Pick of the Week 49

Lazy blogging but still worth a read. The comments above describe probation as a bad place to work. Worst comment award goes to “I have been in probation for 24 years”. So many are stuck in probation and need to get out of this sunken place! The consensus is that probation is not a profession, the pay is poor and the conditions abysmal. The methods Probation uses to recruit and train are flawed, and credible ongoing development is nil.

In my opinion, the current trend of probation box-tickers are mostly 23 year old females fresh out of university. Most will not be competent to have an opinion on justice, rehabilitation and the lives of others. With 15-18 months training and a probation diploma I understand why some will spend time clarifying they're not stating fact, and that what they're about to say is very subjective. I understand why they hide behind phrases like “my manager said”, “MAPPA said”, and “the risk assessment said”.

Many will leave after 2 years to better careers, a few will be enticed into probation management as ‘yes men’. The rest will join the current probation workforce whom have gained the skills and experience to have an opinion but are no longer effective as they’ve been stuck in a worsening dead-end profession “for 24 years”.

The end is nigh for probation and Humpty Dumpty won’t be put back together again. OMiC spells the end for NPS probation officers. The moment the MoJ is ordered to stop bailing out CRC’s will be the end for CRC probation officers.

*****
Certainly one of the comments resonates... well, more than one... there is, I feel, something about the culture of working for the Probation service that engenders a belief that your skills do not transfer. I feel stuck! I still feel a certain value to the job I do but that is what it is now. A job. I work hard, long hours and if I felt I could work elsewhere, I think I would go. That is a scary proposition though and whilst I read here of people having "escaped", I can't see a way out!

*****
Stick your head above the parapet. Talk to people in allied organisations.Do a CV and think about the training you have done in its broadest sense.Training before TR will have value to other organisations.Think about the alleyways you have gone down in your current role. What areas are you seen the 'To Go To' Person? Safeguarding? Community links? Learning Disability? Look at what the OU and your local colleges have to offer. Stick your hand in your pocket and be prepared to invest in yourself. It is not easy but can be done. After 35 plus years I got out into another job, taking a pay cut and grade reduction, but it was worth it because I took control. That is the key.

*****
An easy trap to fall into. Probation management devalues its workers and cause them to believe they are worthless. Probation isn’t structured to develop its workers and their ambitions. Historically workers were led to believe that promotion was only possible after many years service. The old school boys club was at work and promotees were hand picked for services rendered or subservience. The rest were left to rot in the frontline and encouraged to believe probation was the best they could do. This is obviously bullshit and it’s quite easy to get better paid jobs elsewhere. Probation skills are transferable and many organisations welcome former probation officers who come with strong education and work experience.

*****
Most trainees I know are uni leavers who joined probation with the intention of leaving on being qualified two years. A handful of others intend to qualify then temp in the CRC. Nobody wants to stay in probation long term anymore for all the reasons above and more. There’s plenty more jobs out there.

*****
Hmmm. "The Devolution Agenda". And a chicken and egg debate about which should come first: improvement work or devolution. Somewhere in MoJ PR department, an operative is chewing her expensive pencil and doodling "Rehabilitation: Revolution to Devolution", and when the soundbite is polished, it will be a policy.

*****
Devolving will make sod all improvement to anything if they same sorry shower stay in charge. Especially if the service is not reunified. Civil Service, Commercial owners, and craven managers.

*****
Big fan of Dame Glenys, without her team's probation inspections I and others would have been just grumpy malcontents and dismissed as such. As ever her ability to remain distant from the fray is impressive. However, I did like her joke about research which evidences that inspections can drive forward immature markets. That made me chuckle.

*****
HMIP inspections have done nothing to improve or change the mess this government made of probation. Dame Glenys may as well stick to inspecting farms; plenty fences to sit on there!

*****
I'm a fan, Dame G and team have done a professional job within their remit and I dare say given political pressures with some courage and yes, diplomacy. I think the message has landed, must do better! The government will decide the model for Probation ultimately. I would caution against trying to mature the market in Rehabilitation, rather invest in public services and collaborative pragmatism between public, private and voluntary sectors.

*****
Everywhere you look in the CJS you see the word "rehabilitation" popping up everywhere. Police, prisons, probation, and all sorts of other agencies push the word. I used to think I understood what it meant, but I'm not sure anymore. It's almost become just a buzz word to be used in a sales pitch or newspaper article and seems to have different meanings depending on the context it's being used in. Maybe there needs to be a conversation about what the definition of "rehabilitation" really means. It seems to me that it no longer has anything to do with where the person ends up and their ability to lead a normal life, but all about completing the process and steps someone has put in place for them. The process seems to define rehabilitation rather then the end result. It's a bit like doing the washing with no soap powder, you've achieved doing your washing, but your cloths are still dirty at the end of the process. I think "rehabilitation" is a very over used and a very misunderstood word in today's CJS.

*****
As ever, makes great observations. This is a sentence from a local report of sentencing. Clearly there is NO understanding of the meaning of 'rehabilitation'. In addition to a specified period of suspended sentence the judge said "... X must also complete a group work course, a three-month night-time curfew and rehabilitation." Whether they were the judge's *actual* words or the reporter's interpretation is both unclear & irrelevant, it's further evidence that so few people know or care about probation.

*****
How can privatised public services be devolved to local councils? The contracts are agreed, signed and held by central government. Local councils will have no influence on the terms of contracts or how they're delivered. The only thing councils can do is raise council tax to pay for the services, and not know exactly what they're paying for because everything is protected by corporate confidentiality.

*****
Doesn’t sound positive for probation in London. Reading between the lines of this “whole-system approach to offender management”; Victims services will no longer be the responsibility of probation. Thanks to Worboys and Crozier! Offenders 18-25 will be supervised by the Youth Offending Service instead of probation. Privatisation of probation services will continue, incorporating both CRC and NPS. Serco, G4S & Co are set to receive a huge tagging contract. Ker-ching for Mr Mayors’ coffers. No word from Napo and Unison as usual.

*****
'It will review probation services, amid criticism of under-performing Community Rehabilitation Companies.' This blog will surely ask of privatised Probation, part of the problem or part of the solution? Police, Mental Health services, Drug Treatment services, Courts, Communities, Social Services, Health Services, Local Authorities etc all expected to work together so that privatised Probation can turn a profit? Get real! Payment by results, really? So let's imagine everyone in the group effort is tasked to deliver and turn a profit. It gets so blindingly stupid it is hard to imagine the set of chumps that dreamt up privatising Probation services. Aaaargh!

*****
It's the same model the good old USA operate, and it's just another way of outsourcing.
Each devolved authority has total freedom to do what ever as long as they abide by a "broad" understanding of when "federal" intervention is required. As local councils are now becoming evermore responsible for finding ways to fund their services and they keep hiking council taxes to pay for things like social care, libraries and parks, it won't be long before (just like the good old USA model) offenders on probation will have to pay the private companies.

*****
A few points from a broader perspective:
1. Victim services should never have been part of the probation service in the first place (this was a result of empire building in the 90's ) and believe it or not it is just not America where victim services are separate from Probation, Canada  New Zealand and most of the rest of the world are if you care to look.
2. If you are 18 to 25 and in London you may be now about to get a better service given the funding for YOT. You may not but you are probably not going to get a worse service.
3. Whilst it could be the start of charging it could also be the start of the demise of CRC they only remember have 4 years to run and a whole bunch of clients will now go plus If you are a PPO in a CRC there may now be an escape to YOT teams.

*****
This is a fascinating turn. 18-25 group going to YOTs has been kicking around a while. But they choose a time when local authorities have never been so strapped for cash to formally float the idea. 25 year olds attending the same office as 12 year olds to report? Not sure about that! I essentially agree with services being run locally but is this really the best way to it? Particularly given the separation of the service? As always the devil will be in the detail. I just hope it is properly planned and piloted first but I’m not holding my breath.

*****
I'm wondering how the youth offending teams are feeling about absorbing the 18 to 25 year olds. Apart from being a very problematic group they're hugely expensive too. The Homelessness Reduction Act comes into force next month, and between the lack of benefits available to those aged under 25 and the enormous cost of London rents, greatly increased for emergency or supported accommodation, the budget needs must be eye watering. The 18 to 25s must also include a significant proportion of those involved in gang culture, and London has a significant problem gang culture. The research needed to keep certain elements apart will be a huge drain on resources, particularly when you're working with younger offenders who may not yet be identified as being involved with gangs but may in some way be linked by circumstance, family, friends etc.

Are there legal or moral issues to think about when someone being supervised by the youth offending team is imprisoned and enters the adult custody estate because they're over 21? I know there's been much talk about placing 18 to 21s or 18 to 25s within the young offending programme, but I think talk is all there's been. If I worked in the youth offending team in London I'd have a lot of questions to ask, and I'd be pretty apprehensive too.

*****
I'm quite confused. Most Probation clients are under 26. Desistance studies tell us that the rate of offending drops off dramatically after this age. But if these cases go to YOS what does that leave for the CRCs?

*****
Obviously more going on behind closed doors and being kept quiet. The biggest complaint by CRCs is they didn't get the numbers they thought they would. To be told that those numbers are to be chronically reduced by losing everyone under the age of 26 and there's no threat of legal action or announcements of withdrawing from their contract suggests to me they've been assured they will suffer no financial loss.

*****
Jesus, what will MOJ come up with next? If it hadn't done so much damage to careers and society this would be amusing. MOJ are so desperate to find some sort of solution to this mess that they will try anything. What will be next I wonder? Perhaps base future delivery models using proven therapeutic methods known to to aid desistance, and we could have standards to ensure consistency of delivery. We could call it 'What Works' and the 'Offender Management Model'.

*****
I'm sure the same correlation will occur in adult crime figures. Cuts to mental health organisations and charities for example amongst the many contributing factors. Governments never seem to learn that cuts actually save money because they never do.

*****
Very true. What does save money is investment. Ironically. If I, a bear of little brain can see this, why can’t all the clever people in charge? Short term measures, knee jerk reactions, sound bites is what we have to contend with. And these don’t get the baby bathed.

*****
I think the idea that cuts elsewhere have an impact on rates of offending questions the nonsense of payment by results for CRCs to reduce reoffending. The best can feasibly have the worst results and the worst the best depending on how the wind blows locally. We need National Policy that is interpreted to the needs of local communities, that directs services to work together. The best of these collaborations are where mutual interests are identified. These interests are to my mind glaringly obvious. Although I protest privatised Probation services, the Private sector has a huge role to play as do the voluntary sector. It has been staggering to see the extent to which TR rather than enhancing these arrangements has eroded and destroyed them in what I consider to be a self interested, naive and frankly reckless way. The list of cooperative endeavours are numerous and waiting for a government catalyst and some up front investment to realise them.

*****
This I think is only the beginning of a long line of legal challenges. It's right to describe the case as a mess from the start, but I feel it's been resolved in a very disturbing way. Not least because Worboys was never charged or convicted for anything against one of the appellants taking the case against him in the capacity of a victim. I have no doubt that she was one of Warboys many victims that didn't see their day in court and feels cheated by the justice system, but I personally feel very uncomfortable with the idea that someone that you've never been charged with an offence against can bring a legal challenge to prevent your release under the banner of a victim. That just opens up a legal quagmire.

Another uncomfortable aspect is what the Parole Board was told that they should consider "the Parole Board should have taken into account "critical evidence" of the "wider allegations" against Worboys." I think the Parole Board have a duty to consider a persons offending in a wider context than just the things they're charged with, but it's not the Parole Board's duty to determine guilt. That should, and always be the function of the courts. Move away from that and justice moves to a dangerous place. If anything Worboys should have been charged with further offences, and the police and prosecution services being the ones to deal with the fall out that would have brought.

I have much sympathy with Nick Hardwick, I think he's an honest, committed and honourable person, and his demise is really come about by politicians pandering to media pressure. I don't care about Worboys, he can stay locked up, but I do care about the justice system and how some decisions it makes can have very damaging consequences in unintended ways. I'm saddened Hardwick has been forced out, and saddened too that the decision taken today by the courts seems more to do with media-led hysteria, and not the rule of law.

*****
It must be clear that most prolific offenders convictions are very likely to be less than the number of offences they have committed and, therefore, the number of victims. The case surely has ramifications throughout the system given the precedent set. Scrutiny of Parole Board decisions in respect of cases such as Worboys is one possibility, belt and braces approach?

*****
Well if the Parole Board had listened to the Probation Officer at the hearing who told them “do not release” Nick wouldn’t be joining the unemployment queue. The Parole Board were never independent and only released Worboys because of government pressure to release IPP prisoners - oh how that has backfired! I’m sure it won’t be all doom and gloom for Nick, after all his cosying-up to David Gauke and Dame Glenys Stacey he’ll probably be handed a job with the MoJ or HMIP and made a fellow of the Probation Institute.

*****
According to the news at one, Hardwick has been scapegoated by Gauke. Apparently the MoJ failed to include important information relevant to Worboys case in the dossier given to the Parole Board. Gauke is also being criticised over rule 25, the blanket ban on disclosing information on decisions they reach. Rule 25 is something the MoJ imposed, not the Parole Board. Gauke makes a statement in the house on the matter shortly.

*****
If there's a mechanism for the MOJ to add material to a parole dossier, I don't know what it is. Typically documents are requested by the Parole Board or we can ask for them.

*****
Typical bloody politicians to look around and find a scapegoat for their own failures. I only met Nick Hardwick once at HMP Bronzefield when he led the team doing an inspection in 2010. I talked to him about whether there was anything the inspectors could do to assist a mentally ill prisoner who was being bullied by one of the officers. He said he couldn't take up the case of individual prisoners but when I got back to the wing, I discovered that he had immediately left education, gone over to the wing and had a half hour long conversation with the prisoner followed by a conversation with the staff on duty on the wing that day which included the officer conducting the bullying, although Mr Hardwick was very careful not to point fingers. The officer never again bullied that particular prisoner. 

I met him again in 2013 at Downview when he and his team conducted a surprise inspection. On both occasions I was thoroughly impressed by his professionalism, care and standards. He made an excellent head of Parole bringing the same qualities to that role as he did as Chief Inspector of Prisons. Gauke clearly looked around for a scapegoat and Hardwick was the most obvious choice (after all how often do you see a Minister willingly fall on his or her sword?). Granted Gauke wasn't in charge when Worboys was convicted and has no culpability for anything that has happened since, but Gauke should not have sacked Nick Hardwick because that's exactly what he did in practice.

*****
If Nick Hardwick has to resign as head of the Parole Board then Sonia Crozier should resign as head of the Probation Service. If they have to resign then so should David Gauke. All “weak and pathetic”.

*****
Simple solution (?) to cases like Worboys'... give Parole Board a budget to access independent specialists, e.g. psychiatrists, psychologists. Their 3rd party objective views can be weighed against the inevitable subjectivity of supervising staff, prison staff, programmes' staff, reports commissioned by prisoner's legal team.

Hmm, wonder who was REALLY behind the cutting of Nick Hardwick's throat today? Independent, Jan 2016: "Nick Hardwick: Prisons inspector steps down with attack on Chris Grayling for trying to influence his work... he revealed that the former Justice Secretary Chris Grayling had “robustly” tried to influence his reports despite his supposed independence from the Government." Grayling never forgets...

*****
How many Govt heads would open an interview like this (from jan 2016):

Prison UK: Thank you for agreeing to speak to me and to the readers of this blog about your work as Chief Inspector.

Nick H: I think yours is one of the best blogs – and the most insightful – about prison life. It’s something I’ve turned to for information and perspectives. I know a lot of people read it, so I thought it would be a good way of communicating.

No wonder the Tory mafia wanted him out of the picture.

*****
It would help if the obligatory MoJ/SoS representative actually attended the Hearings!

*****
Pissed off that people are saying the MOJ failed to add significant documents to the dossier; no, the parole panel failed to apply forensic scrutiny and ask for that documentation. MOJ doesn't contribute to parole processes, probation officers do though, despite not being legally qualified, in a quasi judicial setting and often in opposition to experienced legal professionals. If the MOJ want to start providing solicitors routinely in parole hearings, that'd be fine too.

*****
If the documentation missing from the dossier was significant enough that the Parole Board failed in its forensic scrutiny by not requesting it, shouldn't it have been important enough to be included in the dossier by those that compiled it? Can't ask for something if you don't know it exists.

*****
Who do you think compiles a dossier? It's prison admin on 17k salaries, then a governor signs it off. Probation staff might provide reports but aren't responsible for the overall contents. What it contains is routinely shaped by the Parole Board itself, who would have known of the existence of all the documentation described as absent from the dossier in today's judgment.

*****
You’re talking out of your backside. The responsibility of probation is to provide a parole report not an entire dossier. The parole dossier responsibility is with the 1. prison parole clerk who compiles it, 2. Parole Board case manager and 3. Public Protection & Pre-release sections in the MoJ. The latter two make decisions and directions about what information they want, and who from.

Read the judgment. The Parole Board were sloppy and released against recommendations of most professionals involved. “The Parole Board ought to have carried out, or have instigated the carrying out of, further inquiry”. The dossier included details of 80+ victims”. Of the 12 Worboys was convicted of he minimised his offending and recently admitted guilt. The Parole Board did not have police and CPS documents on the index offences to challenge Worboys with. Nor sentencing comments. They did have a probation pre-sentence report, a psychiatric report identifying him as a high, continuing and significant risk. 

The Parole report by probation and the psychological report did not recommend release. These would have detailed Worboys offending. In 2017 new psychological assessments recommended release, one arranged by Worboys legal team - no surprise. Both probation officer and prison psychologist objected to these recommendations and stated he should not be released. The judgment summary is clear details of Worboys 80+ victims were contained in these reports and objections. The Parole Board could not say they were unaware. From the detail they were aware and should not have granted release. Would it have been different if the Parole Board hadn’t been under pressure to release IPP prisoners?

The MoJ Public Protection & Pre release sections should have scrutinised the release decision, and the Justice Secretary could have stepped in any time. Instead it took a news campaign and a crowdfunded prosecution by victims to stop him being released. The buck should stop at the door of David Gauke, Justice Secretary. This is why Nick Hardwick has been scapegoated to take the heat off the MoJ and Gauke.

*****
PPCS? never seen them do anything constructive to contribute to a parole dossier without direction from Parole Board. Never seen evidence of them giving critical consideration to the content of a dossier at all.

*****
Let’s not forget Worboys legal team are the ones that argued for his release and arranged for a forensic psychologist to recommend his release. It is a sign of our corrupt system that a solicitor was able to financially profit by presenting Worboys lies, and paid handsomely for securing his release to rape more women. The Parole Board should have listened to probation and other professionals that said he should not be released. That panel should be investigated. The MoJ and Gauke should have stepped in to determine why the Parole Board did not listen to probation and other professionals. The MoJ and Gauke should be investigated. I’m waiting for NPS Sonia Crozier to tell Gauke to stop blaming “HM Prison and Probation Service” for the dossier, but she’ll probably apologise instead.

*****
Nick Hardwick on BBC Breakfast - faces grilling from tv presenter, handles it with dignity, explains his position, accepts his mistakes, expresses his concerns - it's still not enough for the baying mainstream media. The REAL issues will be lost in the white noise surrounding Worboys. Police, CPS, MoJ failures will all be erased as the iconic headline of Hardwick's sacrifice is pushed through letterboxes, TVs and over the internet. Can't wait to see which favoured lickspittle lackey is chosen to replace him. Spurr? Or maybe Gove's personal favourite Dame Glenys could squeeze the Parole Board in between HMIP & Cowsheds?

*****
Still don't see which arm of the MOJ is being hung out to dry here. Probation prepare reports but don't shape the dossier. PPCS don't, in my experience, have a meaningful understanding on the contents of the dossier, or what might be missing from it, either.

*****
Probation do not have responsibility for the dossier, the content and documents requested is the responsibility of the MoJ Public Protection Caseworker and the Parole Board Caseworker. They request Probation provide a Parole Report not the entire dossier. This request is via the Prison Parole Clerk who collates the dossier.

*****
With respect, I don't think Gauke is being thick. He's being sly and trying to shift blame and responsibility to where it doesn't belong. Having read above what he stated in Parliament, perhaps probation chiefs or even NAPO should push for clarification on his comments and why he's suggesting the compilation of the dossier is the sole responsibility of the NPS.

*****
Probation don't shape dossiers, I've said so repeatedly, but neither have I ever had any indication that the PPCS have so much as read the reports or hold any insight into the intricacies of a case other than that directed by the Parole Board. Will the outcome of this be that PPCS gains a greater remit in some instances, or that our responsibilities swell further?

*****
The dossier is the responsibility of PPCS and the Parole caseworker. On many occasions I've been involved in and observed requests by both for information and documentation. Probation responsibility is simply to provide a parole report and other REQUESTED documents. Probation are merely witnesses at the hearing. The Prison Parole Clerk simply collates the documents sent according to request sent by PPCS and the Parole Caseworker. The NPS and Napo need to make a public statement about this quickly, but won’t because NPS directors are in Gauke’s pocket and the Napo GS doesn’t understand probation work.

*****
Try having a conversation with a PPCS caseworker about the contents of a dossier. Other than hitting the required timescale s, they're at best disinterested and more often than not clueless.

*****
Totally agree. PPCS refer everything back to the disinterested and clueless Parole Board Caseworker, who refer everything over to the disinterested and clueless Parole Board Case Manager, who refer everything to the Parole Board Panel Chair who is usually disinterested and clueless too. BUT, the dossier is still the responsibility of the PPCS and the Parole Board. It is not the responsibility of the Probation Service. Probation Officers are witnesses at Parole Hearings to attend and answer question about their Parole Assessment Reports and Risk Assessments and nothing more, not to provide the dossier, not to arrange the logistics, not to make tea, nada.

*****
The Parole Board panel was reckless in making its decision as many are, but Hardwick’s is not the only head that should be on the block. The position of the entire panel should be considered “untenable”. Gauke had the authority to be represented at the hearing and to intervene into the decision but chose not to. The dossier was the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice and the Parole Board, not the probation service. Gauke must stop attempting to lay blame on the probation officers who did their job, who are not responsible for the parole dossier and who opposed release. What say NPS Sonia Crozier about this, and if she apologises again then her position is “untenable” too?

If Hardwick’s position was “untenable” then so is Gauke’s. The right to practice of the forensic psychologist that recommended release against the advice of all other professionals, paid for by Worboys legal team, should be considered “untenable”. Worboys legal team abuse of legal processes should also be scrutinised for bring the legal profession further into disrepute.

Bottom line, we have broken justice system wherein a Parole Board achieved ‘success’ by ignoring all professional advice, and solicitors achieved ‘success’ by duping said Parole Board into believing the lies of a serial rapist, and made a decision to release Worboys onto the streets of London to rape again. Is this not considered “untenable”?

*****
Worboys should not be released yet but at the same time shouldn’t have to suffer because of the system failure. How hard will it be for him to work towards rehabilitation and release when he is now facing the wrath of every IPP and Parole prisoner that now won't be released.

*****
All my experience of working in the Criminal Justice System tells me that when it works successfully victims, offenders, the public, the different professionals all have a sense that the right thing has been done. Some of them may not like it, but they acknowledge it is just and ordered. Gauke has topped a series of failures with a decision which fails to do the right thing on every measure. Weak, political decision: all it indicates is that Gauke has neither ability nor intent to put his department into order. I hope he doesn't get away with this.

*****
Hardwick is leaving out there was a Parole Board Post Tariff Review in 2015. Full documents were available and release was not granted. The 2017 Parole Board Panel would have had access to this decision. The recent Judgment states there was an indication of Worboys convictions and 80+ victims in the dossier and the Panel could have sought further information at any time. This is not just about not having all the information, it is about not properly analysing what they had and making no attempt to obtain what was further required.

*****
Gauke will claim he has taken responsibility, "On the dossier that was provided by the National Probation Service—and, therefore, my Department—for the hearing that occurred on 8 November last year," But really he is scapegoating the NPS, and saying he is "forced" to accept some responsibility but only because the NPS are under his ward. Hardwick has taken the right stance, there were cock ups made, some by the Parole Board, and some by various other involved parties, lets accept that and sort the problems out. Everyone else however seems to be trying to pass the hot potato. It's interesting that Hardwick is the only one that seems to be commanding any respect, yet he's the one who's had to take the biggest fall.

*****
Yes Gauke is scapegoating both the Parole Board and the National Probation Service. Does this mean the head of the NPS is to resign too? The truth is the dossier was not provided by or the responsibility of the National Probation Service—and, therefore, Gauke’s own Department the MoJ Public Protection Casework Section—is responsible for the dossier. At any point in the process Gauke had the authority to intervene in the decision being made to ensure public protection and the interests of justice.

*****
So Ian Lawrence said nothing about Hardwick and Gauke wrongly blaming probation for the dossier? And nothing about wrongly blaming probation for victims not being informed when this wasn’t the responsibility of probation? In fact our Ian just endorsed the scapegoating of probation by stating “Privatising probation, ... , I’m not surprised crucial information was missing“. Utterly useless!

*****
Lawrence puts his finger on the real problem. If you spend years destroying the justice system, dismantling long established structures, dividing agencies and outsourcing critical parts to third parties, then poor communication and serious mistakes are going to be inevitable.

*****
I think not and the judgment does not mention Ian’s view. This was nothing to do with privatisation or poor communication. Probation did it’s job, prisons and it’s psychologist did it’s job, and as Hartley-Brewer called it; “Bizarrely, the Parole Board members seemed to be the only people who didn’t know his history. But also the fact that they seemed to take as gospel truth the fact he had converted to religion – I don’t see how that’s relevant – and that he was a changed man. It seems a level of utter incompetence and incredulity.”

*****
Ian Lawrence may as well have blamed Australian ball tampering and poisoning of Russian spies on probation privatisation too!

*****
The judgment recommends more serving and retired judges on Parole Board panels. Maybe this will stop the shady practices of solicitors and barristers at parole hearings. I’ve seen nothing in the media or from the legal profession about Worboys legal representatives presenting his lies and arguing for his release. Where did they find that psychologist who recommended release?

*****
Given all the finger pointing because of the lack of information presented on Worboys probable offending, and Nick Hardwick being effectively sacked, this report says that the SoSs representative at Worboys hearing opposed release on the basis of what he was 'convicted' of, and didn't feel the need to elaborate on his possible further offences. Who's at fault now Mr.MGauk?

*****
An MOJ spokesman said: "The department's representatives at the hearing made clear that they had analysed the offences of which (Worboys) had been convicted and opposed release on the basis that he remained high risk. "They did not feel the need to analyse any other offending in order to reach this firm conclusion." Those are the accusations against the Parole Board which forced the resignation of Nick Hardwick. If the MoJ are now saying they are guilty of the same error, then who's going to resign from that department?

*****
I suspect “the departments representatives” means the probation service. This is misleading the truth because the probation officer who submitted a report and attended the parole hearing as a witness is not responsible for the Parole Board's failure. What we want to know is why the other “departments representatives” the Ministry of Justice Public Protection Casework Section which is responsible for the dossier failed to include the correct information, and why the “departments” head, the Justice Secretary David Gauke and David Lidington before him failed to intervene.

*****
I don't think the blog piece title 'The Wrong Guy Resigns' hits the mark. We work in imperfect systems, with contradictory guidance and flawed science but do our best in light of this. I think the Judges got the balance right in their summation. My view based on what I have read is that no one needed to resign, the opportunity to reconsider and reflect on Parole decisions is the challenge in light of what happened. Public grandstanding by Politicians is a sign of immature politics and serves no one well. I would respect Gauke if he reconsidered Hardwick's resignation and worked with him to bring about considered changes to the Parole system, they appear to agree fundamentally on much.

*****
What a shower of comments half wrong at that. I read the blog on the basis I thought it was declining in reader feedback but here we have a little lift because of a simple resignation. The way this reads is simple If Hardwick had anything about himself he would said FO to Gawky boy and said sack or shut it! Instead he helped the Gawky boy and fell on a sword not a murmur of protest. In my view at least he asked for it! No fight no respect.

*****
I disagree. Bowling into the committee ranting and raving blaming everyone else aka Phillip Green should earn zero respect in my view. Unfortunately behaviour like that amongst the elite means they get weasel out of what’s coming their way. Hardwick took responsibility as managers often don’t and resigned. An honourable man in my view. Unfortunately in this day and age viewed as weakness to some.

*****
The judgment came to the right conclusion. The Parole Board panel made a number of shoddy errors. I’ve known shoddy PB release decisions before, but never against recommendations of probation officers, prison psychologists and MAPPA, and never on a high profile case. Hardwick knew Gauke planned to point the finger in one direction so had no choice but to resign. Hardwick resigning meant Gauke didn’t have to for not intervening, it’s simple as that. Gauke has not come out unscathed and now known as an incompetent Justice Secretary. It won’t be forgotten he refused to take responsibility and threw everyone else under the bus, including the probation service.

Final thoughts: Use of non-convictions in Parole hearings will remain a grey area. There’re structural problems of solicitors representing dangerous clients at parole hearings as if were innocent defendants in courts of law. The probation officer involved should be commended for a tight Parole report, recommendation and risk assessment.

*****
I too found it astounding that Worboys still a Cat A prisoner should have been even considered for parole so soon after tariff expiry given what he was convicted of. I've known people on IPP's who had to go through decreasing levels of secure prisons to open conditions to "prove" themselves before being considered for release and they had lesser tariffs than Worboys for much less heinous offences. But then again the Baby P mother was released from Holloway before her tariff expired and there have been a few other similar cases, some of which have ended up being recalled so probably shouldn't have been released. I know one woman with learning difficulties who had an 8 month IPP tariff who spent 8 years inside before she got released and who wasn't really a danger to anyone had she received the help she should have been getting in the first place. Yet Worboys does a few months over tariff and bingo up for release! Mind you it's the same sort of headscratcher as sentencing where people committing say fraud for roughly the same amount can get wildly differing sentences.

*****
Secret Barrister appears to be suggesting that all the professionals were recommending release. It is my understanding that the OM, OS and prison psychologist were not and it was only Worboys' psychologists who were recommending release. Another point which I am surprised no one has commented on before is the matter of Worboys being denied a move to open conditions in August 2017. I may be wrong on this one but I regularly review the categorisation status on Lifer and IPP prisoners. These cases never progress to open conditions as HMPPS doesn't have the power to grant such a move. Even though it is something of a pointless exercise this happens to lifers and IPPs on an annual basis. I suspect the same happened in Worboys' case.

*****
Secret Barrister has said "Yes, his release was opposed by his offender managers but supported by psychologists instructed by his solicitors and by NOMS. My piece is not clear about that - I’ll amend. Thanks."

*****
A great deal is being made of Worboys being a Cat A prisoner. It is unlikely due to his notoriety and nature of his crimes that he will (for his own safety) be allowed out of the High Security Estate and will therefore, if release is ever granted again, go straight from Cat A to an AP.

*****
I think there's a distinction to be made about being housed within the category A prison estate and actually being a Category A prisoner. There's a big difference, both in legal terms and security arrangements. There's a couple of things the Warboys case has made me think about, and they haven't really been spoken about.  I think firstly moving away from the legal issues, there was a general feeling that he just hadn't served long enough for the offences he committed. I think that was the primary driver for legal action and the legal arguments were easy to find to present a case for JR.

Secondly, his release challenged many assumptions that people hold about the CJS that may not be actually correct. The CPS assumed the number of cases he was charged with would be sufficient to put him away for a far longer period then 10 years, that too I believe was an assumption by the police, and indeed alluded to by police to at least one victim. I think too that when the public and press hear a sentence being imposed of IPP they assume the person receiving that will be in prison for far longer then the minimum period set by the judge.

I don't know the answer, but was there an appeal by the state or prosecution or any of the victims when Worboys was sentenced about the leniency of the minimum term imposed? Perhaps there's assumptions being made in legal quarters there if no appeal was made? People (including myself) think they know things about the CJS, and they perhaps do know much, but the Warboys case has challenged what people really know, what's fact what do we assume, what protocols and processes within the CJS that aren't found in legal text do we rely on and expect, perhaps sometimes wrongly expect, to keep the wheels turning?

*****
Less than 1% of those released by the Parole Board go on to commit further serious offences. You wouldn't think the risk was so low given the agitation at the proposed release of Worboys. Worboy's notoriety puts him in the court of public opinion. The judicial review was not without its irrational aspects, though when judges are in a fix to justify something they will always cite exceptional factors. - and you can see the judicial review as another episode in a long series of incompetence which started with failures to investigate by the police and failures to prosecute by the CPS.

Worboys will be kept in prison as further punishment for the offences that were never put before the sentencing court. I would have no confidence in risk assessment which is a blend of groupthink and pseudo science. As for the Parole Board considering sub-conviction information and police intelligence, Mappas have been doing this for aeon's in reaching risk assessments. And such information can be withheld from the Mappa subject whose human rights are secondary to protection of the public considerations.

If the statistics showed that 99% of those released on parole went on to commit serious offences, what chance of anyone being released? But the reverse is true and was true before before the shiny risk assessment tools arrived. Risk assessment is a tool for justifying incarceration whereas experience shows that it's safe to release in 99% of cases. And it's irrational to think we can ensure safety 100%.

*****
Recalls cover a multitude of sins, real and imagined. The 1% relates to the actual commission of a serious sexual or violent offence.

*****
And the extent to which recall prevents SFOs will never be known precisely, but fair to say the 1% would be higher if not for preemptive action. High recall rates are, in my opinion, at least partly the price paid for release of IPPs who aren't yet ready to be back in the community.

*****
Pre-emption like pre-crime reminds me of Minority Report. The 1% statistic has endured for decades – it predates OASys and it predates the shift to aggressive recall policies by probation over the past 15 years or so. Risk assessment has become an industry of illusions and there is no evidence that it beats experienced professional judgment, common-sense and a belief that people mature and change.

*****
I enjoy reading these Branch Reports but wonder if other areas report to their members like this. It would be extremely helpful to have this exposure and accountability of the management everywhere else.

*****
Well done to Dino and the rest of the SSW Branch Executive for holding the line on behalf of its Members and continuing to hold WLA to account and be that ever present 'thorn' in the flesh. As a lesser mortal I myself (for a number of reasons) bailed out of the disaster that is DDC about 15 months ago.I take my hat off to those who have stuck it out, and continue to question and challenge the employers on their employment practices. I fear as a country we are rapidly heading back to 'master -servant working conditions.

*****
"I'm sure probation employers of all descriptions must sleep much easier at night". Sadly your words are 'on the money', Jim. We only have to look at the ease with which the CRC owners breezed through a very comfortable session before the JSC recently, throwing statements of self-congratulation around like confetti & enjoying the free airtime for their PR machine. I admit to being more than a little frustrated with Bob Neill for letting them get away with that, especially in the light of the damning PAC report that was published not many hours later. I despair! But to those probation staff in the South West I send my best wishes & moral support. It doesn't pay the bills & it doesn't stop the bullying - but hopefully the idea that there are people in support of your fight helps a little bit?

*****
No April fooling here. Barristers taking action is old news in scheme of things. Interesting to look at Probation in Ireland (North & South) and Scotland and how the role of Probation Officer remains positively aligned to Social Work base and qualification remains Social Work with Criminal Justice specialist orientation. [In England] I am wondering if Probation works annexation from Social Work leaves it somewhat stranded, isolated and maybe vulnerable? Note I am DipPS not CQSW and so no axe to grind rather enquiring.

*****
I have a CQSW and after many years in the Probation Service, Registration is not for the feint-hearted and you have to take personal responsibility. If your manager wants you to do something you professionally disagree with, then be prepared to defend your client, reputation and registration. Not sure some of the recently-recruited 'yes' people in the Probation Service are up to that. Just saying and putting on my tin hat at the same time.