feel there needs to be an independent inquiry.

One human to another would of surely told another human about the mental heath of a love one

2005:0 2006:2 200:7

2008:9 2009:7 210:12

2011:14 2012:10 2013:12

2014:19 2015:16 2016:11

2017:26 2018:22 2019: 1?

Total Deaths 167

FOI IPP suicides from the MoJ

205:0 2006:2 2007:4

2008:4 2009:3 2010:3

Total Deaths:

Total 287

"Demand the government put lives first"

Government who said we have a duty of care but they failed to track mental health in UK prisons amid soaring deaths and suicide and self-harm rates, report finds Prison authorities was urged to address rising rates of suicide and self harm 'as a matter of urgency? after findings show failure to collect enough data on inmate’s well being , result unaware of how much to budget for Mental health or whether it was achieving its objectives just demonstrates negligent.

70 per cent of prisoners committed suicide between 2012 and 2014 had mental health needs.

“But this report in 2017 makes horribly clear there is a below standard,lacking in care and mental health provision or appropriate referrals not being made facing unnecessary “disproportionate harm” as a result of the inadequate care."

The National Offender Management Service’s funding went down by 13 per cent between 2009-10 and 2016-17 and staff numbers in public prisons reduced by 30 per cent over the same period.

When prisons are short-staffed, governors may run restricted regimes where prisoners spend more of the day in their cells, making it more challenging for prisoners to access mental health services, the report states. staffing pressures made it difficult for prison officers to detect changes in a prisoner’s mental health, and that officers have not received regular training to understand mental health conditions and that seems to be a way off yet, though the Ministry plans to provide more training. staff do not have access to GP records, which means they do not always know if a prisoner has been diagnosed with a mental illness.The process for transferring prisoners is complex and delays can have a negative impact on prisoners' mental health and they may be kept in unsuitable conditions such as segregation units.

I often feel we are being Mislead https://www.gov.uk/life-in-prison/vulnerable-prisoners.

“The Government must grip so that the system and care properly for the minority who really don't need to be there.

The Controversial IPP sentence based on proving risk impossible in a problematic process .

"No matter how many fixes are implemented, nobody will ever be able to predict with certainty which prisoners will commit new crimes if released early or late ".

IPP sentences were handed down with the "hope" that the system would manage the rehabilitation of the individual. We know that idea was completely misfounded. In fact the opposite has happened to many who remain in the system. They have been psychologically abused, sometimes arbitrarily moved to worse circumstances just when things were looking hopeful. The small financial compensation paid in some cases does not do make up for this.

Rethink Mental illness https://www.rethink.org/advice-and-information/rights-restrictions/police-courts-and-prison/complaints-about-prison/

Since the sentence began in 2005 prisoner and the families have been working tirelessly to bring about change and there has been a slow increase in statements made by MPs signalling that they support the urgent need for something to be done.

Bishops was aware postdate 2012 of the negligence and injustice after there tariff expired and who was to blame,

Rehabilitation which means to restore back too self not to damage
There has have been numerous publications about it including the report ‘Never Ending Story’, ‘Unintended Consequences’ & ‘Parole: Reflections’ to name just a few. All have helped to clarify the failings of this sentence and the distress it causes prisoners and families. A report was written in 2008 when the sentence was still being issued, it clarifies very clearly the mental harm the sentence causes. It also reveals a fundamental inequality problem which persecutes people with mental health needs; this fundamental flaw is in the way the risk calculator works. Extracts and relevant Prison Instruction quotes which point out specific areas which discriminate against IPPs all the way through their sentence.

First to quote a report

‘In the Dark’ page 37; it refers to the OASys assessment.

https://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/sites/default/files/in_the_dark.pdf

Oasys is used to assess offenders needs in ten areas relating to offending behaviour, each of which is scored during an offender assessment. These areas are: accommodation; education, training and employment); financial management; relationships; lifestyle and associates; drug misuse; alcohol misuse; emotional well being; thinking and behaviour; and attitudes. If an individual offender’s score in any of these areas exceeds the set threshold, it is recorded as being a ‘criminogenic need’, which means that it is so significant it must be specifically addressed in order to reduce their likelihood of reoffending.

Significantly more IPP prisoners have a criminogenic, causing or likely to cause criminal) behaviour need in all 10 need categories than in the total population or among life prisoners.

Critically important quote:-

IPPs are being discriminated by the Oasys report because at no point in its assessment is it balanced against the nature of this sentence. The prisoner does not know when they will be released if ever, this causes potentially significant mental harm increasing their scoring in emotional wellbeing & thinking and behavior.

In short the report states in its conclusion:-

At the center of the debates relating to IPP and ‘risk’,
is the hypothesis that the IPP sentence is conflating (blending) ‘dangerousness’ with ‘mental illness’, and that the IPP sentence is an example of ‘reverse diversion’ where offenders with mental illness are more likely than others to be detained in prison than diverted away.

IPP prisoner over tariff have done all the behavior programs paid there punitive, punishment) but how do you allow a person with a 2 year sentence to be 10 years over its a disgraceand no accuse in the world that can say otherwise. within all those years nothing else was asked of them prove otherwise. It screams out abuse and that they are held for there disability's rather than a crime.

Last year a total of 380,169 additional days were awarded as punishment and added to sentences in England & Wales. Any adjudications for an IPP can be particularly damaging as they can knock them back 2 years at parole regardless as to whether the punishment warranted extra days or not. Being knocked back potentially means around another 547 days behind bars.

If and when they they make it out they are still discriminated against.
A quote from Prison Instruction 32-2014, page 7 Point 13 Indeterminate-sentence offenders

should not be released from prison until their risk of harm has reduced to a level where it can be managed safely in the community.

This generally means that they will be below the normal entry threshold for AP residence. Offender managers should be careful to avoid recommending AP residence to the Parole Board unless there is an overwhelming reason to.

The Prison Instruction makes it clear that the approved premises’ are not meant for an IPP sentenced prisoners but they are being used quite extensively for them. In many cases they are being used as a settlement tool, even when family have offered to put them up.
Approved premises have high recall rates, yet for a DPP/IPP prisoner the risk of recall is even higher as they are unfairly discriminated against in recall decisions.

Prisoners should only be recalled for a crime but not for none crimes.
Yet more often than not when the IPP is clearly struggling with the pressures of life in the community, for example after the pressure is building for them to find suitable move on accommodation. IPP prisoners are a 1% risk of committing another crime they are recalled because this little word ‘might’ allows the probation officer to take the decision to recall ‘he or she might ’.

As many of these prisoners have served significantly long periods in prison they may have lost a lot of friends in the community.

It isn’t at all surprising that they may contact people that they know which tend to be prisoners or ex-prisoners.
It is also not at all surprising that some turn to alcohol when they return to the community, this could well be a coping mechanism for stress.

Yet more often than not when the IPP is clearly struggling with the pressures of life in the community, for example after the pressure is building for them to find suitable move on accommodation, this is the point at which they are invariably recalled.

They exhibit behaviour, or that probation are unawawre of there aspergerss, desprestion, stress, mental health, learning disablity that constitutes concern, evne irritability, short temperedness and perhaps even failing the very low alcohol limit for residency at an AP.

To matters worse there is the ‘Good behaviour condition’ contained within the standard licence, details contained within Prison instruction 20-201

This condition is the most misused of all and it is seriously harming rehabilitation. Many IPPs ability to recall for:- Many behaviour changes can be put down to stress, bullying or a consequence of medication changes implemented by a GP. Any drug prescribed to control behaviour will have a significant effect on behaviour if its strength, frequency or doses are altered.

The recall license seriously needs to be relaxed reflect needs.

On Wednesday 28th August we had a meeting with the CEO of the Parole Board Martin Jones.

This meeting was cut short however awaiting another meeting to get there prospective on the key issue's

"With us at that meeting was the sister of Wayne Bell, who received a ten years IPP sentence and is over tariff 10 years. His case is so relevant and vital to bring it to there attention. He has never been able to secure release at parole for the entire twelve years of his incarceration. His mental health slowly deteriorated, caused by the fear of indeterminacy. His mental state is now preventing release. Now he is in a hospital and even his family have been denied the right to see him, even though his father has been diagnosed with terminal ill. Wayne’s case is a clear example of what this sentence does to people, reflecting clearly on the points made within the Sainsbury Centre report.

Lobby G:roup: Katherine Gleeson, Jeremy Own, Ann Horton, Alana Bell.

IPP families submitted a document outlining, the main issues as summarised

Document

We would like to go through some of the problems that DPP/IPP prisoners face and the causes that generate a negative influence on both the prisoner and their family. We have divided up the stages an IPP goes through and refer to specific areas in the process that cause a detrimental impact and the flaws within the system that discriminate more against IPPs than the rest of the prison community. We wish to highlight these areas to you, the representatives of the parole process in an effort to steer you within your remit to be more aware of what IPPs face and hopefully in so doing help you balance your decisions respectively.

We have therefore divided this up into four categories: -

1) Oasys reports

The problems with scoring and negativity that discriminate against IPPs

Mental health problems, a report written eleven years ago and how it identifies the problems we see today.

Mental health of IPP prisoners, one discussion on Wayne Bell.

2) The Prison Environment

Disadvantaged and suffering significant mental harm

Poor mentoring, easy to manipulate, why many give up

3) Parole

Stress of the process

Why a growing number no-longer want to take part

The change in the process that has created more worry and distress

Remaining impartial

4) The Approved Premises

An environment where IPPs are particularly vulnerable and are far more likely to be recalled

5) The threat of recall

The disadvantages of being an IPP on licence

6) Deaths

Conclusion

The things that need to be done to help DPP/IPP prisoners complete their journey through the justice system.

Oasys report writing.

A quote from PSO_2205 page 45:-

4.1.6 There is limited evidence about which factors predict the risk of serious harm. When assessing the risk of further offending, the best predictor of future behaviour is considered to be past behaviour. This is also a good starting point when considering the risk of harm.

This small extract explains the negative bias within the base of Oasys report writing. It is why all Oasys reports will focus for the most part and in conclusion, about negative aspects.

While it would be true to say that this is the way the reports are written for all prisoners, the impact on the assessments are particularly damaging for indeterminate sentenced prisoners. Those that choose to read these reports can be exposed to some very harmful emotions, the reports themselves can damage the mental health of the prisoner because every event that happens within the prison environment will always carry negative implications within the report. IPPs are in a hostile environment for a period of time that has been undefined. This in itself causes harmful effects, yet the issues are considerable and were well known as far back as 2008.

The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health wrote a report in 2008 called ‘In the Dark, The mental health implications of Imprisonment for Public Protection.”

https://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/sites/default/files/in_the_dark.pdf

This report went into considerable detail about the problems this sentence had and more importantly the effects it was having on the mental health of the prisoners all those years ago when the sentence was still being issued.The report highlighted problems that are now all too clear, but the problem is: even after all this time the same problems are still there. They have in some incidences been addressed but still the problems keep coming up again and again.

Courses. Limited places, limited availability. For an IPP, getting on a course can have a detrimental effect on family connections as they frequently have to move to other prisons. Due to the time periods during parole hearings (18 months or so) a course could be completed early on and then as the next parole hearing looms into view, a new Oasys suddenly recommends the need for yet another course to be completed before

Release.

There is also inequality within the ability to access a course - prisoners may be deemed unsuitable for mental health related issues.

There have also been incidents that simply should not be allowed to happen. I can personally recall an over- tariff IPP being turned down for release because he was physically too ill to attend a course. He was diagnosed with leukaemia and could barely get out of bed. Regardless of the reason, his probation officer repeatedly told him that he would not be released because he wouldn’t do the course and that the reason for his refusal was irrelevant. He died from his illness, never securing release.

This case of Wayne Bell acquired mental health he had no support going forward. He was being turned down for release because he was physically too ill to attend a course or a parole hearing. Wayne Bell is now in St Georges hospital for over a year. He does not know his father has terminal cancer and has not got long to live. The parole board started they have no jurisdiction over him while in hospital. The hospital can hold him up to 99 years which is a further blow to the family. They are fighting to get him the correct legal people due to capacity. It’s just another fight they don’t need at an urgent time. This mirrored http://www.justiceforjoe.org.uk/

Mental health is also a barrier, and this was picked up on within the Sainsbury Centre report. It is even more relevant now and so I want to quote the relevant section to you on page 37:-

It refers to the OASys assessment

If an individual offender’s score in any of these areas exceeds the set threshold, it is recorded as being a ‘criminogenic need’, which means that it is so significant it must be specifically addressed in order to reduce their likelihood of reoffending.

Significantly more IPP prisoners have a criminogenic need in all ten need categories than in the total population or among life prisoners.

Thinking and behaviour needs are their biggest problem area. This has been exacerbated by the prison environment and the psychological damage the sentence is having on the prisoner. This is something the report also picked up onhttps://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/sites/default/files/in_the_dark.pdf

The indeterminate nature of the IPP sentence seemed to have a significant impact on the emotional wellbeing and mental health of prisoners. Not having a release date, and not knowing whether their efforts in prison would have any bearing on the Parole Board’s considerations, had a forcible impact on prisoners’ mental health.

A great many prisoners spoke of the frustration caused by indeterminacy, and many said that they had to manage the constant ‘not knowing’. This was described by one prisoner as the ‘stress of helplessness’. Another said:

“I’ve seen this sentence destroy people, people going off the edge because of what the sentence makes people do.” For one prisoner the only way to not ‘lose the plot’ was to ‘numb’ himself:”

Last October at the conference at The Grange (HMP Hewell), four IPPs made it clear they were struggling to maintain any real hope of release and their mental health was suffering as a consequence.

We have knowledge of an IPP prisoner who has been in prison on an IPP sentence since he was 17. He is now 26 and some 6 or 7 years’ over-tariff. He already had mental health issues on coming to prison, and these have recently been re-diagnosed as PTSD, which of course often is characterised by irrational outbursts of anger. He is now really struggling mentally, even with medication, in the prison environment and the uncertainty of the IPP sentence, so for this reason too his behaviour is not perfect. Although he has never taken drugs or even smoked as a way of numbing the pain, he has said that his approaching parole hearing will be his last, as he just cannot face any longer in prison. One way or another, he is going to give up if he does not get released this time.

So my point here is to make it clear that prisoners are being discriminated by the Oasys report because at no point in its assessment is it balanced against the nature of this sentence. The prisoner does not know when they will be released if ever, this causes potentially significant mental harm. IPPs either allow the trauma to overwhelm them and many have taken their lives, or they develop coping mechanisms to help release their distress. Some self-harm, some have been known to use Spice. Many immerse themselves into as much as possible to prevent the reality from bringing on the fear and despair that stalks them day after day. It therefore is unfair to judge an IPP prisoner so harshly when they get into minor skirmishes or trouble whilst within a hostile environment. But that’s exactly what the Oasys does. Any adjudication is brought to bear, even brought up in parole hearings. Negative mandatory drug tests are also pressed against them even though it’s virtually impossible to avoid inhaling the stuff. Prison officers are frequently affected by passive inhalation of Spice and passive inhalation is very likely to cause a positive result in a MDT, despite the misinformation contained within PSO 3601,8.50 page 11.

The research referred to is well out of date. The potential consequences of a positive MDT affect the IPPs more than anyone as they are held potentially indefinitely. Every knock back damages them and that is why I would ask all board members to balance events within the estate with a degree of understanding. The prisoner’s behaviour within the prison environment does not represent a true reflection of how they would behave outside it. Indeed, I would argue that if one of us was to venture within their environment and act as we do out here, we would not last very long. Due to the considerable time many of these prisoners have served over their tariff dates, a considerable amount will have become institutionalised. The fear of release becomes just as daunting to them as the fear of never being released.

Noted in the mental health interim report page2016 page 1,

However, mental health problems lie on a spectrum, and most of this new interest is at one end of the spectrum, with far less attention given to those at the other end of the spectrum, those with the most severe forms of mental illness. Yet those with the most severe forms of mental illness have the greatest needs, and continue to be the most neglected and discriminated against

Furthermore, they are also the group who are the most likely to be subject to the influence and powers of the Mental Health Act (MHA)

What can you do?

There can be occasions where the physical health of a prisoner should outweigh the need for a course to be completed. After all we are now holding prisoners well into their senior years and in deteriorating health, so promote a more balanced approach. It is far more important to get elderly IPPs out of prison, especially if they are in poor health. On licence they will be able to access better health provisions and ‘offender related work’ can be done whilst in the community.

Mental health related issues should not impede the progress of IPPs in obtaining release. Currently it does and it comes into conflict with equality rights. OMs should be asked to incorporate risk strategies to mediate the risk score as soon as it becomes known in the pre-hearing review.

2)The Prison Environment

I have already touched on the prison environment and its damaging effects but there are a few more points to bring up in this area.

IPP’s are punished more harshly than any other prisoner type within the estate.

There were 204,715 adjudication outcomes in 2018, up 7%

We have a particularly harsh adjudication system here in England and Wales. Scotland no longer adds extra time but we do.

Last year a total of 380,169 additional days were awarded as punishment and added to sentences

Adjudications for an IPP are particularly damaging as they can knock them back at parole regardless as to whether the punishment warranted extra days or not. Being knocked back potentially means around another 547 days behind bars. They can do everything they can to avoid getting into trouble but the longer they are in the more likely they are to get what is called a nicking. The fear of this does not help keep them focused on being of good behaviour, instead it causes paranoia based mainly on the environment they are forced to endure. Anyone who wants to get them into trouble can and does regularly, as they are frequently in a poor mental state already. This makes them malleable to those wishing to exploit them. So they give up on trying to keep squeaky clean and in so doing resign themselves to the fact that prison is all that is guaranteed anyway, so why make their life in it harder than it needs to be. Doing jobs for free Spice, hiding contraband for free canteen. The little things that make prison life a bit easier, knowing that if someone picks on you, that you are protected and others will support you. Slowly you feel safer in prison and the thought of release brings on fear, no support and no one watching your back when you’re released.

*Inadequate mentoring

Prison officers are given 10weeks at best of rudimentary training, unlike countries like Norway who spend three years training their officers. How to restrain, how to turn a key,

how to count, how to keep yourself safe, all important things a prison officer must learn; but how to rehabilitate, how to support someone experiencing a mental breakdown, how to instil trust, all fall by the way side.

IPPs need extra support and that requires time and effort, time that our officers cannot spare. They are too busy getting movement underway from wings, supervising the servery, getting wings locked down and so on. Time to sit down and spend real time with people that need help with transfers, getting listed onto courses, getting their medication and help contacting family simply isn’t there. These are issues vitally important to an IPP prisoner; there is no default release date. Letting go of all these worries becomes easier than trying to achieve the things that are needed to comply with sentence plans. That’s why so many give up and instead focus on the only life that is guaranteed. Where I am pleased to see a significant recruitment drive regarding prison officers I am disappointed with the quality of training given. Many experienced officers have left and worryingly a large number of new recruits leave every year. This is in part to significant shortfalls in the quality of the training being given.

What can you do?

As the Parole Board and therefore with little or no influence on prison systems, there is little you can do but the little you can do still may make a significant difference.

· Acknowledge the efforts of the prisoner when it is due but also acknowledge the harsh reality that they are attempting to do it in.

· Lower your threshold of required engagement with sentence plans; instead assess whether the prisoner could do such work in the community?

· Ask them whether they are willing to comply with the strict licence they will be under?

Critically these are fundamentally important questions that need to be answered, ensure they have the opportunity to answer them directly.

I would advocate a more positive approach to the possibility that people can adapt in a more therapeutic environment and behaviour work will be much more beneficial and relevant. We need to rehabilitate, not institutionalize.

3) Parole

There are of course three parts to parole; all will be traumatic for a DPP/IPP prisoner who is desperately seeking to obtain release. They will have a copy of their Oasys and they would have already done everything they could do to achieve what has been asked of them.

As the day draws closer an unwelcome report will undoubtedly be shoved under their door. A newer, revised Oasys. This rarely brings good news, there is always at least something more negative on it, whether it’s the revelation of a nicking that they thought wouldn’t show up, or perhaps a detrimental statement from an officer that has taken a dislike to them. A common update involves yet more work, another course or a revoking of the support for release by either the outside offender manager or the one within. The prospect of another 18 month knock back floods like bleach into their minds, Oasys reports delivered without support bring about suicidal thoughts and sleepless nights.

Then the hearing itself, which usually arrives after days and nights of anxiety. When you look into their bloodshot eyes, what do you see? During that hearing do you consider what they have had to endure? Of course not. Your remit is trimmed to a specific requirement, an independent assessment on risk to the public. Whilst you may advise the secretary of state on a slightly wider remit, your primary focus is risk to the community, and whether any perceived risk can be effectively mitigated.

But please do not prejudge even in your mind the person that stands before you. Engage with them as much as you are permitted to, and be understanding if they seem somewhat distant. Remember the environment they are in, ask them when they received the latest copy of their Oasys and confirm the date of the report. Speak to them as an equal. When you evaluate any evidence be sure to assess its reliability and where possible be sure to get the prisoner’s view. Take their evaluation seriously and thank them for it. Don’t dismiss it lightly; give them the benefit of the doubt. Life in prison is tough enough.

For an IPP that is desperate to do what is needed to obtain release, this parole hearing is more than its name suggests. It’s another trial to them; they are back in the court room on trial for crimes they have not committed. In their own mind they will know whether they consider themselves a threat to society and where they are certain they are not, the frustration they will feel can be overwhelming. All they can do to convince you is courses and do their best to stay out of trouble. If only -some have told me - I could show them a polygraph, to prove to them I am no danger to anyone.

After the hearing is arguably the toughest period for an IPP: will they grant me release, will I get a Cat D? Days of anguish, maybe questions from family, desperate to know, desperate to hear some good news that perhaps Dad is coming home at last. A step forward but wait they must.

When it arrives it’s rare that they receive the essential support that they need. In most cases it’s a letter dumped on their bunk or pushed under their door after bang up. There in that envelope lies their fate; at the precipice of a critical high emotional event they are left alone to face the reality of your decision. A cell bell there may be but it rarely can be pushed without consequences these days. Help is not something that is openly given - especially from the night shift.

Whatever the outcome, it brings on extreme emotions. One recent suicide was an IPP who had been granted release. As I mentioned before, the longer they are in the more the uncertainty of how they will cope on the outside will grow.

In light of the changes made to the parole process and the rights of the victims to challenge your decision if you grant release comes yet another hurdle and potentially a devastating one for an IPP.

After receiving your decision, after telling their friends and family that finally they are coming out, there is the very real prospect that you could change your mind. This potentially could push them over the edge. Any challenge to a release decision needs to be robustly defended, yet the IPP has no legal representative to help defend it. This is something you do between yourselves. Remember this is like being on trial all over again for the prisoner and they will be in a very vulnerable emotional state.

What can you do?

There is potentially a considerable amount that you can do in this traumatic period for IPPs.

· Recognise their struggle, that this is a potentially extremely emotional time for those still determined to try and progress within the system. Confirm when they received their copy of the latest Oasys report.

· Always try to involve them as much as you can during the hearing and engage with them. Give them a clear indication of when your decision will be made and do your utmost to ensure they are given support at that critical time, regardless of the decision. I would strongly suggest that you write a letter to accompany the decision ensuring it is written in a supportive way. It’s very likely they will have to face your decision alone and it can cause serious distress.

· Before making your decision be more mindful of the environment they have had to endure and be more focused on giving them a chance to progress.

· Where release is not granted look at the category, would a cat D help them, even when a move to a cat D is unlikely, recommending it would still give the prisoner hope that they are at least making progress. This can help them to find the courage to carry on.

· When you are forced to look at a parole decision again, when you know all eyes are watching you and the tabloids are very much on the victim’s side, it is vital that you remain impartial. Defend the right to be impartial and whole-heartedly defend your decision where it is appropriate. Be mindful of the effect of this process on both the prisoner and the prisoner’s family when a challenge is made. A victim will also be affected but the views of the victim should not influence an impartial decision regarding a perception of risk that the prisoner now represents. Allowing such an influence turns the evaluation of risk into a means to inflict retribution. Please remain impartial and do not be swayed by political interference.

4)The Approved Premises

A quote from PSI 32-2014 approved premises, page 7:-

Point 13 Indeterminate-sentence offenders should not be released from prison until their risk of harm has reduced to a level where it can be managed safely in the community. This generally means that they will be below the normal entry threshold for AP residence. Offender managers should be careful to avoid recommending AP residence to the Parole Board unless there is an overwhelming reason to.

This point is even further strengthened by point 14

Determinate-sentence offenders will be released automatically at a fixed point in their sentences, regardless of risk. APs are therefore much more likely to be suitable for these offenders than for those released under indeterminate sentences

Why then when the PSI makes it clear that the approved premises is not meant for an IPP sentenced prisoner are they being used so extensively for them? The answer appears to be that they are being used as a settlement tool, a place for them to go first in order to seek more permanent accommodation even when family have offered to put them up. That however makes curfews more difficult to monitor and reduces significantly the ability to supervise them effectively - at least that’s the argument. Yet their perceived risk scores had to be low enough to be considered for release in the first place. The approved premises have high recall rates; it is where the prisoner will most likely be recalled.

For a DPP/IPP prisoner, the risk of recall is even higher as they are unfairly discriminated against in the AP.

A quote from Pi_27-2014 page 19. Point 6.2

When making a request to recall an indeterminate sentence offender on licence, there must be evidence that there is an increased risk of harm to the public before recall is agreed. The NPS/YOT must take into account the extent that the offender’s behaviour presents an increased risk of sexual or violent harm to others, regardless of the type of index offence for which he or she was originally convicted. Recall to prison does not depend upon a prosecution and conviction for a fresh offence, nor whether or not the licensee is to be tried for an offence

The importance of perceived protection of the public has come at the detriment of fairness with DPP/IPP sentenced prisoners; their index offence should be taken into account, especially where the index offence warranted only a low minimum tariff. Sadly, the problem is still further exacerbated by: -

6.4 Where the offender displays violent/sexual behaviour which in itself represents a risk of harm to the public, the need to recall in order to protect the public is clear and unambiguous. In other cases, the behaviour may not be of a violent or sexual nature, but does present a clear causal link to the behaviour exhibited in the index offence(s). For example, the offender may have resumed substance abuse or re-established contact with other criminal associates both of which might be identified as critical risk factors, then invariably recall must be sought.

As many of these prisoners have served significantly long periods in prison, they may have made many friends during that time and most likely lost a lot of friends in the community. It isn’t at all surprising then that they may contact people that they know. It is also not at all surprising that some turn to drugs or alcohol when they return to the community, this could well be a coping mechanism for stress.

IPPs will need support in areas such as getting benefits sorted, seeking employment and finding suitable accommodation, all of which the OM needs to be actively involved in. These are the stress areas; helping them through these areas will give them a good chance. Many are out of touch with modern technology and sadly do not get the training they need before they are released so it is vital they get this upon release. Local adult learning services can help with this and OMs need to source placements to help IPPs get back up on their feet and move forward. IPPs, like life sentenced prisoners will suffer with anxiety and may feel uncomfortable in some environments so it is vital significant effort is invested in helping them.

Yet more often than not, when the IPP is clearly struggling with the pressures of life in the community, for example after the pressure is building for them to find suitable move on accommodation, this is the point at which they are invariably recalled. They exhibit behaviour that constitutes concern, irritability, short temperedness and perhaps even failing the very low alcohol limit for residency at an AP, that being the legal drive limit.

There is also another problem with APs for IPPs. They are vulnerable here to bullying by other residents. The residence is populated by other ex-prisoners, which creates a prison-like environment; especially when people are up to no good. Where drugs are in use there are invariably money-related issues like borrowing. This can lead to disagreements.

10.

Wheresomeone on an IPP sentence is known to others in the AP, this can be used as a way to control. If the IPP doesn’t want to loan someone money or hide stash they can be threatened. Most prisoners know IPPs can be recalled much more easily than determinate sentence prisoners can. It is easy to mislead staff at an AP by pretending to pass on information about another resident, and whether there is any truth to it or not a report will be written and sent to the relevant OM.

So here we have a clear inequality problem which is consistent with the treatment of DPP/IPPs all through their sentence. Here though at this point is the real cruncher. They got parole down to hard work and patience yet here they see all that effort come to nothing when they are sent back. That’s why many feel they are set up to fail from the beginning.

The misused Good Behaviour condition

Quote from Pi20-2012 Licence conditions page 5

2.4 The “Good Behaviour” condition (listed in 2.3 as vi) is designed to cover the majority of eventualities. For example, it can be used to deal with activities which are thought to be leading to reoffending, associating with other known offenders, inciting hatred in respect of extremist offenders, and any behaviour or incident that might give rise to an increased risk of serious harm or re-offending.

This is a licence condition that is used far too frequently especially on DPPs/IPPs.

What can you do?

Your remit is clear and the PSI is of course meant to be followed. What sadly happens, due in part to the fact that too many offender managers are young and have limited life experience, is that there is no fair assessment based on the situation in which the alleged breach of good behaviour has occurred. The Good Behaviour condition is so broad and ambiguous that it is down to interpretation. It also unfairly discriminates against IPPs. so please: -

· Promote a tightened remit for the Good Behaviour Condition; you have seen yourselves at recall reviews the problems of this condition. A proper assessment should be done before a breach is made using this condition to ensure there is not undue pressure being placed on the licensee by another resident, or where the behaviour can be linked to stress, for example to achieving benefits or housing or where there is evidence of bullying within the AP, a strategy should be pursued to mitigate the problem. This could involve recalling the instigator or moving them. Where the instigator cannot be identified then alternative accommodation should be sorted for the IPP. Recall should not be an option in cases where the IPP is being bullied, or there is evidence to suggest it.

5)The Threat of Recall

I have already touched on the problems of recall, but it is the threat of recall that is a real handicap to rehabilitation in the community for IPPs

Many have been recalled more than twice and this has a dramatic effect on their confidence in the fairness of their supervision in the community. While some accept, they were to blame,

many feel let down and unfairly treated. They resign themselves to the reality as they see it. With many negative experiences it is not surprising they have a negative outlook on life.

The facts and figures do not help either. The Prison Reform Trust’s report: “Prison the facts 2019” states: -

“There are a further 1,063 people serving an IPP sentence who are back in prison having been previously released—a 26% increase in only a year.

There are 2,403 yet to be released as of this summer and 91% (that is 2,198) have served their tariff and worryingly over 50% of those had a tariff of four years or less.

As already mentioned, many are spending significant time in Approved Premises and fail to find suitable move-on accommodation. Sometimes IPPs are bounced around different Approved Premises over a period of many months before finally ending up being recalled. It would seem at times a vast amount of pressure is being placed on them to locate suitable accommodation, a daunting task considering many have spent such a long time in custody and are out of touch with society. This can push many back into a depressive and defeatist state of mind. Any wonder so many are on medication for depression and PTSD?

Whilst in the hostel it is vital that there is a net of support around the IPP to help them through the gauntlet of obstacles in their way. If family ties are still strong, then family should be invited round regularly and should be allowed into supervision meetings. This means planning even before release occurs, firstly identifying if family can be involved with the release plan and that will involve attempting to locate suitable accommodation near family to enable them to take a more active part during release. At the AP the IPP should be able to talk in confidence with their supervising officer; in particular, there should be more effort to ensure they feel safe within the premises. Where they are not, no detrimental consequences should affect them where they have stated they are concerned for their safety.

Seeking medical support within the community

The need to seek not just a GP but in a lot of cases mental health support when released should be a top priority. However, the IPP should not suffer detrimental effects, such as increasing risk scores where mental health reports are being viewed by the OM. The fact that mental health support is being sorted out should in itself show compliance,

Addressing issues relating to mental health can take years to resolve and in many cases they never are resolved. It is vital that the OM is very mindful of this, it is better for them to be getting the treatment they need in the community because they will not get such support in prison. Currently there is too much emphasis on perceived risk scoring; every last bit of information appears to be being used to increase the risk scores during the AP stay. The OMs are requesting almost daily reports, wanting anything that can be interpreted as negative to be reported. This creates pressure on hostel staff which can create a bias attitude towards IPPs.

What can you do?

Actively encourage OMs to seek more involvement where possible from family. Discourage the use of Approved Premises, it should not be necessary. OMs should try harder to locate accommodation and where possible utilise support from family and mitigate the risk to the community using suitable licence conditions especially where family are willing to help.
Mitigate the risk to the community using suitable licence conditions especially where family are willing to help.

Direct OMs to provide more effort in finding the support a DPP/IPP prisoner needs within the community
Request that additional time should be given to OMs to spend actively helping IPPs to obtain suitable accommodation and where necessary seek more support through local area provisions, such as charities and sheltered accommodation.

· Where the local housing allowance is not enough to secure a flat and the prisoners’ perceived risk is too high for them to live in a house share, councils can be approached to provide additional funding under the discretionary housing payment (DHP).

· Discourage an over analytical approach on risk scoring whilst IPPs reside at the AP. Not every event necessarily needs to affect scoring. AP staff’s focus should be on progressing and supporting the IPP. MAPPA meetings are there to assess a more comprehensive assessment of risk, where intelligence can be used to give a more comprehensive picture. The AP provides a reason to be more tolerant. You know where they will be at set times, and whereas recall should always remain an option, it should be an absolute last resort whilst they are at a hostel. All other options should be tried first and recorded.

Continued delays/over tariff, reports not being completed and recalL

Delays or deferrals we can agree only add to IPP prisoners’ frustration and the sense of not being in control of their own destiny. There are still knock backs and new targets set. Some IPP prisoners 6 / 7 years over tariff are only now having PIPE or pc courses being mentioned. The test for “proving” reduced future risk is impossible, and is a danger to health.

One lad was recalled by probation for poor behaviour seeing a friend

Tim Bowman from Durham was instructed not to see his friends by probation, but he was lonely and just wanted to play football. An estimated figure of 900 recalled if figures are correct and most without apparent sufficient reason to be recalled. What has been finalised in the last year in this area?

In the mental health interim report page2016 page 1.

It states the government remains committed to making progress on recommendations and legislative change and are confident to deliver our vision in a way that does not need legislation! The report has numbers of recommendations not followed. We feel the reality is the prison estate will need at least 10 years to make real progress. The Parole Board have duty of care and a need to push the issues with government for a change as a prisoner’s mental state is affected and like a prisoner of war, he / she does not know when the war will end, which makes it worse mentally. The report mentioned is now 2 years old.

The Independent Monitoring Board raised their concerns to me by e-mail, copy if required.

They are concerned for those IPP prisoners held post tariff with no clear idea of release, with hurdles, courses and moves to therapeutic centres, so that their members have raised the whole area of IPP to know what questions that they need to be asking of the OMU departments and the governors of the establishment they monitor. This suggests all is not transparent or understood, and they want to know who and what to ask if they want to help and support IPP prisoners better. Helen.bootman@amib.or.uk

IPP prisoners’ process and sentence is causing frustration and suffering.

There has been such a huge number of suicides / deaths that we are seriously concerned there is a flawed process for safety and health.

Inside Times for prisoners has taken to asking prisoners for £10.00 each to pay for a human rights lawyer.

Quote from an IPP prisoner:

· “For those of us who have spent up to fifteen years in prison we have almost reached the point of no return – depending on age of course, in terms of finding work, starting a family of our own and establishing a social circle. As for the rest of us, we are already into the foothills of this whilst it is very wrong for the Parole Board to attempt to console us by stating ‘more IPPs are being released than ever before’, when historically they’ve hardly released any of us”. .https://insidetime.org/on-the-ipp-wire-july-2019/.

Example of an IPP prisoner’s experience

· Danny Weatherspoon from Newcastle was sentenced to serve 15 months 2007. He is now aged 31 with 2 suicide attempts. All his attempts for parole keep failing and he has been asking what more does he have to do than what he has already done finally to prove he is not a risk? Courses handed down by the judge he had done and he has not been informed of anything else he should do. The failing process has created desperation/mental health issues so that prisoners want to end their life. This is serious and will continue while the issues are unresolved. This can only mean they revert to high risk and so then the vicious circle begins again.

ttps://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2019/16-august/comment/opinion/prisoners-who-have-to-prove-they-can-be-freed

Question

· What can you give prisoners to prove reduced risk, apart from the courses?

Question

What does the Parole Board think about a pilot project to add independent judge/ magistrate to weigh up the facts at a parole hearing? If this works to help progress, then this could be rolled out more widely.

Question

Are the Parole Board concerned about the sentence affecting mental health through its processes and causing frustration and suffering?

What steps have the Parole Board taken with government in the last couple of months due to the amount of deaths? Despite all the money being pumped to the prison estate along with new prison officers the death toll rises.

Does the Parole Board feel it is time for legislation change, as the death toll continues to rise and change needs to happen quickly?

We feel the root cause of the problem for many IPP prisoners in the early part of the sentencing regime was that the individuals were not being assessed before being labelled as dangerous, the initial legislation dictating that certain crimes demanded an IPP sentence, the judges did not have discretion over the idea and thus was born the problem. IPP sentences were handed down with the "hope" that the system would manage the rehabilitation of the individual. We know that idea was completely miss-founded. In fact, the opposite has happened to many who remain in the system. psychologically abused, sometimes arbitrarily moved to worse circumstances just when things were looking hopeful. The small financial compensation paid in some cases does not do make up for this. To all intents and purposes they are victims.

We know that the judges both here in the UK and at Strasbourg in the European Court of Human Rights have determined that IPP sentences at a certain point are unethical. But many feel message that the continued detention of persons under the IPP is a contravention of human rights. It is quite clear that the justification the government is making not to alter the status quo is that the parole board are hearing the necessary cases. However, this does not change the fact that when a person is in jail on an IPP they are serving a life sentence for crimes that do not currently attract a life sentence. To the average person this would appear to be a miscarriage of justice. That is a very serious fact and should be reiterated to any official at any stage. I think that there should be a standard text read out at any parole board hearing that states this.

Statement: IPP Prisoner

IPP sentence. 7 ½ years over tariff. Enhanced status throughout sentence. No adjudications. Holds down a position of responsibility in workshop. Awaiting parole hearing after 7 deferrals/adjournments (each time due to reports not being completed or witnesses not turning up.) In the meantime, OM changes four times. OS recommending release. Prison psychologist recommending release. Independent psychologist recommending release. Probation recommending open. Outcome: yet another knockback …… a worthy reason why so many IPPs lose all hope.

The Parole Board stated to the BBC News in April it was handling IPP prisoner Wayne Bell’s case.

We are very concerned about Wayne Bell’s mental state, the fact that he stopped walking and eating. He has suffered a mental breakdown. He has continued to state he doesn’t want to live anymore and he is too ill. This has been long standing and as a result he does not have the mental capacity to go before a parole hearing. He stopped communicating. His father said there was no justification for being over tariff that long and his courses were over-

subscribed (evidence from state the same. The amount of years over tariff does not justify sending IPP prisoners insane and then to their deaths. Speaking with Wayne’s father, this has all taken a toll on him. He is now terminally ill and has a short time to live and wants to spend the months he has left with his son).

AMIMB AGM 7 conference 11th October 2016 on IPP prisoners stated “the serious further offence rate is less than 0.1%. Wayne who was a kid when he entered never had a chance to date a girl or have children.

Question

· Can you give them answers? Prisoners continue to write about the same processing issues, some are no longer with us. We are here further years on with the same problems and this demonstrates there still is a large problem.

Question

· Do you have an alternative way to communicate more efficiently and in a timely manner? Does the Parole Board have a separate data base for administering the process of IPP prisoners full time? If so how many staff are involved and how do you monitor and deal with them? Who are “they”?

· Can the Parole Board tell us who is managing risk?

Rehabilitation

Give IPP prisoners the opportunity to attend appropriate accredited programmes to address their offending behaviour in order to gain release and support with reading if necessary.

Question

· If the Prison Service cannot provide these resources, will the Parole Board release prisoners, as they should not be penalised?

· Those who have not done the courses have no other way to prove reduced risk for release. Do you agree that a solution should be created? - otherwise there is no end bar to work towards and the bar will keep moving? There is no reason to keep a person 10 years beyond their tariff unless you are holding them for their complex disability which is discrimination. Rehabilitation means to return someone to a good, health, or normal life or condition after they have been in prison. Many have mental health issues a said 215 prisoners have come home in a box.

Post date we asked the parole for an end date and we were told an end date for prisoners 2018 and for complexed prisoners 2020 s that gave us hope but we are 2 years on from that meeting with approx. 2,402 IPP prisoners not released.

Question

Do you have an end date for over tariff prisoners?

If there is no date GPS is the only option or we will have 2000 if not 1500 still inside by 2020.

In the Greenfield Tower disaster, we had 74 deaths and that led to a public enquiry. So far we have 174 IPP deaths (but the true number may be higher, due to the slow process of accessing information).
Does the Parole Board feel this needs a public inquiry?

Does the Parole Board feel this needs a public inquiry?

Update. There is now 2400 approx IPP Prisoners still detained. Mental health of the prisoners reported 2008 - https://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/sites/default/files/in_the_dark.pdf .

There since has been 262 IPP Prisoner deaths. One IPP prisoner on hunger strike. IPP Prisoners Mental break downs and now in Psychiatric hospitals. This is not rehabilitation, that means to restore. This is effect of torture means life – including their dignity, health and self-sufficiency – might never fully recover.

Ask your Solicitors or MP's for an Independent Inquiry, 2000 if not 1500 will still be inside by 2020 if we don't act. http://ippfanilycampaign.blogspot.com/

The Parole Board and transparency

It important if we are to have transparency that there should be clear researched figures in areas such as mental health disabilities published. Families have had to find out from freedom of information about the numbers of deaths of IPP prisoners and If the families were made aware the process was causing such mental health problems, they would have been able to support and assist their family member further.

Question

· How is the Parole Board going to address prisoners and families?

· In the parole meeting 2016, the growing death toll of IPP prisoners was not mentioned. Was the Parole Board aware? And if so, when (if at all) did the Parole Board investigate and take action?

15TH February 2019 the new tagging was introduced to keep the public safe and to give greater peace of mind. The purpose was to reduce violence and monitor behaviour. IPP are eligible for the new GPS tagging

Question

· Since it was introduced how many IPP prisoners have been put on this GPS?If none, why not? This would be a great scheme for those over tariff and considering the deaths they should not have to wait, as they have served well over their sentence. Whose responsibility is it to give the GPS? If it is discretional what is the discretion based on?

· Can you shorten the licence if this has not already been done, for those with learning differences or mental health problems, to stop these people being recalled over and over thus affecting their mental health further and becoming trapped and potentially returning to prison to their death?

What I mean is that in the big picture judges both here in the UK and at Strasbourg in the European Court of Human Rights have determined that IPP sentences at a certain point are unethical. The message needs to be that the continued detention of persons under the IPP is a contravention of human rights. It is quite clear that the justification the government is making not to alter the status quo is that the parole board are hearing the necessary cases. However, this does not change the fact that when a person is in jail on an IPP they are serving a life sentence for crimes that do not currently attract a life sentence. To the average person this would appear to be a miscarriage of justice. That is a very serious fact and should be reiterated to any official at any stage. I think that there should be a standard text read out at any Parole Board hearing that states this. I will put this idea to the law firms that I am in communication with.

Whilst I accept that the IPP sentence law is not the fault of the Parole Board and that the Parole Board has previously spoken out about this law – for example, Nick Hardwick, the former CEO of the Parole Board - it still remains the fact that the Parole Board holds the ultimate decision and hence the responsibility for the situation that thousands of IPP prisoners are remaining years over tariff; alongside the practice of Offender Managers / Supervisors and psychologists and their input at parole hearings.

The Parole Board may pride itself on the very negligible rate of reoffending of prisoners that they have released but the issue here today is not about the prisoners to whom they have given the decision of release. It is about the thousands of IPP prisoners that they continue to detain which is extremely detrimental, having resulted in the massive suicide of prisoners. The mental and psychological torture of the IPP prisoner, the absolute mental decline and total loss of hope and the self-harming of prisoners often results in an understandably destructive type of behaviour which takes up time and resources within the prison and contributes further to the already overcrowding of prisons and the extreme anguish suffered not just by the prisoners but the family and friends of such prisoners.

The practice, issues and concerns that we would like to raise with the Parole Board from our direct insight and experience of the dealings of an IPP prisoner are as follows:

“It is absurd that a defunct prison scheme can keep prisoners in jail beyond their original terms” . Ref: Kenneth Clarke who managed to abolish the IPP law

Every Parole Board Panel member we want to have specific training, knowledge and insight into the history of the IPP law and the effect that this law has had on IPP prisoners.

· More so with the new recruitment of Parole Board Panel members so they have full awareness of the detrimental effect of this law and any prolonged imprisonment.

Such training should include testimonies from people who have suffered from this law or from relatives or friends who have lost somebody that has died / committed suicide because of this law.
Statistics should be presented on the self-harm and suicide rates amongst this category of prisoners following prolonged imprisonment so that each Parole Board Panel member has the increased self-awareness and insight into its direct effects.
Coroners’ Inquests have already reported that the effects of this IPP law significantly contributed to the suicide of such prisoners. Parole Board Panel members should also have the full awareness that this law was passed on prisoners by default for who it was not the intention for which is well documented and that they should re-train their thinking and the labelling of such prisoners when categorised “as the most violent of prisoners” and therefore not to have any primary subconscious bias influencing their decision making

The Parole Board as I understand acts as judiciary court: as such, judicial conduct and compliance should incorporate the following: -

Judicial independence is a prerequisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial independence in both its individual and institutional aspects.

1. Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made.

2. Integrity is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office.

3. Propriety, and the appearance of propriety, are essential to the performance of all of the activities of the judge.

4. Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the courts is essential to the due performance of the judicial office.

5. Competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of judicial office. (Ref

https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/judicial-conduct-and-complaints.html)

Question

How much does the Parole Board actually uphold the above principles in ensuring impartiality, integrity, propriety, equality, competence and diligence? For example: -
Impartiality - does the Parole Board already have a pre-bias with the very fact that they are dealing with an IPP prisoner, since it appears that any mention of an IPP prisoner will always happen to include the statement that they are “the most violent of offenders” when defence is made by authorities about this law or decision making is challenged, despite it already being established that this is not the case, as this law was passed on thousands of prisoners for whom it was not intended?
What are your statistics for having released determinate prisoners early who had committed similar index offences, yet these IPP prisoners have already served their tariff and then their sentence is just being prolonged, resulting in what could be an equivalent of an extended 20-year sentence if they are already 10 years over tariff, based on the principle that usually a determinate prisoner may be released having served just half their sentence?
If I’m correct and IPP prisoners are a 1% risk of committing another crime, then why are they a perceived risk? “High risk” is put into documents putting them all in the same bracket which affects the prisoner’s mental state. How can we change this?

There is nothing at all that can justify such countless prisoners being for example 10 years over tariff, because this alone reinforces the fact that prolonged imprisonment is not serving any purpose whatsoever and it is actually barbaric. It is the direct decision making and ineffective action of the Parole Board we feel has allowed this. Having endured prolonged imprisonment, the risk of reoffending can only be seen as a perceived risk and not an actual risk as stated, especially so when being in prison in such a false environment does not permit risk to be assessed with any level of accuracy. Everyone in prison can be a perceived risk and we cannot tar everyone with the same brush. This assessment of risk angers IPP prisoners.

Prisoners have a risk assessment and this is filled out when entering prison. Probation fill out another risk assessment near end of sentence. However, the two risk assessments are the same paper written the same way. How can this paper reflect a prisoner’s change? Often their assessment is completed by the ever-changing probation who don’t know them and have little training filling in the risk assessment. Thus it can be open to a misleading interpretation of the questions.

We attended a conference held by the Church of England (Date October 16th 2018 HMP Hewell)

They were people from a variety of backgrounds there, as well as Faith Geary (Parole Board). In one of the rooms along with a judge there were representatives from the probation service. One of their complaints was that the risk assessment questions did not deviate from the prisoner’s first risk assessment which was completed on the prisoner when entering prison and ten years on the prisoner was given the same risk assessment with the same questions: no deviations or options even if he or she had changed.

She further stated she had only 2-weeks’ training and others ones just a week training to understand the risk assessment and she still didn’t understand the terminology. She had to Google the meaning of the words. She stated what was needed was longer training and wording to be made easier to understand.

Question

If probation feel that something is not working such as the mentioned risk assessments wording, probation officers don’t necessarily report everything to their manager. Why not have Survey to support “what works and what does not work. staff can fill out independently and send without going through managers.

Question

Do you think one or two weeks is enough training and what can be done to change this?

I find this alarming, and to make things worse they felt they did not have enough experience of the prisoner to know whether or not he was a perceived risk. They had little idea of what the IPP sentence meant or where to find the information. Another thought all IPPs were sex offenders and were a danger because she read this in government documentation.

Questions

Surely the risk assessment must have a diffrent writern option to relect change in a prisoner,rather than giving probation no option but to fill in the same from completed on a prisoner when he first entered prison?

Does the risk assessment need updating to reflect change in a prisoner?

Does the risk assessment continually penalise those that are vulnerable, such as those with complex disabilities, as the assessor has no option but to fill in the option perceived risk despite being over tariff? Can we see a risk assessment document?

Why can’t the parole board have a yearly anonymous survey from management, for example, for probation staff that they must fill in independently on which options are working or failing?

Offender Managers’ / Supervisors reports

Questions

As a prisoner applies for parole the available evidence on him is handed into the Parole Board. Does the inmate get a copy in time to defend and argue his corner and submit a response?

Most importantly: are vulnerable prisoners and / or those with disabilities or literacy issues supported in a timely manner and how much extra help do they get for the disability (reasonable adjustments under the law).

Parole Board stated that inmates did not have to do the courses but is there a contradiction?

Questions

And exactly how impartial is the Parole Board in their thinking in the management of risk? Are you governed by HMPPS who seem to be compulsive about “courses” that have to be completed and Offending Behaviour Programmes?

Propriety and integrity - How much propriety does the Parole Board really have? Are you really acting independently?

Can you give us an End date for IPP prisoners over tariff? Previously in 2016 we were told 2018, and 2020 for complex prisoners

We hope as an independent Parole Board you do not allow yourself selves to be influenced by public pressure such as your recent publication of Guidance for Parole Board members on the consideration of allegations which have been made against a prisoner in the John Worboys case (this report needs to be directly challenged but that is a separate issue!).

I think you may agree the current processes in the IPP sentence are fundamentally flawed: this is illustrated specifically in the situation of IPP prisoners, resulting in them being years over tariff.

Equality of treatment to all

We do not think the Parole Board gives the IPP prisoner a fair parole hearing or ensures equality, talking of the current practice and processes of the parole. The current Parole Board processes are inherently flawed and need to be addressed and if the Parole Board is independent then address the issues and be independent, setting your own standards and challenging the government in the legislation or the practice of other professions that may hinder this. If the Parole Board is to make the ultimate decision in deciding if an IPP prisoner is safe to be released, then the Parole Board should be absolute in being proactive to ensure that by the time of the parole hearing then all standards have been achieved in order for them to make this decision. This is definitely not happening!

Questions

What are your thoughts on a pilot project for IPP prisoners?

To support prisoners going forward to add a judge or retired judge to sit on the parole panel. If the pilot project speeds up the process safely this could be rolled out to the prison estate.

How much are the Parole Board challenging or validating the reports submitted by Probation Officers also known as Offender Managers / Supervisors and psychologists?

How proactive is the Parole Board in reviewing and evaluating their own practice? And how often is this done?

Is there a process to identify flaws in reports and ensure that satisfactory impartial reports are submitted to them on a timely basis?

Processes of the Parole Board that need to be addressed:

I understand that the current Parole Board process is usually that when a prisoner is in their parole window the Parole Board process starts with an expectation that it takes 6 months for the organisation and preparation for the actual Parole Board hearing. In this 6 months, reports are prepared by the witnesses and the prisoner, then a Parole Board hearing will take place of which the average approximate time of a parole hearing would be about 2 to 3 hours giving the opportunity for all to have a say. It is now established that victims of a crime can have an input for the parole hearing by giving statements or being interviewed by the Parole Board panel prior to the hearing regards their concerns of any release conditions.

I will challenge the above current process in relation to an IPP prisoner, in the name of Impartiality, Propriety and Integrity, Equality, Competence and Diligence.

An IPP prisoner may have waited 2 years for a Parole Hearing. In reference to Steven Trudgill a Coroner’s inquest highlighted that in the prevention of future deaths there are other potentially vulnerable prisoners who are still on IPPs within the prison system at significant risk of continuing self-harm after serving their tariff since they find themselves in a system where the parole hearings that provide the only means by which they could be released are infrequent only occurring two or three years.

Even though the Parole Board may say that the next application for parole should be in 12 months or 18 months, this is only for the START of the process, so the reality of the wait is rarely less than 2 years. This is unacceptable.

Additionally, there is a current case where a prisoner has been waiting 10 months since he received his parole dossier and STILL has not got a hearing date. This is apparently because there are not enough members of the board available with psychiatric qualifications. This situation is bound to affect more and more IPP prisoners, due to the high incidence of mental health issues.

Question

What steps is the Board taking to ensure that sufficient provision is made for ALL prisoners to have a prompt hearing, especially given the length of time they already have to wait between hearings.

And let’s look at the case of Tomy Nicol whereby it is reported that he died after almost six years in prison. Tommy was transferred to HMP The Mount after spending time at HMP Erlestoke following a Parole Board review of his sentence in June 2015. The review concluded that Tommy should do further ‘motivational and psychological’ work before release. Tommy expressed frustration about this decision, and about not being able to do the required programmes ahead of the review.

The next Parole Board review was not due until February 2017, nearly two years later. Therefore, the hope and expectation that a prisoner will hold for a pending parole hearing would be exceptional and then having their hopes completely dashed again would be torture, especially maybe having to wait for another 2 years for another chance. I understand that the Parole Board do not actually set the time of the next parole hearing, and it is set by HMPPS and that they can’t give the actual directions as to what needs to be done.

Questions

The Parole Board come up with a suggestion as to why a prisoner should remain incarcerated but can’t give any timescale or in fact actually direct when or what they think they should specifically have to do to “make them safe” to be released by the next parole hearing. Why?

Can the Parole Board challenge the logic of the process that can only be causing delays, mental health problems and further deaths?

A life can be seriously and disastrously affected by the very extremeness of imprisonment and civil liberties taken away by the power that the Parole Board has been given - especially in the cases of IPPs - extending the sentence after the tariff has been served, often this can be based on loose broad suggestions and no time scale. This brings the integrity of the Parole Board into question when taking on such a powerful position but only being allowed to do half a job; bringing the whole process into question with the prisoner who is then then left to languish in prison for an indefinite time of up to another possible 2 years until the next parole hearing. In light of the above cases any preparation for a parole hearing should be paramount, particularly so for an IPP. I can understand Tommy Nichol when he expressed his frustration about his decision and not being able to do the required programmes ahead of the review, I can only imagine how sickening it must be to hear this, having served his time.

Those with mental health the family are unaware if their son daughter has adequate representation before the hearings and not being prepared is another knock back of 2 years. Those who are vulnerable need extra support than those without a disability. Mental health comes under a IC10 such they need reasonable adjustments and are the prisoners aware of this? including people with a mental illness such as schizophrenia, dyspraxia, ADHD bipolar disorder or depression. To insure there is no barriers are getting the right support. This should also include planning ahead to agree arrangements in case they become unwell and support should be reviewed regularly.

https://www.choiceforum.org/docs/noms.pdf

Questions

Did the Parole Board panel ever directly ask Tommy himself what his thoughts were as to what would make him safe to be released, what support he perceived he would need upon release or indeed had such as family or friends?

It is up to the prisoner to prove they are not a risk. Can the Parole Board give them the tools to do so? And make this clear to IPP inmates how perceived risk can come to an end.

Why do IPPs over tariff have to wait for a parole hearing after all the time they have had in prison doing nothing then go through suggestions to do “motivational and psychological” work again? None of the above suicides should ever have happened! The reasoning that is given to hold a prisoner for potentially another 2 years to do nonspecific “so called motivational and psychological work”

IPPs are over tariff and in the most demotivating environment possible, whereby the Offender Managers then forget about them and the Offender Supervisors only see them sporadically and then it is left for these probation services to put their own interpretation on this. And let’s look at the case of Charlotte Nokes, when once again the Parole Board came up with the same suggestion of TC and psychological support after having served her tariff, thus prolonging her imprisonment, and so Charlotte became another statistic of suicide. We feel the Parole Board need to gather the evidence as to what the personal results are following their suggestions such as doing the so called motivational and psychological work resulting being incarcerated in prison for another potential 2 years, and how it actually affects the prisoner - because if they did, they would soon gather that it is having nothing but a very negative detrimental effect.

Questions

Are lessons ever going to be learnt by the Parole Board following the deaths and suicides and self-harm so far following the prolonging of prison or do they still believe that this will reduce the risk of reoffending making them safer to be released?

The judicial review of Mordecei v Parole Board 4 years ago found the Parole Board to have acted irrationally. The Parole Board’s decision was criticised for placing too much reliance on an old psychologist’s report and Judge Elizabeth Cooke also considered the way in which the Parole Board had viewed the Claimant’s attempts at suicide. She stated that ‘the level of suicidal tendency among prisoners serving IPP is high. The reasons for that are obvious. If a Parole Board panel is to regard that very tendency as a reason not to transfer them to open conditions, the panel must take great care to explain why it takes that view”. Has any of this been taken on board since?

Any organisation of integrity should be monitoring and evaluating the effects of their decision making.

Question

Please could you provide your statistics / evaluations monitoring the decisions of not approving release and the consequent effects of these decisions with the qualitative evaluation of how the prisoner’s behaviour changed, as an evaluation on how effective your suggestions and decision making and practice are. This is what every good organisation with integrity should do.

EVERY EFFORT AND THINKING SHOULD BE DIRECTED TOWARDS GETTING THESE PRISONERS OUT OF PRISON AND REHABILITATED AND INTEGRATED BACK INTO SOCIETY AND REPAIR THE DAMAGE ALREADY DONE.

Any “motivational psychological work” can be achieved and supervised in the community, and also any counselling services for the psychological trauma that such prisoners have experienced following their prolonged imprisonment can be accessed in the community, making them safe to be released because of their “so called perceived risk”

We feel the Parole Board is making ineffective decisions and that they can change their practice. Nothing can justify all these prisoners being years over tariff, which is proof in itself that it is ineffective. IPP prisoners are coming home in in a wooden box and will continue to do so until we act

The following is a statement is by an IPP prisoner (now released) about the mental health issues caused by the IPP sentence: -

“I received an IPP sentence for armed robbery and I received a 4-and-a-half-year tariff and served 10 and a half years before they released me.

The IPP sentence was born in order to protect the public from people who may cause life threatening circumstances. But the sentence itself I believe has put the public in more danger than before it was introduced.

For myself and for the crime I committed I would say the sentence maybe justified. But the problem I have seen as an IPP orderly and an induction orderly in various prisons up and down the country is at the beginning April 2005 the judges, the probation service and the prison authorities didn’t understand the sentence.

And they were giving out IPP sentences for crimes that didn’t warrant the sentence. Which meant the prison service were not ready or prepared for the amount of IPPs they received. So IPP sentenced prisoners could not access the courses they had to do to reduce their risk.

Now the problem with this is that many IPP sentenced prisoners are not really villains and therefore they don’t have mind set to deal with an IPP sentence.

So because they didn’t have mind-set to deal with the sentence they became very frustrated, angry, depressed which sometimes led them to have outbursts. Then on top of that when IPPs received an adjudication for any matter at all, the adjudications were held against us and we were told that we are not lowering our risk. And so IPPs were knocked back at parole hearings.

And so once again IPPs became frustrated, angry, depressed which sometimes led to outbursts. So it was a never ending circle and IPPs could not get released.

And here’s the problem the criminal justice system does not understand that the IPP SENTENCE is causing IPPs serious psychological problems which are sometimes to blame for their misbehaviour the extra sanctions.

When a person receives an IPP it has a devastating effect on the IPP’s mental and psychological wellbeing. And so provisions should have been put in place to teach and explain to IPPs how to deal with the sentence to stop them from becoming mentally and psychologically damaged. Because once IPP becomes mentally and psychologically damaged they are no longer responsible for their actions.

And therefore the IPP sentence is now danger of creating the risk of monsters. Because now many IPPs have lost their families, their children and their friends, and so have nothing left to live for.

Which is why you hearing now that thousands of IPPs say they don’t want to go home because they have nothing to go out to. What IPP sentence has done is institutionalise prisoners. And one more thing before I sign off. The IPP was brought in to prevent prisoners from causing life threatening circumstances to the public. But some IPP prisoners have adjudications against them, which are held against them at their parole hearings. Which are not life threatening in the least. So why are they held against us?”

Questions

How are the parole board ensuring that the reports by Offender Supervisors and Managers and psychologists are submitted on a timely basis?

Do they have a standardised preformat on establishing how often and when the Offender Supervisors / Managers have actually met the prisoner?

It is known that the Offender Managers barely know the prisoner, having had very little contact throughout their imprisonment, especially so when probation officers are reallocated to cases only making contact just prior to the parole hearing, then submitting very significant reports as to whether or not to recommend release and making judgements on the prisoner from one meeting producing reports which can be seen as unreliable if a probation officer barely knows the prisoner.

Questions

Does the Parole Board ever question when a probation officer presents a psychologist’s formulation of which I have established that such a formulation is made when the psychologist had never met the prisoner, and has no background history; but then formulates a theory and recommendation which goes against all principles of the British Society of Psychologists in the concept of a formulation? Is their opinion then influenced by it? If so, this brings into question the diligence and competence of the Parole Board in accepting such information when they should be directly challenging such practice.

Does the Parole Board question the type of recommendations that are made by psychologists and probation officers such as Offending Behaviour courses or Therapeutic Community as a reason to be detained further despite the amount of time prisoners have already been in prison, having served their tariff and longer? Does the Parole Board keep their independence and impartiality in actually questioning the effectiveness of such courses or are they again being partial and influenced by the propaganda that HMPPS may present regards these courses, but with even HMPPS now recognising that such courses are not a necessity?

The Parole Board should particularly note the words of Sam Gyimah when undersecretary 3 years ago in a copy of a letter that I had sent from him to my local MP when he states that: -

“It is important to remember that it is not mandatory for Indeterminate Sentence Prisoners to complete accredited offending behaviour programmes in order to achieve release. Accredited offending behaviour programmes are only one of the interventions available to help reduce prisoner's risks. Other options may include work and employment; education and training; one to one work with psychologists or Offender Supervisors; or non-accredited offending behaviour programmes. It should also be borne in mind that completion of an accredited programme is no guarantee that risk has been reduced"

This is also echoed even prior to that by Dr Jo Bailey, the lead psychologist for the operations directorate of the former National Offender Management Service. She had the foresight to emphasise that “participation in offending behaviour management courses is neither necessary nor sufficient to achieve release”.

She explains that the Prison Service uses seven so-called pathways to reduce re-offending as a basis for sentence planning targets of individuals: (i) accommodation, (ii) education, training, employment, (iii) mental and physical health, (iv) drug and alcohol misuse, (v) finance, benefit and debt, (vi) children and families of offenders and (vii) attitudes, thinking and behaviour. Those involved in the risk assessment and management of offenders are to apply a holistic approach through the pathways model, as a means of achieving and demonstrating a reduction in the risk of re-offending.

Questions

Does the Parole Board take into consideration in their decision-making that upon release a prisoner will need the stability of an income just to ensure the very basics in life to afford food and pay for heating and visit probation/bus fare, a base that they can call home, support from family members or other support networks such as groups, structure in their life such as a job to go to or again a support group, rehabilitation services in support of any drug or alcohol issues, counselling services or community psychiatric services such as a community psychiatric nurse should they have known mental health problems or social worker to address any social issues such as housing or commissioning day-care, carers etc and so on for which there are ample resourceful services e.g Nacro, Mind, Samaritans, Shelter, Job coaches to help gain employment alongside numerous other not for profit organisations as well as the NHS and Local Authorities which should be the factors which support the decision-making of the Parole Board in risk assessment.

Is it not the duty of the Parole Board to ensure that in any reports that they have received by probation officers all these factors have been explored and provisionally organised for release - such as by a check list by the time of the parole hearing - in order to make a fair decision and not just having suggestions by probation services or psychologists such as Offending Behaviour courses. And let us once again question the so called Offending Behaviour courses or Therapeutic Communities by which the Parole Board will keep a prisoner detained further. It is a very disruptive process to get on to one of these with usually a change of prison and a long waiting list only to be told that they are not suitable for it.

Does the Parole Board check how effective these Offending Behaviour type courses are with their own independent qualitative research whereby a prisoner can honestly answer without fear of repercussions from their probation officers, especially In light of the sex offender courses found not to be working and in fact going on them making things worse?

We are all aware that SOTP got abandoned, as research showed that it actually increased reoffending, but then it was replaced with a similar type course. And I seriously have to question the whole concept of a Therapeutic Community whereby it is intended for those who have had traumatic earlier life experiences to have to expose this in front of other prisoners, alongside sharing your crimes, and then to be challenged by each other. This can result in being voted out of the Therapeutic Community, thus experiencing further rejection, and if not then being expected to live in harmony together. This could (re)traumatise the most grounded of us, so if I can question this, why is the Parole Board not doing so, and why does the Parole Board want to detain a prisoner further for this despite the fact that they have served their tariff.

This was one of the programmes that the Parole Board suggested alongside psychology services that never happened in the case of Charlotte Nokes - who then went on to commit suicide. Every effort and thinking should be to get these prisoners out of prison, supported and integrated back into society, by which any so called risk will be minimised.

The Parole Board should be writing out with a standardised form to Probation services at the very minimum 1 year before and make it their priority to actually check that that any so called sentence plan which is SMART (the very fundamentals of any type of planning is that it is Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely) based on the above seven principles plus learning basic IT skills in preparation for this now very technological world that we live in is in action and that plans are being made in preparation for release, so that all is achieved by the time of the parole hearing: not to just to wait until 6 months before when a person is in their parole hearing window, whereby the prisoner has just been left to languish in prison in the meantime.

Question

Tommy Nichol was quite right at being frustrated about his decision, and not being able to do the required programmes ahead of the review. What can the Parole Board do in order to get the justice department to recognise this?!

When a prisoner is being detained, having served their tariff, with all civil liberties being taken away from them while they are in a very adverse environment, prolonging it does not help to reduce any so-called risk. Far too many parole hearings have been deferred because nothing was actually organised or achieved by the time of the hearing. Therefore, in the name of justice I see it is as the duty of the Parole Board to be proactive, competent and diligent and have the propriety to ensure that all has been prepared and achieved by the time of the parole hearing and not just to wait until 6 months to start the process for reports to be submitted.

2 years on: What current actions have been taken to resolve this? IPP prisoners are giving up hope and these unnecessary delays are disturbing, as the death toll is rising.

Do the Parole Board question whether they are giving these IPP prisoners a fair hearing; even recognising themselves that fairness may be particularly difficult to achieve, as panel hearings do not have the safeguards that are present in criminal proceedings (as stated from their report published regarding how to deal with allegations made against a prisoner). (above we suggested a pilot project adding a judge)

Reports are submitted from Offender Managers who as well noted often barely see the prisoner when inside, who fail to set and implement any sort of measurable sentence plan, who fail to engage with prisoner's friends or family members, who are seen as biased and fail to complete assessments on prisoners and are more than willing to take on board any allegation as fact without any objectivity, who submit reports based on their conversations with psychologists when psychologists have not even met the prisoner and then do not even show the prisoner such reports. Despite all this the Parole Board never seem to question the validity of the reports by probation officers or psychologists.

Question

Do you feel changes can be made to prevent preconception? Should each report or assessment by an Offender Manager, psychologist or other professional be confidential from each other so as not just to agree and go along with each other?

Last Friday (30 August 2019), the probation inspectorate published the third in its new series of specially commissioned research papers aimed at exploring the evidence base underpinning probation practice.

Authored by Dr. Peter Raynor, a former probation officer, now Emeritus Research Professor in Criminology at Swansea University this paper focuses on supervision skills for probation practitioners.

Supervision skills

Peter Raynor starts by reviewing the evidence base which seems clear: when probation staff are trained in core skills, the people they supervise and less likely to re-offend.
The encouraging findings from research on skills and ‘core correctional practices’ have led to a number of initiatives designed either to implement successful training programmes on a wider scale or to advance staff development by adapting the approaches used in research. In England and Wales, the National Offender Management Service (as it was then) developed a scheme to train staff in interviewing skills: the SEED programme (Skills for Effective Engagement and Development, later expanded to SEEDS by the addition of a focus on staff supervision). The staff training was welcomed by participants who were very positive about the focus on skills although there has not been a formal evaluation of the programme yet.

Skills, personal attributes and values

Raynor makes the point that when we talk about ‘using’ skills, this does not usually mean selecting a skill from a behavioural repertoire like selecting the right spanner from a toolbox. What we are really talking about is skilled interviewing and interaction, and this is related to personal attributes and aptitudes. Some people intuitively and spontaneously engage and influence with or without training, but most people can benefit from being more aware of what they are doing in their professional roles, how they impact on others, and what options they have for making their contacts more productive. Analysing recorded interviews with an experienced colleague seems to be one effective way to do this.
Training makes it more likely that people will choose a helpful approach, and for some people this will become something they do without having to think about it. People show natural variations in aptitude but most people can improve. Not everyone will improve to the same extent or maintain the improvement successfully, and some people might improve from a low starting point without reaching a level at which they can be consistently effective, but the message from research is that on average, training initiatives have led to real improvements and have enabled people to exercise a positive influence leading to reduced offending.
As well as personal attributes, people have values and personal commitments to what they want to achieve. These will not always coincide: some people have well developed skills of engagement and influence and use them for anti-social purposes, like confidence tricksters, card sharps and doorstep fraudsters. Readers will easily think of other examples in the public eye. Others have prosocial goals but lack the interpersonal awareness or skills to be as helpful as they want to be. Effective practitioners need skills as well as values and commitment, and now we know more than we used to about the relevance and impact of skills.

of skills.

Raynor concludes that research give us good reasons to expect that an investment in practitioner skills could, if well managed, have a significant positive effect on the effectiveness of probation services. The research shows that staff who consistently use a wider range of skills, with high levels of both relationship skills and structuring skills, usually help the people they supervise to achieve, on average, lower reconviction rates. In addition, practitioners can be trained to improve the range and level of skills they use in their individual supervision of service users. When practitioners’ views are reported they show that after initial anxieties, attention to skills is usually welcomed. The advantages are clear: improving the effectiveness of staff who are already employed and paid looks like a cost-effective strategy.

However, it also presents challenges to organisations: this type of staff development, which requires staff to take what often feels like a risk by exposing their practice to scrutiny, needs an environment in which staff feel safe, valued and supported by trusted management. It is likely to work best in organisations which are well informed about effective practice and committed to its development, and with practitioners who are resourceful, well informed and creative. There is also evidence that improved skills are more likely to be maintained and used when staff have access to regular supervision by experienced colleagues who have a good understanding of practice skills.

Initiatives and experiments need to be set up in a way which lends itself to evaluation (for example, with appropriate comparison groups and adequate recording of data) so that impacts can be identified and measured. Unfortunately, attention to evaluability has sometimes been missing in probation initiatives in England and Wales, and this means that learning opportunities are lost. In addition, a focus on practitioners’ skills suggests a shift away from managerialist top-down approaches which rely on the elaboration of guidance and procedural requirements. Instead, a full implementation of what we now know about skills would put the trained, skilled and resourceful front-line practitioner where she/he belongs, at the centre of evidence-based effective practice.

Thanks to Andy Aitchison for kind permission to use his images

'Trapped' Scotswood prisoner Danny Weatherson gets support from ex-con turned YouTube activist as he fights prison release

Banged up Danny Weatherson has won support from an ex-con turned campaigner helping to fight his prison release.

Left to “rot in jail” Danny is among the thousands caught up in the controversial Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences, which came into force for England and Wales in 2005 but was axed in 2012.

Originally a judge recommended he serve just over 15 months for two attempted robberies before he could apply for parole.

But the devastated Scotswood lad is still behind bars.

Danny Weatherson, 30, of Scotswood, Newcastle, pictured after being released from prison after 11 years 9 months, before going back inside. (Image: Newcastle Chronicle)

And after repeatedly being turned down to be release, the 31-year-old will once again stand in front of a Parole Board in October when he hopes his nightmare will end.

Now he and his family, lead by dad Maurice Stevens, have teamed up with digital activist and YouTuber Pepsi Watson, who is a former IPP prisoner himself, as they fight for justice.

“I am campaigning for Danny because I believe this case to be one of the worst miscarriages of justice I have ever seen in my entire life. I am also from the North East too, I was born in Ashington so I have a special fondness for Danny and his family,” said Pepsi, who now lives in Brixton, south London.

“I am helping Danny’s father Maurice by being in very close contact, giving emotional support and legal support weekly. I have helped Maurice and Danny with changing his legal team and Danny now has a specialist human rights solicitor advocate.

“I hope that Danny will be re released by the Parole Board at his hearing in October. If he is not released then his case will be escalated to the High Court and then Strasbourg if need be.”

"Trapped" prisoner Danny Weatherson, of Scotswood, Newcastle, who is on a PPI prison sentence. Pictured digital activist Pepsi Watson at Speakers' Corner in London (Image: Pepsi Watson)

Danny was just a teenager when a judge recommended he served just over 15 months for an attempted robbery of a coat and also an attempted robbery of a mobile phone before he could apply for parole - but it took 11 years and nine months for him to be released - only to be flung back inside.

He got out on July 3, 2017, and was told to spend three months in a hostel in Leeds before being allowed to return to home soil in Newcastle.

Frustrated over not being with his family, without benefits and miles away from home, his dad says it is understood Danny was knocked over but would not co-operate with police.

And only weeks later, he was recalled to prison.

Maurice, of Throckley, Newcastle, said: “It is barbaric that Danny is still in prison. We are constantly worried about his mental state, he’s tried to commit suicide and he is in a dark place.

“He had his parole knocked back again earlier this year and he now has another parole hearing in two months time.

Danny Weatherson, 28, of Scotswood, Newcastle, pictured after being released from prison after 11 years 9 months. Pictured with dad Maurice Steven, 45. (Image: Newcastle Chronicle)

“We have Pepsi on board now and he is fighting for Danny’s release. He is giving us the support we need right now.

“Danny has now taken ill and he has blood clots on both lungs. He’s on medication and I’m worried that if he doesn’t get released in October he will come out of prison in a wooden box.

“He’s been punished enough. He’s now in HMP Northumberland so we hope, when he is released, that he will be put in a hostel in Newcastle near his family,” added dad-of-12 Maurice, 47.

Open University Criminology and Psychology undergraduate Pepsi knows what it is like to be locked behind bars on an IPP sentence.

“I have been campaigning for IPPs in the community now for 12 months and prior to that while in custody I was helping many IPPs with legal work in custody since as far back as 2008,” said Pepsi.

The 37-year-old received an IPP sentence in 2006 for robbery for stealing £200 with a knife from a cafe while addicted to drugs and homeless. His tariff was one year 10 months but served five years and was released in 2011. Pepsi was free for five-and-a-half years until his relationship with his girlfriend broke down and he relapsed and failed two drug tests. Probation recalled him into HMP Winchester where he was for two years then re-released in August 2018.

Danny featured in Pepsi’s campaign speech at Speakers’ Corner in London.

Pepsi added: “I asked Maurice and Danny’s family to join me at Speakers’ Corner because I was there fighting for Danny and to raise awareness of his plight and with Danny’s family there it fired me up and gave me lots more motivation.

“I have met Danny and I will be visiting him again before his parole hearing. I email Danny regularly and support Danny as much as I can. I believe in Danny and believe he should not be in custody and believe that when he is released he can and will build the happy and successful life he deserves.

“Danny has great potential, wants to help others and mentor youngsters and I will help him with his plans once released. Danny is not a threat to anyone and should not be in prison.”

After Danny returned to jail in 2017, Maurice asked strangers to send cards of support to his son.

ChronicleLive readers sent him dozens of cards which gave him the mental strength to get through.

We also told Danny’s plight of how his time inside has been in high security prisons including HMP Northumberland, HMP Moorlands in Doncaster, HMP Armley in Leeds, HMP Frankland in Durham and HMP Hull.

He had taken to self-harm to get him through dark days, but Danny’s family revealed the Parole Board said he could be moved to a category D open prison.

However, just weeks later, he was told the prison that had been chosen was changed and Danny tried to kill himself as his hopes were shattered.

At the time his solicitor, Shirley Noble, said he was being kept inside as he “poses a risk to himself” and uses the self-harming mechanism to release the pain he suffers emotionally.

And his dad used his son’s attempted suicide to highlight the IPP sentences, intended to protect the public against criminals whose crimes were not serious enough to merit a normal life sentence, but who were regarded as too dangerous to be released when the term of their original sentence had expired.

Danny, who had been in trouble for a string on minor crimes before being jailed, was among those who feel they have been left to rot behind bars.

Ministry of Justice data shows there were 2,598 IPP prisoners still behind bars as at September 30, 2018, a decrease of 57% since the 2012 peak of 6,080. And 129 were released during June to September.

The authorities admit the IPP sentence was widely criticised and “used far more widely than intended”.

And this is why it was replaced with a new regime of tough, determinate sentences, alongside life sentences for the most serious offenders.

……...………………...…...……………………………...

Former Justice Secretary Elizabeth Truss said on IPP sentencing:

“We need to be realistic that these prisoners that have long served their minimum term and have for years been committed to proving safe for release.“ And that they are a number one priority. But it seems unjust that someone sentenced in 2010 can remain in prison for years when - if sentenced today - they might have an automatic release date.

“That’s why it’s important we tackle the over due backlog of these cases that are waiting for a Parole Board hearing that is never ending.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/14/liz-truss-get-grip-backlog-prisoners-held-beyond-interdeminate-sentence-ipp

...………………………………………………………………………

New Justice Secretary concurs with the old and calls for ‘smart’ sentencing, gives his thoughts on improving prison officer training, IPPs and his plan to complete a prison Parkrun

Once a judge

Given his staunchly vocal support for new Prime Minister Boris Johnson during his election campaign, I had a hunch that the new man in charge of the Ministry of Justice would be Robert Buckland MP. He was made Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice on 24 July. Before he became Prisons Minister last May he’d served as Solicitor General. Buckland practised as a barrister in Wales from 1992 to 2010, specialising in criminal law. He was appointed a Recorder in 2009, sitting as a part-time Judge in the Crown Court and became a QC when he was appointed Solicitor General in 2014. When we met at his office in MoJ headquarters in London’s Petty France he was still serving out his last few days as Prisons Minister.

End to short sentences?

The first thing I wanted to know was whether he concurred with his predecessor that short prison sentences should all but be abolished? Did he think it might mean we were becoming ‘soft’ on crime? “No, it’s not about that. It should be about being smart. I think the ‘tough, soft’ language is redundant. We should talk about being smart. Having said that, you know that my experience was as a sentencer as well – having sat as a judge. When Brian Leveson retired (Sir Brian Leveson, former President of the Queen’s Bench Division) he was asked about this, and I tend to agree with Sir Brian in that I don’t think judges want to use short-term sentences because they know the evidence is that reoffending rates are far too high – because the prisons have no time with which to work with offenders who are on short sentences. But, there are going to be occasions – lets say you’ve got repeated breaches and the breaches are proven and also they are committing further offences, judges are left with very little alternative. In those circumstances you still need the option of custody in my view. So rather than abolition, my view is that we look at it through the other end of the telescope. And what we acknowledge freely is that the range and quality of community sentences have not been as robust as they probably should be. So working with the Department of Health and other departments in government, what I want to see is stronger and more robust mental health treatment requirements, drug requirements and alcohol requirements. To really work with offenders on the causes of their offending. In very many cases there will be an addiction issue. So what we need to do is address the addiction. Because if you address the root cause, then you’re solving the problem. And that’s smart justice.”

Deaths in prison

The most recent Prisons Inspectorate report described the rates of suicide and self-harm in our prisons ‘a scandal’. What does he plan on doing to bring the rates down? “Well first of all, one death in those circumstances is too many. It is something that I am deeply concerned about. I get a large number of recommendations each year about the various tragedies that happen. So what we are doing now is bringing them together. We’ve got a lot of information that we need to look at in a thematic way, rather than individual cases”. Does he speak to Juliet Lyon, Chair of the Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody (IAP)? “I do. I speak to Juliet regularly. She was here in my office only last week.” I understand, I say, that people who cause harm and distress often have to go to prison, even prisoners generally agree on that. But while they are inside they have a right to be safe. “Well exactly. The custody is the punishment. Everything else that flows from that should be about rehabilitation. And it should be about purposeful activity and the sort of pathway that frankly means the prisoner that we release is somebody who is going to be less likely to reoffend. There is a lot of good work going on with training with regard to the ACCT. (To help identify and care for prisoners at risk of suicide or self-harm, the Prison Service uses a care planning system called ACCT -Assessment, Care in Custody, and Teamwork). We have got ten prisons who are testing the improvements to that now. So I’m taking a great interest in how that is progressing. Its moving away from obsessing with process to looking at the individual. And getting the agencies to work around the individual, rather than expecting the individual to slot into the process. We are failing society when we are not reducing the victims of crime”

Unlocking potential

We then discussed the merits of the Unlocked Graduates programme. Like his predecessor, he is a confirmed supporter. But isn’t it time, I suggested, that regular prison officers are given the status of serious professional officers by introducing a more substantial training programme for new officers? Currently the training time for new officers is around eight weeks, whereas in Norway the training lasts for three years, to degree level with a heavy emphasis on social work. That’s why I suggest further that Norway has one of the lowest reoffending rates in Europe as opposed to ours, which is among the highest. “I think it’s a very interesting model. Obviously the scale that they have is different from ours. (With a population of 4m, Norway has around 4,000 people in prison). But I think there are parallels. What I would say is I think that I want to get a balance here. Obviously I take your point about skilling up and equipping up. I want to enhance the professionalisation, not just of prison officers but also probation officers – because they’re even more forgotten. Prison officers are forgotten public servants and I think probation officers are too.”

Jailcraft

The public are rarely given insights into the work of prison officers, I say. “Exactly. Many probably think of MacKay and Fletcher in ‘Porridge’ (1970s sit-com set in fictional Slade prison) instead of the modern work they have to do, the sophisticated range of skills they have to have. I wouldn’t want a system whereby we were delaying the entry and progress of getting prison officers into the service because of a degree requirement. But opening up those opportunities in work I think could really benefit, so that there is a career progression path – a sense that prison officers who want to progress through the system have goals to aim for, so that we are enhancing and increasing their sense of ‘jailcraft.’” It has to be that prison officers who feel good about what they do, the more likely that they will have a more positive impact on the people they are in charge of? “We call it jailcraft. And I get the concept of jailcraft, it’s something that is a skill prison officers demonstrate every day. It’s awful that we have too many incidences of violence against prison officers. It’s unacceptable. But I tell you, I think they do so much work to avert many of the problems from developing and of course so much support.” But you did lose many experienced officers after the budget cuts over the last few years and many of the new young officers have struggled through the lack of guidance and support experienced officers were able to give. “I think with inexperienced officers it does bring challenges. I would say this – I think having a new cohort in also helps create a fresh outlook. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I found that in the Unlocked Graduate scheme you get this sort of freshness, which I think is welcome. It injects even more energy into the system. I think that is a good thing for fellow officers and also for prisoners.”

IPPs

Has he been into his local prison, Erlestoke? “I’ve not been into Erlestoke yet. I was in Bullingdon the other day, which is one of my locals, some of the cluster in Buckinghamshire – then I was over in Leyhill and Eastwood Park, Exeter, Dartmoor. I’ve been up to Manchester, so I’m getting around.” I then asked him about the thorny issue of IPPs. Isn’t it wrong that so many who are serving this redundant sentence are stuck in limbo years after their minimum term has expired? Are there any plans for IPPs? “For those cases, and there are a number of them, I’ve also got a number of IPPers who are in, and rightly so. I’ve got two and a half thousand now, that’s reduced from five, six thousand only a few years ago, I’ve got another thousand on recall. So my view is this, what we have to do is work within the system to actually make sure that, frankly, prisoners who should be applying (for parole) are applying, and are in a better position to make those applications – either for recategorization within the estate, or release. Because there is no doubt in my mind that I’ve seen a number of IPPs who have gone down to ‘D’ and they’re not coping that well – back into the secure estate and they’re bouncing around. I understand, I get the frustration. On the other hand there are a number of prisoners on IPP who nowadays would probably have had an Extended Determinate Sentence (EDS), which may well mean a longer period inside, or might have had a Discretionary Life Sentence for example. My difficulty is if I start chopping and changing the law for this cohort, I’m worried about the unintended consequences that that might mean for the system, because as a principle we don’t legislate retrospectively when it comes to criminal sentencing. Because if you start doing that, you’re interfering with the judicial process, you’re really allowing the Executive to put it’s own view in substitution to that of the judiciary. And I think therefore we have to be very careful.”

Embarrassing

But it is embarrassing surely that we have people in prison on a sentence that has been abolished and that the European Court of Human Rights ruled was ‘unlawful’ over six years ago? “I was on the Bill Committee that abolished IPPs, you know I’ve worked with the system, and represented prisoners who have had IPPs. I always thought it was a bizarre concept. It was proved to be bizarre, unreliable – not just for the prisoners, but also the victims, because there was no fixed release date – no concept for eligibility for parole at a particular date, which actually would be better for victims to come to terms with. What we couldn’t do, as a matter of principle, was suddenly then just apply retrospectively [different sentences], because as a concept that does create problems down the line. So what else could be done for IPPs? Could the test for parole be changed? Again we have to be very careful about that, because if we change the test, what about the test for other types of prisoners? This is not something that is straightforward or curable with a stroke of a pen I’m afraid. So what we have to do is redouble our efforts. I am thinking about it a lot. My thinking is that if people are given support that is needed to ensure they get through the drugs problem or whatever it might be that is preventing their eligibility for parole, then that’s what we need to be doing.”

Parkrunning

A keen runner, Buckland recently took part in the increasingly popular fitness craze of Parkrun which took place in his constituency of Swindon. The activity is spreading throughout the prison system. Does he have any plans to perhaps join in a prison Parkrun? “I’d love to,” he says. “We were thinking about doing it this month, but various things have intervened.” That would be one way of showing your commitment to improving the system, I say. “That is the plan and my private office is going to come and run with me because I’ve quite a few keen runners in my private office, so we’ll come together, though I’ll slow them down, because I’m built for comfort not for speed.”

We’ll have to wait and see if he makes it now he’s been promoted to the top justice job. I hope he does. It would be a powerful demonstration of his commitment to change the negative culture that has pervaded our prison’s wings and landings.

Justice Secretary Buckland’s ‘Keeping Safe’ message

I am really concerned about the rise in the levels of self-harm in recent years and the number of self-inflicted deaths in our prisons, and the Ministry of Justice and Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service are working hard to address this. We are currently updating the ACCT process to ensure that anyone on an open ACCT gets the individualised care they need from all of the relevant teams across the prison. We are also increasing opportunities for friends and family to be involved in this care. We are rolling out a keyworker programme, which means that you will have a particular prison officer who will meet with you 1:1 regularly, and provide you with information and support. This could give you an opportunity to talk through things that are concerning you, so your keyworker can help to find a solution. We are currently partnered with the Samaritans, who deliver the Listeners scheme, and they are testing new ways to support anyone in prison following a serious incident. There is still much to do, however, and we will continue to prioritise improving safety. If you have been affected by any of the topics covered in this interview, speak to a member of staff, a Listener or call the Samaritans.

An independent monitoring board report of HMP Isle of Wight – has identified 8 areas of recent improvement, but a number of concerns have been raised about the prison.

In their report, the IMB acknowledges and welcomes improvements in a number of significant areas affecting the daily life of prisoners. The report, which has been released today (Friday), covers 1st January – 31st December 2018.

The 29-page document highlights the following improvements:

• An increase in the frequency of Equalities meetings in the last quarter of 2018

• A substantial decrease in Indeterminate sentence for Public Protection (IPP) prisoners

• Improved communication through ‘You said’ and ‘What we did’ notifications

• An improvement and continuity developments to the complaints process

• The development and commitment to key working

• Significant improvements in the managing of the Segregation and Reintegration Unit (SARU)

• Improved performance in Reception

• Team working between Psychology and Mental Health

The positive improvements within the establishment are demonstrated by the numbers of staff nominated, runners up and winners of the Prison Officer of the Year and Long Term High Security awards.

However, a number of concerns have been identified by the Board. Concerns include:

• The lack of a toenail cutting service for elderly and disabled prisoners

• Access to the prison library for disabled prisoners

• The need for more employment which is of a meaningful nature to ensure prisoners achieve usable skills demonstrated by qualifications for eventual release

• The rising number of applications with regard to prisoners’ property, which creates anxiety and frustration

• Availability of appropriate and professional mental health awareness training for staff particularly in view of the number of new officers joining the service

• Prisoners with special needs e.g. ASD are not identified

• Lack of training for ‘Buddies’

• A lack of ownership of the prisoner support plans limited reviews undertaken

• Insufficient adequate safeguarding training not planned until middle 2019

• No agreed MOU in place regarding Social Care with the local council (still in draft from 2015)

• Over the last year there have been numerous wing closures at weekends, which affect access to the Gym for workers. For example, in Parkhurst in October/November 2018 there were closures on 4 out of 5 consecutive weekends this particularly disadvantages working prisoners, which was raised in the boards annual report in 2017

• The laundry had experienced significant problems over a lengthy period of time which resulted in laundry being sent elsewhere to be processed or not being washed at the regulation temperature

• Lack of funding to improve the visitors area in Albany

The report reveals that a total of 92 cells are out of action at Albany prison due to a serious fire in 2015. This has led to 202 complaints in 2018 about overcrowded cells, something which should be resolved following the restoration of House Block 15 in 2019.

Chair Linda Johnson has said:

“To improve the overall safety of prisoners with complex needs, (CSIP) was introduced towards the end of the year. This was urgently required as there was a significant increase of 26% self harm incidents during 2018.

“The Board continues to be concerned regarding the prison’s elderly and disabled prisoners, who are disadvantaged due to the age and structure of the establishment, together with the lack of funding for much-needed alterations to provide an appropriate physical environment”.

Statistics

HMP Isle of Wight is a category B male training prison with an average population of approximately 1,080 prisoners. Over 50% of the prisoners are over 50, with 96 prisoners aged between 70 – 91. Over 98% are sex offenders with 101 serving life sentences, 61 with an Indeterminate sentence for Public Protection (IPP); the remainder are determinate sentences, mostly of 4 years or more together, with a few remand prisoners from the local Isle of Wight Courts.

The average age of prisoners at HMP IOW is now over 50 years, which accounts for over 50% of the population (43% in 2017) – 1 of the prisoners is aged in their 90s. This figure is said to be significantly affected by convictions for historic sex offences.

There were a total of 9 deaths in HMP IOW in 2018, 7 natural deaths and 2 suspected self-inflicted.

Figures show that in 2018 there was a 13.5% increase in staff assaults (65 v 59) and prisoner on prisoner assaults rose from 122 to 124. Furthermore, between 2017 and 2018 there was an increase in self harm incidents of 26% – from 535 to 656 – but that increase is significantly less than the 88% rise between 2016 and 2017.

There were 33 prisoners due for release in 2018; 21 were released from the gates of HMP Isle of Wight, 2 were sent for deportation from the Island and 10 were transferred out for local release.

The Prison Act 1952 requires every prison to be monitored by an independent Board appointed by the Secretary of State from members of the community in which the prison or centre is situated.

To enable the Board to carry out these duties effectively, its members have right of access to every prisoner and every part of the prison and also to the prison’s records.

This Transforming Rehabilitation Resource Pack is continuously updated with key policy announcements, results, inspections etc. TR started in 2014, the CRC contracts were cut short in July 2018 and offender management was returned to the National Probation Service in May 2019.

Origins

Transforming Rehabilitation was the MoJ’s project for the biggest overhaul of probation since its origins in 1907. The MoJ published the original consultation paper: “Transforming Rehabilitation: A revolution in the way we manage offenders” in January 2013 before setting out a strategy in May of that year, describing the key components of TR as:

A new public sector National Probation Service will be created, working to protect the public and building upon the expertise and professionalism which are already in place.

For the first time in recent history, every offender released from custody will receive statutory supervision and rehabilitation in the community. We are legislating to extend this statutory supervision and rehabilitation to all 50,000 of the most prolific group of offenders – those sentenced to less than 12 months in custody.

A nationwide ‘through the prison gate’ resettlement service will be put in place, meaning most offenders are given continuous support by one provider from custody into the community. We will support this by ensuring that most offenders are held in a prison designated to their area for at least three months before release.

The market will be opened up to a diverse range of new rehabilitation providers, so that we get the best out of the public, voluntary and private sectors, at the local as well as national level.

New payment incentives for market providers to focus relentlessly on reforming offenders will be introduced, giving providers flexibility to do what works and freedom from bureaucracy, but only paying them in full for real reductions in reoffending.

As a result the probation service was split into the National Probation Service which serviced the courts and supervised all high risk offenders and 21 new, private Community Rehabilitation Companies who supervised medium and low risk offenders. The new providers started work in February 2015.

Problems

You can see a full timeline below which details a number of critical reports; the final blow was probably the Chief Inspector of Probation, Dame Glenys Stacey’s annual report published in December 2017 which concluded that:

TR was not working.

The Community Rehabilitation Companies in particular were under-funded.

Any probation system which does not guarantee consistency in offender manager-offender relationships is unlikely to work

Any model which abandons specialist interventions for offenders which have been proved to be effective is flawed.

Acknowledgement of problems

Justice Secretary David Gauke acknowledged these failings on 27 July 2018 and announced major changes including the cutting short by 14 months of the CRC contracts and a re-modeling of TR, although at this stage the MoJ remained committed to a split public/private system.

On the same day, the MoJ published a public consultation into the future of probation which ended on 21 September 2018.

Ongoing Crisis

On 15 February 2019, Working Links which operated three CRCs in the South-West and Wales went into administration, the same day that Probation Inspectors rated the service in Dorset, Devon & Cornwall as inadequate. Seetec, the company which runs the CRC in Kent, Surrey & Sussex took over responsibility.

On 15 March 2019, Interserve, which operated five CRCs under the Purple Futures brand, also went into administration. The company will be sold to its lenders and change name with the CRCs (and other businesses) continuing to operate, at least in the short term.

The number of critical reports continued:

The National Audit Office warned the government about continuing with a split system in their extremely critical progress review of TR published on 1 March 2019.

Chief Probation Inspector Dame Glenys Stacey annual report published on 28 March described TR as irredeemably flawed.

The Public Accounts Committee published a further progress review of TR on 3 May which found probation to be underfunded, fragile and to have lost the confidence of sentencers.

Reverse

On 16 May 2019, Justice Secretary David Gauke announced a major change in the TR model. The MoJ accepted that the split private/public model was not working and announced that all offender management work would be returned to the public sector National Probation Service. Under the revised model, each of the eleven NPS regions in England and Wales will have a dedicated, private or voluntary sector ‘Innovation Partner’ – responsible for direct provision of unpaid work and accredited programmes. The MoJ also announced that the new model will give local criminal justice partners a direct role in commissioning services together with the NPS.

It took the Ministry a long time to come to this decision and it is clear that there remain many details to be worked out. No new target operating model was published published alongside the announcement and the MoJ has provided only a little additional information about what happens next

The Ministry of Justice will now run a period of market and stakeholder engagement to finalise these proposals, including on how services will be tendered to providers.

A commercial competition will launch later this year for providers to bid for to source the necessary rehabilitative services.

Offender management in Wales will be integrated on a quicker timescale, by the end of 2019.

Three launch events to discuss the reforms in more depth will be held week commencing 27th May in London, Cardiff and Manchester and will be open to stakeholders.

Consultation on Next Stage

The MoJ still intends to base the new model, at least partly, on its formal consultation issued in July 2018 and the response to it. From the end of May 2019 it is holding a number of market engagement events whose details you can find here.

The events are a combination of face-to-face presentations around the country and online webinars and include:

Dynamic Framework design

Dynamic Framework payment and performance

Dynamic Framework commercial design

Dynamic Framework Day One services

The MoJ is publishing slides from these events as they proceed. The following slides have already been published:

The proposed future model for probation

On 14 June 2019, HMPPS published more information on the next iteration of the “probation reform programme” with a document entitled: The Proposed Future Model for Probation: A Draft Operating Blueprint.

The Blueprint sets out more detail on what the probation system will look like once CRC contracts come to an end in Spring 2021 and it builds on the proposals set out in the consultation response. HMPPS says the model in the Blueprint will be further refined over the next few months.

The summary included in the blueprint pretty much replicates the Justice Secretary’s announcement of last month:

Responsibility for offender management returns to the NPS.

There will be eleven NPS regions in England and one region in Wales, each to be overseen by a regional probation director. (Originally the plan was to have 10 English regions but after the publication of the blueprint teh MoJ & HMPPS announced that Greater Manchester will form a standalone probation area alongside a revised North West area made up of Cheshire, Merseyside, Cumbria and Lancashire.)

There will be new national standards for offender management which focus on the importance of the quality of offender engagement and the form and frequency of contact with offenders, along with clear frameworks for staffing ratios and caseloads.

NPS staff will be responsible for co-ordinating resettlement.

There will still be considerable outsourcing with Unpaid Work and Accredited Programmes tendered out on a regional basis to “Innovation Partners” and resettlement and other (non-accredited) interventions commissioned by a new “Dynamic Framework”.

HMPPS is also committed to new legislation to recognise probation work as a professional vocation with a regulatory framework.

The blueprint also pledges new performances measures for both the NPS and new private/voluntary sector providers.

Finally, there is a commitment to a better IT system.

Earlier this month (3 April 2019) Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) published its new Prison Drugs Strategy which has been developed to support and complement the main government Drug Strategy published in 2017 and is centred around the same three objectives of restricting supply, reducing demand building recovery. The prison drug strategy adopts a “5P” approach with each of the three objectives focusing on five key areas:

People – that prisons have the right staff, with appropriate skills and support
Procedural – that prison processes are clear, fair and effective
Physical – that prison conditions are safe, clean, decent and promote well-being and recovery
Population – that prisoners have positive relationships and engage in constructive activities
Partnership – that all the organisations contributing to achieving our aims work together effectively

Two weeks ago, I looked at the strategy’s first objective: restricting supply, last week’s post focused on the second: reducing demand for drugs in prison, this post looks at the final objective, building recovery.

Building recovery

As has been the case with so many things over the last decade, the resources for drug treatment in prison have been cut. Nevertheless, there are a number of initiatives trying to improve treatment inside, driven by last year’s NHS England’s new Service Specification for Integrated Substance Misuse Treatment Services in prisons which aim to bring greater focus to treatment of prisoners using NPS as well as those dependent on heroin and/or cocaine.
The strategy acknowledges that different drugs are more popular with different groups of prisoners in different prisons and that prison governors will need to design their substance misuse treatment to meet local needs.
The strategy also highlights the growing abuse of prescription and pharmacy drugs and sets out new approaches to ensure that this medication doesn’t get diverted into recreational use.
Finally, the strategy raises the very long-standing problem that although large numbers of prisoners do take the opportunity that being in prison provides to tackle their dependence on drugs, less than a third of these continue their treatment on release. The strategy sets out a plan to try and improve continuity of care.
The main activities set out in the strategy to build recovery are summarised in the graphic below.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/judicial-conduct-and-complaints.html)

http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/PressPolicy/News/IPPs

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/805271/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-q4-2018.pdf

https://insidetime.org/adjudication-for-a-failed-mandatory-drug-test/

https://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/sites/default/files/in_the_dark.pdf

https://www.justice.gov.uk/offenders/psos

https://www.justice.gov.uk/offenders/probation-instructions

http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Bromley%20Briefings/Prison%20the%20facts%20Summer%202019.pdf

https://www.choiceforum.org/docs/noms.pdf

The independent review of the Mental Health 2018

Acthttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/703919/The_independent_Mental_Health_Act_review__interim_report_01_05_2018.pdf?_ga=2.104197952.1366448145.1566741599-2083423716.156424903

Samaritans.https://insidetime.org/opening-shots/

http://www.russellwebster.com/transforming-rehabilitation-resource-pack/

http://www.russellwebster.com/pds193/?utm_source=ReviveOldPost&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ReviveOldPost

https://www.islandecho.co.uk/hmp-isle-of-wight-improvements-and-concerns-highlighted-by-new-report/

www.Russellwebster/raynurskills/

https://theworldnews.net/gb-news/trapped-scotswood-prisoner-danny-weatherson-gets-support-from-ex-con-turned-youtube-activist-as-he-fights-prison-release

IPP Prisoners Familys Campaign

Total Pageviews

Monday, 16 September 2019

Those given IPP setence, the shocking Death toll is a National Scandal.

The Controversial IPP sentence based on proving risk impossible in a problematic process .

On Wednesday 28th August we had a meeting with the CEO of the Parole Board Martin Jones.

Lobby G:roup: Katherine Gleeson, Jeremy Own, Ann Horton, Alana Bell.

IPP families submitted a document outlining, the main issues as summarised

Document

Supervision skills

Skills, personal attributes and values

Conclusion

'Trapped' Scotswood prisoner Danny Weatherson gets support from ex-con turned YouTube activist as he fights prison release

Former Justice Secretary Elizabeth Truss said on IPP sentencing:

Statistics

Origins

Problems

Acknowledgement of problems

Ongoing Crisis

Reverse

Consultation on Next Stage

The proposed future model for probation

Building recovery

Pages

End the MentaLTorture