Total Pageviews

Monday, 6 March 2017

After holding IPP prisoners some 5-10 over tariff long enough to be satisfied risk is manageable it should straight release and not open for chat. Any mental health that was not there before is a direct result of been imprisoned illegally.


28 February 2017

National Audit Office investigation into the Parole Board backlog

The National Audit Office (NAO) today published a report acknowledging the challenges faced by the Board and the progress being made.
The Chair of the Parole Board, Professor Nick Hardwick, has welcomed the publication of the National Audit Office’s findings following its investigation into the work of the Parole Board.
He said: “I am pleased the NAO has recognised the huge challenges the Parole Board faced as it dealt with more cases and more oral hearings with fewer Parole Board members. As a result, the backlog of outstanding cases grew, with unacceptable delays for victims and prisoners. Given the scale of the challenge it has taken time to put things right.
I am pleased the NAO recognises the progress we have made. We have a new strategy, have recruited over a 100 new members and our backlogs are down by over a third. There is more to do and the NAO report helpfully highlights a number of areas for us to focus on. I am confident we will continue to make progress whilst making sure that in each of the approximately 7,000 cases we decide every year we protect the public whilst treating prisoners fairly.”
Martin Jones, Chief Executive said:
“I welcome this report, as a timely examination of the challenges facing the parole system. In recent years there has been a substantial increase in the number of cases needing to be heard by the Parole Board and this has led to excessive, often unacceptable delays. We are now making steady progress in reducing those delays and are committed to ensuring that we deal with all cases fairly and in a timely fashion, whilst ensuring the protection of the public; but there remains more to do.
The appointment of new members, who are now starting to sit on hearings, will enable us to sustain our good progress in bringing the backlog down. Also, our digital project which aims to have paperless hearings by October, is helping to make the Parole Board run more efficiently. The majority of our members have transitioned from paper to digital working, saving the Board time and money. The backlog at present is 2,030 cases, down over a third from its high point of 3,163 cases in 2015, and we are on track to eradicate the delays by the end of the year.”

Notes to Editors

A full copy of the National Audit Office’s investigation report (HC 19/2016-17) is available on the NAO website at www.nao.org.uk
The Parole Board Strategy 2016-2020 is available on the Parole Board web pages at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/parole-board
The Parole Board is an independent body that works with its criminal justice partners to protect the public by risk assessing prisoners to decide whether they can safely be released into the community. The Board has responsibility for considering life sentence prisoners (mandatory life, discretionary life and automatic life sentence prisoners and Her Majesty’s Pleasure detainees; and prisoners given indeterminate sentences for public protection); and determinate sentence cases (discretionary conditional release prisoners serving more than 4 years whose offence was committed before 4 April 2005; prisoners given extended sentences for public protection for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005; and prisoners given an Extended Determinate Sentence or Sentence of Particular Concern after 3 December 2012). The Board considers initial release into the community and re-release following a recall to prison.

The National Audit Office has today published the findings from its investigation into the Parole Board (The Board).

The Board is responsible for deciding whether prisoners can be safely released from prison and advising on movement between closed and open prisons across England and Wales. The NAO examined the Board in 2008 and made a number of recommendations to improve efficiency, in particular to address a backlog of outstanding cases. A Supreme Court ruling in 2013 (The Osborn ruling) broadened the circumstances in which the law requires the Board to hold an oral hearing. This led to an increase demand for oral hearings by the Board. The number of outstanding parole cases increased sharply, leading to increased delays and additional costs.
The key findings of the investigation are as follows:
       The Osborn ruling in October 2013 had an immediate impact on the demand for oral hearings conducted by the Board. There were 6,872 oral hearings conducted by the Board in 2014-15, an increase of 48% in comparison to 4,628 in 2012-13. Hearings increased to a high of 7,148 in 2015-16.
       The number of outstanding cases increased by more than 140% following the Osborn ruling. The Board had a backlog of cases for several years, but the number of outstanding cases increased by 143% from October 2013 to a peak of 3,163 in January 2015. Of the 2,117 oral cases outstanding in September 2016, 13% were more than a year past their target date for a hearing. A further 16% were more than six months past their target date.
       The Board’s ability to reduce the number of outstanding cases is limited by the number of cases it is able to list in any month. For example, the Board listed 701 cases for oral hearings in September 2016, while the queue of cases waiting for a hearing date was 1,257. Once listed, 34% oral hearings were deferred, and more than half of these (21%) were deferred or adjourned on the day of the hearing.
  
       The increase in demand for oral hearings has meant that older and more complex cases have been less likely to be heard. In 2015-16, 64% of cases were provided with an oral hearing date within 90 days of being ready to list, against a 90% target. The oldest of the outstanding cases in September 2016 had an original target date in 2009, with another 404 cases having target dates in 2015 or earlier.
      
       At December 2016, 3,081 prisoners on indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for public protection (IPPs) were in prison beyond their tariff expiry date. IPP prisoners make up around half of the cases waiting more than 90 days for a hearing. Of the 3,683 IPP prisoners still in custody in December 2016, 84% (3,081) were beyond their tariff expiry date. Of these, 48% had been in prison five or more years beyond their tariff and 11% were eight years or more beyond their tariff. In July 2016, the Board announced its intention to reduce the number of IPP prisoners in prison to 1,500 by 2020.
      
       The Board has paid £1.1 million in compensation claims to prisoners since 2011-12 as a result of delayed hearings, with £554,000 paid out in 2015-16. The backlog means some prisoners may have spent longer in prison than needed. Spending on member fees increased by 43% from £4.7 million in 2010-11 to £6.7 million in 2015-16.
     
        In October 2015, the Board set a target to reduce outstanding cases to 1,200 by April 2017, but this level of outstanding cases does not reflect efficiencies it has made since 2013. In June 2016, the Board moved the date to achieve this target to the end of 2017, and has so far not set out what it expects the level of outstanding cases to be after this.
       Under its new chair and chief executive, the Board launched a strategy to tackle the backlog in September 2016. The strategy includes aims to prioritise the safe release of IPP prisoners and to improve workflow by listing as many cases as possible and reducing unnecessary deferrals and adjournments.
      
       In 2016, the Ministry of Justice, on behalf of the Board, launched a major member recruitment exercise for the first time in four years. The Ministry did not recruit new members between 2012 and 2016, and member numbers fell 23% between 2010-11 (284) and 2015-16 (218). In 2016 it recruited 104 members, around half starting in 2016-17 and the remainder in 2017-18.
 
 

               


 

The Full Report
Summery/Key Findings

 

 

 


Parole Board Quarterly Performance Report

 
From: Parole Board
Part of: Justice system transparency
First published:17 February 2017


The Parole Board is committed to keeping stakeholders informed of our work and progress towards achieving our objectives. As part of this openness we will publish our quarterly performance report which is produced for the Board’s Management Committee. This report represents a summary of Parole Board operational performance in all its key areas of external delivery and internal management. It provides a snapshot of that period which is used to advise and guide on performance and executive decision making.
 
The data in this pack shows the large volume of business being processed by the Board, and how that business feeds into hearing demand and outcomes. The number of cases outstanding is now falling on a consistent trajectory and it is hoped the Board will make further significant progress during the rest of the year as we aim to increase the number of hearings held to 750-800 a month.
 
Based on the year so far, the Board can be confident that by the end of this year we will yet again have completed more oral hearings than ever before and, as the backlog clears, will safely release more people. The deferral rate of hearings remains a concern despite falling over the last few years, as it remains at a high level. We are considering what further steps can be taken to tackle these problems by sharing the reasons for deferrals with the Public Protection Casework team within NOMS (National Offender Management Service) and the National Probation Service.
 
The below information is intended to aid understanding of the attached performance report, which covers quarter two of 2016/2017 (July - September):
  1. Paper Hearings - MCA assessments This graph shows the outcomes from all paper based hearings on a 12 month rolling basis. All cases, irrespective of sentence type or review category are assessed on the papers in the first instance through the Member Case Assessment (MCA) process.
    There are a number of outcomes possible at the MCA stage, depending on the sentence type: no release, direct to oral hearing, release, defer.
  2. Listing Queue for oral hearings This graph shows the queue of cases deemed ready to be considered at oral hearing and currently waiting to be allocated a confirmed date. The graph additionally records those cases that have been waiting more than 90 days for a confirmed oral hearing date, including a figure specifically for IPP cases. This highlights the capacity constraints across the system to list all those cases that are ready to be heard.
  3. Oral Hearings Outcomes and Release Rate This graph shows the outcomes from all oral hearings on a 12 month rolling basis. In addition it shows the conduction rate (cases that do actually progress to on the day against the original number of cases listed) and completion rate, i.e. those cases that are concluded on the day. The release rate is also captured in the smaller chart.
  4. Deferrals These graphs show the number of cases which are deferred on the day for each month in a 12 month rolling period and also by quarter since 2013. Identifying and mitigating against deferrals is a key aim to contribute to reducing the backlog.
  5. Generic Parole Process - Cases Outstanding This graph shows the volume of Generic Parole Process cases that are outstanding in a 12 month rolling period (it does not include recall cases) Case outstanding is defined as all cases referred to the Parole Board for a GPP review, where the original target date to conclude the review has now passed but the review is still ongoing, and as such overdue. A case may be outstanding for a variety of reasons including complexity of the case, case readiness, justified and reasonable deferral or because of an inability of the Board to list the case.
    This is a key metric for the Parole Board and reducing this number down to pre-Osborn figures of around 1200 by the end of 2017 is a core focus of our strategy.

 

 
 
To: Elizabeth Truss - Secretary of State for Justice. Release the Remaining IPP Prisoners
 
 
 
Petition Elizabeth Truss to use her powers of executive clemency in the cases of 500 IPP https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/173105
 
 
Charity Said to be  an award-winning  supporting  Ex Offenders  into sustainable employment.
If you are an employer interested in giving skilled ex-offenders an opportunity or a charity already working in this area, please send us an email to info@theexceptionals.co.uk and we will contact you..
http://theexceptionals.org/blog/tempus-novo?platform=hootsuite


Pas, Is a charity providing free legal advice and representation to prisoners, regardless of their means.
A guide for professions and organisations working with young people to raise awareness of the impact on mental health of the imprisonment of a parent or close family member .
https://app.pelorous.com/media_manager/public/209/Documents/APOF/APOF%20Parental%20imprisonment%20and%20CYP%20mental%20health%20Jan%202017.pdf



Comments  

 I have just found your site last Saturday my brother craig   took his life at hmp leeholme craig was serving a ipp with a 2 year 4 month tariff he is on was 8 years with still no release date for a fight with another man that would have been justified with a fine.

 

 

Re Tweet Parole Board  Chair and Chief Executive to discuss how victims can be supported in parole hearings.

Re Tweet Ian Bickers Tweeted  Feb26 Satisfying to represent an IPP prisoner who progressed from b conditions to get a release decision this week. 

Re Tweet Lee Temps     Early intervention by working with families is such a positive thing We all want the same thing Rehabilitation
       
 

Re Tweet        
IPP Prisoners Familys Campaign: Court of Appeal to hear charities’ challenge LEGAL AID
 









 


 
 

 

 
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, 2 March 2017

How many times have IPP prisoners or life-sentenced prisoners heard the justification for parole refusal; ‘We have seen no progress demonstrating a significant improvement in behaviour’? So, if you behave throughout your sentence, complete all recommended OBPs, you still face parole refusal because the psychologist departments have no benchmarks


Many psychologists (and those that wish to minimise their own culpability) have a tendency to link adult behaviours to those experienced as a child. They use the reasoning that learned behaviour, or transference, impacts the development of emotional reasoning and cognitive decision-making as an adult; if the child is exposed to poor or socially unaccepted parenting.

You can’t blame the psychologists or psychiatrists though! They are taught archaic theories and perspectives from practitioners of a different (outlived) era. For any argument to be fully and widely accepted, there must be contra-data to compare and contrast proposed theories. However, there have been very few studies examining an opposing theory that may state that parenting or childhood experiences have little or no impact on cognitive reasoning as an adult.

” We are in a spiral of depravity caused by a change of accepted behaviours of our time; in comparison to those exhibited 30 years ago “

Has growing up with Punch & Judy shows, in which Mr Punch is often depicted as a violent wife-beating angry man, created a generation of chauvinistic domestic abusers? Has growing up with Grand Theft Auto created a generation of gun-toting, prostitute-murdering people? The answer to the above is a resounding NO.

Psychologists would agree that behaviours of today have evolved (or maybe devolved) into a more degenerative social status, or that we are in a spiral of depravity caused by a change of accepted behaviours of our time; in comparison to those exhibited 30 years ago. Whilst this might be true of some aspects of socially unacceptable behaviour; for the majority, this is a heavily diluted claim.

In the last 30 years, life in general has evolved. The way in which we communicate with each other, the way in which we share information, the way in which family, marriage or religion is viewed or practised has changed radically. The cultural diversity experienced in every country has changed, as has the role of the sexes. This multitude of influences has completely altered the social acceptance of today; it has radically changed the education system and the criminal justice system. It continually impacts on governmental policy-making and media focus. So why hasn’t it impacted on the psychological perspectives of those charged with this area of expertise?

Advice commonly given to those serving IPP or life sentence prisoners is that for the first couple of years, create problems and get in trouble, why? This seems counter-productive, does it not? Well, this is so the psychology department can justify their existence.

How many times have IPP prisoners or life-sentenced prisoners heard the justification for parole refusal; ‘We have seen no progress demonstrating a significant improvement in behaviour’? So, if you behave throughout your sentence, complete all recommended OBPs, you still face parole refusal because the psychologist departments have no benchmarks.
 
More than £1m has been paid out in compensation in the last five years after a backlog of parole hearings meant they were kept in prison for too long. A report published today reveals a growing number of outstanding parole hearings waiting to be heard nationwide, as a result of a 2013 Supreme Court ruling.It means the amount paid out to prisoners kept in jail longer than necessary has risen sharply, with last year’s total of £554,000 bringing the figure for compensation to £1.1m since 2011-12. More than 450 compensation claims were made in 2015/16, with inmates able to claim as much as £650 for every extra month spent in prison. window.
 According to the National Audit Office, half of the inmates left waiting for hearings for more than 90 days  whome were given an  (IPP) sentences or other .IPPs were created by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and used from April 2005.
The offender serves a set number of years in prison followed by an indefinite period where they can only be released if the parole board no longer considers them a risk. But over six months last year, nearly 400 such cases were delayed by more than a year before a parole hearing was completed. Though IPP sentences were scrapped in 2012, as of last year around 4,000 IPP prisoners were still in the system, with around three-quarters having already served their minimum term.
It was claimed last year that convicts serving IPP sentences are turning to self-harm as they see no end to their detention.
 And in 2014, it was suggested that the high proportion of IPP inmates at HMP Hatfield in South Yorkshire was contributing to a spate of escape bids by inmates.
The National Audit Office said in its report: “Since 2011-12, the Board has paid out £1.1 million in compensation as a result of delays in hearings.“In 2015-16, prisoners were paid £554,000 in compensation for delayed hearings. This had increased from £87,000 in 2012-13.“As the board attempts to reduce the backlog of outstanding cases, it will crystallise its liability for an increased number of potential compensation claims, and compensation costs may increase.”The backlog developed because of a court case known as the ‘Osborn ruling’ in 2013, which increased the likelihood of longer and more expensive oral, rather than paper, hearings being held for prisoners.
This meant that the number of oral hearings carried out by the Parole Board increased from 4,628 in 2012-13 to 6,872 in 2014-15. At its peak in January 2015, there were more than 3,000 outstanding cases. The Parole Board, which is responsible for assessing the risk inmates pose to the community, wants to cut the number of serving IPP prisoners to 1,500 by 2020 and the overall number of outstanding cases to 1,200 by the end of this year.It launched a strategy to tackle the backlog last year and has developed a new system which has allowed it to process an average of 170 more cases each month.


The Chair of the Parole Board, Professor Nick Hardwick, said: “I am pleased the NAO has recognised the huge challenges the Parole Board faced as it dealt with more cases and more oral hearings with fewer Parole Board members. “As a result, the backlog of outstanding cases grew, with unacceptable delays for victims and prisoners. Given the scale of the challenge it has taken time to put things right.“I am pleased the NAO recognises the progress we have made. We have a new strategy, have recruited over a 100 new members and our backlogs are down by over a third.“There is more to do and the NAO report helpfully highlights a number of areas for us to focus on. I am confident we will continue to make progress whilst making sure that in each of the approximately 7,000 cases .


Prison creates an abnormal environment; continued frustration, repressed violence, peaks and troughs of depression and acceptance, exposure to addictions and differing criminality. This environment is unique to prison and yet psychologists determine and measure criminogenic factors of an individual whilst they are enveloped in this pseudo-environment. The behaviours, communications, attitudes and emotions of an individual are all influenced by environment and yet prison psychologists base their measurements and prognosis’ on what they see in front of them. They themselves do not live in this environment and are not exposed to the variance in behavioural attrition and can therefore, never fully appreciate the exposure of the melting pot of behaviours rife within prison.

I can explain the function and performance of the internal combustion engine, but having never seen one, I could never hope to fix one. Psychologists are exactly the same. You can read a hundred books and still never be able to understand what it is like to be a serving prisoner. Using that analogy, what qualifies psychologists within the prison system to determine whether a prisoner is fit for release/recategorisation?

In any commercial environment, a manager of people MUST have experienced the role of the people they expect to manage. Qualifications mean very little when compared to actual experience and success. So, why then do prison psychologists feel they shouldn’t have to conform to this internationally recognised blueprint.

Inside times
About the Author
 
Grant Stanley BSc (Hons) MA -

 
 

About a month back the  Sun Newspaper wrote an article on IPP prisoners the article lacked fairness, balance, facts and natural justice.

Once more the sun News paper are up to there old tricks. They had to find a story to sell papers and doing what they do best  Scare monger as if the government don't know what they are doing.Is it not enough that we had 16 young IPP prisoners   deaths because they got trapped in a system  no fault of there own, they have gone through enough but they want more blood.
In response  I feel there objective is to attempt to undo what the government are achieving alongside Lis Truss. My personal may be responsible for the article.
The sun have been accused of lying going on hunts and  tapping phones being a snap shot  They also where the  instigator that HIPED THIS SENTACED  through which not originally intended for  minor offences  .The Sun  hunt like the  clu clux clan hunting there  pray  like dogs after rabbits. scandalising tearing down foundations and lives  regardless if they have all the facts .Tarring all Those sentenced to an  IPP like the same brush which is incorrect .There has been enough deaths without the Sun drawing more blood. 

IPP  prisoners  have spent some 5- 10 years more in prison at no fault of there own though  they have finished there sentence they are no longer called criminal as they have served. if the sun got there facts correct    Numbers of ipps were given the sentence for not what is was orginaly attended for such as burglary, ABH  Arson …
For those the  IPP  sentence was originally  intended for is  what the parole board will have to deal with. It is very dangerous ground to call people up for the same when this is not the case in resulting in there hunt . I will never by the paper again, they don't seemed to of learned there lesson.


Read more at: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news1-1m-in-compensation-to-inmates-kept-in-prison-too-long-1-8412314

 

 
 
 
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)