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

How The Parole Board See Things

I notice that in the latest Bromley Briefing from the Prison Reform Trust, there is a lengthy article by the Parole Board CEO. Somewhat intriguingly, probation gets not one direct mention despite now astonishingly deprived of their ability to advise the Board directly on progression and release. In fact the whole document, although primarily a broad-ranging prison 'fact file', probation gets just a cursory mention. Amazing. Anyway, here is the piece minus references and charts:-  

Introduction 

We’ve had three prime ministers, two justice secretaries (one twice over), four prisons ministers and two CEOs of the prison and probation service since the last edition of this briefing. So it’s hardly surprising that this edition is not full of evidence of progress towards the ambitions set out in the Prisons Strategy White Paper published in January last year. All of those office holders have struggled with an accelerating exodus of staff from the prison service, fuelling a crisis that has kept many prisoners in conditions amounting to solitary confinement. In the latter half of the year, the much-anticipated increase in prison numbers as court activity increases has also materialised. As a result, far from being a year of post-pandemic recovery, 2022 has seen life change depressingly little for people in prison. 

We know that the practical challenges any prisons minister inherits are daunting, and mirrored in other public services. But what sets prisons apart is the willingness of successive governments to add to their problems, generally in the face of all the evidence about how to reduce them. This edition’s “Long View” tracks changes in the parole system, and provides precisely such an example. 

There is much that should cause concern about how our system deals with people whose release depends on an assessment of future risk by the Parole Board. It cannot be right that a large majority of people end up serving well beyond the period set for punishment by the sentencing court (the “tariff”) when prisons have had many years to prepare them for safe release when that term expires. By the same token, the system should regard the fact that well over 2,000 people on life and imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentences are back in prison having been recalled as a failure rather than a success. But the extreme caution that drives the parole system does produce remarkably low re-offending rates — roughly one tenth of those for people released automatically on a determinate sentence. In a criminal justice system characterised by chronic under-performance, the Parole Board can reasonably claim to be something of an exception to the rule. 

As the “Long View” makes clear, the parole system exists to assess and manage risk — it cannot eliminate it. But changes made in the summer of 2022 seems to have that goal in mind. As a result of changes made without parliamentary scrutiny, almost all opportunity for indeterminate sentenced prisoners to move to an open prison has disappeared. Overnight, a 94% acceptance rate has turned into 87% rejected. The Parole Board’s advice — proven over many years to be both cautious and reliable — is now either not sought or ignored. Legislation to allow a political veto over the Parole Board’s expert decision on release in high-profile cases is promised for 2023. 

The cumulative effect of these changes is to make release an unfairly distant prospect for a growing number of prisoners, regardless of the progress they make over the many years set aside as punishment. The expectations on which both prisoners and staff rely to preserve hope and meaning in the long years of custody are being systematically undermined, and the punitive impact of the sentence in practice now exceeds what either parliament or the sentencing court intended. The legislation that created the discredited IPP sentence in 2003 fell into a similar error, creating a punishment that was neither humane nor just — 20 years later a government with a short memory is repeating that mistake. 

Peter Dawson 

Director, Prison Reform Trust

The long view—The changing face of parole

The mists of time… 

The work of the Parole Board has changed enormously since its creation in 1967–68. Looking back, its origins seem rooted in a different age. Its founding chair, Lord Hunt, had overseen the first successful ascent of Mount Everest. At the point of creation, there were just 17 members, including just one woman. Those first members never saw a prisoner, there were in fact no “hearings” at all. Technically there were in fact no decisions, as the final decision rested with the home secretary of the day. There was virtually no transparency at all for victims, the public or prisoners. Today, the board has nearly 350 members, and is independent of government. Last year the board made over 16,000 decisions, with detailed reasons provided, as to whether prisoners were safe to be released. The board also held around 9,000 oral hearings. Our decisions are now clearly recognised as those of a court, though the precise status of the board remains controversial and has been the subject of repeated reviews. 

The changing face of parole has been the result of gradual evolution over the last three decades often precipitated by legislative change and judgments of both the domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights. As long ago as 1989, the House of Lords Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment recommended that the decision to release indeterminate prisoners should be an entirely judicial one, “independent of the executive.” The government of the day rejected that argument, and until the 1990s the final decision on the release of those serving life sentences continued to rest with the home secretary. However, a series of judgments chipped away at political decision making, with government and Parliament gradually ceding that the final decision on the release of prisoners should rest with a “court” and that the Parole Board was the right body to perform that function.

“Only around one in four people considered by the Parole Board each year are released, and we know that the majority of people we release repay that trust in the community.”

Having worked on sentencing in that era, I know that not all these changes were politically welcome, but I think they were right. They removed some of the political sting from high profile release decisions, but fundamentally they meant that decisions had to be based on evidence and the law. 

During the 55 years since 1967, exactly what “parole” means has also been hotly debated and undergone significant change. At the heart of any system of conditional release there are bound to be tensions between the rights of prisoners and the legitimate concerns of victims; between a desire to prevent future crime and a need to reach decisions about individual liberty in a procedurally just way. The very idea of parole offends some as an attack on “truth in sentencing”, while others see it as a powerful tool to promote desistance from future offending. The Parole Board finds itself continually at the centre of these tensions, both corporately and in the day-to-day work of its members. 

In the 1960s, 70s and 80s, parole was typically seen as an incentive to good behaviour by prisoners, and early release (after as little as one third of the sentence) a form of reward. That changed in 1991 with the introduction of automatic release at the halfway point for all sentences under four years, and a requirement that those serving sentences of four years or more should serve a minimum of 50% of the sentence in custody before being subject to a discretionary release (“parole”) process. Securing parole for prisoners became less a matter of “keeping a clean and tidy cell” and more an issue of potential future risk. Progressively more sophisticated systems of assessment, and the advent of accredited offending behaviour programmes cemented that shift during the following decade.

The 1990s also saw changes required following successful litigation that gave many more prisoners the right to make their case in person to the Parole Board, and to question evidence given about them at an oral hearing. That process unquestionably sharpened up the board’s practice and training, and few would now argue against the idea that prisoners should be entitled to the same rights and safeguards that come with any other judicial proceeding. At least as far as the question of release is concerned, the days of decisions taken in secret in offices in Whitehall were consigned to history.

“The published evidence is strong; when a prisoner is afforded a successful period in open conditions it makes the public safer, and increases the chance that the individual can succeed on release.”

An accountable system 

Many of the more recent reforms have built on these foundations. The parole system can seem secretive and unaccountable to the victims of serious crime, but is now more transparent, publishing reasons for its decisions. There is also a reconsideration mechanism that allows people the opportunity to challenge our decisions where they believe they are irrational or unfair. On 12 December 2022 the first ever public parole hearing was held, and we are piloting a scheme to allow victims to observe parole hearings, with proper support. 

Our decisions really matter to people. They matter to the public because the overriding focus of our hearings is their protection. They matter to victims because our decisions can cause anxiety and they deserve to be kept updated about the decisions that affect them so deeply. They also matter to prisoners because however serious the original offence, after they have served the period set for punishment, they are legally entitled to a fair hearing, by an independent court, to decide if their continued imprisonment remains necessary for the protection of the public.

What the board does and how it does it 

Having spent three decades working in criminal justice, as a practitioner working in the criminal courts, as a policy maker and now as chief executive of the Parole Board, it’s impossible not to be struck by the intense public interest in what people call “early” release. In fact, over 90% of people released from prison each year are let out automatically without a Parole Board assessment. Their sentence assumes that much of it will be served under supervision in the community, not in prison. By contrast, the Parole Board deals with only the most serious cases — those who have committed serious sexual and violent offences or are assessed as dangerous. The board has the power to keep someone serving an indeterminate sentence in prison until they die. 

Across their time at the board our members will often end up assessing thousands of people, so whilst no system can be fool-proof, members build up a huge amount of expertise. We also benefit from the assessments of those who have worked with and assessed the prisoner, and that opinion always carries huge weight with us.

“It is hard not to be concerned that since June 2022 the secretary of state has chosen not even to seek the board’s advice in a much higher proportion of cases, and his officials have chosen not to take our advice in nearly nine out of every 10 cases where we have recommended a progressive move to open conditions.”

The facts demonstrate that the Parole Board is very cautious in its decision making. Only around one in four people considered by the Parole Board each year are released, and we know that the majority of people we release repay that trust in the community. Less than one of every 200 prisoners we release go on to be convicted of a serious offence within three years of their release. We do not have a crystal ball, but we do know some facts about how risk changes over time. We also know that the opportunity to test in open conditions, education, employment, accommodation and support in the community are key to a safe and successful release. We should not shy away from telling victims and the public why and how we make our robust decisions.

"Whilst I accept and support scrutiny of the Parole Board, I worry that too much focus on the Parole Board alone represents a missed opportunity. The board’s decision is a product of how the prison system has performed as well as the choices the prisoner has made."

That is why the Parole Board has published its decision-making framework. It is why we now provide summaries of our decisions to explain our reasons. It is why I have welcomed allowing victims to observe hearings, and the holding of public hearings where it is in the interests of justice. And I look forward to a BBC documentary during 2023, which will provide unprecedented access to the way in which we make our decisions. We have nothing to hide. 

A parole system, not just a board 

Whilst I accept and support scrutiny of the Parole Board, I worry that too much focus on the Parole Board alone represents a missed opportunity. The board’s decision is a product of how the prison system has performed as well as the choices the prisoner has made. I am also deeply conscious how important support in the community can be to keep the public safe; and how difficult it can be for a probation service struggling with high caseloads and staffing vacancies to deliver. The establishment of a parole system oversight board, where senior leaders from both HM Prison and Probation Service and the Parole Board can formally review performance, is a welcome if overdue reform.

Release is not the only issue which the board considers. For many years, it has advised the secretary of state on whether a person serving an indeterminate sentence should progress to an open prison. Whilst the final decision rests with the secretary of state, historically those recommendations have almost always been accepted, because the published evidence is strong; when a prisoner is afforded a successful period in open conditions it makes the public safer, and increases the chance that the individual can succeed on release by their gradual reintegration back into society. 

So, it is hard not to be concerned that since June 2022 the secretary of state has chosen not even to seek the board’s advice in a much higher proportion of cases, and his officials have chosen not to take our advice in nearly nine out of every 10 cases where we have recommended a progressive move to open conditions. Looking ahead, this is likely to inevitably lead to some people being released without this crucial testing, and others staying in custody for longer than might have been necessary for the protection of the public. 

The board’s membership 

So, who takes these incredibly weighty decisions? In 2021/22 there were 346 active members with a wide range of professional backgrounds, from serving judges to the police service. 

The diversity of our membership goes beyond professional background. Since 2016, we have made huge strides in improving the ethnic diversity of our members. In 2016, less than 5% of the membership identified as being from a Black, Asian or minority ethnic background. Now, that figure is 18%. This is important for trust and confidence given the over representation of people from a minority ethnic background in our prisons. 

What next 

The Parole Board is constantly evolving and will continue to do so. Some change is driven by ministers and parliament, some by our own desire to improve what we do. Whilst we must remain independent, we should be open to challenge and always look for ways to improve our performance. We need to constantly reassure those who rely on our decisions that we have a fair and transparent parole system and that our record on public protection is strong — as good as any I have seen internationally. Change is inevitable, but it should build on those solid foundations.

Martin Jones 

Chief Executive Officer, Parole Board

Locked Out of Rehabilitation

It's good to see the Prison Reform Trust continuing to highlight the parole situation since the disgraceful changes unilaterally introduced by Dominc Raab:-

 
Parole reforms locking people out of rehabilitation

The slow drip feed of hard information from the Ministry of Justice about the impact of changes to the parole system continues. In this blog, Peter Dawson, director of the Prison Reform Trust, examines what these latest numbers tell us.

A recent parliamentary question by Baroness Prashar has uncovered further information about the impact of the government’s parole reforms.

People who are progressing really well in their life sentence can request what is known as a pre-tariff review. This is a hearing by the Parole Board, held three years before a person’s earliest possible release date—their tariff expiry. If successful, they are allowed to move to a lower security ‘open prison’.

In a sensible world, everyone would be entitled to such a review without asking, and PRT has called for reviews to happen even earlier in the life sentence. That would mean that people could be completely clear about what they needed to do to stand the best chance of being released at the moment the authority to detain purely as punishment comes to an end.

But as things currently stand, the pre-tariff review procedure is all the system offers. The prison’s Governor must first support the request for the review before it is considered by the Ministry of Justice. Officials in the ministry must then endorse that support before the Parole Board can get involved. In practice, that means requests are initially considered (and can be refused) on the basis of very brief reports. These are considerably less detailed and informative than the subsequent dossier of information that is prepared if the review is eventually sent for consideration by a Parole Board panel.

Getting a pre-tariff review has never been easy. But what does this new information reveal?

It tells us that in the six months before the criteria for transfer to open conditions changed on 6 June, 133 applications for review were referred to the Parole Board by the ministry, and 113 were not. 

So that’s a success rate prior to 6 June of around 54% in terms of at least getting your case considered with a full dossier and independently of the ministry. Since 6 June, 9 requests have been referred to the Parole Board and 65 have been blocked, a success rate of just 12%.

It beggars belief that ministers are so determined to keep lifers out of open prisons. Doing so forces the Parole Board to see cases for the very first time following their tariff expiry date, keeping people stuck in a closed prison without any of the benefits that an open prison provides to prepare someone for release. Nowadays the system has generally had at least a couple of decades to prepare for someone getting released and to test out all the anxieties it might have about allowing that. It’s surely not too much to expect that getting someone safely released once they have served their minimum term—or tariff expiry—should be what that system is aiming for.

The failure to get organised in pursuit of that aim—and now to adopt policies that actively frustrate it—will have very practical consequences for ministers at a time when they are running out of both prison places and the staff they need to run them. But it will also have devastating consequences for the people who are denied the chance even to put their case to the Parole Board—typically people who have done everything asked of them over many years spent in prison. This isn’t simply an immoral policy. It’s an irrational one.

Peter Dawson
Director

Plight of the Long-term Prisoner

Right from the beginning of my career in the Probation Service and working in a Field Team, meant that a significant proportion of the the caseload were serving custodial sentences and a few were serving life. Regular contact through visits and letter was quite normal right from first remand or sentence, as was being part of the sentence planning process. I've always felt it was a vital part of the job and good practice for all prisoners serving 12 months or more to have community contact maintained and actively supported by a field PO.

It doesn't surprise me at all that a recent report from the Prison Reform Trust on the plight of long-term prisoners paints an extremely bleak picture and despite some optimism for OMiC, I can't help but feel this is a situation created largely by the absence of former practice.    

Prison system failing to prepare long term prisoners for release

Prisoners serving long sentences are spending years in jail unsure about what they can do to prepare—and ultimately demonstrate their readiness—for release, a new report by the Prison Reform Trust reveals.

Making Progress?, is the first consultation report of the Prison Reform Trust’s Building Futures programme. It follows collaboration with people from around 30 prisons, who have all served—or will serve—a continuous period of at least ten years in custody.

The consultation found that prisoners were confused and disillusioned by the apparently simple proposition that they are required to reduce ‘risk’. Whilst talk of risk pervades prison life and affects many aspects of prisoners’ experiences, this catch-all term masks important details—risk of what, from what, to whom, in what circumstances?

Demonstrating reduced risk is of particular importance to those whose release ultimately depends upon approval by the Parole Board—and if recent proposals become law—the Secretary of State for Justice.

The report suggests that this confusion stems from a mismatch between what prisons appear to expect from prisoners—broadly, compliance with the rules—and what those in probation and the Parole Board are looking for prisoners to demonstrate to secure their own development and eventual release.

Participants told us that this was leading to them spending years of “nothing time” in prison. Years, often in the middle part of their sentence, where the sentence felt purposeless and stagnant.

“Progress? Which part? Serving a life sentence longer than I have lived—is that normal? It felt as if the prison estate did not even know what to do with us. The reality is lifers at the beginning of our sentences were just warehoused like livestock…sadly many lifers, myself included, saw progression as somewhat of a myth” A life sentenced prisoner, quoted in the report

Another highlighted that their sentence length was acting as a barrier to progression:

“Offending behaviour programmes are prioritised by earliest release date. Which means I have little to no prospect of progressing through my sentence plan or the prison system.”

For others it was their age:

“A minority (but still a substantial number) of long-term prisoners are aware that they are unlikely to live until the end of their sentence. Being rehabilitated to re-enter society is for them (myself included) a false goal.”

The report recommends that HM Prison and Probation Service should develop a long-term prisoner policy framework. It should equip staff working with long-term prisoners to assess risk; communicate this effectively with prisoners and other criminal justice professionals; and give explicit guidance and direction on what kinds of behaviour may demonstrate lowered and elevated risk in future assessments.

It also recommends earlier involvement with the Parole Board in reviewing progress. This would allow any potential roadblocks to release to be identified and a plan to be developed which outlines the steps prisoners can take. With so many years in custody to work with, the system should be aiming for far more prisoners to be ready and safe for release when the period set for punishment expires.

Executive Summary 

This report presents the findings of a prisoner consultation carried out by Prison Reform Trust’s Building Futures programme. Initial scoping work on the programme revealed that sentence progression was a major concern of people serving long sentences. For some time, worries about progression have formed a significant part of the caseload of our Advice and Information service. We carried out the consultation remotely and via a series of roundtable events. Around 100 responses were received to the consultation, which asked prisoners to reflect on four questions relating to their progression. 

Section 2 of the report describes the structure of the different kinds of long sentences being served by consultation respondents. It also unpacks two key terms in the consultation responses that follow. 

The first is ‘risk’. Prisons assess and manage a large variety of risks and the term is used in many ways. For clarity’s sake, we therefore take some time in section 2.2 to unpack the term ‘risk’: what different forms it takes, what we mean by it in the report, and some of the reasons prisoners appear to become confused or disillusioned by the apparently simple proposition that they are required to reduce it. 

The second key term is ‘progression’. Prisoners who responded to the consultation tended to understand ‘progression’ to mean something more broad than ‘risk reduction’ and a gradual reclassification into lower-security conditions as they neared the date of their release. Sections 2.3 and 2.4 question whether ‘risk reduction’ alone can provide a coherent basis for thinking about ‘progression’, given that many sentences are now decades long, meaning that offence-related rehabilitative work may be completed many years before risk can be adequately tested in the community. We suggest that what ideas of ‘progression’ will engage prisoners will depend on factors beyond risk, including the age they are at conviction, and the length of their sentences. This, we suggest, points to the need for an individualised, personalised approach to ‘progression’, sensitive to the individual circumstances of the person whose sentence is being planned. 

Section 3 sets out the findings of the consultation. Section 3.2 shows how many long-term prisoners felt confused and uncertain about how they were meant to progress or to make positive, productive use of their time. Many believed that compliance and the completion of offending behaviour programmes (OBPs) were the only expectations coming to them from the prison, and some pointed out that mere compliance offered very little to motivate or challenge them over the long term. Their evaluations of OBPs were mixed, but there was a consensus that only in rare cases was participation in them enough to secure a progressive move, leading to the perception that the sentence plan left many ‘stagnant’ years in the sentence. Respondents also described problems where information used in risk assessment could appear inaccurate, irrelevant or out-of-date. We suggest that for many, there is a mismatch between what prisons appear to expect from them (broadly, compliance), and what will secure their own development.

This led to challenges that some respondents called ‘nothing time’: the years, often in the middle part of the sentence, where the sentence felt purposeless and stagnant. Section 3.3 presents responses from those who described how they had tried to give these years purpose and meaning, for example by pursuing their own plans and objectives. Educational opportunities were of major interest to many in this group, but all kinds of prison work and other activities were described as worthwhile. Many thought that achievements in these areas went under-recognised by prisons. Respondents also suggested it was difficult to access the right opportunities, and difficult to have their efforts taken seriously and recorded by the prison. Some said taking responsibility for their own personal development required initiative, persistence and determination, and often also strong reading and writing skills to put their case to the prison. These are not possessed by all prisoners. 

Section 3.4 discusses respondents’ views on casework and on how their relationships with staff affected their progression. These views were mixed. There was positive feedback on recent changes in policy, especially relating to the introduction of the Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) policy framework. In particular, the introduction of the keyworker role was positively received by those in prisons where keywork was operational. However, respondents also expressed the view that the Prison Offender Managers (POMs) and Community Offender Managers (COMs) relationships were distant and remote, and that these did not always take account of information that the respondent saw as relevant to their personal development. In fact, respondents noted that officers on the wings, whom they saw and interacted with daily, should be more directly involved in recording information relevant to progression, as they are most likely to notice positive changes in behaviour. 

Finally, in section 4, we set out the recommendations arising from this consultation which draw on contributions from prisoners to set out ways of improving the routes to progression for long-sentenced prisoners.

Emotional Toll

There was a line in Friday nights first episode of 'The Investigation' on BBC2 that immediately resonated with me. It's the beginning of a murder case and stress is already becoming apparent amongst the detectives involved. Before heading home in pensive mood, an experienced officer makes a revealing statement to a younger colleague along the lines of 'there hasn't been a homicide case I haven't taken home with me'. Oh boy, that resonated and got me reflecting. 

I think we're all familiar with the old probation mantra of 'advise, assist and befriend' and I know for a fact that this remains a fundamental element of practice amongst some officers and especially of a certain vintage. For those not 'in the know' it's hard to adequately explain the stress caused by having to try and help (supervise?) clients who are homeless, destitute, frightened and possibly suicidal. 

In addition to the person's situation assaulting your emotions and challenging your professional skills of advocacy, it can utterly disrupt your planned working day and 'essential' record-keeping. The advent of the computer has made things 100% worse. And then supposedly you have to 'switch off' and go home, hopefully to a contrasting world of calm, comfort and safety, but not always of course. 

The cumulative effect can be extremely serious and lead to what used to be termed 'burnout', long term sickness, depression and in some instances suicide. Sadly during my career I have known of two colleagues who took their own life and one who had to be 'sectioned' for their own safety. This sort of thing doesn't seem to be talked of nowadays and I wonder why? Can you do the job 'properly' any more, or just 'sign-post' everything off? 'Not my job guv'.  

But 'advise, assist and befriend' and social work was only ever part of the story because the job has always been concerned with justice, punishment and rehabilitation too. In order to be effective there is an inherent need to get to the truth, a task that can be extraordinarily difficult especially in relation to sex offenders and people convicted of murder. 

It can be incredibly stressful, particularly as parole dates approach and you become acutely aware of the importance that words can have in influencing key decisions. Did they really not do it? Has there been a miscarriage of justice? Is that really what happened? Will it happen again? In my experience these cases have not only 'come home' with me but continue to live with me years and decades later. 

The recent ITV drama-documentary about the notorious Pembrokeshire murders reminded me that, not withstanding a whole-life tariff, one or more probation officers will have that case, but unlike police officers will never talk about it publicly, write a book or sell a story to the media. It all means the public and politicians continue to remain blissfully ignorant as to what the job is all about. I sometimes reflect that even in my fairly pedestrian career, I carry around the baggage attached to more than a handful of stories, the telling of which would amount to much media interest and quite a pretty cash sum. It will never happen though, such is the distinctive probation ethos that still survives.

I'll end this meander with a final thought. Just imagine the emotional effect on probation officers prior to the 1965 abolition of the death penalty and their involvement with clients destined for the gallows. I've never heard any discussion at all of this, but wonder if this was the origin of the practice of 'pairing' in cases of murder right from first allocation. I know that when I joined in 1985 it was routine practice to have a colleague assigned as a 'pair' on all  murder cases for support, continuity and essentially another view.                

Tough On Crime Again

Politicians, especially those in trouble, just can't avoid the temptation of using the populist 'tough on crime' card and Boris Johnson is in a great deal of trouble. Here's Rob Allen's take on this particular No 10 distraction tactic:-   

The Impulse to Punish

Depressing if predictable trailing of the forthcoming Sentencing White Paper today, with Justice Secretary Robert Buckland telling Sun readers “it’s time for a tougher criminal justice system” and the Prime Minister writing in the Express that “some individuals are so dangerous or their crimes so abhorrent that they should never be released”.

Some comfort I suppose that after explaining his plans to lower from 21 to 18 the age at which people convicted of murder will be able to be sentenced to spend their whole life in prison, Johnson clarified that he wasn’t “talking about permanently locking up young people who make teenage mistakes or commit youthful indiscretions”. Thanks for that. And maybe some promise in his view that “we need more and better rehabilitation behind bars, improved monitoring of and support for ex-prisoners and more effective non-custodial sentences for low-risk offenders”. But all in all while the numbers directly affected by his draconian measures may be relatively small, there’s a real risk of an inflationary knock on effect on sentencing levels for less grave crimes.

It’s possible that courts may re calibrate their sentences downwards in the wider range of cases where two thirds rather than half will be spent inside. But for some reason I’ve never understood, they are not supposed to take too much account of what a sentence means in practice. More likely that some will take their lead from Johnson’s idea that public protection should be the single most important principle of sentencing and impose yet longer terms. Of course, public protection is important but the experience of the IPP sentence – widely acknowledged to be basically unjust -should serve as a warning against ignoring other purposes of sentencing.

Johnson may be surprised to know that he has some support in international law. The Nelson Mandela Rules say that the purposes of a sentence of imprisonment are primarily to protect society against crime and to reduce recidivism. They go on to say that those purposes can be achieved only if the period of imprisonment is used to ensure, so far as possible, the reintegration of such persons into society upon release so that they can lead a law-abiding and self-supporting life. And that's a problem.

Last week’s Public Accounts Committee Report showed the government’s abject failure to make progress on David Cameron’s 2016 vision of “a modern, more effective, truly twenty-first century prison system." Given the financial constraints facing the government in coming years its hard to see much in the future. We have heard about better rehabilitation in prisons for a decade but it seems much less capable of being delivered than are longer sentences.

Maybe the White Paper will have something more positive to say but I am not holding my breath. As Nietzsche said, “ Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful".

Rob Allen

Another Wearisome Battle

We've discussed many times before on here how making crime and punishment a political football might win votes, but it inevitably stores up a shed-load of problems further down the line. A new government means the circular argument must repeat itself and here's the Prison Reform Trust firing the first round in yet another wearisome battle:- 

Punitive prison policies risk repeating past mistakes

Planned government changes to sentencing will add to pressures on our overcrowded and overstretched prisons, without reducing crime or improving public confidence, a new Prison Reform Trust report warns.

The latest edition of the Bromley Briefing Prison Factfile reveals that, contrary to the impression given in much recent political debate and media coverage, England and Wales have become much tougher in their approach to punishing serious crime over the past few decades, on a scale which exceeds comparable countries or historical precedent.

Writing in the report in a specially commissioned section on life sentences, Professor Ben Crewe and Dr Susie Hulley, from the University of Cambridge, and Dr Serena Wright, from Royal Holloway, University of London, reveal a dramatic increase in the number of people serving sentences that were until recently considered wholly exceptional in their severity.

Between 2000 and 2003, fewer than 100 people a year were given life sentences where the minimum guaranteed period in custody, known as the “tariff” exceeded 15 years. But in the years that followed, this number increased significantly, rising to 249 adults in 2008.

By September 2019, 1,872 life sentence prisoners had tariffs (the guaranteed minimum time inside for punishment) of over 20 years. 880 people had a tariff of more than 25 years, and 291 had a tariff of more than 30 years, excluding 63 people who were serving the state’s most extreme punishment, a whole life tariff—and so very unlikely ever to be released.

The authors’ analysis suggests that the most likely and significant cause of the recent growth in the use of long sentences has been changes in sentencing legislation, particularly the 2003 Criminal Justice Act and subsequent amendments, which bought into effect a significant increase in the minimum sentence for a range of forms of murder.

They find no clear evidence that the recent rise in tariff lengths is linked to changes in the nature or severity of offending itself.

They conclude that the growing numbers of people serving long sentences means that our prisons are likely to remain overcrowded for the foreseeable future, regardless of any changes in sentencing practice for less serious offending or improvements in reconviction rates.

The Bromley Briefings have established themselves as an essential reference publication for anyone concerned about the prison systems in the UK.

The facts and figures compiled for the latest report reveal that our prisons continue to face unprecedented challenges, with conditions which undermine our justice system, and whose consequences blight our communities rather than helping them to thrive.

England and Wales already has one of the highest rates of imprisonment in western Europe, with 140 people held in prison for every 100,000 of our population. We also keep people in prison for far longer than many other countries, with more people serving life sentences here than Germany, Russia, Italy, Poland, the Netherlands and Scandinavia combined.

Pressures on prisons set to worsen as government seeks to introduce punitive reforms in its proposed sentencing bill. A government commitment to 10,000 additional prison places is unlikely to meet rising demand given the government’s failure in the past to deliver on prison building promises. A similar 2015 promise to close decrepit and overcrowded Victorian and pre-Victorian jails and replace them with up to 10,000 new prison places have resulted in just 206 additional places being built to date, whilst the commitment to close older prisons has now been abandoned.

Commenting, Peter Dawson, director of the Prison Reform Trust said:

“Following almost a decade of deterioration, the government is right to want to restore confidence in our justice system, but so far it is looking in the wrong places. Longer sentences haven’t improved public confidence or safety before, and they won’t now. But they have helped produce a prison system that fails to deliver either safety or rehabilitation. Good soundbites don’t always make good policy - a coherent plan for reform is long overdue.”

--oo00oo--

This from the Guardian:-

Longer sentences will not cut crime, say prison experts

Boris Johnson’s hardline approach to justice will not cut crime and will only pile pressure on overstretched prisons, expert campaigners have said, as research reveals life sentences have already risen sharply.

The Prison Reform Trust issued the stark warning just days after the government unveiled proposals to lock up some serious violent and sexual offenders for longer by scrapping automatic release halfway through a jail sentence. Offenders serving standard determinate sentences of seven years or more, where the maximum sentence is life, will be released at the two-thirds point, rather than halfway, under the changes unveiled last week.

Introducing a new report, the Prison Reform Trust director, Peter Dawson, said the government was looking in the wrong places to restore confidence in the justice system.

He said: “Longer sentences haven’t improved public confidence or safety before, and they won’t now. But they have helped produce a prison system that fails to deliver either safety or rehabilitation. Good soundbites don’t always make good policy – a coherent plan for reform is long overdue.”

Researchers suggest England and Wales are already tougher on punishing serious crime than other countries. Prof Ben Crewe and Dr Susie Hulley, from the University of Cambridge, and Dr Serena Wright, from Royal Holloway, University of London, found a dramatic increase in the number of people serving life sentences.

According to the findings, fewer than 100 people a year were handed a life sentence with a minimum term of 15 years in England and Wales between 2000 and 2003. By 2008, this had risen to 249 adults and as of September 2019, 1,872 life sentence prisoners had tariffs of more than 20 years.

Last year, there were also 880 serving a minimum of 25 years and 291 with a tariff of more than 30, excluding those serving the whole-life tariff who are unlikely to ever be released.

The findings of the report indicate there was no clear evidence that the latest rise in lengths of tariffs is linked to changes in the nature or severity of offending. The research claims growing numbers of people serving long sentences will mean prisons are likely to remain overcrowded for the foreseeable future.

A Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said: “Under this government, serious violent and sexual offenders will spend more time where they belong – behind bars. We are spending £2.75bn on transforming and modernising the estate, including creating 10,000 additional prison places.”

Are They Telling the Truth

Just one of the many occupational hazards routinely faced by Probation Officers is trying to decide when someone is lying. Anyone with some years experience will be well aware of the wry observation often made by Prison Officers regarding having to deal with 'whole wings of innocent men.' There will be some of course, but the trick is trying to decide which ones are lying.

There could be no better example of the high stakes involved in getting it right and making the right call in terms of risk than that of the Worboys case. It takes considerable skill and experience to decide where the line can be drawn in assessing the level of risk regarding release and make the right judgement call between being too cautious and risk averse on the one hand and too confident and optimistic on the other. A key factor in making this decision is always 'are they telling me the truth'. This on the BBC website:-    

Black cab rapist John Worboys given two life sentences

Black cab rapist John Worboys has been handed two life sentences with a minimum term of six years for attacking four more women. The 62-year-old, who is now known as John Radford, was jailed in 2009 for assaults on 12 women in London. The four victims came forward after a public outcry caused by a Parole Board ruling that he was safe to be freed. Sentencing Worboys, Mrs Justice McGowan said she did not know when "if ever you will cease to be a risk".

In 2009, Worboys was locked up indefinitely for the public's protection with a minimum term of eight years after being found guilty of 19 sex offences against 12 women between 2006 and 2008. In January 2018, the Parole Board said Worboys would be freed after serving 10 years but victims challenged the decision. That decision was later overturned by the High Court, leading to a review of the decision where the Parole Board decided Worboys must remain in jail.

Among the reasons given for refusing Worboys parole were his "sense of sexual entitlement" and a need to control women. Prosecutor Duncan Penny QC told the Old Bailey that psychiatrist Philip Joseph found Worboys had been "fantasising" about attacking women since 1986. A probation report in August this year found "he is potentially just as dangerous now as the point of the first sentence".

After the four women came forward, Worboys, of Enfield, admitted two charges of administering a drug with intent to commit rape or indecent assault. He also pleaded guilty to two further charges of administering a substance with intent to commit a sexual offence.

Mr Penny said the first victim was targeted in 2000 or early 2001 after a night out at a wine bar in Dover Street in Soho. The second victim, a university student living in north London, was picked up after a night out with friends at a club on New Oxford Street in 2003. Worboys' third victim was picked up after a night out on King's Road in 2007 where he told her he had won £40,000 at a casino and offered her champagne.

The court heard Worboys told the fourth victim he had won the lottery and offered her and her friend miniature bottles of champagne. Mr Penny said: "She woke up in bed the following morning. The bedclothes had not moved and her hands were crossed over her chest, which was unusual. "She was sufficiently unnerved to check herself. There were no visible signs she had been touched."

Mr Penny told the court: "The consistent themes throughout, together with the content of what took place, seems to be the profound effect not knowing what happened has had in each of these women throughout their lives, as a result of having been unfortunate enough to get into the defendant's black cab."

Analysis

If an offender tells lies, does that increase their risk to the public? That's the key issue at the heart of this case. John Worboys lied to psychologists before his parole hearing in 2017, giving a carefully-crafted account that tallied only with the crimes he'd been convicted of.

He was assessed as safe to be released from prison. But, when more victims came forward Worboys changed his story. Despite this Dr Jackie Craissati, an experienced clinical forensic psychologist, told the court she believes Worboys poses a low risk of sexual reoffending. She says she doesn't expect offenders to give "truthful and full" accounts of their behaviour when assessing how dangerous they are.

The judge clearly did not agree, and many others may baulk at the idea that someone who can't be trusted to tell the truth about their crimes can nevertheless be trusted in the community. Police believe Worboys may have carried out more than 100 rapes and sexual assaults on women in London.

Becki Houlston, who has waived her right to anonymity, said Worboys drugged her in Bournemouth. "He was pretty pre-meditated from the get-go, and I was a woman on my own," she told the BBC. "He is highly manipulative and relentless. It becomes easier to just accept a drink to shut him up."

In Ms Houlston's case, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said there was not enough evidence to prosecute. Reacting to the sentencing, the CPS's Tina Dempster said: "John Worboys is a dangerous predator who still poses a clear threat to women."

Danny Shaw, BBC home affairs correspondent

That Was A Big Mistake

There was a lot riding on the Andrew Marr interview of Boris Johnson this morning. Three heavy-weight reputations on the line, those of Marr, Johnson and the BBC no less. Without doubt the unedifying spectacle was a car crash of epic proportions, admittedly not in slow motion as that of Prince Andrew's, but none-the-less destined to be the subject of expensive PR seminars for years to come.

Those who rose early this morning to catch it live were treated to the moment that the Tory Party effectively lost control of the PR narrative by dint of a gamble that 'weaponising' the deaths of innocent victims on Friday would some how play well with the public. This, despite the measured and dignified earlier interview with Shami Chakrabarti and public plea by Jack Merritt's father:-

David Merritt posted on Twitter: "My son, Jack, who was killed in this attack, would not wish his death to be used as the pretext for more draconian sentences or for detaining people unnecessarily. "R.I.P. Jack: you were a beautiful spirit who always took the side of the underdog."

He added: "Jack lived his beliefs. He held me to a high standard; he would have expected me to say this, and would have pulled me up had I not! "He was an exceptional young man, and I'm only finding out the half of it now he's gone."

By our prime minister disgracefully engineering a slanging-match on the Andrew Marr show this morning he has not only embarrassed us all, but in the process demonstrated why he is not fit to hold office. I'm sure much to the bewilderment and disbelief of Conservative Central Office he has also single-handedly knocked his 'oven-ready' Brexit off the agenda, along with his NHS lies. This could be a turning-point in the election campaign and having chosen to go down this sordid path, it's going to be very difficult indeed for the Tory spin machine to change course. This from today's Observer:-

The Observer view on the London Bridge attack: no place for populist posturing

Terrorists seek to undermine our democratic norms and liberal values by sowing fear and hatred. The horrific scenes from London Bridge on Friday were a chilling echo of the attack that happened there two years ago. This time, two people lost their lives, a number that could have been higher were it not for the heroism of members of the public who pursued the attacker and seized his knife. The swift and brave action from the police and security services was also crucial.

In the immediate aftermath of such an attack, attention inevitably turns to how it could have been avoided. The danger of this debate happening during a general election campaign is that, rather than being open to cool-headed, evidence-based analysis, politicians seek to advance solutions that will achieve electoral advantage.

There is no other way to read the prime minister’s response to this attack. His calls to “end the automatic early release system” and “break with the failed system of the past” represent a rank politicisation of these tragic events, to imply that the main deficiency in the way we manage the risk posed by convicted terrorists is lax sentencing. Priti Patel, the home secretary, tweeted yesterday that the last Labour government introduced legislation that meant “dangerous terrorists” had to be released at the halfway point of their sentence. This is not true. The courts have long had the power to give terrorists sentences that prevent automatic early release. Usman Khan, Friday’s attacker, was convicted of terrorist offences in 2012, and was initially given an indeterminate prison sentence (an “IPP”), introduced by the Labour government in 2005, which would have meant he could not be released until deemed safe by the parole board. That was converted by the court of appeal into an extended term, which meant he was released after serving half of a 16-year custodial sentence.

That sentencing regime no longer exists. David Cameron’s government scrapped IPPs in 2012, when it became clear that people convicted of relatively minor offences were being left languishing in prison indefinitely because they could not prove they were no longer a risk. At the same time, extended sentences were beefed up. Today, someone convicted of a terrorism offence will either receive a life sentence, under which they will remain in prison indefinitely until they convince the parole board they no longer present a risk to the public; or an extended determinate sentence, in which they must either serve their full sentence or prove to the parole board they no longer present a risk after serving two-thirds of their sentence; or be deemed an “offender of particular concern”, which means they must either serve their whole custodial sentence or satisfy the parole board they are not a risk to the public at or after its halfway point. There is no such thing as “automatic early release” for prisoners convicted of terrorism-related offences, and it is disingenuous and irresponsible for Boris Johnson to imply otherwise.

Today’s terror attacks are more likely to be carried out by lone actors using low-grade weapons, inspired by, but not connected to, organised extremism, making them more difficult for our security services to predict. This places more burden than ever on community policing and the prison and probation services to manage the risks of terrorist attack. As a society, we can choose to lock up anyone with any proven terrorist connections forever, regardless of whether or not they have committed a serious crime, and throw away the key – and with it the civil liberties we hold dear. Or we can try to manage the risks in a way that is compatible with liberal democracy.

Johnson’s cynical focus on sentencing reform is surely a ploy to deflect from the sweeping cuts and botched reforms that have hampered the ability of the police force, and the prison and probation services, to manage the risks of terrorism. The prisons budget has been cut sharply since 2010, and the number of prison officers fell by a quarter between 2010 and 2015, leaving an inexperienced and demoralised prison service. Overcrowding has reached intolerably dangerous and unsafe levels, reflected in rising rates of deaths, violence and self-harm on the prison estate, and rehabilitation services are desperately underfunded. This is the context in which our prisons are expected to support the deradicalisation of extremist prisoners; but Whitehall security chiefs have been warning since 2011 that too few convicted terrorists were exposed to deradicalisation efforts. Far from being places where extremist ideology can be tackled head-on, our prisons have become incubators of extremism, and that is partly because of a lack of funding and care by the government.

Khan was released on licence and could have been returned to prison at any time had the probation service flagged him as a risk. This attack will inevitably raise questions about why this did not happen. But the context is a probation service reduced by cuts and, in the words of its chief inspector, an “irredeemably flawed” privatisation by Chris Grayling in 2014. It is struggling with a lack of resources and severe staff shortfalls, and the government has placed too much emphasis on electronic tagging as a way of managing risk – despite the fact there is little evidence that it reduces reoffending.

Any politician who implies that there is a simple way to eliminate the risk of terrorism should be treated with the contempt they deserve. The risk cannot be eradicated, only managed. But that is more easily done when we choose as a society to properly resource community policing, prisons and probation, and invest in developing evidence-based approaches to prevention and deradicalisation. The tragedy of Friday’s attack is only made sharper by the fact that it was launched at a conference that was about precisely that, in a room full of people who have devoted their life’s work to making us all safer. Who wins if our leaders take a reductive, populist approach to preventing such hateful attacks from happening again? Terrorists like Usman Khan.   

Fake News and Fake Law

I never thought I'd be part of voicing any serious concern of our wonderful BBC because it seems heretical and akin to losing faith in the NHS, motherhood and apple pie, but there's clearly something bad going on and touched upon recently by Peter Oborne and his recent Guardian article. 

The thing is this. It's pretty clear to most of us that our current prime minister is completely unfit for office having consistently proved his credentials as a self-serving and compulsive liar with dubious morals and a clear inability to be trusted in pretty much any situation whether it be political, personal or social. 

Now the BBC have clearly taken the surprising decision that, not withstanding all the impartiality rules that cover elections, the public will lose confidence in politics if they were to witness an unvarnished Boris Johnson demonstrating what an utter knob he is, so things have to be 'sanitised', edited, polished or just fixed Korean propaganda-style. First we had the Remembrance Sunday film swap in order to hide the fact a dishevelled and hung-over prime minister had a wreath upside down and got his timing wrong; now we have Question Time audience laughter replaced with rapturous applause when Boris's name is linked to issues of trust. This from the Canary website:- 

Boris Johnson’s appearance on the BBC Question Time (BBCQT) Leaders Debate didn’t exactly go well. From having to sneak into the studio while Jeremy Corbyn was greeted by crowds of supporters to refusing to apologise for his previous racist and homophobic comments, the PM was on the back foot.

But it was on the issue of trust that the audience really showed how much they despise Johnson. And their reaction explicitly showed the contempt they have for him on this issue. This was, seemingly, too much for BBC News. Because it apparently edited the clip, removing the full audience response and editing it to only show applause for Johnson.

We also discover that a vociferous questioner of Jeremy Corbyn over treatment of female Labour MP's is a Tory activist from Hull who has appeared three times previously and successfully made contributions from the audience. This from the Daily Politik on Facebook:- 

Oh look! Wadda ya know? ‘White shirt guy’ who attacked Corbyn in last night’s BBC Leaders debate, is a conservative activist! Ryan Jacobsz. Earlier this year, he was also the conservatives candidate for the local council of Hessle in East Riding, Yorkshire.

Last night was Ryan’s FOURTH appearance on BBCQT. In his first, he attacked Emily Thornberry in chesterfield on 20.04.2018 over Intervention in Syria. In the second, he attacked Richard Burgon on Labour’s brexit position 31.01.2019.

Can BBCQT Audience Producer and UKIP enthusiast, Alison Fuller Pedley explain how conservative activists and candidates make it onto the BBC QuestionTime audience so frequently and why they’re also always conveniently given the opportunity to ask their staged anti-Labour Tory PR attack questions?

--oo00oo-- 

Having got that off my chest, this in the Independent was going to be today's subject, how at election time lying and making stuff up is just second nature to the Tory Party:-

Conservatives accused of ‘peddling fake law’ with pledge to jail child killers for life

A Conservative election pledge – to jail child killers for life – has been dismissed as “fake law” amid calls for all parties to tackle a worsening crisis in the justice system. Days after the number of people punished for crimes in England and Wales hit a new record low, the Tories unveiled a commitment to jail adults who murder children for life, without parole.

Robert Buckland, the justice secretary and lord chancellor, said: “Under a Conservative majority government, the law will be rewritten to be absolutely clear: any murderer who denies a young, innocent child the right to life surrenders their own right to liberty. They do so permanently, and they do so without exception.”

Anonymous campaigner and blogger the Secret Barrister accused Mr Buckland of “peddling fake law”, adding: “A lord chancellor with respect for the rule of law and integrity of the justice system would be on the airwaves correcting this nonsense”. Responding to a Conservative Party tweet claiming it would “make sure life means life for child killers”, the anonymous junior barrister called the claim “a lie”.

“It won’t apply to all (or even most) ‘child killers’ – only adults who commit murder,” the Secret Barrister added. “The law already provides for whole life tariffs for adults who murder children. The number of cases this will apply to is virtually nil. It is a distraction. It is a lie.”

A more detailed summary of the Tories’ proposal said only adults aged 21 and over – who commit the “premeditated” murder of under-16s – would be subject to whole life orders.

The Conservatives said they would make the change by amending the Criminal Justice Act 2003, but then misinterpreted the law. A press release claimed it was currently “too restrictive” and only made whole life terms the starting point for judges in cases if a murder was of multiple children, or involved sexual or sadistic conduct. But the law only says that the offence must be of an “exceptionally high seriousness” to meet the threshold, and gives those factors in a non-exhaustive list of examples.

The Conservatives admitted that even if the law were changed, the “sentencing decision in any given case would continue to rest with the judge” and the “policy will be subject to the usual judicial discretion” – meaning the term could be lowered for mitigating circumstances.

Ellie Cumbo, the Law Society’s head of public law, said “premeditation” was not clearly defined in law and many child murders may not reach the bar. She told The Independent that judges already take pre-planning into account, and that only a “small number” of cases would be affected. “The whole life order already exists in law, and is imposed exactly where you would expect – in cases of this extremely rare and serious type,” Ms Cumbo added.

Other legal experts questioned how premeditation would be defined, and whether judges or juries would decide on the issue. Barrister and author Andrew Keogh said the proposals would “impact very few cases”. “Will a single offender actually serve a single day longer in prison as a result?” he said. “I await the impact assessment when or if the legislation is published, but I strongly suspect it will not. Sounds tough, but probably of no real effect at all.”

Experts also voiced doubt over a separate Conservative election pledge to get anyone illegally carrying a knife “charged within 24 hours and in court within a week – three times faster than the current average”. Boris Johnson said: “We are speeding up prosecutions to make sure the threat of being caught is always an effective deterrent.” But the Conservatives gave no indication of how the process would be “sped up”, amid staff shortages in the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and a backlog of criminal cases waiting to be heard.

Half the magistrates’ courts in England and Wales have been closed as part of austerity measures since 2010, and the number of sitting days has also been reduced to cut costs. “There’s not only a question there about how the courts would accommodate that, but about how the CPS would make a charging decision in 24 hours,” Ms Cumbo said. She pointed out that the courts themselves are responsible for deciding when cases are heard, and are working with “very limited resources”.

“Listing is a mess because the courts are completely overburdened with cases, so it’s difficult to see how another fixed requirement will be accommodated when they’re already groaning under the weight of cases,” the lawyer said. “There’s a question about how you can accomplish a pledge like that without increasing resources to the CPS and courts.”

The Law Society is among organisations campaigning for the government to increase funding across the criminal justice system, as prosecutions plummet. Statistics released by the Ministry of Justice last week showed the number of people punished for crimes in England and Wales hit a new record low in the year to June, while recorded crime rose by 6 per cent. The rate of people jailed has fallen to 6.5 per cent, and the number given immediate prison sentences is at its lowest in a decade.

Separate statistics show that prosecutions are dropping for every type of crime, down to just 7.4 per cent of all recorded offences – a fall of 41,700 in a year. The number of criminal trials being held in England and Wales has plummeted to a record low, falling by 67,000 in the past 10 years. Legal organisations have largely blamed the change on severe cuts made by the Conservative Party to the Ministry of Justice and police budgets, causing fewer cases to be solved or brought to court.

While Mr Johnson has made a promise to hire 20,000 new police officers in three years a key pledge, the Public Accounts Committee said the system may not be able to cope with the consequences of a rise in demand.

What Makes a Murderer

Somewhat strangely given his notoriety, I wasn't aware of the John Massey case until I gave in to a compelling urge to watch the first in the series of the luridly-named Ch4 programme 'What Makes a Murderer' last night. Despite the somewhat over-dramatised format of this type of endeavour where a 30 minute story is spun out to an hour, I suppose it was always likely that it would attract my attention having got to know quite a few men who have been convicted of murder over the years.

I don't know about other officers, but right from the start John's measured, calm and ice-cold delivery certainly got my undivided attention and particularly upon learning he'd served 43 years and had not been subject of a whole life tariff. Anyone in our line of work would know immediately that you have to work particularly hard at things in order to serve that length of time, and so it later transpired, but already several bells were ringing labelled 'psycopath' and 'danger'. 

Over my career as a Probation Officer my working hypothesis has been that, in the absence of compelling contradictory and expert evidence, we are all the product of behaviour that results from an equal combination of genetic makeup and environment, the age-old conundrum of nature or nurture? This tv series seeks to apply all that modern science can muster in order to search for physical, neural evidence of a predisposition towards a particular behaviour, namely that of murder and from evidence gained via extensive brain scans and genetic analysis. 

I don't think I found much that was hugely surprising in this first episode, apart that is of the alarming notion that particular genes that control certain behaviour can be triggered by life experiences such as John's enforced separation from his mother at the age of three. But this coupled with evidence from the extensive brain scans that highlighted the reduction in size of critical areas of the brain responsible for feelings associated with reward and risk-taking begin to open up the whole pandora's box of the degree to which individuals can be held responsible for their actions.

It is of course a moot point as to whether the scientific avenues being explored in this tv series would have had any significant effect regarding John's conviction, sentencing, and passage through the criminal justice system, had they been available at an earlier stage, or would it just prove a further lucrative work stream for the legal and medical profession and endless argument? 

It's surely an alarming avenue for society to be heading down if this kind of medical research gains traction because it must surely open up the prospect of preventative treatment or incarceration even? One thing it did confirm to me though was the vital importance of cases like this being supervised by skillful and well-trained Probation Officers and the provision of extensive and thorough reports post sentence, for sentence planning and Parole application.