As the end of Probation as we know it fast approaches, for those of us somewhat long in the tooth, it's naturally a time for reflection. Many Trusts are holding wakes, sorry staff conferences, and taking the opportunity of distributing specially prepared glossy brochures reflecting on our illustrious past. It's a time when some of us can smile as we remember particularly funny or moving experiences over our careers and I'd like to suggest we could take a bit of time out in order to share a few.
My first office was located above a row of shops near the town centre and afforded excellent views of the comings and goings from the bus station. One day I became aware of a commotion over the road with the reception staff looking out of the window at one of my clients who was brandishing a knife, shouting up at the window and threatening to kill me. The boss eventually asked me what was going on and I said the guy was accusing me of breaking into his flat and pissing on his carpet. After a considerable pause the boss said 'Ok Jim, just don't do it again.'
One particularly long term client in the early days was habitually homeless and travelled extensively. He viewed being 'on probation' with some pride and regarded it much as one would membership of the AA or RAC. As a consequence whenever he landed in a strange town short of money he would ask the first constable directions to the local probation office and get the duty officer to ring me so that either sustenance or bus fares could be authorised. This enterprising chap even once made it ticket-less onto a cross channel ferry and the Belgian Police kindly agreed to push him back up the gang plank complete with sandwiches.
Our Senior was particularly well liked and when he returned from a foreign trip suffering from some kind of virus that left him debilitated and considering early retirement, I remember the team meeting in secret without him and agreeing not to give the boss any hassle - all difficulties had to be handled by the team collectively. This situation went on for weeks I recall and we were all run ragged. I happened to be walking past his open office door one day and he called me in. He was leaning back, feet on desk and puffing away on his favourite cheroot - 'You know Jim, this job's a piece of piss!'
I recall an incident when following the delivery of an evening group in the early nineties, me and my male colleague left the building about 8.30pm - , to stroll to the public car park, which is in the heart of a busy city centre where we hoped to find our motor vehicles. For anyone who has been the victim of car theft, you'll know the thoughts and feelings - given the time, there were only a few cars there, and I couldn't see mine, so I turned to my colleague and asked, "where's my car?" Like he'd know! Realising it was gone, and after some expletives, we decided to attend our local police station to report it stolen. As we left the car park, there was a car parked up on the opposite side of the road, we looked at each other and said, is that your/my car? On realising it was, complete with toe rag in the drivers seat looking back at us.....we pulled up in front of him, nose to nose - I recall gesticulating to him, something along the lines of, 'that's my car and I just want it back' - he panicked and lept onto the curb/pavement and drove at speed right past us. Now male buddy, through impulsivity or design....decided to turn around and give chase. I remember I was heavily pregnant and was almost pissing myself laughing, as he said, "we'll get them" or something along those lines. I realised I had to put my own foot down and told him to just carry onto the police station. We went in and you can image, we want to report a stolen car, and who are you, what is your job etc etc - we both broke down and started roaring with laughter, and I did mention that my colleague wanted to give chase, when the Police Officer calm and as dry as you like, said "and who do you think you are? Dempsey and Makepeace?" I have no idea how I managed to stop laughing, but it made a horrible situation, quite enjoyable really.
ReplyDeleteI recall a case in the very early 80s where a very problematic client with a very serious heroin addicton and a passion for wondering from city to city was arressted for 'bunking' on the train.
DeleteHe had traveled to london and 'gone missing' for some months feeding his habit by whatever mean he could.
However, realising he had become quite ill through his drug use, poor diet and sleeping rough, he decided to head for his mothers in Aberdeen for some respite and TLC.
Pennyless he boarded the train at Euston to start his journey, but got rumbled very quickly. He was removed from the train at Birmingham by rail police, charged, and keept in the cells over night.
The magistrate the following morning impised a 5 day prison sentence.
Taken to HMP Birmingham, he was showered and fed, and informed that because of his time in custody and the weekend approaching, he would infact be released in the morning.
However, he was also informed that he had not served enough time to qualify for any discharge grant, so the prison would not be releasing him with any money only his travel warrent to get him home.
"Where are you going?" he was asked.
Aberdeen was the reply.
If you want to expose the dangerous practices that are going on in pretty much all of our offices, try this: http://www.whistleblower.co.uk/FAQ.aspx
ReplyDeleteIt's completely anonymous :)
I started in the late 1970's and there were already olden-days stories then. My favoirite was the client-of-very-little-brain who rang his PO (Richard Wilkes) putting on a false voice, pretending to be a hit-man and threatening to kill him with an axe. The PO said
ReplyDelete"Don't be silly Michael"
To which came the reply:
"Oh, it's not me Mr Wilkes, I'm somebody else..."
Not a word of a lie...
PS-Jim that's not the guy's real name (just so we all know!)
DeleteMany years ago I was in the smoking room where several POs used to spend much of their time working, smoking and telling tales. An elder and well respected PO was holding court and told me this story. She was writing a report on a young man, a Yorkshire farmers son, who had been having something of a relationship with some of his flick of sheep. The PO went to the rather remote farm house up in the hills late in the afternoon and was asked if she would like to stay for high tea with the family. The family of 3 sons came in from the fields and they all sat down at a long table groaning under the weight of food. The father at the head of the table. The mother came in from the kitchen with plates of ham, gave one to her husband and one each to two of her sons. She then went back to the kitchen and came back with a large plate which was piled high with cut grass. She puts the plate down in front of the other son saying "if it's good enough for your girlfriend, it's good enough for you".
ReplyDeleteJust read this out to my husband.We both laughed out loud.Thank you
Delete37 years in.
That made m laugh, just what I needed from all the stress of TR.
DeleteOff topic but could Tuesday be a bad day for Grayling?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/may/10/city-fraud-cases-brink-collapse-legal-aid-cuts
Lets hope it is, but he seems to dodge the bullet every time, he will probably worm himself out of this, one thing he does seem to have is good PR, nothing seems to touch him.
DeleteThe biggest City fraud cases since the crash of 2008 are close to collapsing because of the government's cuts to legal aid. The refusal of barristers to work at the government's new low rates has already led to Judge Anthony Leonard throwing out charges against five men accused of conning investors out of their savings by selling them land at grotesquely inflated prices.
DeleteIf the court of appeal upholds the verdict on Tuesday, a string of prosecutions designed to clean up London's financial markets may be dropped. Last week, solicitors for alleged insider dealers caught in the Financial Conduct's Authority's Operation Tabernula – the most ambitious and expensive investigation into the City – said they would seek to have the charges against their clients thrown out.
Colin Nott, who represents Richard Baldwin, one of six defendants who are due to stand trial in September, said he could not find a QC to represent his client. Unless the fight between the coalition government and the legal profession stopped, it would be impossible for Baldwin to have a fair trial. Detectives told the Observer that they feared an investigation into the manipulation of Libor rates, welcomed by chancellor George Osborne, could also come to nothing.
Chris Grayling, the justice secretary, told the 2012 Conservative party conference: "I've made no bones about my intention to be a tough justice secretary. Too often those who offend think that nothing will happen to them." Lawyers now say he can be tough on crime or tough on the legal aid budget, but he cannot be tough on both.
Francis FitzGibbon, one of London's leading criminal QCs, said that Grayling had been so concerned with attacking lawyers and the Human Rights Act that he had not realised he was in danger of making the prosecution of cases of complicated fraud impossible in Britain.
Although they do not like the term, lawyers have gone on strike. Last September, Grayling's department cut the rates for barristers handling complex cases of 16 weeks or longer by 30%. Barristers representing men accused of duping investors into buying supposedly valuable "development land" refused to carry on. The defendants' solicitors contacted 69 sets of barristers' chambers in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. None would take the case. Although the government has state-funded "public defenders", who could take the case in theory, just three are qualified to handle serious fraud cases. Two were booked and one was ill.
On 1 May, Judge Leonard refused to delay the trial indefinitely until lawyers could be found. The defendants could not "receive a fair trial without advocates to represent them," he said. Unless the court of appeal reverses his ruling they will walk free.
Although there is no coordinated boycott, the Bar Council, which regulates barristers, said that a 30% cut coming on top of previous cuts in fees was so severe that QCs were no longer obliged under the "cab-rank rule" to take complex fraud cases. Freed to say "no", scores of barristers have said just that.
'Many Trusts are holding wakes, sorry staff conferences, and taking the opportunity of distributing specially prepared glossy brochures reflecting on our illustrious past'
ReplyDeleteAll paid for by us tax payers no doubt, your other anecdotes show a similar disregard for public funds.
Sorry Jim but the the gravy train has reached the end of the line, welcome to the real world, time to earn a living.
Pratt
DeleteThe Gravy Train.... for for this tax paying probation officer means,,,,,
Delete*I work between ten and fifteen hours a week over what I am paid for (FOR YEARS)
*an indifferent pension not the gold plated public sector civil service one often referred to by Daily Mail readers
*being attacked in the office by an offender who kept me against my will for nearly an hour
*having urine thrown over me when I worked in a prison
*taking one lunch break away from my desk in the last month
*working in building with repeated flea infestations
Don't you dare Anon 16:01, include me in the view you have of this once honourable profession
It's amazing how people feel better about swelling the coffers of G4S and Serco with their hard earned taxes rather then funding public services.
DeleteI want to ask them just how do you think you're going to be better off?
*I work between ten and fifteen hours a week over what I am paid for (FOR YEARS)
DeleteWhy would you work more than the hours your paid for ?
*an indifferent pension not the gold plated public sector civil service one often referred to by Daily Mail readers
You have the same opportunity to save for your future as any one else.
*being attacked in the office by an offender who kept me against my will for nearly an hour
Hit the panic button
*having urine thrown over me when I worked in a prison
So you took the piss ?
*taking one lunch break away from my desk in the last month
you have a lunch break, it's your choice to spend it at your desk.
*working in building with repeated flea infestations
if you have health and safety concerns about the building why would you continue to work there ?
Anon 16:01
DeleteYour post is in very poor taste and totally wrong. The Probation Service is one of the most high rating public sector services. This is because staff work over and above their contracted hours on a daily basis. Why.??? Because we are dedicated and committed to keeping our communities (tax payers) safe! Your comments are out of order!!
Dear Anon 17:32 to answer you
Delete1. because I am dedicated and provide fantastic value for tax payers like me!
2.only in the local government scheme NOT the gold plated scheme you refer to in your ignorance
3. I did, but we work with some of society's most damaged people
4.no, but you are!
5. no real choice, the only way to get the job done, again great value for us tax payers
6. because that is what the working conditions really truly are
your response tells us all we need to know, you have no understanding of public service and the idea of the gravy train is laughable. However you should be very worried because all the altruism has been killed off by true blue Grayling and his TRain, you should be very concerned about public safety, you really should.
well said
DeleteAnon 16:01 ssshhhh
DeleteI'm going to choose to ignore the petty nastiness of Anon 16:01's post, and say that he/she makes a good point in one respect (and one respect only) - staff conferences are a huge waste of public funds. In over a decade in the service, I wouldn't need more than one hand to count the number of useful things I've got from staff conferences. They're mostly a way of using up budget underspends at the end of the financial year, to prevent NOMS clawing it back or returning it to the Treasury. The only way I can see that the private sector could do things better is that they're allowed to hold reserves over for the future, and so potentially invest in something meaningful - the public sector can't do that. Change those rules, and the public sector ethos would beat out private sector nous in delivering public services like probation every time.
DeleteBut we're left with our staff conferences, or wakes as Jim says, with our leaders busily talking themselves up in the spotlight while the rest of us sit in the back and think about how we could be doing something useful with our day.
The only gravy trains I have ever seen were when I worked in the private sector. Not for the front line staff maybe, but plenty for the managers.
DeleteI think whats come to an end is a very successful public service. It's to be put in the hands of private companies that will take every oppertunity to fleece the taxpayer. They wont be happy with just gravey!
ReplyDeleteAnd I've never felt probation services were a gravey train. I, and most that I know have always worked more then their contracted hours, and gone beyond the call of duty many times.
For those sceptical about probation work, I just say wait and see just how much more privatisation will cost the taxpayer, and how the quality of service delivery suffers.
I think many people don't fully understand just what a good service probation provide, but unfortunately under privatisation I feel they'll very quickly become aware of what function in society probation played.
Anon 16:01
ReplyDeletein our Trust it is hard to even get basic stationary - I have been know to collect pens I find around the building simply because we have to ask God for one through official channels. Probation Trusts for man years = i'd say the last ten have been running on empty.
I think perhaps readers not aware of probation are getting confused with the trusts' budgets (very little) and TR budgets (central government and used for the expensive hotels for TR training as well as other frivolity).
ReplyDeleteIs it the end though? I think there are enough questions to say that the whole thing is teetering on a precipice. Am I right in picking up that the private companies won't now come in till April next year? One more delay and the whole thing will implode!
ReplyDeleteJust for Anon at 17:32 - although I really just wanted to ignore you. Yesterday - not exceptional, all day the Police were asking me to recall a 20 yr old released prisoner (burglar) to custody, as they considered he presented a serious and immediate risk to 2 x 15yr old females; no evidence to charge him with anything, just rumour and conjecture - however, having taken a disclosure from one of the victims, whilst she was at school - presumably a teacher acted as responsible adult, the Police were desperate to keep him in custody and suggested I should recall him for a breach of his licence conditions. Now, had they any evidence they could have asked a Court to remand him in custody - but they didn't. I asked that they send me a charge sheet before 2pm, so as to make the recall a legitimate one, and allowed for the time required to complete the task. Nothing arrived, only more phone calls, nearly suggesting I was not taking seriously the protection of the community. It may come as a surprise to people, but we do not have the authority to go about recalling people back to jail - for no tangible reason. A manager became involved and advised me to prepare the recall paperwork and to pass onto the MoJ, the concerns raised by the Police. This is not a simple task and as with most Probation Offices, we close at 4.15pm on a Friday - so Anon 17:32 I should have gone home; but I didn't. It took me and my case administrator until nearly 5pm to complete the paperwork, scan and send to the relevant higher manager for a counter signniture, , who incidentally was also ringing me at regular intervals, to get it done, as I suspect people in MoJ (London) are unlikely to be around after 5, in order to issue the warrant, if the recall was considered necessary/legal. So, it was approaching 6pm before I left, having been harassed all day and I do not know what the outcome was, but will no doubt have to respond to it again on my return to work on Monday. Sometimes, I did work on a conveyor belt, and left when the bell rang, sadly, working with people, and I include other agencies, it is never so prescribed.
ReplyDeleteAnd now we have the risk escalation form to complete as well, as part of the bureaucratic process. Thanks for that, Chris. That won't make public protection more difficult at all.
DeleteYour handling of this request to recall struck me as reasonable and balanced. Conjecture should not be the basis for a recall to prison. But trying to be objective and balanced is never easy when the police, who sometimes see probation as an administrative arm, pile on the pressure to do their bidding. But the recall was processed and in reading your account I got the sense that lily-livered managers were only too ready to follow police instructions – as though the police with all their screw-ups on risk management have anything to teach probation. In my experience it was a rare indeed to observe probation management defend a frontline worker in similar situations to the one you describe. Multi-agency working is to the public good, but not when one agency is in thrall or subservient to another.
DeletePlease don't all give up. I am resigning but have offered to work to implement Harry's action plan for free for the next few months and we only have to delay the signing of contracts for an extra 4 months. I am determined not to let this happen and the MOJ just want you to think it's all over. I have been a PO for 17 years and have loads of amazing memories and my overall lasting impression of the Probation Service is one of empathy, something sadly missing in today's ruling class. We can defeat this by making ourselves unattractive to buyers, carrying on sending questions to parliament and, if only there could be some more national media, getting the public behind us. In my view, we should link it with a wider privatisation issue and publicise why this govt want to privatise everything - they don't want to pay for the undeserving poor. I agree with anonymous at 19.39 - 'One more delay and the whole thing will implode!'
ReplyDeleteJoanna, is there anyway that I can help, I really want to be a voice against TR but feel I am on my own. If you want I can email you my details.
DeleteI'm happy to pass details on if you email me.
DeleteCheers,
Jim
Hi Jim,
DeleteI tried to email you through your link but was unable to. How can I email you.
Thanks
Oh dear. Try jimbrown51@virginmediadotcom
DeleteWith regard to national media coverage, maybe Tuesday, some issues of TR could could be raised by the press office with a national paper, given that Graylings legal aid cuts will be head lines again because of the appeal of the collapsed fraud trial.
ReplyDeleteIf indeed the appeal court upholds the trial judges decision, then many questions are going to be asked about Graylings failings accross the CJS.
Just a thought.
Given that large fraud offences are committed by the governments chums, it probably suits them that the trial has collapsed, hey presto their policies have again worked in their favour. It will be our clients who will have to throw in guilty pleas because they would be told that without good representation they will loose the case.
DeleteI find this a very interesting article.
Deletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10819996/Jail-terms-mock-our-justice-system.html
I agree with annon 21:07. Even a statement regarding the chaos the split is causing nationwide, because of Graylings breakneck speed of implementation is bound to get a column or two just because his other policies are being questioned.
Consistency and predictability are essential qualities of any system of criminal justice. Similar offences must call forth similar penalties. If one man is punished severely and another leniently for the same crime, injustice has not only been done but also been seen to be done.
DeleteIn this sense, then, the confirmation by the appeal judges of the four-year sentence of Lewis Gill for having killed Andrew Young with a single punch was correct. His crime was very similar to that of a man called Tony Virasami, who killed a man in a supermarket in the same way. He, too, was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for manslaughter.
But consistency and predictability are not the same as adequacy of sentence. I imagine the population of this country is almost unanimous in thinking that four years for what Gill and Virasami did was inadequate and indeed derisory.
In the first place, to call a four-year sentence a four-year sentence is, to all intents and purposes, a lie. All judges are forced to participate in a charade in which sentences are not called by their proper names. They participate in a system of deceit worthy of a totalitarian state. Young and Virasami were sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. As Confucius said, the first necessary thing to restore a state to health is to call things by their proper names.
Let us briefly recall what Lewis Gill did. He was with a friend who was riding a bicycle on a crowded pavement. A man upbraided the rider of the bicycle (correctly) for doing so. Gill, who already had a conviction for violence, struck him with all his considerable might, as hard as he could, and the man fell, hit his head and died. It is now the law of England that this was a minor, indeed trivial, offence.
Gill’s sentence was so trifling in part because he admitted his guilt at once and because he expressed remorse for what he had done. Both reasons are frivolous and show a degeneration of our system of justice. An accused should not be encouraged to plead guilty just because he will receive a lighter sentence if he does. Like plea bargaining, it turns justice into an undignified game of poker. It is to confuse smooth administration with justice, and is therefore corrupt.
The expressed remorse of the accused should also have no effect upon his sentence. Among other things, it encourages people to shed crocodile tears, which will then be taken seriously. Prisoners who have for years consistently denied their guilt often suddenly acknowledge it and express regret just before their parole review, parole not being granted unless they acknowledge their guilt and express their remorse.
This is wrong in both directions. No one should be encouraged to confess to what he genuinely believes that he has not done; and no man should be believed who abandons his lies for the most obvious advantage.
Moreover, remorse is made to stand as a proxy for future conduct, which is itself taken into account in sentencing. But this is inherently unjust because a man should be punished for what he has done, not what he might do in the future, which cannot be known with the kind of certainty necessary in the administration of just punishment. Besides, kind words butter no parsnips and remorse lessens no crime. Remorse, whose sincerity is unknown to anyone but the person who feels it, is an excellent thing, but it is a private, not a legal, virtue.
The Attorney General was likewise wrong to argue that Gill’s sentence should have been longer because of his victim’s vulnerability. Would the crime have been any the less if the victim had been a strapping athlete? The only relevance of the victim’s (physical) vulnerability was that it increased the likelihood of the blow causing him serious harm. If a man intends serious harm to another and in the process kills him, he is guilty of murder even if he did not intend death. Therefore, it is my view that Gill was guilty of murder, for he could not have struck the blow he did without intending serious harm.
The brutal leniency shown to Gill is highly damaging. It fails to protect or to deter the public. It undermines confidence in the criminal justice system. It undermines the legitimacy of the Government, whose primary and inescapable purpose is to protect the peace. It encourages criminal violence, police over-reaction and vigilantism. And it proves that the principal cause of crime in this country is the criminal justice system.
DeleteAs all know hard cases make bad law. We have to be careful about proposing longer sentences and in fact in recent years sentences have got longer because of fears whipped up around crime. To suggest that the principal cause of crime is the criminal justice system seems to suggest that it can only rid itself of this mantle by becoming even more retributive. We have seen, for example, how sentencing in murder cases have increased following Blunkett's murder tariff. For the writer of the Telegraph article to suggest that remorse is always self-serving and rooted in cynicism, is somewhat hysterical.
DeleteI think Grayling has asked the sentencing counsel to review 'single punch' manslaughter. I think what one of the appeal judges said is important: “In this judgment the sentence imposed was not one which can be described as unduly lenient. “This is not a case to bring about a departure from a settled level of sentencing arising from a relatively recent reconsideration of this area of law.
“If there are public concerns going beyond this case then it might well be appropriate for the wider issue to be the subject of detailed consideration and consideration by the Sentencing Council.”
He added: “We readily understand that this is the sort of case which arouses public concern.”
And the attourney general has also observed that a review of sentencing on manslaughter cannot be done in isolation, so if sentences are increased for single punches, they will also increase in manslaughter cases per se.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteJust to add my dissenting voice to colleagues above - as you know I continue to give my critical twopenneth at every available opportunity against the TR leviathan- based on my 20 years working as a PO - recently went head to head with CEO of potential bidders in Policy briefing as the Napo gadfly in the room...after the event I got an email from one of the leading academics on the PBr/Peterborough 'pilot'....
did think that your contributions got people reflecting on the sort of changes that we might expect in the near future.
From working on the Social Impact Bond, but also through conversations with those hoping to bid, I am relatively confident that no one from either the government or the potential providers have any idea what they are actually getting involved in. Mostly I am sad to see Probation go. I have done a lot of work for them, and it was always clear to me that they did good work, reduced reoffending and generally cared. What they weren’t great at was demonstrating the first two of these.
Do keep in touch.
Best
Mike Guilfoyle
Thanks Mike.
Deletehttp://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/10/skullcracker-abscond-warning-prison-staff-michael-wheatley
DeleteHeres another one. Its good to see questions being asked about Graylings reforms and budget cuts and their consequences on public safety. If he's on the wrong side of Tuesdays appeal, Mr. Grayling may find himself up the creak with no canoe.
Deletehttp://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/skull-cracker-michael-wheatley-official-warned-3524827
Concerns that "Skullcracker" a notorious armed robber who went on the run from prison after being allowed out on day release, was an absconding risk were raised days before he disappeared.
DeleteThe Observer has learned that prison and probation staff charged with supervising Michael Wheatley, who absconded from HMP Standford Hill on the Isle of Sheppey in Kent last weekend while out on day release, questioned whether he should be allowed to make a trip into a nearby town.
It was one of several concerns flagged by staff in the months before Wheatley, who was given 13 life sentences in 2002 for raids on banks and building societies, went on the run, culminating with him being recaptured and charged with carrying out an attempted armed robbery on a Surrey building society.
The revelations will prove embarrassing for the justice secretary, Chris Grayling, who has pledged to restore public confidence in the criminal justice system and take a tougher line against prisoners. They also raise questions about how the prison service assesses the absconding risk posed by dangerous offenders who have been moved to open conditions.
The Observer has established that Wheatley, who spent four days on the run, had a history of absconding since being jailed in 1984 for nine years following a series of shop raids. In 1988 he absconded while on a hospital visit and went on to commit nine break-ins. In 1989 he was jailed for 16 years for break-ins and robberies, reduced to 11 years on appeal. Three years later, while on a day release to an optician, he absconded again and went on to commit several armed robberies. In 1993 he was jailed for a further seven years and in 2002 given the 13 life sentences, with a minimum term of eight years.
Last summer he was transferred to open conditions, but was returned to closed conditions in December after concerns were raised about his behaviour both inside prison and out on town visits. In February his probation officer approved his return to an open prison but warned about his risk of reoffending. The next month he was transferred to Standford Hill, but with the recommendation that he should not be allowed to make town visits.
However, on 3 May, the day he disappeared, he was allowed out, even though in an entry on his file someone had asked "Do you really want to do this?" when the trip was discussed.
His disappearance has prompted questions about whether the Ministry of Justice is keen to move more category C prisoners to open conditions. Criminal justice experts believe the measures are being introduced to relieve pressure on a system that is struggling to cope following the closure of 10 jails since 2010.
"Open jails are needed to help rehabilitation," said Harry Fletcher, an adviser to the probation union Napo. "However, prisoners should only be allocated following a full risk assessment. In this case staff seem to have been worried about further offending and absconding. There is a history of running away while on day release. The issue is a failure of government to provide enough secure places and pressure on staff to move prisoners through the system."
But the MoJ denied prisoners were being moved into open jails due to overcrowding issues. Prisons minister Jeremy Wright also defended the use of temporary release as "an important tool in helping offenders reintegrate. Any prisoner who fails to return will be transferred immediately to a closed prison and face longer in prison."
Philip Davies, Tory MP for Shipley, West Yorkshire, suggested that whoever had allowed Wheatley out of prison was a "berk'" who should be sacked.
The Prison Governors Association said it was appalled by his comments and said the ultimate responsibility for transferring prisoners to the open estate lay with the justice secretary. "Research suggests that reoffending rates among those released from open conditions are far lower compared with those released from closed prisons," it said. "The movement to the open estate for those prisoners serving life sentences usually follows a recommendation made by the parole board. Any such decision will be approved by the secretary of state for justice, based on an in-depth review."
DeleteDaily Mirror:-
DeleteSkull Cracker Michael Wheatley was allowed out of jail despite a stark warning put on his file days before he went on the run.
A worried official wrote “Do you really want to do this?” on documents sanctioning the armed robber’s day release.
Today we can reveal the thug was only transferred to an open prison after probation officers insisted he should NOT be allowed out on town visits.
Yet jail bosses ignored their fears over Wheatley who had escaped twice before during jail terms in the 80s and 90s, carrying out raids on the run both times.
The blunder has emerged as a Sunday Mirror investigation reveals how soaring numbers of dangerous lags including lifers
are now being held in open
jails because of overcrowded prisons – more than TREBLE the number in 2009.
Many regularly abscond – and at least three killers are currently on the run.
Dubbed the Skull Cracker because he pistol-whipped victims, Wheatley, 55, was serving 13 life sentences for armed robbery when he was first moved to an open prison last August.
He was returned to a secure jail months later after staff raised concerns about his behaviour on day release.
Despite this he was sent to Stanford Hill Open Prison, in Kent, in February – with probation staff recommending he must be kept inside.
Wheatley was let out and absconded last Saturday. Police caught him on Wednesday and he later appeared in court accused of armed robbery at a building society in Sunbury-on-Thames – the same branch he was convicted of raiding in July 2001.
His escape has infuriated prison experts worried at the government’s attitude towards the penal system.
Prison Officers’ Association general secretary Steve Gillan said: “How Wheatley could be be deemed suitable for open conditions, never mind temporary release, beggars belief. There is no justification for his allocation into open conditions. His failed record speaks volumes.
“This case demonstrates the system of release on temporary licence is flawed. The public are being put in danger by individuals who are quite clearly not fit for open conditions.”
“This Government needs to decide which is more important – saving money in our prisons or the safety of the public.”
Criminal Justice expert Harry Fletcher said: “Open jails are needed to help rehabilitation, but prisoners should only be allocated following a full risk assessment.
“In this case staff seem to have been worried about further offending and absconding. There is a history of running while on day release. The issue is a failure of government to provide enough secure places and pressure on staff to move prisoners through the system.”
Figures obtained by the Sunday Mirror show a total of 1,242 — prisoners serving life, or an indeterminate sentence, were moved to open prisons in 2013. In 2009, the year before the coalition took power, the figure was only 393.
More than 1,600 lags were given day release last year, including 611 jailed for life for murder and other serious offences. Mr Gillan added: “The POA has been warning for some time that the prison closure programme, along with budget cuts, is a recipe for disaster.
“This Government’s policies in relation to prisons are reckless and gambling with public safety.
The Parole Board admitted it recommended Wheatley be transferred to open jail last August but said the final decision was “a matter for the Secretary of State”.
The Ministry of Justice said officials would only depart from Parole Board recommendations under “exceptional circumstances”. Prisons Minister Jeremy Wright said: “We are not prepared to see public safety compromised, the system has been too lax up to now and we are changing that.
“In future prisoners let out on temporary licence will be tagged, more strictly risk assessed and tested in the community under strict conditions before release.
“There will be a full review of this case.”
Any Probation Officer worth anything would resign and "help" people elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I would like to see probation workers resign - though I understand a need to protect pensions and the benefits of continuity of service in order to provide for one's families' long term income - is because I believe mass resignations or industrial action is the one thing certain to bring an end to the very dangerous reforms as they are now planned. In the short term the government simply could not manage the probation system (which is vital to the criminal justice system) without the existing experienced competent staff.
DeleteI certainly cannot understand how any senior probation manager with integrity and a real knowledge of probation practice, can justify taking any managerial position in either the new NPS, a CRC, NOMS or as a consultant to any organisation trying to become an outsourcer.
If they cannot see their way to exist outside of probation employment, let them fill one of the vacancies as a front-line practitioner. I have little respect either for those working for Probation Trusts on agency contracts, though some will be understandable and reasonable - however they will all end with the Probation Trusts on 31st May, the premature date the Government has decreed is to be their last as employers.
I fear MUCH chaos thereafter and soon after.
I really wouldn't want to see any senior managers back on the front line - the chaos they'd cause would put TR itself in the shade!
Delete“a matter for the Secretary of State”. Who is not fit for purpose
ReplyDelete