A Look at Parole

I notice that due to recent media discussion of parole and the attention of politicians, the Parole Board have started some public engagement and explanation of the process in order to allay fears. The following guest blog by Chief Executive Martin Jones was published yesterday by Russell Webster:-  

Explaining the benefits of parole

Public confidence

One of the key challenges a public institution faces is ensuring it maintains public confidence.

To maintain the confidence of a body like the Parole Board, it is crucial that the public understand the central role that the Parole Board plays in the protection of the public, which is always our over-riding priority.

Reading the media and social media, I sometimes think there is a risk of fundamental misunderstanding of the role that the Parole Board plays in the criminal justice system.

Whilst most people focus on those we release; there is little understanding of the flip-side of our decisions. I am certain that our decisions prevent dangerous prisoners being released and we do not shirk from keeping people in custody, if necessary, for the rest of their lives if we consider they remain a risk to the public. I am regularly made aware of people who have been reviewed by the Board on multiple occasions, sometimes being held in custody for decades beyond the minimum period set for punishment. Without a court-like body reviewing the continuing detention of those individuals, after the period for punishment has expired, the detention of those individuals would not be lawful under the European Convention on Human Rights or domestic law.

So, what are the facts?

• Last year around 65,000 people were released from prison. Just 3,000 of those releases followed consideration by the Parole Board 
• Well over 75% of the prisoners we review each year are assessed by the Board as being too dangerous to release. Our decisions can result in decades of additional time in prison after the period for punishment has passed.
• Over 40% of the c9,000 currently serving an indeterminate sentence remain prison because the Parole Board continues to assess them as being too dangerous to release.      

To me these figures suggest that the Parole Board undertake the serious decisions we take with some caution.

I do however believe in reform and the possibility of redemption. The bravery of a number of former prisoners tackling the London Bridge attacker in November exemplifies this. People can commit serious offences and reform over time. What is my evidence for this? Well our success rate demonstrates that only a tiny proportion of people – consistently at, or less than 1% – are charged with a serious further offence after a Parole Board release, and fewer than that are convicted. That rate compares favourably with international parole systems in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US.

Through sentencing in individual cases, and the legal framework, it is a matter for judges and Parliament to decide how long people must serve in prison before release is possible. But the overwhelming majority of people are likely to be released at some point. There are currently just 66 people (0.08% of all of those in prison) whose whole life sentence means release will never be considered. Every other person in prison has a chance of release at some point; and the majority will be released automatically. But however long an offender spends in custody, I am certain that our criminal justice system would be far weaker without a detailed and independent risk assessment of the most serious offenders by the Parole Board before their release.

A victim’s perspective

Whilst our primary role is to look at the risk posed by prisoners; I am glad that our system has become more focused on, and sensitive to, the needs of victims. Victims can now make statements at a parole hearing, request a summary of a decision (around 2,500 have now been issued) and ask the Justice Secretary to seek a reconsideration of a parole decision.

The victims I have met display astonishing bravery and fortitude. I am acutely aware of the impact the parole process can have on them. The system needs to understand that reality.

Even though a criminal offence may have taken place many years previously, I find that victim impact statements are visceral. They read as if the offence was committed yesterday. The statements I have read illustrate the continued trauma of serious offending on lives. To make it even more difficult, few victims properly understand the sentences imposed, and are therefore ill-prepared for the Board to contemplate release. Few victims understand that the parole process is about the assessment of future risk, not punishment. The system needs to do better.

That is why I am committed to working with other agencies to ensure that the process supports and prepares victims. I am concerned that some vulnerable people are not aware of, and therefore unable to properly access, their rights, because they have not signed up to the Victim Contact Scheme in the past. I strongly support the move to a position where victims can “opt-out” of the victim contact scheme, rather than being asked to “opt-in” shortly after the trauma of a criminal trial. More also needs to be done to ensure that victims can access professional victim support when they are engaged in the parole process. I suspect that for many victims the parole process is more difficult than the trial itself.

Root and Branch Review of Parole

Recent cases underline the seriousness and gravity of the challenges facing the criminal justice system in managing complex and potentially dangerous people. We cannot be complacent. I support the case for a “root and branch” review of the parole system and do not think we should fear further scrutiny. Whilst we have no crystal ball, I think the Parole Board has proven itself to be effective at keeping the public safe. But there is surely more that can be done to ensure we have a safe, fair and effective system; sensitive to the needs of victims; whilst commanding the confidence of the public?

Martin Jones

Chief Executive of the Parole Board

--oo00oo--

Parole Board Oral Hearings are quasi-judicial processes held within a prison and have always been stressful for so-called 'home' probation officers because their assessments are openly scrutinised and challenged either by Board members or the legal representatives acting on behalf of the prisoner. There is a growing perception that due to recent adverse publicity the Parole Board is becoming increasingly sensitive and defensive, resulting in the process causing greater stress for professionals involved. 

Of course this is the scenario when knowledge of the prisoner and circumstances surrounding the case are absolutely crucial and serves to underline the vital importance of the officer/client relationship in ensuring quality assessments and effective probation work. It should therefore not be surprising that TR and the resulting disruption and loss of experienced staff has had its effect on the parole process too. The following are recent exchanges seen on a public Facebook site:- 

      
Just wanted to share a positive post. Recently, as many of us have probably all have, I have had really negative experiences with parole hearings recently. Will not go into details, but the last one was truly awful and massively affected my confidence to the point where I made a complaint. Today, I had my first one of this year and was dreading it. Case refused to attend (recalled IPP allocated to me post recall). He refused to leave his cell to attend and wanted it deferred. The Board decided to go and speak to him on his wing and we all had to go along. A first for me! So off we all went to to go on the wing and we stood outside the cell. We all had a chat and he still refused. So off we went back to the board room to discuss how to try and move forward. Truly was a positive experience and no PO was harmed in the process. No disrespect happened whatsoever! Why does this not happen more often?

Funny how parole hearings are becoming challenging and difficult. I had one that was awful and I complained to the board but it fell on deaf ears! I wonder if this is punishment for the JW incident. 

I made a complaint as well last year, it’s been acknowledged, but I also think it’s equally important to email positive experiences as well.

This is so nice and I had a similar experience with a case last year. It was nice to see the effort that went in but sadly after 17 years I had the most awful hearing two weeks ago that has taken my confidence and I’m bordering on making a complaint. I have also made the decision to potentially leave the service I have devoted so many years to as a result. Why are we made to feel like we are on trial at these hearings? I’m normally a confident and ballsy PO but this hearing almost had me in tears but through anger at the boards presentation.

Please, please, please make that complaint. I did it last year, it’s been noted and waiting for a response still.

I will give it some thought just not sure I want to add it to my stress levels but they were really out of hand (well one was) and other professionals also commented about it. What made it worse was the case noted my vulnerability! Never in 17 years have I been made to feel like that.

I was the exactly the same, but when I gave my assessment when asked and that was totally disregarded, I had an issue with it. It hasn’t added the my stress level. I logged a complaint and waiting to hear.

PB's are tough. We are challenged and can often feel uncomfortable. It's an extremely accountable environment. However I would argue that when someone refuses then it is a solicitor responsibility. Going to a cell seems very irresponsible. The individual could have been volatile particularly if release was not being supported. Could have also have felt quite intimidating, provoking an adverse response. Privacy would also have been compromised. I'm all for going the extra mile.... But.....

It was all Checked out before hand. Cat C and he refused legal rep as well. The prison did a fab job to protect us.

I think it was a good move, showed the willingness to try and reach out to the prisoner. I'm sure all appropriate security would have been in place, who knows he might reflect on the fact you bothered. X

I am massively in favour of going outside the box. Today was a real eye opener. What I don’t like is how oral hearings have been recently and making POs feel demoralised and massively disrespected.

I am not a complainer by nature. I have been in the service for nearly 21 years. I was so massively affected by a parole hearing last year that I was either going to quit the job or let it go. I decided in the end I wasn’t having any of it and I issued a complaint. I am not there to be professionally abused any more. They are supposed to be a professional body.

As a prison SPO we get every spectrum of hearing as we have a fair few every month. I have myself observed inappropriate panel behaviour/comments and seen how it impacts so deeply on my PO. But on the flip I've had countless emails specifically recognising the high levels of preparation and knowledge shown by my staff, so its certainly a mixed bag. Saying all that, my first ever parole hearing (11yrs or so back) was the worst I ever personally experienced and I've done many. So it's not really a new thing sadly. As long as POs know their case and can justify their decision and recommendations then you need to just stand your ground, as tough as it may get. Confidence goes a long way and I agree that complaints should be made where you feel lines have been crossed.

The public just have no idea what we do, although I’m retired now. Where is the push from the unions to get information out about our role. If this is not something the union wants to get involved in, then we need a public relations body. Pleases don’t tell me that there is such a body within probation because if there is they are not doing their job.

I was expecting a full on battle today and it didn’t happen. What a wonderful relief that was. For that I am eternally grateful. What I don’t like is the disrespect and countless other issues that we have to face as a probation officer. Today was a breath of fresh air and I actually felt respected.

Because Parole Boards don't trust or believe us sadly.

Literally depends on the Panel I think Some Chair's are better than others at maintaining control. Luckily I've not been hauled over any coals yet - our Panels are generally very professional & supportive but can be intense & challenging. An arse of a solicitor tried it on once - but safe to say he won't make that mistake again!

None if us should be subjected to bullying, attempts at intimidation or harassment during a Hearing - we're not on bloody trial...

I'd ask for a break - have the case in question moved to a side room & go back in with your SPO & the solicitor - to challenge the Panel.

There are faults in the process that tries to undermine and rubbish professional 'home' PO's assessments and clinical judgement. Sad that it is necessary for individual PO's to have to complain. Surely the SPO manager and the probation employer should also be fighting for their staff to be treated fairly & with professional respect. When I was a serving PO I found such hearings an isolating experience with mostly line manager SPO's who did not really want to hear of negative experiences.

Keep up the good work Team Probation you are doing a fantastic job