Some Observations 20

With so much happening on the TR omnishambles front, it's been ages since we've had a general roundup of other random stuff, so here's a few bits and bobs that individually I don't feel able to spin out into a post of their own. It's becoming all too apparent that we're well into pre-electioneering mode now and it was this comment that I thought summed it up nicely:-

The constant flood of crime-related policy announcements is the result of Lynton Crosby, the Tories' election "guru", telling them not to put messages out about anything other than crime, benefits or the economy - the only areas they think they can win. The next 16 months in politics are going to be really ugly.

And sure enough on Saturday this piece appeared in 'Converse' the prisoners newspaper reporting yet another Grayling initiative designed to appeal to voters and make sure the prison numbers are maintained:-

Criminals who go on the run to avoid being sent back behind bars could face an extra two years in prison under new measures announced by Justice Secretary Chris Grayling. The new measure is aimed at punishing criminals who have been released from prison but abscond to avoid being recalled for breaching their licence conditions.

Under current laws, once they are caught they can be sent back to prison to serve the remainder of their sentence, but there is no additional penalty for going on the run.
The introduction of a new offence of being unlawfully at large following recall to custody will mean they could face additional punishment when they are recaptured and hauled before the courts.

The Ministry of Justice said around 800 criminals a year could face prosecution under the new offence which will carry a maximum two-year sentence. It is already a criminal offence to escape from jail, to not surrender to custody when on bail and to not return from release on temporary licence, and this change will close a loophole in the law when offenders remain unlawfully at large following recall to custody.

Mr Grayling said: “It is unacceptable that criminals who disregard the law and attempt to evade the authorities are able to do so with impunity. I am today sending a clear message to those people that if you try to avoid serving your sentence you will face the consequences when you are caught. I think the hard-working taxpayers of this country would expect nothing less than tough punishment for offenders who try and beat the system. From my first day in this job I have been clear that punishment must mean punishment. We’re on the side of people who work hard and want to get on and my message is simple – if you break the law, you will not get away with it.”

Actually I notice that the prison theme cropped up yesterday with these exchanges concerning ROTL and IEP, the new Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme introduced by one Chris Grayling:- 

Does anyone have any information on the changes to the HMP IEPS system. I supervise someone who regularly is out on ROTL (release on temporary licence) for the purposes of resettling in the community: he's a lifer. He told me yesterday, that changes to the IEP system at his establishment effectively means that about two thirds of those who currently are Enhanced, no longer met the criteria and are being reassigned as Standard; therefore losing a significant number of privileges. I also heard from a prison officer that in future, applications for rotl for the purposes of maintaining family ties, will not be granted, unless some other good reason is also given. Anyone know what's going on?

It's basically all up in the air. Receptions no longer start at standard but on the basic regime. To advance along the new IEP system inmates have to actively demonstrate more then compliance and good behaviour. To my knowledge there is no national standard or all encompassing directive, which creates a large lack of continuity across the prison estate. You may remember that a major factor identified from the investigations into the Strangeways riots conducted by Lord Woolfe was just that lack of continuity found from prison to prison. It's unfortunate for your client, but you now have to 'earn' ROTL, rather than it being a natural progression.

I feel the new system is flawed and unfair, particularly with regard to lifers. As lifers are expected to complete a number of ROTLs prior to parole hearings, the new system may have a negative impact on the lifer. I would suggest (if I may) that any PO who experiences difficulties getting lifers out on ROTL, to notify the parole board, and complain to lifer management. After all ROTL forms an integral aspect of risk assessment for a lifer, it should not just be seen as an 'earned' privilege.

There's a new PSI governing IEP you can get it off MoJ website. Prisoners have to be actively engaged in rehabilitative process and in employment that is of benefit to others (peer partners, listeners ted) to earn their enhanced these days. Will prevent deniers refusing to do SOTP getting enhanced for example.

I wouldn't worry about the ROTL issue for lifers it will mainly affect cat C prisoners trying it on rather than traditional family ties ROTL for cat Ds or lifers.

As was highlighted, there's a very interesting letter from a prisoner in the January edition of Inside Time:-

Prison reform or destruction - Star Letter of the Month

From Foreign Perspective - HMP Oakwood 

I have been a mandatory lifer since February 1995 and I have witnessed many changes in the prison system. One of the most profound changes I have seen is how the 'us and them' divide between prison staff and prisoners had almost disappeared. Prisoners were engaging in offence related courses and education at a scale unseen in the past.

At last, improvement on your education levels was considered as having reduced your risk. Alas, Ken Clarke and his progressive thinking was not appreciated. On the contrary, he had been accused of having too soft a touch as Secretary of State for Justice.In his place was put 'punitive' Chris Grayling who does not seem to have a clue about the inner workings of the prison system.

Against the advice of all senior and experienced governors and heads, he brought in a new system which brought back the 'us and them' ethos overnight. All the hard work of his predecessors and the complacency of prisoners he damaged by literally punishing good behaviour! What else can you call it when a prisoner behaved exceptionally well over an extended period of time by doing everything expected of him and more, only to be told you have behaved well and done nothing wrong but now we are reviewing you using harsher criteria and we are taking your belongings (which you have worked hard to buy) off you anyway because Chris Grayling says we have to. 

For all of those who were compliant and followed the rules in recent years the 1st of November 2013 will be remembered as the day on which Chris Grayling destroyed 30 years of progress in the British prison system. How sad.

By the way, there was a BBC Radio 4 programme yesterday The Report on the recent disturbance at HMP Oakwood with evidence that it was in fact a riot. It can be listened to on i-player.  

It used to be said that the Church of England was the Tory party at prayer. That's long gone since Margaret Thatcher got irritated when the Faith in the City report highlighted the disparity between the rich and the poor. It's fascinating to see though how the tensions are re-surfacing as we head up to the General Election and as reported in this story just before Christmas about Iain Duncan Smith refusing to meet the Trussell Trust to discuss food banks:- 

Iain Duncan Smith, the embattled work and pensions secretary, is refusing to meet leaders of the rapidly expanding Christian charity that has set up more than 400 food banks across the UK, claiming it is "scaremongering" and has a clear political agenda. The news will fuel a growing row over food poverty, as church leaders and the Labour party accuse ministers of failing to recognise the growing crisis hitting hundreds of thousands of families whose incomes are being squeezed, while food prices soar.

Responding to requests for a meeting from Chris Mould, chairman of the Trussell Trust, which has provided food supplies to more than 500,000 people since April, Duncan Smith has dismissed claims that the problems are linked to welfare reforms and attacked the charity for publicity-seeking. In his most recent response on 22 November, Duncan Smith made clear that he had received enough letters from the trust and referred Mould to his previous answers. His deputy, Lord Freud, the minister for welfare reform, also explicitly rejected an invitation for talks on 30 August, telling the trust's chairman that he was "unable to take up your offer of a meeting".

In 2010, the Trussell Trust provided food to around 41,000 people, but in the past eight months the number has increased to more than half a million, a third of whom are children.

Mould first wrote to Duncan Smith in June, saying that many of the problems people were facing could be tracked back to changes in their benefits, and to delays in the payment of them.

Duncan Smith began his reply by criticising the "political messaging of your organisation", which "despite claiming to be nonpartisan" had "repeatedly sought to link the growth in your network to welfare reform". He said his department's record in processing benefit claims had improved and should do so further with the introduction of universal credit.

He rejected any suggestion that the government was to blame. "I strongly refute this claim and would politely ask you to stop scaremongering in this way. I understand that a feature of your business model must require you to continuously achieve publicity, but I'm concerned that you are now seeking to do this by making your political opposition to welfare reform overtly clear."

The standoff will further anger church leaders who were incensed by reports last week that the government had turned down a potential pot of £22m of EU funding for food banks, on the grounds that the UK did not want to be told by Brussels how to spend money for European structural funds.

Unfortunately it looks like we could be getting into that game where each main party tries to demonstrate how tough they are on benefits as well as crime. Here's rising Labour star Rachel Reeves MP in the Daily Telegraph of all places on a bright new idea that'll make life yet more tough for many of our clients:-

Benefits claimants will be forced to sit a test showing they can read, write and do maths in order to claim benefits, Labour will announce, prompting a furious row with the Conservatives over welfare.

People receiving Jobseeker’s Allowance would be forced to sit a basic skills test within six weeks of signing on or face being stripped of their benefits, Labour will say, in a move designed to challenge the Tory’s popular welfare policies. Anyone who does not show basic competency in literacy, numeracy and IT will be sent on training programmes. Labour believes that around 300,000 people could be sent on courses every year. If they refuse, they will be denied welfare.

Rachel Reeves will announce the curbs in her first major policy speech since being promoted to shadow work and pensions secretary. It is an attempt to end criticisms that Labour is “the party of welfare” and counter David Cameron’s promise to make people on benefits “earn or learn” or face losing their handouts. The Labour move to toughen its image on welfare will concern senior Conservative ministers. The Conservatives enjoy significant poll leads over their Labour rivals on the issue and believe it could deliver them victory in next year’s election.

Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, and Theresa May, the Home Secretary, will on Monday insist that tough Conservative policies on welfare and immigration are getting hundreds of thousands of British people into jobs. In an attempt to overshadow Miss Reeves’ speech, the Conservatives released statistics designed to remind voters about Labour’s past profligacy on welfare. Between 2005 and 2010, the number of British people in a job dropped by 413,000, while the number of foreigners in employment soared by 736,000, according to the statistics released by Mr Duncan Smith’s department.

Finally, here's a report of an on-going case that has a particularly pertinent portend of possible trouble ahead when all those innovative 'best in the business' contractors Chris Grayling is so keen on get involved with probation work:-

A PROBATION officer was "shocked " when told one of the men accused of murdering a Southampton dad started a relationship with the woman mentoring him on release from prison, a court heard. Terry Wilson was appointed as probation officer for Pierre Lewis - one of three men alleged to have shot dead Jahmel Jones - after he was released from prison on licence in 2012.

Giving evidence at Winchester Crown Court, Mr Wilson, a probation officer for the London Probation Trust, said Lewis revealed he was having a relationship with Rachel Kenehan, who acted as his support mentor while he was in Portland prison and upon his release. Lewis, 20, is in the dock along with friends Jemmikai Orlebar-Forbes and Isaac Boateng who are accused of carrying out the murder in a joint enterprise on April 20 last year.

Kenehan, 35, is charged with conspiracy to supply Class A drugs, assisting an offender, and perverting the course of justice. Mr Wilson told the court how he learned of the relationship during an arranged meeting in January last year. He said: "I was shocked and disappointed. She (Kenehan) is a mentor and carrying out an important professional function in terms of supervision. She was viewed as an important part of the support system and that compromised that."

The court heard how Mr Wilson phoned Kenehan that day to discuss the relationship and arranged a meeting to be held between her and her manager in which she told them it had been going on “a while”.