Friday 15 November 2019

An Impossible Task?

It's still early days in this most extraordinary of election campaigns where the Tories are trying to outbid Labour with lavish spending promises in order to win over Northerners and the working class generally. Not only is austerity over, but so is financial probity it would seem. 

With the NHS pretty much covered, it's surely only a matter of time before crime and criminals get the attention of an increasingly desperate Tory Party determined to hang on to power by whatever it takes. So, well done to star reader 'Getafix for spotting that our old friend David Fraser has put pen to paper for the benefit of the good Conservative Women of this parish thus:-  

Licence to kiIl, maim and rape again


In January 2003, PC Gerald ‘Ged’ Walker, a dog handler with the Nottingham Police, was killed by David Parfitt a criminal who had been released from prison a year earlier after serving two years for robbery. Under post-release supervision by the probation service, his behaviour soon made it clear he was not to be trusted and he should have been recalled to prison.

Despite the widespread publicity given to the death of PC Walker and the attention drawn to the hazards of supervisors allowing dangerous criminals to slip off their radar, numerous similar examples continued to surface. In 2008, for example, a vicious criminal called Dano Sonnex, on licence following his early release from jail, murdered two young French students. Again, the warning signs he exhibited prior to the killings were ignored, and in some instances not even noticed, by his probation supervisors.

A year later, a Home Office inspection across ten London boroughs found that in almost half of the 276 cases examined, probation officers had not learned the lessons highlighted by the previous killings carried out by supervised offenders. These included a failure to take breach action; failure to carry out home visits; supervising officer negligence; poor record-keeping; no risk assessment or supervision plan; failure by managers to manage effectively; lack of communication, and no cover for supervising officers when they were sick or on leave.

But whether probation officers are lax or follow all the rules associated with supervising violent offenders in the community is irrelevant. Such offenders are not monitored twenty-four hours a day, and if they were, even an alert probation supervisor could not stop a determined and violent criminal from striking again. Double killer David Cook was monitored by the probation service following his release from prison in 2009, having served 21 years for the murder of Sunday school teacher Beryl Maynard in 1987. In 2011, Cook’s probation team, assiduously following the rules, visited him at his home. The record of their visit said that Cook behaved perfectly normally, offered them coffee, was relaxed and happy to talk to them. Meanwhile the corpse of Cook’s neighbour, Leonard Hill, lay in the bedroom directly above where they were sitting. Cook had strangled him two days earlier.

The figures for the number of killings, rapes and woundings by offenders being monitored by the probation service are chilling, and provide compelling evidence that the examples referred to above cannot be dismissed as anecdotal. They are replicated by the hundreds every year and dash the myth that dangerous repeat offenders can be managed safely in the community.

The total for eight of the most serious violent crime categories (murder, attempted murder, rape, attempted rape, manslaughter, kidnap, arson and ‘other serious sex and violent crimes’) committed by supervised offenders for the period 1998-2014 computes to a yearly average of 281 or five per week. The comparable figure for the more recent period 2012-2016 is 457 or nine per week, a 63 per cent increase.

To take two categories, for the period 1998-2014 the average number of murders per year committed by supervised offenders was 13. For the period 2012-2016 it was 76. For rape, the comparable figures were 52 and 204.

A 2018 report showed that the problem is as serious as ever. In the twelve previous months it was necessary for the Probation Inspectorate to carry out 627 serious further offence reviews. These highlighted poor standard of oversight, with large numbers of dangerous offenders being supervised by telephone calls every six weeks instead of at face-to-face meetings.

We should not be mesmerised by these figures, and whether they are going up or down is not the main point. There should not be any such offences. All those trusted with early release on licence have been assessed as safe to let out, and therefore we should expect that they present no danger to the public. But the level of violence associated with prisoners released under supervision shows this to be a pipe dream. Despite reporting on it for at least the last 25 years, our justice officials have resolutely failed to bring this debacle to an end.

Instead they indulge in the dark arts of obfuscation to mask the scale of the problem. For example, in 2008 they decided not to include Section 18 Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) offences in their count, even though this crime is regarded as the most serious form of violence next to murder. The impact of this statistical sleight of hand can be seen from the fact that when it was introduced, the number of reported offences in the category ‘other serious sex and violent crimes’ fell from 367 to 81.

The probation service has been given an impossible task, and the chief crime of its senior management is not to have had the courage or sense of public duty to say so. As a result, staff must pretend they can protect the public. The ethos of denial this has produced is illustrated by the report of one senior probation manager, following an inspection of work carried out by her staff, as follows:

‘In the four-month period under review, there have been nine serious further offences committed by criminals currently under our supervision. The investigations of these crimes have revealed that in none of these cases could we have done anything to prevent the crime. In all of them, the government’s national standards, governing how we should supervise the offender concerned, were followed to the letter. This is a good achievement.’

So it might be from the point of view of the blinkered probation bureaucracy, which first and foremost wants to avoid blame. But for the public in the real world, nine serious crimes such as murder and rape committed in the space of just four months, in just one small probation area, by criminals thought safe enough to be in the community, was anything but a good achievement. If this was a good result, what would a bad one be like?

In February 2013, the then Prime Minister David Cameron visited India and described the 1919 massacre of 379 demonstrators at  Amritsar by the British Army as ‘shameful’. This publicly expressed sensitivity is in stark contrast to his silence in relation to the 2,348 homicides committed in his own country between 2010, when he came into office, and 2013 when he made the Amritsar speech. Many of these were committed by criminals allowed to roam because of lenient sentencing endorsed by his government, despite the violent histories of the killers concerned.

Offenders who can be trusted to live in the community do not need supervision. Those who do need supervision, therefore, cannot be trusted, and should not be in the community.

David Fraser

(References have been omitted - Ed)

13 comments:

  1. I find David Frasers writings a bit dark, even gothic or medieval. I'm pleased he's not my local magistrate.
    I find this recent article pretty interesting however.
    Fraser appears to see probation solely as an agency of supervision and enforcement.
    As someone who thinks today's probation service struggles with its own identity and other people's perceptions, I'm not sure where Frasers argument leads to.
    He says,

    "Offenders who can be trusted to live in the community do not need supervision. Those who do need supervision, therefore, cannot be trusted, and should not be in the community."

    Ergo... If probation is solely about supervision and enforcement then its a service that is not needed under Frasers vision.
    So, what role or function within the CJS would Fraser like to see probation take on?
    I doubt it would be an Avise, Assist and Befriend model?
    Or does he really think its been charged with such an impossible task, you may aswell wind the whole lot up?

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "We are an enforcement agency. It is what we are. It is what we do." Paul Boateng

      The Guardian, March 2000:

      Paul Boateng, the home office minister, was last night forced to abandon his plan to rebrand the probation service as the "community punishment and rehabilitation service".

      Mr Boateng had claimed that the name change was essential and nicely balanced "tough" with the constructive tone of rehabilitation but it ran into a storm of criticism that it was "a silly plan".

      Last night the minister said in a Commons written reply: "The government has listened to representations from MPs and others, and we intend that the new unified service will be called the national probation service of England and Wales. We have listened to views from across the criminal justice system."

      He admitted the name "probation" enjoyed wide international recognition but said ministers intended to use the opportunity to stress the role of the service as a "law enforcement agency".

      *it was orginally going to be the Community Rehabilitation and Punishment Service until someone pointe out that would make it CRAP.

      Delete
  2. Companies House show that on 24 Oct 2019:

    Ingeus Europe Ltd
    Ingeus UK Ltd
    Invisage Ltd
    ITL Training Ltd
    RRP Ltd
    DLNR CRC Ltd
    SWM CRC Ltd

    have jointly submitted a deed of supplemental group debenture as Chargors, with CBA Corporate Services (NSW) PTY as security trustee.


    As a simpleton I take it that means they have all surrendered assets to CBA Corporate Services to raise money.

    Have a look at the Commonwealth Bank webpage:

    (https://www.commbank.com.au/corporate/solutions/capital-raising-and-lending/agency-trustee-services.html)

    "How does a syndicate of lenders share in any security that is provided to secure a syndicated loan?

    We provide Security Trustee services which means that CBA Corporate Services (NSW) Pty Ltd will hold the security for and on behalf of all lenders. Although CBA Corporate Services (NSW) Pty Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of Commbank, it acts independently of the bank as lender and takes its instructions from the whole syndicate of lenders in relation to how it deals with that security."


    Has the Justice Secretary approved this in respect of the publicly funded assets of DLNR & SWLM CRCs?

    Sounds a bit like the Working Links/Aurelius scenario...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And Interserve have been given more then 15 contracts by the DfE worth £106m in the last 10months.
      Not bad for a company that's gone into administration.
      And this

      Interserve Group Limited has been awarded a contract extension to provide total facilities management (TFM) services worth more than £4 million at 10 South Colonnade in London, a building used by eight Government departments.

      The 12-storey building – known as 10SC – is in Canary Wharf and is the Government’s first hub building, representing a new approach to its estates’ strategy by bringing multiple departments under the same roof and thereby creating efficiencies.

      Interserve won the six-month contract extension in recognition of the excellent TFM services delivered at 10SC by the company. Mobilisation for the new building began in August 2017 and the TFM contract went fully live in April 2018. Services delivered include: maintenance and electrical work; front of house; logistics; catering and security.

      Brian Talbot, Interserve’s Managing Director Central Government and Defence, said: “I am delighted that 10SC decided to award Interserve a contract extension in recognition of the excellent TFM services we deliver. We believe that creating genuine partnerships with our clients enables us to create real value for them and is the best way to foster long-term relationships that work for both parties.”

      Interserve employs more than 150 people on the contract.

      Delete
  3. Found this whilst idly surfing. I'm not sure what to make of it as yet, but it includes what seems to be an interesting reference to Sodexo & EVR arrangements.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ba4cd69e5274a55a55ca39f/Mr_G_Finella_v_The_Kent_Surrey_and_Sussex_Community_Rehabilitation_Company_Ltd_2301548-2017_Full.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Employment Judge Baron writes in his judgement:

      "Finally I record part of the contents of a letter dated 22 April 2015 from the then Chief Executive of the National Offender Management Service to senior officers in each of UNISON, NAPO, and GMB/SCOOP. The context of the letter was not provided, but it is headed ‘Proposals for staff redundancies in Sodexo owned CRCs’...

      3) Confirmation of Unison’s understanding of the entitlement of Unison members to the National Negotiating Council (NNC) Enhanced Voluntary Redundancy (EVR) Scheme

      As confirmed by representatives of the Rehabilitation Programme to you and Neil Richardson, as representatives of UNISON, at the Transforming Rehabilitation Consultative Forum on 22 January 2015, the enhanced voluntary redundancy terms set out in the National Agreement remain unchanged and are duly repeated in the Amended and Restated Services Agreement (ARSA); specifically referred to at clause 30.3(e) which you have noted within your letter and a copy of the National Agreement is repeated in Part 2 of Schedule 25.

      Paragraph 11 of the National Agreement sets out the Enhanced Voluntary Redundancy Scheme to apply to voluntary redundancies arising as a direct consequence of the Rehabilitation Programme, during the period up to and including 31 March 2016, with decisions including agreement on applications to have been made and agreed by 31 March 2015.

      Paragraph 16 of the National Agreement then goes on to state that, in addition, the Enhanced Voluntary Redundancy Terms as applicable through the scheme outlined in Para 11, should apply to any member of staff in a CRC who was employed by a Probation Trust on 31 May 2014. This is an indefinite obligation (subject to the right to amend the Enhanced Voluntary Redundancy terms in accordance with applicable employment law). As such, clause 30.3(e) of the ARSA provides that the contractor (i.e. Sodexo) will give effect to these Enhanced Voluntary Redundancy Terms on the same basis.

      We therefore confirm that your understanding (that the EVR terms set out in National Agreement should apply to any voluntary redundancies offered by Sodexo CRCs to employees employed by a Probation Trust as at 31 May 2014 for the lifetime of the Sodexo contracts) accords with the MoJ’s intention and understanding of the relevant terms of the National Agreement and the ARSA, subject to any amendments to such terms be negotiated with the relevant employee representatives and in accordance with applicable employment law."

      As far as I can tell the question (which I don't think the "senior officers in each of UNISON, NAPO, and GMB/SCOOP" ever asked) remains unanswered, i.e. that when Sodexo put staff 'on notice', did they employ unfair &/or unreasonable &/or unlawful tactics to implement their own "voluntary severance scheme" in a (successful) bid to out-manoeuvre the "indefinite obligation" of the EVR?

      Delete
    2. I wonder how many of the hundreds of Sodexo CRC staff would have taken the substantially less favourable severance had they known of the "MoJ's intention" that the EVR "should apply to the lifetime of the Sodexo contracts"?

      Does a failure to explicitly advise members of this "indefinite obligation" make the unions complicit in denying CRC staff their full entitlements under the EVR agreement, i.e. as intended by the MoJ?

      Along similar lines to retrospective legislation & action over PPI being implemented covertly & illegally, could this invalidate the less favourable severance agreements on the grounds that staff were either misled or not fully/properly informed by (1) Sodexo & (2) the unions?

      The letter dated 22 Apr 2015 seems to make the MoJ's position clear vis-a-vis their "intention & understanding" in respect of EVR, the NNC agreement & the ARSA.

      Delete
  4. Did anyone else who's spent time interviewing sex offenders get a sense of deja vu during a recent tv interview?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Home visits might be interesting.

      Delete
    2. Seen on Twitter from Dean Rogers:-

      "Prince Andrew was advised to go on the wrong sort of programme. Many excellent professionals working in probation run accredited programmes for just this sort of sad little man - and they're experienced with Nonces who think they're the victim."

      Delete
    3. I think even the eyebrows of the most dodgyist duty solicitor would be raised if their client told them they had no recollection of people they met whist knocking about with a convicted sex offender, but they have a complete recollection of having a pizza on a particular date and time years ago.
      Must have been an exceptional pizza!

      'Getafix

      Delete
  5. Whilst I have little sympathy for the authors general theme one part of his speech echoes a view I have heard often amongst front line staff...

    "The probation service has been given an impossible task, and the chief crime of its senior management is not to have had the courage or sense of public duty to say so. As a result, staff must pretend they can protect the public."

    Staff shortages, excessive workloads and lack of resources all contribute to the inevitable holes in our system. He also acknowledges that even the most assiduous supervision cannot stop a determined offender.

    Why can't our senior leaders tell the truth and publicly state we are not resourced to do our jobs as well as we could? This goes for rehabilitative efforts as well as oversight. During the introduction of the omnishambles only three Trust chairs spoke up. Since then nothing except the much needed intervention of HMIP has been heard.

    Some practitioners do make mistakes and should be held accountable but the majority are simply thrown under the bus so our leaders can continue to peddle the myth that we can do everything we are tasked with.

    ReplyDelete