Protecting the Public?

Well done for the BBC in bringing us this five-part series on how the Parole Board operates and their reported five year battle with the institutions involved to get agreement, but if the first episode is anything to go by, it's going to be far from reassuring. 

I'll nail my colours to the mast straight away and say that I absolutely detest 'remote' interviews and hearings of any kind and especially in dealing with people connected to such life changing situations as this. It's no way to treat people and I don't think sound assessments can be made sat in a bloody office gazing down an often poor line two-dimensionally rather than being in-person and three dimensions. Talking of which, there should be three members of a Parole Panel in cases such as this, not two. All this in the cause of spending cuts of course. 

I think I want to raise the issue of the 'Independent' as well. Probation Officers of long-standing will recall that the practice in the past was that several months prior to an Oral Hearing a prisoner was visited by an 'independent' member of the Parole Board for an in-depth interview that formed part of the dossier that went before the members of the Hearing Panel. An extremely valuable method of gaining a broader picture of an individual, but axed due to cost I assume.

We then come on to the role of probation in all this. In the case of the lifer, a uniformed Custody Offender Manager who had undertaken some offence-focused work, but other than that the classic 'keeps a clean and tidy cell'. No Community Probation Officer was present, but we are to assume the recommendation was to release, such ability having been a key professional function of a Probation Officer until recently prohibited by Dominic Raab of course. Sadly we heard nothing of the no doubt carefully-crafted Release Plan, so probation's input seemingly air-brushed out of the whole process.  

As for the probation input towards the serial fraudster and preyer-upon women, the 'Community Offender Manager' - I hate that term and have always refused to use it - astonishingly washed her hands of the guy and hence the Parole Board felt obliged to keep him in custody until his automatic release date and hence release unsupervised! Wow. 'Job done' it seems by both probation and the Parole Board 'protecting the public'? I think not!     

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.

More Prison Thoughts

Leading on from yesterday's post from a former prisoner, I notice Ben Gunn has written a very thoughtful and reflective piece on his experiences for ConVerse magazine. In the spirit of bringing it to the attention of as wide an audience as possible, I hope both are happy with my republishing.    

How do you Adjust after 3 Decades Behind the Door?

I assume no Lifer walks out the Gate intending to breech their licence, but I managed to do it without even thinking. Such is the perilous path we tread.

My brother filming my release annoyed the Gatehouse staff, so I left prison with the same attitude as I entered it 32 years earlier...The final jibe from staff was about my blog, which HMP never quite made its peace with. Off in the car, destination South West. Then The Guardian phoned. Could I do a piece about my release by 3pm, for 300 quid? Oh, go on then. Out for just minutes and my first job! I was still hacking away when I arrived home. Home being a country cottage in Wiltshire and my partner, Alex. Lunch in the sun under the pergola, one hand writing, the other forking. Job done, easy money, thanks! 

Only then could I sit back and look around me, begin to relax into the reality. After 32 years of prison, beginning when I was 14, I was free. Wowser. 

Life had become a series of firsts. Everything I seemed to do was new. Small things, I’d never actually slept in a bed with a woman, to more lasting things such as opening bank accounts. And all the while the shadow of prison wasn’t far away. My partner, a diver, called it ‘decompression’, the bubbles of prison working their way out of my system, sometimes causing pain. Sitting at a cafe in Bath, suddenly the world around me seemed slightly alien, separated from me; did I belong here? Was this actually my world now? My partner was my bedrock through this early time, when I had horrific nightmares and woke screaming. She was my bridge, the thing that connected my bruised soul to the world I was now part of.

After seemingly being at war with prison probation officers for decades, I was now in a situation where a more flexible approach may be useful. Fortunately, my prior OM had been supportive, which helped persuade me that they weren’t all a blight on humanity. So I walked through their door with a “let’s see how this goes...” frame of mind. Having avoided Offending Behaviour Crap inside, I wasn’t likely to embrace it outside. Nonetheless, starting with an abrasive attitude wasn’t likely to lead to anything but Recall. The aim of my approach is ‘leave me alone as much as possible, please.”

Next day, check in with Probation. Supervision for me could have been a series of barriers and challenges, my view of Licence and Probation being well known. Difficulties were expected, but I let down the lads who bet I’d be recalled in a week! I had two Probation. Two! Tag teaming each other week by week to spread the load that is supervising me. 

I am fortunate that my Licence has no unusual conditions, and so expected restrictions were the usual – Work, Home, Relationships – and to be honest I lost my copy a couple of years ago now! My Guardian article broke my Licence – No work, paid or unpaid, that isn’t cleared by Probation. Oops. This point became an important one. For many years I have written about prison issues and I have never asked permission to do so. I didn’t when in prison, and I wasn’t going to on release. 

The issue was, whether my speaking or writing in public, paid or unpaid, was “work”. I took a hard line on this. Campaigning isn’t any old regular work; it explicitly brings into play may right to free expression. Quickly, we found a workable medium-my public activities are fine, with minor restrictions. I should give my OM a heads-up as soon as possible about any media appearances, and not discuss my victim’s family. Hardly onerous, and neither restrict anything I wish to say. What could have been a point of great difficulty was handled with far more thought than I expected. 

I have to admit, my working relationship with Probation has been far easier than I anticipated, even in difficult times. When I decided to try and live by myself, Probation were not particularly jumpy. When I had a vicious stalker (a whole other story!), Probation didn’t over-react. Equally, when I hit a period of ill health, it was not noted as a negative. Overall, the attitude seems to be one of not overly interfering, with the goal being “stability”. Having problems isn’t the issue – such is life – but how I deal with them is. It is in demonstrating consistent stability and forward movement that eases Probation’s mind. Hiding issues is a bad idea.

Within 24 hours of release, I had a home, partner and a working relationship with Probation. And I deeply appreciate that these are far more than many prisoners have on release. Just being released directly home, not hostel, was a minor miracle. I had a foundation, enough support to take a brief pause, look around me and wonder - Now what do I do?!

The first real decision I needed to make was whether to continue prison reform efforts, or to melt away into obscurity and take up regular work. I decided that reform was as important to me as it ever was, and that regular employment was unlikely to appear. So I promptly signed on! And ran into a series of hurdles in trying to engage with official bodies. I had literally no identification documents. No National Insurance Number. Nothing. It took months to chase up all that is needed to function in society, highlighted by the difficulties in opening a bank account. 

I was a cypher, literally unknown to The Computers. No financial history at all. Every door shut in my face. And yet within weeks, I was in paid employment. For months, all my earnings had to go into my partner’s account, an option many don’t have. And it fried the taxman’s brain! 

My first actual work was to conduct some analysis for a technology company which has links with both NOMS and G4S. Neither the company nor I was keen on it being known we were in cahoots, and so this slid under the radar. That completed, I was facing boredom, unemployment, and the prospect of being slung onto some inane Jobseekers course. 

By chance, a job advert from the Howard League was pointed out to me. Policy Officer. Hmm! I had been critical of some of the Howard Leagues activities over the years, so with no small sense of mischief I fired in my application just before the deadline. And expected it to vanish into the bin. I was a little disconcerted to be invited to the interview stage. Where I made such a mess of my first solo trip involving the Tube that I presented myself 90 minutes late and looking like a drowned rat. I made my pitch, and made it to the Top Three. Being a cheeky sod, I looked the bosses in the eye and asked, “Am I here because I’m Ben Gunn, or do I have a genuine shot at the job?” I was reassured.

I didn’t get the job. Not because I didn’t know the work, but rather because of my inexperience, particularly of office life. It hadn’t occurred to me, but of course, this was new territory for me. The League needed someone to hit the ground running, and I was an unknown quantity. The right candidate got the job! Later, at home musing, Frances Crook called and offered me a Policy Consultancy. I will always be hugely grateful for this introduction to regular work, even though I moved on after a few months to different work with Inside Justice, researching miscarriages of justice. Vitally needed work. The Outside World had a space for me, an acceptance. At a time when even opening a bank account was difficult, this gave me hope that perhaps I could build a viable future.

The process of ‘decompressing” from prison hasn’t been a simple one. Life is a journey, not a destination. What seemed to be very easy became quite difficult. Most parts of life are simple, even the new experiences. What became my weakness was relationships, and how to maintain them. In moving straight in with my partner after only 3 Home Leaves, I felt very aware that I was moving into her space, trying to weave my new existence into her established life. It became too much to unravel, I needed to find out how I was to live by myself, time and space to drop old habits and make new ones. For the moment my partner and I live separately but very close to each other. 

In my new place, myself and Henley Cat against the world! And I began to drop the many balls that life throws at us all. Bills mounted. My stress levels increased. The old enemy, severe depression, began to impact my ability to work. Within months, I found myself in front of a shrink with a diagnosis of depression and anxiety, coupled with more personality disorders than you can name! I retreated into myself, the world around me seeming to grow more hostile and bleak. It was a downward spiral that I am only now coming out of.

These difficulties may be huge, but I continued to do some public speaking. I am a regular visitor to many universities as a speaker, and the media pop up now and again. Most importantly, I have reached out and tried to connect with people in every corner of the justice system. Standing on the sidelines moaning is futile, and any opportunity that offers itself has me bending someone’s ear.

Due to astonishing luck, I have had the chance to grovel across the Ministerial carpet and timidly offer some suggestions to Michael Gove, who as I write is Justice Minister. I believe he is a genuine reformer, a man who appreciates the waste of human life and money that is Prison. Big structural changes are needed, instead of the petty and vicious meddling of Grayling (met him...Big lump!). And so, along with others, I’ve highlighted the importance of using prison sparingly, to reduce much of the Estate to Cat-C, unravel the shambles of Education and work, and to deal with the pressing problems of the IPPs. 

Gove has announced several shifts, none yet particularly effecting prisoners daily lives. Patience, I beg of you. Change is coming. Although at the moment it is ‘top down’, driven by the need to reduce reoffending and costs, no significant lasting reform can ever happen without addressing the needs of prisoners on the landings. I will remind anyone who listens of that.

Who knows how my journey will develop? Hopefully, more simply than of late! But no matter what, I always remember that whilst prison guarantees a bed, roof and food, that is pretty much as good as prison gets. Out here, you can fall into the gutter. But the possibilities to stand tall and find a meaningful life are infinite. That is compelling and exciting.

I am sitting here, coffee and fags at hand, typing away.; It could be another night of bang-up, really. But the options available to me are vastly more than yours. Prison is a stunted existence. The most important lesson I have learned is that I couldn’t have done this by myself. I stand here today only because of all the guys who were around me during my years inside. Any idiot can serve 32 years; the trick is to be sane at the end of it! And without those staunch friends, I doubt I would have managed that. And on release, I have been propped up by many people, whose kindness and faith I have yet to begin to repay.

Most ex cons brush prison off their feet as fast as they can. For me, prison is in my bones. I lived it, studied it, wrote on it, campaign against it. And I can’t ever forget that my free life is built on the bones of my victim. All I can do is live, live with meaning, and hopefully look back and see I may have made some small difference.

Ben Gunn

Prison in Crisis 7

As time marches on it's getting increasingly difficult for Chris Grayling to deny there's a crisis in the prison system, and one that was brought about by him. We know this because a prison governor has been in the witness box giving evidence on oath, as reported here by intrepid local reporter Hardeep Matharu:-

Government "got it wrong" over cuts which led to "mackerel and dumplings" prison rebellion

The Government admitted that it “got it wrong” after introducing reforms to the prison system which sparked a rebellion among inmates at High Down last year, the prison's governor has said. High Down was only the second jail in the country to make cuts mandated by Justice Secretary Chris Grayling, a criminal trial into 11 men accused of a prison mutiny and criminal damage heard yesterday.

The men, who were all inmates at the Banstead prison at the time, each deny trying to overthrow lawful authority at the prison last October by barricading themselves into a cell for seven-and-a-half hours. Pyrotechnics were eventually used to startle the inmates after specialist prison officers stormed the cell and restored order to the prison, Blackfriars Crown Court heard.

The governor of High Down, Ian Bickers, told a jury of seven men and five women that the prison had undergone “significant change” in the period leading up the incident. He said High Down was only the second prison in the country to implement a new Government policy, New Ways of Working (NWoW), which aimed to make the prison system more tightly run and meaningful for prisoners by cutting staff, benchmarking and getting rid of prisoner ‘association’ time. But he said that, after it came into effect at High Down in September last year, the Prison Service acknowledged the new regime was not working.

Two weeks ago, the court heard how the defendants passed a “demand note” under the door of the cell during the barricade, which read: “The reason for these capers is we are not getting enough food, exercise, showers or gym and we want to see the governor lively.” Yesterday, the court heard how High Down was 50 staff members down on the date of the alleged incident, on October 21 and 22 - 30 prison officers and 20 operational support grades.

Andrew Jefferies QC, defending, told the court that the prisoners made a number of demands during the barricade including: “If we get mackerel and dumplings we will come out.” Mr Bickers said that the prison does not negotiate or give in to the demands of prisoners: “Whether it’s tobacco, to see the governor, food, gym, mackerel and dumplings we do not acquiesce to the prisoners.” Asked about the demands earlier in the trial, Mr Bickers said the new regime “involved a reduction in the number of staff at prisons and standardisation in the way prisons operate”. 

He said: “Prison governors to some degree have less discretion about what they can do and when. "They follow a standard process and every prison is benchmarked against another. “The core day is 7.30am to 7.30pm. Less prisoners are actively involved in work or education and they spend more time locked up. “As a local prison, we have been asked to provide part-time work opportunities for prisoners.

"Prisoners are at work or education and during the rest of the day they spend time locked up in their cells. "We provide limited time [out of their cells] – one hour of general association to shower or exercise if they are entitled to it, to make phone calls." 

Mr Bickers said prisoners across the prison system had found it “quite difficult” to adapt to the changes. "Up until this time, prisoners would have spent much more time in free association, playing pool or table-tennis, with friends, and that stopped as part of NWoW,” he told the court.

Mr Bickers said there are now no “unstructured activities” for prisoners within the core day and added: "It is a policy driven by central government which has tried to remove the freeness around prisoners to make prison much more purposeful."
The governor told the court that following the introduction of NWoW, the prison saw a “fairly significant increase in complaints” in a number of areas.

The changes brought about by NWoW were compounded, he said, by the prison moving from serving two hot meals a day to one. He told the court this was to do with the number of staff required to serve two hot meals a day and added: "Meal times are very, very potentially inflammatory times. "We replaced it with a packed lunch in their cells.”

Under cross-examination by Mr Jefferies, Mr Bickers said the change introduced at High Down last September “wasn’t a surprise to us". He said: “We spent a long time consulting with staff and prisoner groups. "They were not changes of our making. To some degree they were forced upon us. “On September 1, we were the second prison in the country to go live with NWoW.”

In response to Mr Jefferies referring to High Down as a “guinea pig”, Mr Bickers told the court: “The prison service had tested this in three other establishments during the previous year. “We were going into it with our eyes wide open. We listened and learnt and the changes were made. "We were just in a position on September 1 to make the transition.”

He said prison staff had to get used to a change in their roles: “We were asking prison officers to do less. “Prison officers who traditionally spent lots of time getting prisoners out of their cells were being asked, with less staff, to leave prisoners behind their doors, locked in their cells."

Mr Jefferies read out a list of complaints to the jury which were made by High Down’s inmates leading up to the incident. Mr Bickers said: “It’s a fallacy at High Down that we lock prisoners up and forget about them.” On one complaint referring to the gym being closed, Mr Bickers explained: “Gym was closed because we had to deploy every single prison officer we could to facilitate getting the men out of their cells for phone calls and showers.

“We absolutely always strove that prisoners were out of their cells, subject to operational requirements. “I can’t stand here and put my hand on my heart and say someone wouldn’t have been missed. “But if prisoners choose to stay in bed that’s their choice and I believe in giving a real world choice to prisoners."

He added :“Regimes in prison change all the time. I have never known a stable regime to operate from the beginning to the end of one year. We have to be flexible. “It’s the nature of our business that regimes change. We will absolutely do our utmost to deliver that regime to prisoners. "Happy prisoners mean a happy prison. “But you do have to accept that when significant change happens people become unhappy with that. "The increase in complaints is an outcome of what that might look like.”

Mr Jefferies suggested to Mr Bickers that he was forced to find the best way to govern under a system he could do nothing about. The barrister said: “The reality is that because of the situation, there was no negotiation to be had because you were bound by the cuts which meant that you had to deal with it. “And if the money wasn’t there to have four more staff you had to find a way to best govern your prison to make sure everyone get a share of the gym, library and healthcare, but you’re not a miracle worker. “In effect what was being communicated to prisoners is ‘we can’t do anything, we all have to adapt to it’.”

Mr Bickers said the prison started a process to recruit more prison officers once NWoW was implemented because the Prison Service acknowledged the new regime was not working. He told the court: “Yes, we were going through significant corporate change. Things didn’t work perfectly, things go wrong and not always as you plan. “Though we were the second prison to do this, the Prison Service didn’t quite get our regime right. “They said ‘we are sorry, we got it wrong, we will come and get it right’.”

He said the aim of NWoW has been to ensure a “safe, decent and secure” prison system. “Yes there was a balance to be made as to what was safe, decent and secure,” Mr Bickers told the court. “Providing prisoners with the opportunity to talk to family and to shower is decent. Is going to the gym absolutely imperative to keep prisoners alive and safe? No. “We have to make a decision that we are going to close the gym as we need to get 190 men out of their cells for showers. "The priority has been for showers and phone calls." He added: "In October, we were trying to implement something which was done wrong by people in headquarters.”

Nick Hardwick, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons continues to highlight the dangers, as reported here in the Guardian today:-  

Surge in violence at Elmley jail lays bare prison crisis

A shocking inspection report detailing a 60% rise in violence and 11 “mini-riots” in 11 months at an ordinary local prison in Kent has revealed the depths of the prisons crisis facing the justice secretary, Chris Grayling. Extra temporary staff were immediately drafted into Elmley jail on the Isle of Sheppey after a report by Nick Hardwick, the chief inspector of prisons, revealed that urgent action was needed to stabilise the prison.

The “very serious” situation at Elmley comes after Grayling told MPs on Monday that prison staff had monitored – and listened in to some – confidential phone calls between prisoners and at least 32 sitting MPs between 2006 and 2012. The justice secretary apologised to the Commons for the routine recording of confidential phone calls, which included “in a handful of cases” calls between inmates and their lawyers. Grayling has asked Hardwick to investigate the extent of the breach of confidentiality involved.

The chief inspector’s report, published on Wednesday, says that Elmley, which has 1,252 men packed into cells meant for 985, is, like many other jails in the south-east of England, struggling to deal with the pressures created by large-scale staff shortages. There have been five suicides at the jail in the past two years.

“This inspection revealed very serious concerns. At the heart of the prison’s problems was a very restricted and unpredictable regime,” says Hardwick. “Association, exercise and domestic periods were cancelled at short notice every day. We witnessed many examples of prisoners being turned away from education and work because prison officers were not available for supervision. About 15% of the population, or almost 200 men, were unemployed and they routinely spent 23 hours a day locked in their cells.”

The inspection in June found that 200 prisoners were being held three to a cell designed for two, while 416 were doubled up in single cells. While levels of violence at the jail were comparable to those at similar prisons, they were deteriorating quickly: “The overall number of fights and assaults had increased by 60% over the past year and the trend was upwards,” Hardwick reports. “Over the previous 11 months there had been 11 acts of concerted indiscipline when prisoners had refused to return to their cells. There had been none in the 12 months before that.”

Hardwick says that while the inspection team was inside the jail, plans were being made to introduce a much more restricted regime the following week until temporary staff could arrive to relieve the pressure. Michael Spurr, chief executive officer of the National Offender Management Service, said that 23 temporary officers were deployed to Elmley the week after the inspection enabling a fuller regime to be introduced: “Permanent recruitment is under way and Elmley will continue to receive support from other prisons until vacancies are filled to ensure that the prison can continue to operate properly and safely at all times.”

However, prison reformers pointed to two other reports, on Brixton and Bristol prisons, published by the independent monitoring boards on Wednesday that confirm that such staff shortages are endemic across the south of England. Bristol is described as being at “bursting point” while at Brixton the staffing levels “ignore the needs of running the prison safely and humanely”.

Meanwhile, it's reported that the MoJ have prevented Sodexo from talking to local councillors about the situation at HMP Northumberland:-

Chiefs at firm running 'tinderbox' HMP Northumberland 'snub' councillors

Chiefs of a Northumberland prison have come under fire for “snubbing” local councillors after a spate of serious incidents. Sodexo’s head of operations Mike Conway was due to answer councillors’ questions about HMP Northumberland, in Acklington, this week. Northumberland County Council’s scrutiny committee set up a meeting to probe a series of incidents at the Category C jail, including a stand-off between officers and inmates in March and the discovery of a large stash of class A drugs last month, but the company decided not to go.

Sodexo says it is trying to organise a meeting with council representatives but chose not to go after speaking with Chris Grayling’s Ministry of Justice. A Sodexo spokesman said: “After consultation with the Ministry of Justice, we turned down a request to appear on the local overview and scrutiny committee formally. “However, we have extended an offer to brief the local authority on our activities at the prison. We have not received a response.”

Northumberland county councillor Scott Dickinson, said the move is unacceptable. It comes after people working for the prison and probation services spoke out about safety at the jail, which has seen staffing levels fall dramatically, with one prison officer describing the jail as “like a tinderbox”.   

The picture is the same everywhere. Napo Greater London Branch recently issued a press release detailing the situation in one of London's biggest jails, Worwood Scrubs:-

Today a Napo member who works as a probation officer in London reported the following experience. 

I went to see a lifer at HMP Wormwood Scrubs (The Scrubs) who was recalled in my absence. This was no surprise as it was clearly on the cards. I knew he had relapsed back into drug use and we were attempting to deal with it in the community. However a new offence came to light and it was decided to recall him for this.

While I was at The Scrubs I was told that the prison is now operating under an ‘Emergency Regime’. There are simply no offending behavior programmes running whatsoever, that is no Narcotics Anonymous meetings, no support, a very small amount of drug and alcohol advice.

My client told me that someone was stabbed on a wing last week and following a ground search for the weapon a large package containing a number of weapons were apparently discovered - basically a lot of knives!!

The situation at The Scrubs is that most of our local gang boys are either serving sentences or being recalled to prison where they are now carrying on their feuds on the prison wing. With nothing to do all day - just engage your imagination here – the prison is in danger of spiraling out of control.

My client told me that The Scrubs has become a very dangerous place. He said that there is a noticeable lack of staff, no rehabilitation programmes, no education, you name it...it's not happening. What is happening though is increased levels of violence and rising levels of fear.

The situation with the Offender Management Unit is also of concern. If they are unable to complete their work with prisoners then there could be delays in either prisoner transfer or release which adds to existing tensions. Again the staffing ratio is dangerously low and they now have the added pressure of being asked to escort inmates around the prison. This used to be a prison officer's role due to the obvious safety concerns that exist but there are simply too few staff now.

I felt quite uneasy, as I was leaving the prison walking through the courtyard, if there were to be a major disturbance at The Scrubs, it will not be pretty. And Mr Grayling talks about improvements and opportunities in the resettlement prisons such as The Scrubs....dream on! The Scrubs is just a warehouse for prisoners....I’m sure there are now better facilities and care at Battersea Dogs Home than at The Scrubs. This is a national disgrace in a so called civilized society!”

In all this mess there is one bit of good news though. Chris Grayling has backed down on the book ban, as reported here in the Guardian:-

Prisoners’ book limit scrapped

The cap on the number of books inmates can have in their cells has been scrapped following pressure from a campaign backed by leading literary figures. Prisoners are now allowed to keep more than 12 library books in their cell, at the discretion of prison governors, HM Prison Service said. The move follows months of campaigning from the likes of the poet laureate, Carol Ann Duffy, as well as Booker prize-winning novelists Julian Barnes and Ian McEwan. But a ban on sending books into prisons remains in place and charities behind the Books for Prisoners campaign have vowed to fight on until the policy has been fully reversed.

Frances Crook, chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, which is leading the campaign along with English PEN, said lifting the cap on books allowed in cells was an encouraging step. “This is an important victory for our campaign. It is encouraging that the government has recognised the important role that books can play in rehabilitation,” she said.

“But the campaign does not stop here. Petty and counter-productive restrictions on sending books and other essentials to prisoners remain in place, and calls for the Ministry of Justice to fully reverse its policy are only getting louder against a backdrop of ever more overcrowding, growing unrest and an alarming rise in the number of suicides behind bars.”

The campaign – which is also backed by writers Joanne Harris, Mark Haddon, Salman Rushdie, Alan Bennett, David Hare, Jacqueline Wilson, Kazuo Ishiguro and Kathy Lette – continues to call on the Prison Service to allow relatives to send their loved ones books, underwear and other “essentials”.

Jo Glanville, director of English PEN, said: “Lifting this restriction is a positive step, but it does nothing to solve the underlying problem: how do prisoners get the books in the first place? “Access to prison libraries remains extremely limited, and the ban on family sending books directly to inmates is still in force. The Ministry of Justice must urgently rethink its incentives and earned privileges policy."

A Cracking Wheeze

I see from this article in The Times and lifted from the Napo forum, that Chris Grayling and the MoJ have come up with yet another cracking wheeze. Due to a number of factors, Magistrates haven't got enough work, but the Parole Board is snowed under. The answer to this problem? Why simple, get the former to do some of the work of the latter. 

It seems that the Minister is getting a bit hacked-off with lots of prisoners just walking out of Open Prison, and he thinks the MoJ would be better at making the decisions on the re-categorisation of long term prisoners instead of the Parole Board. He also intends to hand matters of recall over to Magistrates to give them more to do. Another disaster in the making me thinks.     

Parole Board shaken up to stop prisoners escaping

The power to recommend that murderers and other life sentence prisoners should be moved to open prisons could be stripped from the Parole Board under plans being considered by the government

Chris Grayling, the justice secretary, is also looking at ending the board’s involvement in reviewing decisions to recall thousands of prisoners to jail after they have broken the terms of their release. He wants magistrates to take on the job, which could involve them reviewing 17,000 cases a year.

The shake-up comes after high profile incidents in which murderers and violent offenders have gone missing from open prisons where they had been moved to prepare for their release.

Ministry of Justice sources insisted that the plans were not linked with escapes from open prisons but are the result of the increasing workload of the Parole Board. A Supreme Court ruling last October will require the board to hold more oral hearings including in “recall cases” that were previously dealt with on paper.

Others suspect that Mr Grayling has seized the opportunity of the need to tackle the board’s workload problems as a way of giving the Ministry of Justice the power to block transfers to open conditions.

Harry Fletcher, a criminal justice expert, said: “Magistrates do not have experience of risk-assessing longer term prisoners who include sex offenders, robbers and violent individuals.” He added: “The Parole Board is best placed to decide whether a prisoner should transfer to open conditions.”

Mr Grayling has ordered a review of release on temporary licence after a series of escapes from open prisons.

Last month Michael Wheatley, the “Skull Cracker” robber who was serving 13 life sentences for a string of raids on banks and building societies, absconded from Standford Hill prison on the Isle of Sheppey. While on the run he stole £18,000 during a robbery at Chelsea Building Society branch in southwest London.

After he was caught he was given another life sentence with a recommendation that he serve a minimum of ten years after admitting robbery and being unlawfully at large.

Under Mr Grayling’s plans, the recommendation to transfer hundreds of life-sentence prisoners, including those convicted of murder and rape, to open prisons would be made by the public protection unit in the Ministry of Justice rather than by the Parole Board.

Officials would make their recommendation after studying reports from prison and probation officers on how inmates behaved while in prison and whether they are a risk to the public.

The review of decisions to recall to jail thousands of prisoners released on licence would move to magistrates up and down the country. It would lift the burden from the Parole Board while at the same time provide extra work for magistrates, who are facing a declining number of cases going to courts because of the fall in crime.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “We are working with the Parole Board to address the impact of a recent Supreme Court judgement. The board is introducing a number of changes to improve [its] capacity in response to the judgement. We are also considering whether there may be further options to help to ensure the board can continue to deliver an effective service. No decisions have been made yet.”

Lifers and Open Prison

The case of lifer Michael Wheatley absconding from open prison at the weekend has caused some politicians to start talking the usual bollocks, seemingly changed policy overnight and set the scene for yet another 'tough on criminals' debate as part of the General Election campaign.

According to media reports, Wheatley received 13 life sentences at the Old Bailey in 2002 in respect of a string of armed robberies on building societies, having been previously released on parole having served 8 years of a 27 year sentence for similar offences. 

There's been a chorus of mostly odious MP's such as Keith Vaz, chair of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, who should know better, and Tory Philip Davies expressing surprise that 'someone so dangerous' was in open conditions and permitted day release in the first place. Some have been saying lifers shouldn't be in open conditions at all, thus completely ignoring the fact that it's an essential part of assessment and reintegration back into society for the many hundreds we have on indeterminate sentences in this country.

Apparently Wheatley was some 4 years over his 8 year tariff and clearly felt suitable for Cat D and open prison by the Parole Board. Of course with the wonderful benefit of hindsight, his absconding and subsequent arrest in connection with a further armed robbery raises a number of questions regarding risk assessments. But such assessment is not and can never be a science, whatever politicians may feel or been told about the shite OASys offender assessment process. And there's this to consider, as raised by a reader:-  

At the parole hearing which recommended his move to open conditions, what did the Minister of State's representative advise? Which minister approved the Parole Board's recommendation to progress to open conditions?

Now we know the Minister of State's representative hardly ever shows up at Parole Hearings and if they do they are usually a prison officer who either has nothing to say, or says there's not been enough time to come to a considered view. When it comes to Grayling trying to pin the blame somewhere, people must understand that with indeterminate sentences there is a chain of responsibility involved in making decisions over sentence progression and release. 

Being four years over tariff Wheatley may have felt that his chances of being released were not that good and therefore decided to do a runner. But the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people serving life will eventually be released at some point and the Parole Board have already been accused of being far too 'risk-averse' mainly because Probation Officers have become increasingly so. 

As a nation we have far more people serving indeterminate sentences than virtually any other and all the signs are that this case will provide the perfect pre election excuse to indulge in the now very familiar game of which party is tougher on crime. The public and politicians must face up to the fact though that sometimes people will reoffend despite our best efforts and reoffend seriously because we're dealing with some of the most dangerous people in society.  

Already it's being suggested that ROTL or Release on Temporary Licence will be tightened up even further with prisoners being required to wear an electronic tag. This is utter nonsense of course because a guy like Wheatley, determined to do a runner as he clearly was, would simply have cut the device off before stepping on the train to London. As reported by the BBC:- 

Prisons minister Jeremy Wright said the system had been too lax and was being changed. "In future when prisoners are let out on temporary licence they will be tagged, more strictly risk assessed and tested in the community under strict conditions before being released," he said. "There will be a full review of this case, which will look at the ROTL (Release on Temporary Licence) process."

As has been said many times before, 'a hard case makes bad law'. 
   

Some Observations 18

I thought I'd better try and pen something in case people thought I'd been gagged. In truth I'm waiting, like many in probation I suspect, to hear exactly what Napo and the other unions have stitched-up with the Ministry of Justice. I gather the NNC meeting on Monday was unsatisfactory for a number of reasons, mostly to do with absences, that of delegates, the Napo General Secretary and crucially appendices B and C that deal with transfer of staff and pensions respectively.

With the clock ticking inexorably towards a decisive NEC vote scheduled for 17th September, it doesn't take a genius to see that the membership are not going to have long in which to absorb the details and voice an opinion. Apart from questioning the wisdom of going down this negotiating route in the first place and whilst supposedly fighting the TR proposals at the same time, I just don't understand why somebody doesn't tell Grayling to fuck off with his daft bullying timetable.

Anyway, one result of the meeting on Monday is that the cat is out of the bag regarding the indicative ballot turnout - it was 34%. 

Moving on to other matters that have caught my attention, I suspect I might not have been alone in having professional reasons for tuning in to watch the first episode of the Channel 4 series 'Burgled' set in Leeds, West Yorkshire. The city apparently remains a burglary hot spot and the series follows a dedicated police team tasked with catching those responsible. I found nothing particularly surprising from the first programme, apart that is from absolutely no mention of probation involvement in what is clearly an Integrated Offender Management initiative.

It would seem from twitter conversations that such is the determination of Chris Grayling and the MoJ to win the TR omnishambles war that orders have been issued prohibiting footage of probation staff involvement being aired. It would seem that our involvement is to be airbrushed out of the picture, bringing to mind similar propaganda tricks in Communist Russia. Utterly disgraceful if true, as we all know probation is a key element of IOM.

The Parole Board authorised the release of Jon Venables recently under yet another identity. I've been reading the very thorough report on the case as part of the Serious Further Offence investigations and it's particularly encouraging to read of the praise given to probation, and especially for a case that had no probation involvement from the beginning due to Jon's age.

I've always felt this was most unhelpful in a case which we all knew would eventually end up on our plate and result in a very unsettling transfer at an arbitrary age-related point. I find this revelation so shocking that I think I would have refused to take the case on:-

The assessments and work done during Jon Venables’ time at
Redbank were not shared with his subsequent supervisors to 
inform their understanding of the subject.  The reports seen by the 
Parole Board, including the several psychiatric evaluations, do not, 
however, contain any indication, even indirectly, that there was a 
sexual motive on the part of Jon Venables in committing the 
original offence or other warning that might have alerted his 
supervisors to potential abnormal sexual interests. (para 102, 104)

There is much in the report of interest, but I particularly noticed this other bit:-

No suitable individual was identified after 2004 to establish a long 
term mentoring arrangement that might have helped him cope 
better with the strains of living under his changed identity, his 
problem in balancing study and employment, and his issues with 
establishing a ‘normal’ lifestyle for a young single man of his age 
and social background.  Such support could also have eased the 
load of his offender manager in maintaining the appropriate 
boundary between offender manager and mentor. (para 97, 199)   

Without doubt there has always been a role for skilled volunteer input in probation work and it was most unwise for many Service's to take the decision some years ago to dispense with them. Of course their benefit has been rediscovered once more in recent time, raising the suspicion that it's resource-driven and politically-motivated as part of the 'Big Society'. Yes whatever happened to that big idea?

A great shame because volunteers carefully chosen can add so much to help achieve positive outcomes for clients, whilst giving a sense of purpose to many people with lots of spare unproductive time on their hands. As the report says, it also helps the PO enormously. 

Of course an excellent example of the volunteering ethos is provided by the increasing profile of Circles of Support and Accountability, a specialist charity closely linked to probation that works with sex offenders and their re-integration within society. The work was highlighted at the weekend in an article in the Independent:- 

Circles UK has been running these groups quietly in Britain for more than 10 years, but is so concerned about the hysteria around the subject that it usually shies away from publicity.

While befriending paedophiles may be a hard sell to the tabloid press, the statistics show that it works.

A review of a Circles project in the South-east found that none of its 71 past clients had made another contact offence over a four-and-a-half-year period." A control group of 71 criminals with a similar offending history committed 10 new offences in the same period.

The latest man Paul has agreed to help is Barry, a 69-year-old who is on the sex offenders' register for life after sexually assaulting young children, including his own son and stepson, for more than three decades.

but for me this quote from a volunteer serves as a warning that selection and training are extremely important and must have made the organiser cringe just a little:- 

Despite his disgust at Barry's actions, Paul is one of five volunteers who meet up with him every week to talk about his life. "I hate do-gooders and I don't usually volunteer for things, but I felt so strongly about this," Paul says. "He's a bastard and what he's done is awful and I'd love to wring his neck. But we can't kill him and we can't lock him up for life, so what are we going to do? The only answer is you try to help him not to do it again. To me there's no alternative."      

Reality Imitating Fiction

Regular readers will recall my taking to task the BBC 1 four-part probation drama 'Public Enemies' for bearing little relation to reality. In addition to painting the extremely unlikely scenario whereby a life sentence prisoner is released back into the community where the index offence had been committed, it also strayed into the equally unlikely world of a sexual relationship developing between officer and client.

I guess it was bound to happen, but exceptions always prove the rule and here we have a case of a female probation officer indeed having an inappropriate relationship with a released life licence client. This highly unprofessional breach of trust only came to light because the client 'went on the run' after being informed by the officer that he was to be recalled to prison having been arrested for Driving over the Prescribed Limit. I guess it was this act that resulted in the offence of Wilful Misconduct in Public Office.

Setting aside the unforgivable crossing of professional boundaries, I notice that it's reported that a supporting letter from a colleague is quoted as saying 'how easily this might happen'. Now I suspect (and hope) that this refers to the act of informing the client, rather than sleeping with him. Having reflected carefully, I'm fairly sure I and many other officers might have done something very similar by informing clients either of an application for recall or of it's imminent granting, and possibly prior to the warrant being issued. In all cases the aim is not to tip the client off so that he 'does a runner', but rather to try and maintain trust with them by explaining the reasoning and support a voluntary surrender to custody. In this case the plan went awry because the guy 'wanted to say goodbye to a number of people' first.

It may sound naive, but I've never really thought that by doing such a thing I could be accused of Wilful Misconduct in Public Office. I've always thought it risky, but then much in this job is. The thing about recalling a client is that you still have to work with them afterwards and quite quickly prepare a plan for the Parole Board that sets out reasoned arguments regarding the behaviour that resulted in recall and how it can be constructively addressed. It will be appreciated that ideally this can only be achieved with the clients full cooperation, a process made almost impossible if they feel betrayed by you. Clearly a difficult balancing act, but one that's continually at the core of our work. 

If I'm honest I know full well that this won't be the first time a probation officer will have slept with a client. Nevertheless it's very rare and hugely disappointing for us all and although not a criminal offence, warrants instant dismissal. I note that in passing a suspended prison sentence with Unpaid Work and a six month Curfew, Judge Richard Foster told Luton Crown Court that "cases like this were more common among police or prison officers and to his knowledge no other probation officer had been charged with this offence."               

The Way It Is

I notice that it didn't take long for 'escaped' life sentence prisoner John Massey to be apprehended and for the Guardian to weigh in with some comment. In essence the article is confirming what I suspect is the private view of a lot of prison officers at HMP Pentonville that 'John has done his bird and should have got out years ago'. 


I have a degree of sympathy with this view and personal experience of similar cases where some life sentence prisoners feel passionately that 'keeping a clean and tidy cell and being respectful to staff' will be enough to warrant release after the passage of a suitable period of time. Unfortunately it doesn't work like this with regard to life sentences. In order to progress through the prison system, let alone be released, the prisoner must co-operate with risk assessments and undertake courses designed to demonstrate that they are safe to release. Failure to co-operate, or worse show disdain or disregard for the directions of the Parole Board, probation service or psychology, inevitably means that meaningful risk assessments cannot be carried out and therefore no progress towards release can be achieved.


What tends to happen, and John Massey's case seems to confirm this, is that a disgruntled prisoner decides to take some direct action of some sort as a demonstration against what they perceive as an unfair system. As a result they are inevitably punished, progress is reversed and any move towards release is delayed yet further. Way beyond his tariff, this is what has happened to this prisoner, and significant numbers of others in similar situations. As others have discovered, no amount of facebook popularity, letters to politicians, petitions or articles in the Guardian will change the way that the system works, as long as we have indeterminate sentences for very serious offences such as rape and murder. As a consequence, there has to be a fair and transparent system for determining release, and that has at its core in-depth considerations of public safety. 


I have written at length on the topic of risk aversion. Intensive media attention in recent years concerning high profile murders, particularly by those known to statutory bodies such as the  probation service, has ensured that the whole system is risk-averse. The public cannot have it both ways. We either return to the realistic situation when I started out that meant there was very little chance of spotting the propensity of someone to commit awful crimes. Or we accept that awful things are done by some people and give up seeking to blame some hapless individual who failed to have a bloody crystal ball. We have to decide if it's appropriate to stick with the current risk-averse situation where everyone is scared witless about the possibility of being pilloried by the commission of a Serious Further Offence, or we get a bit more real.  


Yes in Mr Massey's case "the probation service had other ideas and insisted he went to a hostel". In many cases, especially where there is a settled family situation to return to, it's a complete waste of time and counter-productive (as in this case) but you can bet it wasn't the probation officer that insisted on that. Much more likely to have either been a MAPPA decision influenced by probation service managers, or if not in the full MAPPA arena, then just a management directive borne of fear not common sense. I know because I've pleaded with management not to insist on a hostel placement for an offender being released, but was over-ruled on the basis of 'what if something happens' - not judgement. 



PS Since publishing this post, I notice the latest edition of 'Inside Time' has an interesting article by a man on Life Licence and about life sentences.


      

A Fine Mess and No Mistake

It came as no great surprise when Ken Clarke announced last week the government's intention to abolish the hugely damaging and ill-thought out IPP sentence introduced by Tony Blair. It was all part of that government's 'tough on crime; tough on the causes of crime' agenda designed to curry favour with the voters and has had the result of stuffing our prisons with upwards of an additional 7,000 or so extra 'lifers.'

Imprisonment for Public Protection sentences are indeterminate sentences and so are indeed akin to a life sentence because release only comes when someone is deemed safe to release by the Parole Board. Sadly however, that's where the similarity ends. Unlike most other kinds of life sentence, the typical 'tariff' or earliest date before release will be considered is normally very short and averages about 3 years. This makes IPP prisoners a very unusual and difficult group for the system to deal with. It could be said they are neither fish nor fowl - not 'proper' lifers, which the prison service is well-geared up to deal with - but actually medium to short term prisoners by any other name. But we are now several years down the line since their introduction and vast numbers of IPP prisoners are languishing in prison well over their tariff dates. 

Even before the last government lost the election, concern was growing in relation to the huge and growing problem IPP was becoming. Never intended to be used in that many instances, it has nevertheless proved hugely popular with Judges who add to the total on a very regular basis. Unfortunately very little thought was ever given as to how this group would be dealt with within the prison system.

In order to assist the Parole Board in reaching a conclusion regarding risk, various accredited courses have to be undertaken that are designed to address issues such as violence, sexual offending, thinking skills, drugs and alcohol. These courses do not run in all prisons and places are somewhat limited. Added to this is the fact that the Parole Board has become increasingly risk-averse in recent years, no doubt partly in response to negative public opinion and political pressure as a result of some notorious cases. Unhappily this has coincided with cultural and professional changes within the Probation Service, who are the people charged with advising the Parole Board regarding release. I have written on many occasions regarding the unhelpful effect of OASys in only highlighting negative aspects of an offenders situation, thus leading typically to over-cautious or negative recommendations for release.

All this of course has proved the perfect recipe for a massive and growing problem. One might say another fine mess the politicians have got us into. And to be honest it's not exactly clear how Ken Clarke intends to get us out of it with his mix of further 'mandatory' life sentences and determinate sentences. It seems some IPP sentences will be converted to life sentences, but the criteria and rationale has yet to be spelt out.

Meanwhile, here we have an experienced commentator, Mr Raymond Peytors of TheOpinionSite.Org who clearly has a problem with probation:-

 "It looks now as if Mr. Clarke has been forced to abandon the idea of a formalised test and means that probation officers will be allowed to go on getting things hopelessly wrong and to continue to introduce their own bias and prejudice into release procedures."


"Mr. Clarke has also not made it clear as to who will determine whether or not an IPP prisoner has his sentence converted to a determinate sentence or, if the case is serious enough, a mandatory life sentence. One may presume that this procedure would be carried out by the Parole Board, no doubt with all possible interference from the Probation Service who are already fearful that their overbearing and unjust influence over release decisions may be under attack."

"We can expect too a howl of anguish from all those involved with any form of public protection and whose jobs and considerable income rely on maintaining the myth that everyone convicted of certain types of offences must be “dangerous” and incapable of change."

I'm not sure it's worth dignifying such comments with a response, but merely leave readers to form their own opinion.

  

Thoughts on a Difficult Case

Following on from my recent piece about Jon Venables, it would seem that the news item was  merely the curtain raiser for the subsequent main article in the Sunday Times Magazine last Sunday 3rd April. Written by David James Smith, the author of The Sleep of Reason : The James Bulger Case, one cannot help but feel the timing is designed to try and influence the Parole process later this year. 

Reading the article with dismay, I was particularly concerned at the level of information the journalist has supposedly amassed and I couldn't help but speculate how he seems to be able to quote verbatim from confidential running sheets, contact logs and internal reports? I find this quite shocking and a serious breach of confidentiality and professional practice by someone very close to a current case. So yet more information is now out in the public domain thus sadly serving to make a difficult case even more so. The main thesis of this article - which is behind the Murdoch paywall of course - is that the whole rehabilitation process has been chaotic. Of course not being involved it's very difficult if not impossible to say, but several things struck me as I read the article.

This case serves to highlight the complete separation of services between child and adult, between Social Services and Probation, between YOI and adult Prison. With hindsight it was extremely unfortunate that, having on the one hand successfully had the earlier 15 year tariff set aside in order to try and avoid the trauma of transfer to adult prison, the trauma of release came just at the point of the transfer of responsibility to the adult Probation Service. Now I can't be sure at what stage this occurred because this case has never been treated 'normally' at all. For instance there was never a transfer to YOI but very unusually Jon was kept at the Secure Unit instead. However, there will have been a transfer of responsibility and no doubt it will have been very unsettling for all concerned, not least Jon.

Of course all this confirms the absolute necessity of establishing and maintaining the 
relationship between client and supervising officer. In lifer cases it was always felt to be good practice that the officer had a 'pair', ideally of the opposite sex in order to bring a different perspective as well as to try and ensure continuity. This will have been even more important in a case like this involving issues of abnormal development, arrested adolescence and transition into adulthood. I would suggest that continuity of supervising officers would be absolutely vital not only in developing good professional and trusting relationships, but also in being able to more accurately assess risk.

It also reminds me as to exactly why it was felt appropriate that probation officers had a social work background. Like it or not, much of our 'offending behaviour' work with clients takes us into issues of welfare and emotional needs for which we are becoming increasingly ill-equipped.

Finally, I can't help noticing that the author continues to use the politically correct term of Offender Manager instead of Probation Officer. In a case like this I would have expected it to be handled by a very experienced pair of hands and not at all suitable for a Probation Services Officer. However you just never know nowadays and of course Offender Manager can mean either.