E-mail sent to all members this afternoon from Napo HQ:-
Judicial Review – Napo proudly enter the fray
Last night Napo’s lawyers formally filed the necessary documentation in the High Court to seek Judicial Review (JR) of Justice Secretary Chris Grayling’s plans to award CRC contracts to the preferred bidders under his Transforming Rehabilitation plans on or after the 1st December 2014.
As you can imagine, there has been a massive amount of preparatory work undertaken since the instruction to proceed to JR was taken last week. Our request to
members to add to the evidence about risk and safety that we started to compile during (and immediately following) the Napo AGM, has been met with a quite staggering response. We have received hundreds of examples that have been carefully analysed, and these have helped to ensure that our ‘Grounds of Submission’ and other evidence is of the highest quality.
We do now need to ask that any further incidents or information that members may want to bring to our attention should from now on only be sent to: campaigns@napo.org.uk
Please keep them coming though, as we may well need this further information as the case develops
Napo will stand by our members
The Officers and I want to thank everyone for their contributions and especially those individual Napo members who have been prepared to sign witness statements that will be used in the JR proceedings. The General Secretary has been assured in a recent conversation with Michael Spurr (NOMS Chief Executive), that it is legitimate for any Napo member to speak directly with their union on issues that concern them. We have therefore advised the members involved that they have the full support of Napo, and indeed our whole membership, in the event that there is any attempt by anyone to subject them to victimisation.
What are we asking the Court to decide?
Whilst there is no question that Napo and its members are totally opposed to the intended privatisation of the probation service, our submission for Judicial Review does not challenge the right of the Secretary of State (SofS) to do this. The reason being that however unpalatable this undoubtedly is to our members, previous judgements have held that the Courts will not interfere with policy or ideological decisions.
Essentially, Napo’s Grounds of Submission are based on three key aspects. Firstly, to seek an injunction preventing the intended share sale of the CRCs until the SofS has shown, through the evidence he had undertaken to obtain, that the new structure is operating safely. To date the SoS has flatly refused to reveal or publish the results of the assurance tests (Testgates 1-4) that he is claiming give him and his officials the confidence to proceed (to share sale) despite limited evidence from his lawyers suggesting that Testgate 4 does not show that the systems are operating safely. Secondly we are asking for an order to allow Napo an opportunity to make informed representations on that evidence. Thirdly, we are asking the Court to decide whether sufficient regard has been had by the Secretary of State to his obligation to establish and maintain a suitable system to protect staff, service users and the public from avoidable serious harm.
Here, with your help, we have amassed what we believe is compelling empirical evidence to support our case that the current operational environment that has been created within the NPS and CRCs as a result of the staff split, is and remains unsafe.
Again, we are asking the court to award interim relief by way of not allowing the intended share sale of CRC’s until the Judiciary is satisfied that the SofS has taken the necessary steps under these headings to ensure that he has met these obligations.
What happens next?
An application has been made to the court for an early hearing and the Secretary of State’s lawyers have agreed that this is essential and agreed to a truncated timetable for steps to be taken to achieve this. More information will be given once the position becomes clearer.
Unity in these testing days
More news will be issued to members at the earliest opportunity. A detailed report on progress or the consequences of any decision by the Court (if one is reached by then) will obviously be reported to members and the Napo National Executive Committee who meet on the 26th November.
As many members have told us, we are entering into what may prove to be Napo’s defining days. Whatever the outcome of this struggle, which we enter with reasonable but measured confidence, our members can be proud that their union has been prepared to take our beliefs, our principles and our resolve all the way to its conclusion.
Ian Lawrence General Secretary and the Officer Group
HURRAH!!!!!
ReplyDeleteTestgates1-4 are a whitewash and the same will be true of test gate 5. I know of judges who have expressed significant concerns but these get swept under the carpet such is the desire to say'it's all lovely'! I am delighted a JR is being progressed but am fearful it will just create a small pause in this car crash. We can have no confidence in getting another administration in power in May.
ReplyDeleteIt does seem like 'defining days'. I admire those Napo members who have signed affidavits. This is really putting your head above the parapet and that is never easy for an individual and they deserve all our respect and, more importantly, support. I also hope that this move strengthens solidarity amongst Napo members generally. And those who are in Unison should think about the lack of fight their union put up. There is only one real union for probation staff. Even if the JR fails, with solidarity the fight is not over.
ReplyDeleteTo anon 18.34 Well said. Think about it Unison members!
DeleteSo what happens now? Can the contracts still be signed? Can they agree T&C's with 'new' preferred (but not as preferred as before) bidders? Does Chris Grayling continue to obfuscate, delay and deceive? Will my Christmas present be my own ennui, sealed in amber for posterity?
ReplyDeleteOff topic, but is this a sign of a very special relationship between Grayling and Sedoxo?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/chiefs-firm-running-tinderbox-hmp-8071429
This is clearly private enterprise being protected by the state in an attempt to cover up serious failings.
DeleteIt's obviously damaging publicity for Sedoxo, but you have to ask if the 'snub' was voluentary, or forced by Grayling?
Well done, Chronicle Live. Keep up the pressure & don't let the weasly Lib Dems wriggle off the hook.
DeleteWill the wife of HMPI also get such instructions from Grayling and the MoJ?
Deleteam I right in thinking that all JR is about is that it's not safe to proceed and that Grayling has rushed things through?
ReplyDeleteIf so, what about the poor people who were shafted? I was hoping JR would be about joining us back together but that does not seem to be the case. There's definitely lots of questions to be asked.
The legal advice from months ago was that we could not argue CG could not split the Service;the 2007 Act gave SofS power to determine how probation was delivered hence Napo is pursuing safety aspects. In conjunction with legal advice you have to choose the best aspect to argue with supportive evidence.
ReplyDeleteCan't help thinking that the preferred bidders are actually just being used particularly the charities and mutuals. The strategy of putting out suggested changes that are then objected to and challenged, resulting in alterations and amendments which, in context are received as more palatable than what was originally put out may be at play ?. The more extreme first proposed changes were never what was planned, the amendments , now believed by the challengers to be a success, were actually what was really planned. If the current preferred bidders pull out, what and who does that leave ? The ones who have needed to step back ( be excluded from playing ) for a while maybe ?
ReplyDeleteGrayling must be sooo annoyed at those nasty left wing union types daring to try to use "HIS OWN" courts against him. Wonder what the pesky judiciary will do? It's enough to make him splutter into his Chateauneuf du Pape served with his kitchen supper by his (on the parliamentary expenses pay roll) wife...
ReplyDeleteAnd cooked by Sexoxo catering services.....
DeleteProtected by the state? A right fucking state it is too. This Gov. is as corrupt as Capone's gang of thugs. Let's hope the JR is Grayling's tax man coming to call. Wouldn't it be ironic if he ended up with the clap in one of his privately run jails?
ReplyDeleteAnd he comes out with 46 quid in his pocket of course!!
ReplyDeleteOff topic but that 'cannibal' killer in Wales who had recently been released from prison? Wouldn't he have been supervised by the CRC? Or am I wrong?
ReplyDeleteI read he was sentenced to 5 years for a violent offence so MAPPA eligible and presumably NPS until Sentence End Date.
DeleteAwful case and my heart goes out to everyone involved and affected.
Yes, I have checked and you are right. NPS.
DeleteTragic to hear of this happening. Also sad to see people making comments on the article in the online reports asking why this country spends so much money on the probation service? It just shows that the general public continue to be naive about what's going on now. In any case, I read that an SFO review would be carried out because the offence had occurred within a 30 day period of his sentence ending, which would suggest he was released at end of sentence and therefore not under the supervision of Probation.
DeleteGood news but let's be realistic and understand that JR will slow down the TR process but cannot stop it.
ReplyDeleteIf we win the JR then Grayling will have to show his plans have been tested and are safe. If we're lucky this delay will take us into the general election and TR will be put on hold or abandoned.
If we're unlucky Grayling will change tactic, find away to find the evidence to answer to or beat the JR, and TR will carry on.
Either way it seems the NPS/CRC split will remain no matter what, but winning the JR may mean the impact on staff and clients may not be as bad as it's currently set to be.
Why is that the service cannot be put back together, it didn't take them that long to dismantle it so it shouldn't be a monumental task to put it back. All the systems are still in place.
ReplyDeleteWe had a young woman who worked for 2 months as a PSO in our CRC team before starting the one year PO training at NPS on the back of a degree in Criminology.She has now been at NPS for 3 weeks, When she is Duty Officer, she has to decide whether to accept our Risk Escalation requests or not.
ReplyDeleteIn North West the Risk Escalation is delegated to a Risk and Audit team-more likely to achieve consistent decisions. The sitation at anon 00.55 looks like both misuse of Duty system and role of PSO/PQF staff. Talk about being dropped in it!
ReplyDelete