We Reap What We Sow

This blog recently:-

Some excellent comments and pointers on the blog over the last couple of days however, the thread began with an analysis of the history and future of the PSR, once the mainstay of probation practice.

*****
I think it was Jim himself who commented that nobody is interested, and sad to say, I think he has been proved right.

*****
Because most staff don't recall what a PSR was. Times have moved on, that old practice long on the block now.

*****
They removed PSR’s from generic probation officer roles a few years back so they can give generic POs more cases. Just like they removed all the longer term custody cases to give more cases to decreasing community POs. Then they change the guidelines anytime Courts don’t have enough POs, forcing generic POs to complete PSRs. Just as they’re constantly changing OMiC rules to squeeze more capacity out of community POs. Can’t have it both ways and evidence of bad management overall by probation senior management teams. Many POs have never done PSR’s and nobody has time to. No surprise nobody is interested.

*****
"Because most staff don't recall what a PSR was. Times have moved on that old practice long on the block now." The NOMS/NPS/HMPPS strategy writ large... impose policy & change, get shot of those who criticise/question, replace them with a compliant new workforce & voila... "we are where we are, it is what it is, time to look forwards, one HMPPS, etc, etc"

******

"Because most staff don't recall what a PSR was. Times have moved on that old practice long on the block now." Lots of old practices are now long gone, and that's why the service isn't fit for purpose anymore. Maybe those that applaud the stripping out of the old practices would do well to remember what's happening under their watch.

--oo00oo--

HMI Justin Russell today:-

Too many at risk of domestic abuse by people on probation, HM Inspectorate of Probation finds

HM Inspectorate of Probation has published a report inspecting the work undertaken and progress made, by the Probation Service, to reduce domestic abuse and protect victims. The Inspectorate last looked at this area of probation practice in 2018.

Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell said: “Very concerningly, despite some positive developments in policy, little appears to have improved in practice, and in some respects, things have deteriorated. This is unacceptable and is leaving far too many potential victims at risk of domestic abuse.”

The inspection found:

• 30 per cent of people on probation are current or previous perpetrators of domestic abuse
• only 28 per cent of the of people on probation had been sufficiently assessed for any risks of further domestic abuse
• 45 per cent of our case sample should have had access to an intervention but had not.

Only 17 out of the 60 cases we looked at for this report had a sufficiently clear and thorough analysis of the risk of domestic abuse the person on probation might pose. We identified failures to analyse previous domestically abusive behaviours or patterns of behaviour. In some cases, there was a failure to recognise the offending as domestic abuse, mainly where the victim was a family member rather than an intimate partner.

Mr Russell continued: “Almost 75,000 people supervised by the Probation Service in or out of custody, have been identified as a current or former domestic abuse perpetrator, so it is essential that their risk is properly assessed and managed. Over the years, including in a number of very high-profile cases, we have flagged our concerns about the urgent need for the Probation Service to complete domestic abuse enquiries with the police before sentencing, or when undertaking initial risk assessments”.

“Sadly, we are still finding this is not happening in too many cases and even enquiries with local councils to ensure child safeguarding are not being completed. I have made many previous recommendations on how probation services should develop this practice, so it’s very disappointing not to see more improvement.”

A key finding of this report was that we found too many cases (45 per cent) where people on probation were assessed as needing an intervention related to domestic abuse – such as programmes to tackle abusive behaviour or attitudes and to encourage healthy relationships – but these weren’t being delivered. An additional issue is that there is insufficient national information and data about how many of these referrals are being made or completed, so the performance of these programmes cannot be evaluated.

Other factors included probation staff workloads. We found probation practitioners to be highly committed to improving this area of their service, but they have too many cases to manage to complete meaningful work. On too many occasions, we found contact with a person on probation at risk of further domestic violence was minimal and done via phone calls rather than by face-to-face meetings. However, where probation practitioners work with smaller caseloads, the quality of domestic abuse work is dramatically improved.

We also found that recent changes in legislation, such as the recognition of children affected by domestic abuse as victims in their own right, have not been incorporated into probation practice. And the sharing of information between services – probation, police and social services – was inconsistent at best.

Mr Russell concluded: “I had hoped that more progress would have been made to address the very serious need to improve probation practice around the risks of domestic abuse. Unfortunately, there has only been minimal positive change. I recognise that many in the Probation Service are doing all they can, with limited resource, to manage cases adequately, but there is a long way still to go. I call on HMPPS to take heed of our recommendations and address the vital improvements that are needed to assist services in their aims, to reduce the risk of further domestic abuse by people on probation for the protection of victims and potential victims.”

--oo00oo--

The full report can be found here. The following is from the Executive Summary:- 

Assessment and planning 

Many of our findings in this inspection mirror those in our recent core inspection programme. Too often, we found poor-quality risk assessments concerning domestic abuse that missed out on essential details or failed to provide a sufficient analysis of the case. Not enough use was made of information from other agencies or previous probation assessments, even though over half of our sample had been identified as being at risk of domestic abuse for more than four years. We concluded that only 28 per cent of assessments in our sample provided a sufficiently clear and thorough analysis of the risks of domestic abuse. While the volume of completions of the SARA has increased, they often lacked sufficient analysis to provide a meaningful assessment of the likelihood of further domestically abusive behaviour. Probation practitioners do not value the tool, and as it sits outside the primary offender assessment system (OASys) risk and needs assessment tool, it is not seen as a priority. Yet, the SARA is a key determining factor in access to domestic abuse interventions; if not completed accurately, it can lead to inappropriate intervention referrals. 

Pre-release work to address domestic abuse issues was only sufficient in half of the licence cases we inspected. In two-thirds of cases, there were appropriate licence conditions in place to manage the risks of domestic abuse. In almost three-quarters of cases where it was necessary, planning set out restrictions and measures to protect victims, such as restraining orders; however, constructive activities to address domestic abuse were included less often. Contingency planning was sufficient in less than half of the cases we inspected. Overall, we concluded that planning sufficiently addressed the risks of domestic abuse in only 37 per cent of cases. 

High-quality sentence management relies on effective information sharing with other agencies, such as the police and children’s social care services. Unfortunately, in too many cases where it was necessary, there had not been appropriate information sharing with other agencies involved in managing the risks of domestic abuse. Nevertheless, some probation areas have developed impressive arrangements with local forces, allowing them to receive daily information about incidents or arrests for people on their caseload, which allowed practitioners to make informed decisions about case management. 

Sentence and intervention delivery 

Some PDUs were experiencing significant staffing shortages; in one PDU, they had only half of the practitioner-grade staff they should have had. As a result, there were nationally agreed arrangements in place to manage resources, but these were having a negative impact on the quality of sentence management. For example, people on probation were seen too infrequently, and too many appointments offered no meaningful intervention to reduce the risks of further domestic abuse. Overall, we concluded that the implementation and delivery of sentences managed the risks of domestic abuse effectively in only 27 per cent of the cases we inspected. Too few enquiries had been made with children’s social care services and the police to inform sentence management, leading to gaps in the practitioner’s knowledge about the risks in the case. In cases where information had been gathered, it was not analysed or used sufficiently to inform case management. Many probation practitioners knew little about specialist domestic abuse services that could support them in their work. Reviews of cases often failed to address changes in factors linked to domestic abuse or make adjustments to ongoing work. In over half of the cases where it was necessary, information had not been gathered from other agencies to inform reviewing. Overall, we assessed that reviewing focused adequately on the risks of domestic abuse in only 23 per cent of cases. 

Notwithstanding our concerns about the general quality of practice concerning domestic abuse, we found some examples of impressive practice. Where specialist multidisciplinary teams were in place, this enabled practitioners to work collaboratively with police and other services. Practitioners in these teams demonstrated a better understanding of the complexity of domestic abuse. As they usually had smaller caseloads, they had the time to work more effectively with people on probation. Joint work with other specialist organisations, such as through the Drive project, also led to effective work to reduce domestic abuse. 

Practice around making disclosures about domestic abuse to new partners when a perpetrator started a new relationship varied significantly, and in some cases we assessed it to increase risks. Where decisions were not made as part of multi-agency meetings or through the domestic violence disclosure scheme (often called Clare’s Law), we found no evidence of a systematic approach to considering the risks around disclosures. The national guidance in place at the time was insufficient to support decisions or delivery adequately. Practitioners expressed a range of views about disclosure, with some stating clearly that they did not feel it was part of their role, and others telling us that they gave information routinely to new partners of perpetrators without consulting managers about the content of this information or how it could be shared safely. When probation staff made disclosures, we found little evidence that consideration had been given to the potential vulnerabilities of the person receiving the information, nor any effort to engage the services that might support them. 

Opportunities to support victims are sometimes missed through late referrals to the DASO service or failure to liaise with independent domestic violence advisers (IDVAs). The DASO service offers valuable support to victims and partners of people on probation completing BBR and other domestic abuse groupwork interventions. The guidance manuals for the service are being reviewed currently as they are significantly out of date, and this has resulted in variable delivery of the scheme across the country and a need for a more consistent approach to be put into place.

Domestic Homicide

Domestic violence remains a serious issue for society and the Probation Service in particular. I notice the government have published the 'Wade' Domestic Homicide Sentencing Review with 17 recommendations. 

1. Introduction 

1.1 Background 

1.1.1 This Review of sentencing in cases of domestic homicide was initiated as a response to an open letter (“the letter”) sent on International Women’s Day 2021 from the Victims’ Commissioner and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner to the previous Lord Chancellor the Right Honourable Robert Buckland MP. 

1.1.2 The letter highlighted systemic misogyny within the criminal justice system and also identified those aspects of the criminal justice process where it was thought female victims were being routinely let down. It coincided with an ongoing campaign by the families of two women who were murdered by their male partners. Ellie Gould was aged 17 at the time of her murder by Thomas Griffith and Poppy Devey Waterhouse was 24 years old when she was murdered by Joe Atkinson. That campaign also formed part of the impetus for the Domestic Homicide Sentencing Review (“the Review”). 

1.1.3 Both victims were murdered in their own homes where weapons in the form of knives had been readily available to the offender who could therefore not be said to have taken a knife or other weapon to the scene. As we explain in detail at paragraphs 2.3 2.4, if an offender who is aged 18 or over has taken a knife or other weapon to the scene of an offence intending to (a) commit any offence, or (b) have it available to use as a weapon, and (c) used that knife or other weapon when committing the murder, the starting point for the minimum term that the offender must serve in custody as part of a mandatory life sentence is much higher than it would be (all other things being equal) if the offender has not taken a knife or other weapon to the scene. There is a disparity of ten years between the respective starting points. 

1.1.4 Our terms of reference specifically task us with considering whether the issue of taking a knife or other weapon to the scene of a murder with the ulterior intent (which is described above) and then using it to commit the murder, is something which should be given particular consideration within the context of domestic murders. 

1.1.5 Thomas Griffith (17 years old at the time of the offence) and Joe Atkinson (25 years old at the time of the offence) were sentenced to detention for life and life imprisonment with minimum terms of 12 years 6 months and 16 years respectively. Legally, there is nothing wrong with either of the sentences imposed in these cases. Both offenders pleaded guilty, and the sentences imposed can neither be said to be “manifestly excessive”1 nor “unduly lenient” but questions have arisen as to whether sentencing guidelines in cases of domestic homicide reflect our growing understanding of the causes, characteristics and harms of fatal domestic abuse. 

1.1.6 Underlying these questions are broader issues such as: do the sentences imposed in the killings of intimate partners reflect the seriousness of the killings or not? Is there a need for a more specialist approach to these sentences with more account being taken of the specific nature of the offences? Is there a need for higher starting points within the context of the present sentencing framework? Finally, is it possible to address these issues short of detailed consideration of domestic homicides generally? 

1.1.7 Women comprise the majority of victims in domestic killings. Their voices are silenced not just in virtue of their killing but because at present, there is insufficient recognition in law of the harms which their killings involve. Not only are these women wronged by a breach of trust which is an integral part of domestic abuse, but the harms to them often extend to further harm to secondary victims in the form of the families (many of whom are children) and friends of the victims. There is then the harm to society in general which, to date, may not have been sufficiently considered. Where do domestic murders fit with other murders of women where the murder is clearly motivated by misogyny, but the victim and the offender are not and never have been in an intimate relationship? What inferences as to wider harms do we draw in circumstances where there is no domestic history to contextualise the killing? 

1.1.8 As far as sentencing for murder is concerned, there is a tension, which is often not acknowledged by proponents of the call for higher starting points or longer sentences. This tension lies in the fact that women, who are victims of domestic abuse and coercive control, sometimes kill their abusive partners. Such women are victims as well as being perpetrators. It would not be in the interests of justice for these women to receive longer minimum terms. Even allowing for judicial discretion, longer minimum terms would be a concomitant of simply increasing starting points for minimum terms. 

1.1.9 At the outset, it is necessary to remember the purpose of sentencing which is described in the Sentencing Act 2020. In cases of murder, the protection of the public is afforded by the life sentence, which includes a minimum term which must be served in full before the offender becomes eligible for parole. After release, he or she is on licence for life. However, the punishment of offenders requires us to identify the conduct and fault to which culpability can be ascribed. This assists with the reduction of crime (of which deterrence is only one part) because identification of the levels of culpability together with the relevant circumstances in which it is formed, means that it is possible to identify and quantify risk. Once risk is appreciated, then we can begin to prevent domestic homicide.

--oo00oo--

Dominic Raab published a statement:-

WRITTEN MINISTERIAL STATEMENT 

Domestic Homicide Sentencing Review 

Tackling violence against women and girls is a top priority for this Government and we are committed to ensuring that the most serious offenders spend longer in prison. Women should feel safe in their own home and our sentencing framework must reflect the seriousness of violence and abuse committed by those closest to them. 

The Government commissioned an independent expert, Clare Wade KC, to review sentencing in domestic homicide cases to establish whether current law and sentencing guidelines are fit for purpose and identify options for reform. 

Today, I am publishing Ms Wade KC’s Domestic Homicide Sentencing Review (the ‘Wade Review’) and announcing a package of proposed reforms to change the law so that sentencing reflects the seriousness of domestic homicides. The published review can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/domestic-homicidesentencing-review. 

The Wade Review makes a number of other recommendations and the government's position will be outlined in a full response to be published before the summer recess. The measures announced today demonstrate our commitment to delivering tougher sentences for the perpetrators of these horrific crimes and allow for necessary legislation to be introduced as soon as possible. All recommendations in the review and the measures announced today apply to England and Wales. 

We will increase sentences for murderers with a history of controlling or coercive behaviour against the victim. 

The Serious Crime Act 2015 introduced the criminal offence of controlling or coercive behaviour. Controlling or coercive behaviour can comprise economic, emotional or psychological abuse. It does not relate to a single incident, but a purposeful pattern of behaviour over time. Controlling or coercive behaviour by the perpetrator towards the victim was identified in 51% of the murder cases analysed for this Review. 

Despite around a quarter of all homicides being classed as domestic, the legislation which sets out the sentencing framework for murder does not currently specifically account for the abuse that the victims in these cases often experience before death. 

The review recommends that a history of coercive or controlling behaviour should be added to the statutory aggravating factors to murder. We will introduce legislation to make this change as soon as possible to ensure abuse experienced before death is properly considered and serious offenders are kept off our streets for longer. 

We will consider further reform by consulting on whether the starting point should be 25 years for murders preceded by controlling or coercive behaviour. 

While the addition of a history of coercive or controlling behaviour as a statutory aggravating factor to murder will be an immediate step to increase sentences, we do not rule out further reform to ensure perpetrators are kept behind bars for longer. 

We will launch a public consultation this summer seeking views on whether there should be a starting point of 25 years for cases of murder where the perpetrator has controlled or coerced the victim before killing them. The current sentencing framework recognises the particular seriousness of the illegal possession and use of knives in public with a 25-year starting point for murders where a weapon used has been taken to the scene with intent. It is important that this starting point is maintained and therefore we will not be accepting the recommendation made in the Wade Review to disapply it from domestic cases. The sentencing framework must recognise the seriousness of anyone who walks onto our streets with a knife, intending to use it to cause harm. However, the changes announced today will ensure that the framework also recognises the particular seriousness of domestic murder, and this consultation will ensure all reform options have been fully explored. 

We will make ‘overkill’ a statutory aggravating factor in the sentencing framework for murder.

Overkill is defined in the Wade Review and wider literature as the use of excessive or gratuitous violence, beyond that necessary to kill. It amounts to violation of the body and causes intense distress to the families of victims. Overkill is prevalent in domestic murders and was identified in 60% of the cases analysed for this Review. 

The Wade Review recommends that overkill should be added to the statutory aggravating factors to murder. This would mean that a judge must consider increasing an offender's minimum custodial term where overkill has occurred. We will introduce legislation to make this change as soon as possible. It will ensure that the horror of overkill is recognised in statute and that the anguish it causes the families of victims is taken into account when sentencing such cases. 

Building on our ban of the ‘rough sex defence’ in the Domestic Abuse Act, we want to see longer sentences for perpetrators of so-called rough sex manslaughter. We are requesting that the Sentencing Council update their guidelines and will keep under review the need for legislation. 

The government is clear the ‘rough sex defence’ is not recognised in law as a person is legally unable to consent to “serious harm”, including where it results in death. However, there continues to be concern about apparent low sentences given in some cases of manslaughter where consent to so-called rough sex is argued. 

The review recommends manslaughter sentencing guidelines should be amended to consider the offender highly culpable where death occurs during violence alleged to be consensual during a sexual encounter, and therefore impose a higher sentence. 

The production or revision of sentencing guidelines is a matter for the independent Sentencing Council. However, today I will ask the Council, which has a statutory duty to consider my request, to consider revising sentencing guidelines to reflect the recommendation made in the Wade Review. While this is our preferred approach, we will keep legislative options under review to ensure we can deliver reform. 

These measures build on our zero-tolerance approach to violence against women and girls by ensuring that sentencing delivers justice for the victims and families. 

I am very grateful to Clare Wade KC for her work on this review. I would also like to pay tribute to Carole Gould and Julie Devey for their tireless campaigning after the tragic murders of their daughters, Ellie Gould and Poppy Devey-Waterhouse.

Dominic Raab MP

Deputy Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice

--oo00oo--

Clare Wade KC has responded:-

The Government has responded in part to the recommendations which are contained in my Review.

I am pleased that the issues which are raised in the Review are being taken seriously. I have concerns that Domestic Homicides comprise so many of the killings of women by men. In particular, I welcome the news that the harms consequent on “overkill” (as defined in the Review) are to be recognised in law.

However, the model which I have used in the Review has been constructed in an attempt to address all of the harms which obtain in these types of cases while simultaneously avoiding unintended consequences. This was implicit in my terms of reference which involved looking at the sentencing of killings by perpetrators of domestic abuse and at sentences for perpetrators of killings who are victims of domestic abuse. The Review makes clear the law in this area is gendered.

It is important that women who are the victims of controlling and coercive behaviour have access to justice when they have struggled, and sometimes, fought to resist the fear and entrapment caused by controlling and coercive behaviour. If controlling and coercive behaviour is to be a statutory aggravating factor then it should also be a statutory mitigating factor because ultimately it is a way of ascribing seriousness to the individual offence. This is what I recommended. The Government has only so far announced that it is to be a statutory aggravating factor.

I fear that making overkill a statutory aggravating factor in the absence of adopting the other recommendations I have made will lead to injustice. In relation to controlling and coercive behaviour, there should be training across the criminal justice system and controlling and coercive behaviour should mitigate the seriousness of murders committed by victims who kill their abusers.

I am concerned that, to date, there has been no response to my recommendations on strangulation and the use of weapons. Both issues present the gendered nature of the law in acute form.

I would encourage people to read the Review in its entirety as the theory and policy underpinning the 17 recommendations which I have made cannot be fully appreciated by looking at recommendations in isolation, in part, or in the abstract.

Ultimately I would like to see a proper forensic approach to domestic abuse within the criminal justice system. This is what is lacking at the moment and that is what the proposals in the Review are designed to achieve.

I note the Government’s intention to consult on the idea of a 25-year starting point for domestic murders. For the detailed reasons which are set out in the Review, I am against the idea of introducing more starting points into the sentencing framework for murder.

I welcome informed debate on the issues raised and on all of the recommendations and look forward to the full Government response.

Clare Wade KC

We're in a Bad Place

It's been a few days since I was last tempted to publish because to be frank there's so much to digest and reflect upon. There's no doubt in my mind we're in a bad place and everywhere you look it's utterly depressing for the cause of rehabilitation and common sense. Take for instance the continuing Monday night BBC2 series 'Parole' where amongst other issues, probation are conspicuously 'missing in action' or simply airbrushed out of the process - and what a process! I thought this comment put things rather well:- 

The Parole Board programme is more black comedy than fly-on-the-wall, positively Kafkaesque. The parole chair in the HMP Stocken case tells the applicant, who's already been in prison for 14 years (tariff), that he needs further testing in closed condition! In days gone by such a prisoner would have been in open conditions probably at the 12-year point.

I got no sense of an independent parole board in action in the programme - rather they come across as mere well-rewarded algorithms, rather than independents interested in truly balancing the risks. Not much mention either on what the prison system has provided by way of rehabilitation, above and beyond incarceration. You could run a better parole system by using real algorithms - and cutting out all the sanctimony, thus saving a few quid (21 million, on 2022 figures) on expenses for a useless quango.

Then there's the issue of probation senior management taking absolutely no responsibility for things and neatly alluded to in this comment:-  

I note that following criticism of MI5 in the report into the Manchester bombing, the Director General accepted responsibility on behalf of the agency for failing to protect the public! No individual spies were thrown under the bus and blame was accepted by senior managers, as it should be. Perhaps the same principles might apply in probation in the future. Then again, perhaps not.

And then we come on to politicians entering the fray with a general election in mind and votes to be garnered by stoking fears and concerns amongst the public, something well summarised by this contribution:-   

*****
It's a veritable Who's Who of characters, including royalty! who are clamouring to keep the killer in jail beyond the 13 years that would be the half-way point of his determinate sentence. I think you could bet your house on Raab referring this case to the 'independent' Parole Board. Sorry to have to use inverted commas, but it reflects my low confidence in the Board's ability to be guided by reason rather than political expediency. 

The legislation under which this can happen was originally intended only to apply to terrorists, but give the arm of retribution an inch and it takes a mile. The only argument deployable to keep him in prison is protection of the public and whilst this may be an easier argument to make regarding terrorists, it's somewhat weaker in domestic violence cases. 

It's perfectly understandable that relatives of murder victims never want the perpetrator released. However, no evidence has been cited to suggest he's a risk to the victim's relatives or the public. This is all about retribution: keep him in jail for another 13 years. 

The case could well open the floodgates to lots more applications to politicians to do the 'right thing'. We'll end up with more politicians kowtowing to popular outrage, whilst doing their reputations no harm. This campaign is a populist and cynical manipulation of criminal justice. In effect, it says no early release for killers and murderers. In fact, we are halfway down this road anyway, with Raab's veto on moving murderers to open prison conditions. We are going backwards.

--oo00oo--

The case referred to above is discussed in this article from the Guardian on 24th February:-

A man who killed his wife with a hammer is set to be released. With probation in tatters, who will protect us?

Joanna Simpson’s family are right to be worried – too many violent offenders slip through the cracks of a service that is there to keep us safe. Long before he killed her, Joanna Simpson’s husband had secretly dug what would become her grave.

The couple were separated and in the final throes of finalising their divorce when Robert Brown, a British Airways pilot, battered his wife to death with a hammer as their two young children cowered in a nearby room. Joanna, who had become frightened of her controlling husband, was only days away from what should have been the last court hearing to end their marriage. Brown buried her in a secluded corner of Windsor Great Park in a makeshift coffin he had prepared earlier, and then the following day called the police.

In court, he didn’t deny killing her, but claimed that he had temporarily “just lost it”. The defence maintained that he had suffered from an “adjustment disorder” brought on by the stress of the divorce, which had made him lose control but disappeared again shortly afterwards. There were gasps in the courtroom when the jury acquitted him of murder; the judge, observing that Brown had clearly “intended to kill”, and had prepared thoroughly beforehand, sentenced him to 26 years for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. But, having served nearly half his sentence, Brown will be automatically eligible for release on licence later this year – unless Joanna’s family succeed in the campaign they’re launching shortly to stop that happening.

Suella Braverman’s announcement this week that police will have to treat domestic violence as a national threat, like terrorism, is a welcome move from the home secretary after a spate of disturbing, high-profile cases. But it also shines an awkward spotlight on what happens long after the police, courts and prison service have supposedly done their job.

Hetti Barkworth-Nanton, a friend of Joanna’s family and chair of trustees at the domestic violence charity Refuge, has pointed out that the organisation regularly hears from survivors “who don’t get told when perpetrators are coming out of prison, don’t get told when they get bail” and live in fear of their ex being released. Under Braverman’s reforms, domestic abusers should now be watched more closely; a pilot scheme could see offenders electronically tagged, banned from going near the victim’s home, or made to attend behaviour change programmes. People convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour will be subject to joint police and probation supervision on their release, as physically violent offenders would be. But as Nicole Jacobs, the domestic abuse commissioner for England and Wales, has said, it will work only if there’s the money to actually make it happen.

Prisoners freed early on licence are subject to conditions for the rest of what would otherwise have been their sentence, and can be recalled to prison if those conditions are broken; or they can be in theory, at least. In January, an inquiry revealed catastrophic failings in the case of Zara Aleena, a young law graduate from London murdered as she walked home from a night out by a man who had been released on licence only nine days earlier.

Jordan McSweeney had a history of violence towards women, had skipped probation appointments after his release, and had been recalled to prison two days before the attack. But McSweeney, wrongly graded “medium risk” instead of high, remained at large – and free to target at least five women before eventually settling on Zara. In his report, chief inspector of probation Justin Russell noted that the probation staff involved were shouldering unmanageable workloads because of unfilled vacancies, “something we have increasingly seen” in inspections of other local services.

A week earlier, the watchdog had identified failings in the case of Damien Bendall, a former cage fighter with convictions for violence who murdered his pregnant partner and three children while supposedly under supervision by the probation service. His case, this time wrongly graded low risk, was one of 10 being juggled by a probation officer who had yet to finish basic training.

In its annual report last year, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation found management of high-risk cases was, thankfully, improving, but the opposite was true for medium-risk ones, which make up the lion’s share of cases – including “tens of thousands of domestic abuse perpetrators” – and account for over half of homicides committed by people on probation. It’s the unglamorous, invisible and often underfunded cog in the justice machine. But without probation, everything else falls apart.

A recent change in the law gave justice secretaries the power to override automatic early release in cases where prisoners are still felt to pose a very high risk of harm, and make them serve the full sentence. But whether those powers are used or not, the vast majority of violent offenders will still be free one day. Society has an obligation to prepare for that moment diligently, giving victims and the wider public the confidence to live with a potentially terrifying prospect.

It’s always a leap of faith when a cell door is unlocked, and we’re all expected just to trust that overstretched prisons have still managed to achieve some kind of rehabilitation, or at least that if there’s any danger of a relapse someone will quickly step in. But without a properly functioning probation service, that leap of faith becomes just too big to make, and confidence in the rest of the system collapses. It shouldn’t be left to frightened individual families, fighting their own lonely battles, to make that point.

Gaby Hinsliff is a Guardian columnist

--oo00oo--

The Guardian published two letters in response yesterday:-

The probation service is in a desperate state

Experienced staff are leaving because of impossible workloads, writes Anne King. Plus a letter from Ellie Dwight.

Gaby Hinsliff’s article was correct to question how well the probation service is functioning (A man who killed his wife with a hammer is set to be released. With probation in tatters, who will protect us?, 24 February). Since starting my training as a probation officer in 1979, I have never seen the service so overworked and demoralised.

The disastrous “transforming rehabilitation” reorganisation in 2014 wrecked what had been a locally based and effective service, and reunification last year will not quickly undo the damage done over the preceding eight years, coupled as it has been with consistent underfunding.

In response to two reports by HM Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP), the government repeats statements on funding and recruitment. Neither is of use unless there are steps taken to halt the haemorrhaging of experienced staff, who are desperately needed to mentor new entrants and supervise the most dangerous offenders.

A justifiable fear among staff is that, in the event of such appalling crimes as those perpetrated by Jordan McSweeney and Damien Bendall, they can face disciplinary action. This is regardless of the impossible workloads they are struggling with, as referred to repeatedly by the HMIP reports. It is particularly invidious that it is always frontline staff who face these proceedings, while those responsible higher up the organisation and in government (Chris Grayling in particular) escape the scrutiny they deserve.

One positive step to reassure those staff desperately trying to do their best is a commitment from the probation service that no staff will be disciplined in cases where their workload is above the nationally recognised maximum. It is sobering to think that, according to a recent BBC article, this would cover 10 of the 12 probation regions in England and Wales.

Anne King
Lynton, Devon

I worked as a probation officer for more than 30 years before Covid brought my career to an abrupt end, aged 72. When I started, the probation “motto” was “advise, assist and befriend”. The service was far from efficiently run, but the emphasis was on rehabilitation and I believe what we did made a difference.

That all ended with Chris Grayling’s insane project of privatising something that should never have been for-profit. It is now all too easy to demonise the offenders – many if not most of whom have had horrific and damaging childhood experiences. As for risk assessments, it is all too easy to leap on these as needing to be watertight, when how can they be, given the complexity of human beings and the impossible workloads of probation staff?

Ellie Dwight
Stafford

Report Highlights Structural Failings

Press release issued today:-

Independent serious further offence review of Damien Bendall

Background

Damien Bendall murdered Terri Harris (aged 35), John Paul Bennett (aged 13), Lacey Bennett (aged 11) and Connie Gent (aged 11). He also raped Lacey. These crimes took place in September 2021 in Killamarsh, Derbyshire. He pleaded guilty in December 2022 and was later sentenced to a whole-life prison term.

Bendall was on probation when he committed these offences. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice the Rt Hon Dominic Raab asked HM Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell to conduct an independent review into this case. This review was completed in January 2022 and can now be published following the completion of the criminal proceedings.

Statement

HM Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell has made this statement:

“This was a deeply concerning case. The Probation Service’s assessment and management of Bendall at every stage, from initial court report to his supervision in the community, was of an unacceptable standard and fell far below what was required.

“Bendall had previously committed violent offences. His records show a former partner had made allegations of domestic abuse against him and a police child sexual exploitation unit had made enquiries about him with the Probation Service. Probation practitioners should take account of this sort of intelligence when assessing potential risks of serious harm. But this does not appear to have happened in this case.

“Bendall committed arson in May 2020. A member of the probation service’s court team interviewed him in June 2021 in order to prepare a report with sentencing options for the judge. The report author noted Bendall was suitable for a curfew requirement at the home of Terri Harris. They came to this wholly inappropriate conclusion without speaking to Ms Harris, visiting the property, conducting domestic abuse enquiries, or taking into account past domestic abuse claims.

“The court report author assessed Bendall as posing a medium risk of serious harm to the public and posing a low risk of serious harm to partners and children. We do not agree with this risk assessment; they under-estimated the risks Bendall posed and this had serious consequences.

“Probation managers and practitioners took the risk assessment from the court report as a given, and missed several opportunities to scrutinise and change it. If Bendall had been assessed as presenting a higher risk of serious harm – which would have been appropriate – it is unlikely a curfew order would have been deemed suitable and he would have been assigned to more experienced and confident probation officers.

“Instead, Bendall’s case was transferred to the East Midlands in the summer of 2021, and he was supervised by insufficiently qualified and experienced probation practitioners. The safety of Ms Harris and her children was not given due consideration. This was especially troubling as Bendall had started drinking alcohol and smoking cannabis again, which is likely to have increased the risk of serious harm.

“Probation services must strike the right balance between protecting the public and supporting individuals to move towards crime-free lives. Sadly, in this case, the balance was out of kilter.

“In January 2022, we published a separate thematic report on electronically monitored curfews which questioned why domestic abuse and child safeguarding enquiries are not mandatory before court ordered curfews. The Bendall case demonstrates clearly why these checks are so important.

“This review also highlights common issues that we have found in previous and recent inspections of probation services: the lack of qualified probation officers and managers with too many responsibilities to provide effective oversight for less experienced staff.

“The Probation Service must tackle these workforce issues. Probation practitioners must have the right knowledge, skills and experience to manage their assigned cases – and appropriate support and oversight from managers.

“We want to see probation practitioners and managers scrutinising case files and past criminal behaviour properly and developing a deeper understanding of the people they manage. We did not see enough ‘professional curiosity’ in this case – Bendall’s words and assertions were often taken at face value. Probation practitioners should be interrogating and verifying claims to build up a complete picture of the individual.

“As a result of this review, I made 17 recommendations for improvement to the Ministry of Justice, HM Prison and Probation Service and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. They have accepted all these recommendations and responded with an action plan for implementing them. While this is welcome, over the past year in our local and national probation inspections we have continued to raise deep concerns about the quality of probation practice we find more generally in relation to the assessment and management of risk of harm. This is a subject I have raised repeated concerns about since becoming Chief Inspector. It is vital that this time lessons are learnt from this awful case.

--oo00oo--

Extracts from the full report:-

1. Foreword 

In September 2021, Damien Bendall was charged with the murders of Connie Gent (aged 11), Lacey Bennett (aged 11), John Paul Bennett (aged 13) and Terri Harris (aged 35), who was pregnant, and with raping Lacey. These shocking crimes have devastated families, friends, and the local community in Killamarsh, Derbyshire and beyond. In December 2022, the courts imposed a whole life sentence. 

Damien Bendall was on probation when he committed these crimes. The Probation Service typically conducts a Serious Further Offence (SFO) review when an individual on probation commits a serious violent or sexual offence. However, in this case, the Secretary of State for Justice asked me, as Chief Inspector of Probation, to conduct an independent SFO review into the Probation Service’s management of Damien Bendall. 

This report sets out the findings of that independent review. My inspectors found that the Probation Service’s assessment and management of Mr Bendall at each stage of the process from initial court report to his supervision in the community were of an unacceptable standard and fell far below what was required. 

Vital information about the serious risks posed by Mr Bendall to those he lived with, and the public, was not included in the Probation Service’s report and recommendations to the judge when he was sentenced for an arson offence in June 2021. As a result, he was sentenced to an entirely inappropriate curfew condition to reside with Ms Harris and her children. This was then compounded by a failure to allocate his case to an appropriately experienced and trained probation officer who could have managed him at the higher risk of serious harm level his past history certainly warranted. Several opportunities to correct these mistakes and amend his risk of harm classification and reallocate Mr Bendall’s supervision to an appropriate practitioner were missed in the period from June to September 2021. 

Inspectors found successive probation practitioners missed opportunities to ensure vital information known about Damien Bendall was included in assessments and plans to manage and address the risk of serious harm he posed to both women and children. Practitioners did not carry out safeguarding enquiries when he was sentenced for his most recent offence of arson. The impact of unmanageable workloads at both the probation practitioner and senior probation officer levels resulted in reduced oversight of new or struggling staff, frequent role changes and sickness absence. This made consistency and continuity of practice challenging. In this case, there was an increasing reliance on unqualified and trainee staff to manage workloads; this contributed to emerging factors linked to risk of harm not being recognised and escalated appropriately. 

This is a deeply concerning case that raises serious issues around the Probation Service’s assessment and management of risks of harm. This is a subject that has been of repeated concern to us in our local inspections and on which I have commented in my annual reports and in relation to other SFOs, 1 including that of Joseph McCann, 2 on which we reported in 2020. 

As a result of our findings, we make 17 recommendations for improvements to His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the Ministry of Justice regarding safeguarding and risk assessment practice and procedures, which I expect the service to respond to as a matter of urgency. It is vital that key lessons are learned from this awful case. 

Justin Russell

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

5. Executive summary 

Inspectors found that, at every stage of probation involvement, from the pre-sentence report provided to the court on 08 June 2021 to the commission of the SFOs in September 2021, the Probation Service’s assessment and supervision of DB fell well below the necessary standard. A failure to assign the correct risk of harm level to DB (which should have been ‘high’ risk of serious harm given his past history) meant that the court was missing vital information when reaching its sentencing decision. It is possible that, had a holistic assessment been provided to court (including his pattern of offending against Asian men, use of callous and organised violence against prison staff, an analysis of previous noncompliance and the most recent high risk of serious harm assessments), an immediate, rather than suspended, prison sentence might have been imposed. 

As it was, the court imposed a suspended prison sentence, which included an entirely inappropriate curfew condition to reside with Ms Harris and her children. The case was then allocated for community supervision to an inexperienced and inappropriate practitioner. 

There were then subsequent failures by supervising managers and new practitioners to adequately read the case and amend the initial, incorrect ‘medium risk of serious harm’ to ‘high risk of serious harm’. 

Had DB’s risk of serious harm to the public and children been correctly assessed as high, and had his risk of serious harm to partners been correctly assessed as medium, the court may not have curfewed him to an address with Ms Harris and her children. He would have been allocated to an experienced probation practitioner. This would have led to enforced weekly face-to-face appointments and improved communication with partner agencies, and assertions lacking evidence would not have been relied upon and repeated in future assessments. 

In sections 7 to 11 of this report, we analyse the management of DB during his two most recent sentences, the first a prison sentence with probation licence supervision imposed on 29 January 2017 and the second a suspended sentence order managed in the community imposed on 09 June 2021. In this summary we focus on our key lines of enquiry and summarise why, in our view, the following deficiencies occurred. 

Process for recommending curfew requirements 

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires that, ‘before making a relevant order imposing a curfew requirement, the court must obtain and consider information about the place proposed to be specified in the order (including information as to the attitude of persons likely to be affected by the enforced presence there of the offender)’. The current court process requires that court officers undertake domestic safeguarding enquiries ‘in order to assess risk of harm and suitability for sentencing options in all offences involving domestic abuse’,  which DB’s index offence did not. 

HM Inspectorate of Probation recently published a thematic inspection on electronic monitoring, including its use for curfews. In this report, we recommended that HMPPS: 

• mandate the requirement to make domestic abuse and safeguarding checks before recommending a sentence or release on electronically monitored curfew 

• work with the police and children’s social care at a national level to ensure that probation practitioners in every region are provided with domestic abuse and safeguarding checks in a timely manner.  

Before DB’s sentencing for arson, the court officer did not carry out domestic abuse enquiries on the address, find out whether Ms Harris’s children were known to children’s services or speak directly to Ms Harris to ensure she consented to her home being used as a curfew address by DB. The Sentencing Act 2020 requires courts to have sight of this information before imposing a curfew order. However, it appears that courts do not have a mechanism to ensure this information is seen in every case. In this instance, important checks were not carried out and the court proceeded to issue a curfew order without them. 

Child safeguarding 

Inspectors found that probation practitioners in this case based their risk of harm assessments on whether DB had convictions against children or for domestic abuse, or if children’s services were involved with the family. These are highly relevant factors, but probation practitioners should delve deeper to explore the broader attitudes and behaviours of the person under supervision, including their impact on the children in their lives. DB did not have a history of offending against children. However, we found that insufficient consideration was given to whether his racist, manipulative and controlling attitudes and his violent and unpredictable behaviour would have a negative impact on the wellbeing and safety of children. 

We did not find evidence of sufficient professional curiosity about the nature and level of the role he played in the lives of the children of his partners. 

Intelligence was available to the Probation Service from Wiltshire police’s child sexual exploitation team regarding DB’s risk of serious sexual harm to girls. However, this information was not explored or recorded sufficiently to inform the risk of serious harm assessment and plans to keep children safe. 

The probation practitioner who prepared the court report following DB’s arson conviction took his account and version of events in relation to his offending and circumstances at face value. This included DB’s assertion that he played an important part in taking care of Lacey and John Paul Bennett. This information was not checked with their mother. There were no checks to find out if children’s services were currently working with the family or had previously done so. Most egregiously, the report stated that DB was ‘suitable’ for a curfew at Terri Harris’s address. When considering a curfew in the home of children, the attitudes of the people in that home8 and the best interests of the child should be given weight. 

At the start of the most recent order, in June 2021, there was again a failure to be professionally curious about the children living with DB. To probation practitioners, DB presented himself as a father figure to the children of Terri Harris and this was accepted without challenge. No contact was made with the children’s parents. When DB admitted to using drugs and alcohol this was not escalated to a manager and a children’s safeguarding referral was not completed. We found that the risk of serious harm to children was inaccurately assessed and seriously underestimated. 

It is our view that there should be a section of the offender assessment system (OASys) that solely considers the wellbeing and safety of the children – actual and potential – in the life of the person on probation. This would separate children from assessments of broader familial and intimate relationships, and specific prompts should be used to facilitate a more rigorous and defensible assessment of the impact on a child’s ability to thrive. 

Domestic abuse 

During previous orders, DB’s relationships with his mother and grandmother were not explored appropriately. Probation practitioners did not demonstrate sufficient professional curiosity, did not conduct safeguarding enquires, and took information from DB, again, at face value. 

Inspectors found that key information on risk from prison and from DB’s ex-partner and her current partner was not given due consideration and was not recorded appropriately. The impact of this failure was significant, as successive probation practitioners did not recognise that DB posed a risk of serious harm within relationships. 

Probation at court appeared to take DB’s word without verification. The author of the court report noted that a curfew would be ‘suitable’; they did this without undertaking safeguarding enquiries on the address or communicating with the owner/lead tenant of the property. This loophole in the mandated checks required before a curfew recommendation needs addressing urgently. 

Probation practitioners should have explored DB’s relationship with Ms Harris in greater depth, including whether he was coercively controlling her. DB was open about the fact that he had very limited income and that Ms Harris was paying for his accommodation, bills and food. Inspectors conclude that contact with Ms Harris by the Probation Service before sentencing, and at key assessment stages and when there was evidence of increasing risk, would have been appropriate.

Inspectors found that the risk of serious harm to known adults, including partners, was underestimated. There was no focus on safeguarding in this case and, as a result, DB was sentenced to an inappropriate curfew requirement that may have exacerbated the risk of harm to Ms Harris and her children. 

Fast delivery report 

The use of a short format report in this case, rather than a standard delivery report, was incorrect. Mr Bendall’s criminal history was complex and as such met the threshold for a suitable adjournment period to allow for a thorough read of his case to inform the completion of a more detailed report. This case met HMPPS’s own criteria for a standard delivery report as ‘additional assessment, professional discussion and multiple enquiries [were] required to aid risk assessment’ and ‘liaison where medical report [was] unavailable on the day’.

Senior probation officer workload 

Inspectors found that high workloads and staff shortages in the Swindon office impacted on the ability of probation practitioners to undertake high-quality work. Inspectors heard that this was a long-standing issue that they had experienced since the changes introduced with Transforming Rehabilitation. 

HM Inspectorate of Probation has often found that the span of line management control for senior probation officers (SPOs) is concerning. SPOs increasingly deal with complex staffing and human resources issues, for which some feel unequipped. This also reduces the time they have available to provide effective professional oversight of the work of the practitioners they line manage with individual cases. HM Inspectorate of Probation has previously found that SPOs do not have enough time to supervise all members of their teams to the standard they would wish, and when they do hold supervision sessions, there is often a focus on managing volumes of work rather than improving quality. This case highlighted this issue on two specific occasions. 

Firstly, there was insufficient oversight of a member of the probation court team, which led to a poor-quality fast delivery report being presented to the court. This was due to SPO sickness and a lack of resources to cover the absence. 

Secondly, SPO3, who managed the probation practitioner responsible for DB after sentencing from June 2021, was unable to engage with the case fully. SPO3 managed a large number of staff. She directly managed 16, but when covering for colleagues she had oversight of up to 30 PQiPs. This is far in excess of the line management span recommended by HMPPS, of 10 full-time equivalent posts for SPOs. This prevented her reading DB’s case at the allocation stage and from providing the necessary oversight. 

Inspectors found that the SPOs were also not given meaningful, regular and effective supervision and support. 

Professional qualification in probation and probation services officer training and oversight

The probation practitioners who managed DB from June to September 2021 were inexperienced, unqualified and had insufficient support to understand and recognise the risks and needs in the case. We conclude that they should not have been exposed to cases such as DB at this stage in their careers. Following the unification of probation services, new guidance on allocations has been published, and this is welcomed. This guidance sets out clearly that ‘some case allocation decisions will rely on the judgement of the operational manager to decide whether a case is suitable to be managed by a probation officer or a probation services officer (PSO). This decision will be based on individual circumstances of the case, and the skills, ability and experience of the individual officers.’ 

Inspectors heard concerns about the efficacy of online training, especially for key learning on domestic abuse and child safeguarding, from all grades of staff, not just professional qualification in probation (PQiP) and PSO staff. There had been an understandable reliance on this method during the period of Covid-19 restrictions; however, some staff noted that prior to the pandemic there had been a trend towards self-reliant e-learning and development. Practitioners said that such self-selective training and development suffered when staff spent their hours ‘firefighting’ with excessive caseloads. DB’s case was one of 10 being managed by a staff member who had yet to complete basic safeguarding training.

6. Recommendations 

We have directed the recommendations to HMMPS and the Ministry of Justice to ensure national learning. HMPPS should: 

Court work and curfew requirements 

1. ensure that domestic abuse enquiries are carried out on everyone sentenced so that accurate risk assessments can be made and safe proposals are made in court reports 

2. ensure that child safeguarding enquiries are made in all cases where the person being sentenced lives with, is responsible for, has access to, or is likely to have a negative impact on the wellbeing or safety of a child 

3. develop a mechanism and reliable processes with relevant agencies to allow sufficient safeguarding enquiries to be completed, to verify information and therefore reduce reliance on self-disclosure 

4. ensure that sufficient safeguarding enquiries with relevant agencies are always carried out before finding a curfew requirement suitable, and that policy/practice guidance clarifies that assessment of suitability post-sentence should be ongoing. 

5. quality-assure risk assessments and proposals to the courts for accuracy and suitability 

6. introduce a process to contact relevant adult residents of the proposed curfew address and obtain their prior consent to a curfew condition at their address to assess whether the address is suitable for an electronically monitored curfew 

7. ensure that court reports provide a sufficient analysis of the person’s circumstances, including analysis of risk of harm, to provide safe sentencing options. 

Child safeguarding 

8. include a specific section in OASys that is dedicated to assessing and planning for the safety of children, and ensure that the nature of contact and impact the person on probation has in the life of the child have been considered on both current and future children in the person’s life 

9. ensure that the impact on children’s safety and wellbeing is sufficiently considered in every case. 

Risk management plans 

10. ensure that probation practitioners contact partners, family or other key adults in the lives of the person under supervision to determine and discuss their inclusion in risk management plans. 

Training and support 

11. consider the suitability and efficacy of online training, particularly on domestic abuse, child safeguarding and other key training required to correctly assess and robustly manage risk of serious harm 

12. ensure that each PQiP has access to a mentor who has at least two years’ experience as a qualified probation practitioner. 

13. dedicate time for probation practitioners to engage in reflective discussions with colleagues and the line manager regarding cases. 

Allocation practice 

14. ensure that NDelius entries for ‘management oversight – allocation’ include evidence that the manager has considered the complexity of the case and the capabilities and capacity of the probation practitioner receiving the case. 

Oversight of SPOs 

15. review and monitor SPO workloads to ensure that sufficient line management and management oversight of case work can be provided effectively 

16. review the line management responsibilities and supervision of SPOs responsible for PQiPs to ensure the standard of PQiP management and oversight is appropriately robust, including the suitability of the cases allocated to them. 

Ministry of Justice should: 

17. amend legislation to be more prescriptive of the information that should be obtained and considered by the court, to assure themselves of the safety of other household members at a proposed curfew address before they impose an electronically monitored curfew. 

Until this can be actioned HMCTS should issue guidance to court staff requiring them to satisfy themselves that relevant checks have been undertaken by the probation courts team.

Price of Everything and Value of Nothing

Jim,

Are you aware of an ongoing project to remove the band four staff from the delivery of sex offender programmes? There is currently a consultation ongoing and a job evaluation which is being done with the clear aim of down grading this work due to cost implications.

They want band 3 staff to deliver Domestic Abuse and Sex Offender programmes. Of course, this work used to be all done by band 4 staff (PO), it was only a cost cutting TR exercise that saw programmes work split with DA going to the CRC who immediately down graded the staff needed. However, CRC practice on DA was not generally well regarded as we know. HMIP found very patchy practice when they looked at BBR work in the report linked below.

You'd have thought that taking practices embedded in the totally discredited TR clusterfuckery and extending them to a further risky group of politically sensitive offenders might not be the best idea?

The excellent Probation Journal article by Renehan documents the impact of the Domestic Abuse work on largely female band 3 CRC staff. When I read this personally what I took was that the abuse of these staff by the organisation mirrored the abuse that the course was supposed to address. They were not adequately trained and supported to do this work. Again, doesn't seem the best footing on which to extend these staff into working with another group of POPs who's offending may bring a even greater degree of complexity and emotional labour.

In prisons Sex Offender programmes are delivered by a mix of "unqualified" prison officers alongside forensic psychologists I think, but then prison SO programmes have been found not be very effective so again, perhaps not the best model.

Ultimately, this is a cost cutting exercise and cutting costs while not cutting quality is always fool's gold. 

--oo00oo--

Domestic abuse: the work undertaken by Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs)

Foreword

An estimated two million people experienced domestic abuse last year. A good proportion of people in receipt of probation services are domestic abusers, and domestic abuse constitutes a sizeable proportion of the work of Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). In this inspection we set out to assess how well CRCs are working to reduce domestic abuse and protect victims. Overall, we found CRCs nowhere near effective enough in this critical area of work, and yet good work here could make so much difference to the families and individuals concerned, and to society as a whole. 

Yes, we found pockets of good practice, as we have come to expect, and we saw examples of good public protection partnership work as well. But overall the work was characterised by a lack of awareness and applied expertise. It is not an exaggeration to say that many individuals were drifting through their supervision period without being challenged or supported to change their predilection for domestic violence, and that simply won’t do. 

Those left unchallenged and unassisted pose a particular threat to others, most especially those close to them. Too often we were left wondering how safe victims and children were, especially when practitioners failed to act on new information indicating that they could be in danger. Practitioners often underestimated the level of harm victims and children were exposed to. Some practice was of grave concern to us. 

In the cases we looked at, we found that very little meaningful work had been completed in custody. In the community, domestic abusers were not making enough progress, and many had completed little work to help them improve their relationships and behaviour. While a range of domestic abuse interventions were being offered, I am not assured that these were all evidence-based, evaluated or delivered effectively. Too few individuals were either starting or completing Building Better Relationships, the only accredited domestic abuse programme that the court can impose as part of a community sentence. 

Many practitioners had unmanageable workloads. Inexperienced staff were managing complex issues with little training or management oversight. Some were too busy to do a thorough job, while others simply didn’t have the knowledge needed to do a good job. Some CRCs had introduced new structures, policies and case management tools but, generally, CRCs should be taking a more strategic and determined approach. In my view, they should be making sure that practitioners know the current evidence base and that they are equipped to supervise domestic abusers well in all respects. That is not happening: there is insufficient focus on domestic abuse. 

There is a lack of clear and specific contractual obligations and incentives for CRCs to actively manage domestic abuse. The Ministry of Justice has the opportunity to consider this, as and when it recasts contracts. 

Our recommendations are focused on what we see to be the big priorities. There is enough in this report to help CRCs identify what needs to be done and where things are working well. I encourage them to build on the pockets of good practice identified here and to give domestic abuse the priority and attention it deserves.

Dame Glenys Stacey 

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

September 2018

--oo00oo--

Facilitators of probation-based domestic violence perpetrator programmes: ‘Who’s in the room?’

Abstract

The role that probation practitioners play in the desistance process has begun to receive much needed attention. Yet, the experiences of facilitators of probation-based, domestic violence perpetrator programmes have long been neglected. This article explores the experiences and wellbeing of eight facilitators from one cohort of the Building Better Relationships (BBR) programme in England. Drawing upon five-months’ observations and in-depth interviews, I demonstrate how working with domestically violent men with insufficient knowledge, experience, or support, exacerbated within the context of Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, impacted significantly on facilitator well-being, professional identities, and practice. Practice implications are discussed.

Discussion

The thematic inspection of domestic abuse work within CRCs offered a rare glimpse into the BBR programme. However, it was limited in scope given it did not seek to identify who exactly is ‘in the room’ (Burke, 2014). Understanding the capacities of group facilitators who undertake such work, and the effects on them, is crucial not only for desirable outcomes but for the well-being of those who are tasked with facilitating change in others. Unfortunately, to date, facilitators of DVPPs have been forgotten in between the debate of programme fetishism and desistance focused supervision with probation practitioners (Durnescu, 2012).

I have highlighted that facilitators were not enabled to work in ways that were commensurate with their own personal and professional values for many reasons: there was a lack of adequate training which focused on delivering (some) exercises from a manual and ‘lumped’ together amongst other accredited programme training; the video equipment which was used to record group sessions and monitor practice had not worked for over 2 years and so practice development was not in force; supervision was not supportive; facilitators felt de-valued due to a lack of pecuniary incentives, professional development, and promotional opportunities; and the emotional demands of the job was overlooked even though this affected how they felt and worked. This was further complicated in those cases where facilitators had their own personal encounters with trauma which had both positive and negative effects on them and in how this shaped their practice. What is important to note here is that some facilitators felt they had to leave their own trauma at the door, or face professional judgement or risk losing their jobs.

While many of the facilitators were able to humanise the traumatising but traumatised men with whom they worked, the lack of time, low confidence, and investment in them as valued professionals had impacted on their wellbeing and their professional identities, experiences that were interdependent and mutually reinforcing. Even while the Transforming Rehabilitation agenda of the Coalition Government of 2013 sought to de-professionalise part of probation services, the facilitators in this study, like many other probation practitioners in CRCs (Tidmarsh, 2020a), were still invested in the discourses of professionalism in which they endeavoured to deliver a service that valued the clients with whom they worked. But calls to ensure they were response-abled were met with solutions that diluted the standard of service they had strived to provide. Supervision was not adequate to deal with the emotional demands of the job, vicarious trauma, or the psychological impact of re-living their own traumas. The lack of due care towards facilitators resulted in them feeling devalued, exhausted, desensitised and disincentivised to do their job which was executed with a mixture of enthusiasm and dread. Almost 12 months on, five facilitators were either on long term sick leave or had left.

Nicole Renehan

June 2021

Probation in a Post TR World

Granada has been investigating the worrying number of SFO's:- 

LICENSED TO KILL: The shocking number of killings carried out by criminals released early from prison

An exclusive Granada Reports investigation has revealed the shocking number of killings carried out by criminals who've been released early from prison. In one part of Greater Manchester alone, over the past three years, three offenders have committed murder or manslaughter after they'd been released into the community to serve the rest of their sentence on licence.

The families of two of those victims claim they've been failed by the system that was supposed to protect them. The Probation Service Union says their members have passed breaking point and mistakes are being made. This exclusive investigation comes from our correspondent, Matt O'Donoghue.

--oo00oo--

An extremely thorough resume of the situation from the Independent:-  

If you're worried about prison conditions, you should be deeply disturbed by what happens after inmates are released

Privatisation of the probation service hasn't just made it far less effective – it's becoming downright dangerous

It’s not just HMP Birmingham – although the staggering tales of Spice-intoxicated inmates roaming the hallways and guards locking themselves into their offices certainly mark it as an outlier. The whole of Britain’s prison system is in a state of crisis. Staff working in dangerous conditions report chaos on prison wings, and feeling unsupported and fearful on a day-to-day basis. The situation is so bad that a third of those who join the prison service now leave within a year.

Figures compiled by the Labour Party, and leaked this week, found that 33 per cent of prison officers leaving their jobs in the past 12 months had been in the role for less than a year, up from 7 per cent in 2010.

The government had been publicly celebrating its success in recruiting a new generation of officers, but they should hold the champagne corks. The applause sounds rather hollow now.

Meanwhile the prison population just keeps on rising, as the number and length of custodial sentences awarded creeps upwards too. Almost a third of indictable offences carried a custodial term in 2017, and the average term spent in jail is 16 months.

Prisons are at breaking point, and the pressure they are under – due to both a lack of funding and now clearly of experience too – has led to big mistakes. A report published this week found that hundreds of sex offenders had been released from HMP Dartmoor despite posing a public risk, a result of “unplanned” release. That such an event can occur, and multiple times, demonstrates the extent to which control over the business of rehabilitation has been lost. Damningly, many of these men – who, despite their troubling crimes, should be recognised as vulnerable as well as potentially dangerous – were allowed to leave prison despite their release leaving them homeless.

Yet, this is not the full story. If you think things are bad inside prison, take a look at what’s going on outside. It’s not just prison officers buckling under the pressure, the probation service is also nearing the point of collapse.

Private companies drafted in to manage offenders in the community, and paid by results to do this, have failed utterly in their task.

Some three years ago, the probation service was split in two. The government-run National Probation Service continued to manage the most high-risk offenders, those who have committed very serious crimes or who are judged to pose a serious and ongoing risk to the wellbeing of others. And despite being streamlined, and losing a lot of its staff through redundancy, it has been assessed as continuing to do a good job. That in itself should not prompt significant celebration; it is, surely, the least we can expect from a functioning government, that it is able to protect its population from danger and exploitation.

The privatised part of the system, however, is made up of community rehabilitation companies – private organisations who bid for the work and are paid according to their achievements – who look after those offenders who are considered to pose a “low” or a “medium” risk. Their key task is to support their rehabilitation and prevent reoffending; to move former criminals on to new, positive, productive lives.

There are 21 of these companies in operation. So far, only two have managed to cut the reoffending rate. The latest assessment of their work has been damning: Dame Glenys Stacey, the chief inspector of probation, said staff at the CRCs – who are inexperienced, as a huge number of long-standing probation officers took redundancy or retirement when the service split in two – are doing a bad job of managing their caseloads. Too often, communication with their clients was taking place by telephone, with little effort to build the supportive relationships that could turn lives around.

Payment by results means these failing CRCs could make yet more staff cuts, with worse outcomes for their charges – and for the communities in which they live. Payment by results is all very well in manufacturing, for example, but when those measurable results are the health and wellbeing of our society, it isn’t just logistically challenging but also extremely high risk.

What makes the situation even more troubling is the way that some crimes are categorised. At the point of privatisation, women’s charities warned that those convicted of domestic violence may fall under the category of “low” or “medium” risk – even though it is well known that domestic violence can escalate very suddenly. That put them under the care of less experienced officers, who operate a lighter touch approach. There is little recognition in the system for the fact that the risk posed by someone under the probation service can wax and wane. How can an officer possibly know that this risk level is shifting if they have so little face-to-face contact with them? Two woman, remember, are killed by their partner or former partner every week in England and Wales.

The rapid decline in the quality of the probation service has created a dangerous cycle of neglect, where criminals who are not properly supported both pose a higher risk to the community and are also more likely to seriously reoffend – which leads to a further conviction, which then (thanks to rising incarceration rates) leads to a sentence, and yet more pressure on the buckling prison system.

The government admits, in its own statistics, that more than a third of offenders now have what it describes as “long criminal careers”. That situation is untenable.

In managing the post-prison lives of violent and dangerous criminals, the government, ironically, has proved it can do something well for itself. Too bad it is still so seduced by the whiff of profit that it’s willing to cast aside our most vulnerable in pursuit of ideology over success.

--oo00oo--

Penelope Gibbs and Transform Justice have produced a report on Domestic Violence. There was a time when you'd expect the probation voice to be prominent in such a discussion, but it seems no longer:-

Love, fear and control — does the criminal justice system reduce domestic abuse?  

Executive Summary

In my view the criminal justice system is a very blunt tool to address domestic abuse. Disposals which assist perpetrators in addressing issues which lead to domestic abuse are more likely to meet needs of all parties, including complainants, than the stress and uncertainty of the criminal process. (defence lawyer) 

I think that the whole system should work better. I don’t like the idea of just a slap on the wrist and victims feeling unprotected and perpetrators feeling like they have impunity and that there are no consequences, etc. On the other hand, I’m sort of against the whole criminal justice system – I think it does a really, really bad job. (magistrate) 

Where officers are not arresting and attempting to charge perpetrators, domestic abuse victims are not being properly protected, and criminals are not being brought to justice. (police inspectorate)

Domestic abuse is an immensely contentious area. Campaigners, police and victims agree they want to stop it, but not how this can be achieved. Some are fatalistic about the chances of changing the behaviour of those who abuse, and want all efforts focussed on furthering gender equality, supporting victims and imprisoning perpetrators. Others believe we can only reduce abuse through reforming perpetrators. 

The recent government consultation on combatting domestic abuse focussed on an expansion of restrictive civil orders and on prosecution, conviction and harsher sentences. But the College of Policing says there is no evidence that criminal sanctions stop abusers abusing. What's more, harsher sentences are associated with higher rates of reoffending. So criminal sanctions punish, but don’t help victims in the long term. 

This argument against increased sanctions is common amongst many justice reform campaigners. What complicates matters in domestic abuse cases is the complex emotional backdrop. Victims often love the perpetrators, who may be their husband or their child, and don’t want to destroy their relationship with them by involving outside agencies. This creates tension between respecting victims’ wishes and using criminal law. While everyone wants abuse to stop, views differ about how to do it. 

But if criminal sanctions don’t work well and restrictive civil orders are of limited value, what does reduce domestic abuse and the harm it wreaks? Everyone agrees that victims need more support to stay safely in their own homes or to be rehoused (if they want to), to report abuse and to leave abusive relationships. But opinions are divided as to what else is worth doing. Some are fatalistic and feel that it is not worth spending money on perpetrator programmes – that the evidence shows they don’t work because abusers are entrenched and manipulative. But others say that behaviour change is possible, with the right programmes and the right incentives. In fact there is good evidence from England and elsewhere that some perpetrator programmes do have significant success in stopping abusers continuing to abuse, and in improving relationships. And it's clear that many victims’ greatest desire is for the abuse to stop and their perpetrators to get help. In one study over half the victims interviewed wanted their perpetrators to be arrested, but most did not want their partner to be prosecuted. Instead, they wanted to “teach him a lesson” and to send an important symbolic message.

This report highlights problems with the current criminal justice response to domestic abuse cases, and outlines the interventions available, the evidence (or lack of) on their impact, and the next steps required to reduce abuse. High attrition rate in domestic abuse cases continues to be a concern. Scepticism around the use of out of court responses such as community resolutions, cautions and restorative justice means their role is potentially underestimated. The government’s proposals to expand use of the domestic violence protection order is unlikely to make a positive impact. Instead, we need to work out whether all commonly used perpetrator programmes work and expand those that do. 

Some abusers need to be imprisoned to protect current and future victims. But we cannot lock up every abuser and throw away the key. We need to stop throwing money at “solutions”, like short prison sentences, court fines and ASBO-like orders, which don’t reduce abuse, and focus instead on supporting victims and on behaviour change. Behaviour change takes time, skilled facilitators and the best of evidence of what approaches work. If we focus on getting that right, we’ll save a generation of victims – partners, family members and children - from abuse.