Tragic Consequences of TR

Going right back to the beginning of the TR omnishambles and deliberate destruction of the gold award-winning probation service, a consistant theme voiced regularly on this blog has been the likelihood of an increase in SFOs, Serious Further Offences, and lo it came to pass. 

Despite what is said officially, the issue has aways been and remains essentially one of politics - the degree to which responsibility can be placed firmly at the door of a structural nature, or that of individuals. To put it crudely and bluntly, this blog has regularly carried testimonies from staff who state that in their experience SFO inquiry's are frequently used to 'throw staff under a bus' rather than address any structural failings. 

Yesterday, most unusually, HM Chief Inspector of Probation published an SFO Review into the appalling case of Joseph McCann:-

3. When an offender who is being supervised by the National Probation Service is charged with a serious offence, an internal management review, known as an SFO review, is undertaken. The purpose of this review is to investigate how the offender was managed by the Probation Service, identify areas of good practice and any improvements which need to be made in the future, along with timescales for action to be taken and what will be expected to improve as a result. 

4. SFO reviews are not written for publication, although in cases where an offender is eventually convicted of an SFO, the review is disclosed to the victim(s), and redacted as necessary to safeguard the data protection rights of parties mentioned in the review. Exceptionally, the Ministry of Justice has produced this version of the SFO review for publication, given the nature of the practice failings identified and the need for wider public reassurance that the case has been thoroughly reviewed. This published review is thus distinct from the redacted review shared with those of McCann’s victims who requested it but is nonetheless a faithful record of all the key findings in the SFO review.

I don't know how others feel, but by paragraph 16 of the report it doesn't take much reading between the lines to grasp that this particular NPS office must have been under considerable staffing and organisational pressures to have reached the point where  "management of the case formally transferred to OM8 (Hertfordshire office), who prompted SPO5 (a senior probation officer who had taken over line management of JMc’s offender managers from SPO3) twice about the need for recall." I would suggest there are strong indications that this case was being passed around like a parcel as a result of staffing-shortages and brought about by the direct consequences of TR:-

16. In December 2018 and early January 2019, prison staff called the Hertfordshire probation office to express further concern that JMc has not yet been recalled. Shortly afterwards, management of the case formally transferred to OM8 (Hertfordshire office), who prompted SPO5 (a senior probation officer who had taken over line management of JMc’s offender managers from SPO3) twice about the need for recall. SPO6, another senior probation officer in the Hertfordshire office, emailed SPO5 and ACO1 expressing concern that JMc had not been recalled. SPO5 responded to say that the decision had been made not to recall by SPO3, and that plans were being made for release. Following discussion with SPO5, ACO1 decided that it was too late to recall JMc and there was a risk of legal challenge. In late January the case formally transferred to OM9 (Hertfordshire office). At a multi-agency MAPPA Level 2 meeting on 30 January 2019 an action was set for SPO5 to explore recall with PPCS, but this action was never completed. OM9 attempted unsuccessfully to secure a place at an AP for JMc and instead, plans were made to place JMc with family in Buckinghamshire again on his release.

Disgracefully in my view, it is only within the very last paragraph of this report that astute readers will get any hint of the true underlying reason for this dreadful case, namely workload, sickness absence and staffing shortages:-

• Managers will ensure the workload of staff is reviewed and monitored. Managers will seek authorisation from the Head of Service where staff are over capacity to implement the Demand Management approach to prioritise areas of business. Senior Leadership Team meetings chaired by the Divisional Director will monitor resources across the South East and Eastern regions and undertake reasonable action to address the staffing shortages, with concerns escalated to senior HMPPS officials.

--oo00oo--

Unfortunately the media have not picked up on this issue. Here's Danny Shaw, BBC Home Affairs correspondent, with his analysis:-

When an offender under probation supervision is charged with a serious crime an internal inquiry is conducted, known as a Serious Further Offence review. These reports are usually kept under wraps, but the repercussions of the probation failings in this case were so appalling the Justice Secretary Robert Buckland recognised the clear public interest in making the document available for all to see.

What is shocking, from reading the report, is that the same mistake was repeated over and over and over again. That mistake was not to activate the "recall" process so that Joseph McCann would have stayed in prison after being sentenced in January 2018 until the Parole Board decided he could safely be let out.

Various reasons are cited for this persistent error - the threat of a legal challenge, concern about the impact of recall, communication problems - but I wonder whether fear of McCann, his bullying nature and violent temper, drove some staff to make the wrong decision.