Saturday 29 May 2021

HMPPS Silence

It will not have gone unnoticed that there's been a conspicuous silence from the upper echelons of HMPPS following yesterday's astonishing conclusions by the inquest jury in the Usman Khan case. These Twitter exchanges by prominent criminal justice insiders spell out the issues:-  

John Podmore - The catastrophic failings revealed today at the #FishmongersHall inquest were the result of highly skilled forensic work by counsel for the coroner, Saskia, & Jack’s family @njbarmstrong. The SFO review by @HMIProbation found no such failures. Questions for @RobertBuckland

John Podmore - There remains, to the best of my knowledge, no statement from anyone in HMPPS nor any media interviews. If your job is to protect the public you should speak to it when you fail.

Ian Acheson - Certainly the SFO if not in public domain needs to be made immediately and fully available for scrutiny. This isn't good enough.

John Podmore - An urgent statement is required by @JNRussell10 and immediate publication of the SFO review. There are serious questions about the independence of the probation inspectorate.

This from the Guardian:-

Fishmongers’ Hall inquest laid bare failure to act on warning signs

Analysis: Evidence revealed MI5 missed series of opportunities to stop terrorist Usman Khan

When MI5 marked its own homework over the Fishmongers’ Hall attack, it concluded there was nothing it could have done to stop Usman Khan, a convicted terrorist, from killing Jack Merritt and Saskia Jones.

But evidence presented to the inquest into their deaths casts doubt on this rosy self-assessment and the jury criticised “missed opportunities for those with expertise”. Six weeks of testimony detailed numerous failed chances to stop Khan and a series of glaring warning signs about his behaviour and state of mind in the run-up to the attack.

MI5, the police and the probation service, all knew that Khan was due to go to a prisoner education event at the hall adjacent to London Bridge on 29 November 2019. But they did nothing to stop him or even take the precaution of sending a police escort.

The apparent failures stretched back to 2018, when Khan was automatically released on licence after serving eight years for trying to set up a terrorist training camp in Pakistan. In prison he was known as “High Risk Khan” with a record that ran to more than 2,000 pages. It detailed Khan’s violence, extremism, bullying and association with some of the most dangerous men on the prison estate including Charles Bronson, Lee Rigby’s killer Michael Adebowale; and the hate preachers Anjem Choudary and Abu Hamza.

In prison, Khan got into creative writing when attending courses organised by Learning Together, a prisoner education initiative run by Cambridge University. Khan was regarded as “poster boy” for the initiative, the inquest heard. And it was this that created a “blind spot” to his “unique risks”, the jury found. Fatally, Khan was invited to the Fishmongers’ Hall alumni event.

In the run-up to his release in December 2019, there was prison intelligence that Khan planned to “return to his old ways” and was intent on planning an attack. MI5 assessed that Khan’s threat level to the public had increased, reopened an investigation into him and began a covert surveillance operation when Khan was released into an approved hostel in Stafford.

Special branch officers at West Midlands and Staffordshire police knew about this troubling intelligence. But it was kept secret from those responsible for Khan’s overt management: his probation officer, Ken Skelton, and a Prevent team at Stafford police, led by Sgt Calum Forsyth. The inquest was told that such information is not always shared for fear of inadvertent disclosure.

Last year, the independent reviewer of terrorism, Jonathan Hall, QC recommended “wider sharing with probation officers not only of specific intelligence but also of threat assessments and profiles”.

Skelton and Forsyth did not even know MI5 was investigating Khan. With no knowledge of the intelligence that Khan could be intent on an attack, Skelton and Forsyth regarded the event as a positive opportunity for his rehabilitation. For its part, MI5 did not know the event was due to take place in the hall until a week before, and yet Skelton and Forsyth had known about the location for months.

Khan’s risk to the public was discussed by the police and probation service at regular multi-agency public protection arrangements (Mappa) meetings. MI5 attended some of these meetings unbeknown to fellow attendees Skelton and Forsyth.

A senior MI5 figure, referred to only as Witness A, was asked repeatedly at the inquest why MI5 did not raise objections when in August it first heard of Khan’s event in London. “We had got no intelligence to indicate any concern,” she replied. And yet at around this time MI5 and counter-terrorism police had intervened to stop Khan being allowed to train as a dumper truck driver. They feared Khan could use a heavy vehicle as a terrorist weapon.

By November, MI5 was about to wind down the investigation into Khan. And according to Witness A, it regarded the Fishmongers’ Hall event as “a possible opportunity to obtain greater coverage around Khan to better understand his mindset” to check before closing the investigation.

In hindsight, there were already signs that Khan’s mood was darkening in the run-up to the attack. Mentors assigned to him under the government’s desistance programme, reported he was growing frustrated with his inability to find work. But his twice-weekly visits with mentors came to an abrupt halt in August 2019 because of a contract dispute between the firm providing the service and the Home Office. No replacements were found even during the “critical time” in September, when Khan moved to his own flat.

In the weeks that followed police were concerned that Khan was becoming isolated – a trait that a prison psychologist had identified as a warning sign of trouble. On 14 November, counter-terrorism police ordered a visit to Khan’s flat. Officers found seven editions of Assassins’ Creed, a violent video game in which users kill fictitious enemies with weapons including a blade concealed in an arm holster. A police request to photograph these games upset Khan, who described it as a “breakdown in trust”. Two weeks later he killed Merritt and Jones with knives strapped to his arms.

Despite their surveillance, MI5 failed to spot that Khan purchased a set of kitchen knives a day before the attack, together with materials for a fake suicide vest. But they already knew about his preoccupation with knives. In early 2019, MI5 officers were given a copy of a play Khan had written about a knife killer released from a secure institution. It features an investigation into whether the murders could have been prevented. The play “didn’t give cause for concern”, according to MI5.

MI5 has pledged that it will share more intelligence in future. But it insisted it did all it could in Khan’s case. The jury found “serious deficiencies in the management of Khan by Mappa.”

6 comments:

  1. There's a 'culture' that's developed over the last twenty years or so around 'risk' & 'dangerousness' that I feel has proved to be deeply unhealthy in so many ways.

    The change seems to have been the high state of kudos attached to being 'chosen' to manage a high risk/high profile case, the excitement of secrecy where case notes are 'need-to-know', the privelege of restricted access, the mystery meetings with 'special branch' or similar.

    In my experience all that has led to is a toxic combination of the monetisation of 'risk management' and the weaponisation of privelege, of being a chum, of being 'allowed to play'.

    Time was when experienced staff, managers & main grade alike, supervised a series of very high risk cases with no drama, no fanfare, no wetting of underpants. There was no 'sexiness' or sense of excitement; it was the job.

    I noticed a general trend (not applicable to all, of course) that as the experience & age levels of management reduced, the trend towards overt expressions of excitement, of intrigue, of thrill-seeking, increase around the management of the more serious cases.

    It was as if the case work, the professional day-job, had been transformed into a series of exciting tv thrillers for a handful of subscribers (aka chums). Not a very edifying image for the probation profession, not very respectful of the victims & their families, not very helpful to the case being managed.

    A brief example - Some years back I was managing someone who I saw as a very serious threat to the public. It was transferred in as a medium risk case but, after some brief reading back through the bundle of paper files that followed, it became apparent that concern for the obvious risk was missing. I escalated the risk & meetings were held. About a month later, at one particularly large gathering with many faces I had never seen before, I was asked how & why I was concerned. I waved some old papers at people & explained my thinking... after some frowning & glances being exchanged around the table the case was taken off me & reallocated to the team manager's 'number one officer' (a far less experienced but wholly on-message member of the team) there & then. I was told I had to be 'de-briefed' & whisked away to another room. The case became invisible & I've no idea what happened to this day.

    Within a few months of that meeting the manager's 'number one officer' became a senior manager.

    Echoes, perhaps, of the chumocracy we now endure as a nation where a priveleged few - priveleged by dint of birth, schooling & financial advantage - enjoy even greater privelege as they 'cash in' on their chumminess, leaving everyone else to pick up the tab.

    Hands up those who have an ennobled family sending a butler to your house to deliver paid-for takeaway food?

    Clue: Boris Johnson's fast food is delivered & paid for by Lady Bamford, wife of Lord Bamford, provider of the private jet registered tax=free in the Isle of Man to whisk the PM around the UK free of charge - also the same Bamford family (JCB) who supply the Israelis with vehicles to flatten & clear Palestinian houses, to build illegal Israeli Settlements & [accidentally?] run over Palestinian protesters.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It seems everybody's silent, bar the odd one or two, e.g. "counsel for the coroner, Saskia, & Jack’s family @njbarmstrong"; no-one else gives a flying fuck, no-one else feels they owe anyone anything.

    Probation & local police were excluded from MI5 intel; and MI5 were (if its at all possible to accept) seem to have been excluded from probation & local policing intel.

    Hancock & Johnson & Gove & Jenrick & Patel & the rest of the cabinet were complicit in the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of UK citizens. Despite the outrage & the outcry & the evidence, you'd be forgiven for thinking no-one gives a flying fuck.

    "A butler secretly brought around £27,000 of luxury organic food into Downing Street for the prime minister, it has been claimed.

    The food was said to be ‘smuggled’ in unmarked bags which included pre-prepared meals and wine after being delivered on a Boris Bike.

    The fancy food was first delivered in May last year, and the drop-offs continues until February."

    Hands up those who have spent £27,000 on 'fast-food' deliveries in the past ten months.

    People are dying. People are struggling to survive on benefits. People have been refused furlough or business grants. But the Fat Fuck that is squatting in No.10 with his bit on the side thinks that £27K of fast food paid for by someone else is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle.

    And, generally speaking, no-one gives a flying fuck.

    What a nation. What a world. For me, the shame is painful beyond comprehension, and its nothing to do with me! For others it seems its all perfectly normal & they have no issue whatsoever with the lies, the deceit, the theft, the bullying, etc.

    Think on... if you're ten years in & more, why not just take the EVR. En Masse. Leave the immoral fuckers to their own devices. They've publicised their massive recruitment campaign. They're all very pleased with themselves. Leave; and leave them to it. Spend the £EVR on developing a new career - something that isn't tainted by or involved with the lying scumbags, something that you WANT to do, that you've ALWAYS wanted to do.

    It will only get worse.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If it wasn't for the courage & determination of great journalists (NB: Bashir does not qualify) we would never hear about shit like this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/29/asylum-seekers-risked-all-to-get-to-the-uk-then-they-were-deported-at-dawn

    "The material reveals other, deeper, issues. It sheds light on how senior Home Office officials authorised a secret – possibly unlawful policy – under cover of Covid-19 to expel vulnerable individuals. Introduced quietly after the March 2020 lockdown, the move meant they could rapidly deport asylum seekers who may have been trafficked and tortured."

    Is this a government you want to work for?

    ReplyDelete
  4. From HMI Probation website:

    "Risk of harm inquiries and serious further offence reviews

    We have carried out ad hoc independent reviews of Serious Further Offence cases – i.e. cases where an offender under probation or YOT supervision commits a serious further offence – at the request of Ministers.

    In particular, during the course of 2005/2006 we carried out three independent reviews of SFO cases, each of which attracted considerable publicity:

    Peter Williams, supervised by Nottingham City Youth Offending Team (PDF, 227 kB) published in September 2005

    Damien Hanson and Elliot White, supervised by London Probation Area (PDF, 364 kB) published in February 2006

    Anthony Rice, supervised by Hampshire Probation Area (PDF, 453 kB) published in May 2006

    We also provide advice to NOMS HQ on the handling of their reviews of SFO cases.

    We also carry out other Risk of Harm inquiries relating to particular cases.

    In March 2007 we published Not Locked up but Subject to Rules (PDF, 425 kB) the report of an inquiry requested by the Home Secretary following a Panorama programme in November 2006 about the supervision of offenders in approved premises (hostels) in Bristol.

    On 27 March 2008 we published Turning Good Intentions into Good Practice: an inquiry into developments in the multi-agency management of Risk of Harm in Gwent (PDF, 658 kB). This is the report of an inquiry into developments in the management of Risk of Harm in Gwent since the Craig Sweeney case in early 2006.

    On 4 July 2008 we published On the Right Road: an inquiry into developments in the multi-agency management of Risk of Harm in London (PDF, 354 kB). This is the report of an inquiry into developments in the management of Risk of Harm in London since the Gary Chester-Nash case in 2005.

    We carried out inspection work in London at the request of the then Justice Secretary in 2009 because of questions arising from the NOMS review of the Dano Sonnex case. Following an interim report in June 2009, in November 2009 we published the full report of the first set of case inspections “Risk of Harm Inspection Report: A Stalled Journey. An inquiry into the management of offenders’ Risk of Harm to others by London Probation (PDF, 1 MB)”. In this connection we carried out a second set of case inspections of public protection work in London in July 2010, and the report of this “Risk of Harm Inspection Report: Getting There Now – A follow-up inquiry into the management of offenders’ Risk of Harm to others by London Probation Trust” (PDF, 2 MB) was published in October 2010."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Also from HMI probation:

    "Independent review of issues arising from the case of Joseph McCann

    Upon request from the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Justice, HM Inspectorate of Probation will be conducting a two-part review of the case of Joseph McCann.

    Independent review of the case of Joseph McCann (part one) (PDF, 637 kB) – published 30 June 2020 00:01

    Statement from Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell (PDF, 154 kB) – published 30 June 2020 00:01

    HMPPS and Ministry of Justice action plan – published 30 June 2020

    Independent review of issues arising from the case of Joseph McCann – Terms of Reference (PDF, 202 kB) (updated July 2020)

    A thematic review of probation recall culture and practice (part two) – published 10 November 2020
    Independent review of the case of Leroy Campbell

    Upon request from the Minister of State for the Ministry of Justice, HMI Probation conducted an independent review of the case of Leroy Campbell.

    The full report (link below) was published on 11 September 2018 at 12pm.

    Independent review of the case of Leroy Campbell: final report (PDF, 343 kB)
    Investigation into the policy and process followed by the victim contact scheme in the Worboys case – 07 February 2018

    The Secretary of State for Justice asked H.M. Chief Inspector of Probation to carry out a rapid fact-finding exercise to confirm the contact that took place between the NPS and the victims involved in this case and offer a view on whether this conformed with existing legislative provisions, policy and practice guidance. The Secretary of State indicated that the Chief inspector may also wish to make recommendations as to how this policy and practice guidance might be improved as the Ministry of Justice takes forward a broader policy review in this area.

    The report was published on Wednesday 07 February 2018 at 0930hrs. The following link will direct you to where the report is published on the Ministry of Justice pages on Gov.uk.

    A report into the contact that took place between the National Probation Service and the victims involved in the case of John Worboys and within scope of the Victim Contact Scheme"

    ReplyDelete
  6. Even the Catholic Church can't be silenced this time:

    "Catholics, including members of the congregation at Westminster Cathedral, have questioned why the prime minister was able to be married in a Catholic church following his two previous divorces... Catholic law, which does not recognise divorce, usually does not permit the remarriage of those whose former spouse, or spouses, are still alive...

    ... Father Mark Drew, an assistant priest in Warrington, tweeted in response to the news: “Can anyone explain to me how ‘Boris’ Johnson, who left the Catholic church while at Eaton [sic] and is twice divorced, can be married at Westminster Cathedral, while I have to tell practising Catholics in good faith who want a second marriage in Church that it’s not possible?”

    The rector of St Paul’s in Deptford, Father Paul Butler, tweeted: “Always one canon law for the rich and one for the poor.” "

    Imagine if this Tolkeinesque conversation happened between Boris Fatberg & one of his 'kin' in 2020:

    "A treasure such as this cannot be counted in lives lost; this is worth all the blood we can spend."

    "You sit here in these vast halls with a crown upon your head, and yet you are lesser now than you have ever been"

    Seems there's been a fresh outbreak of dragonfever.

    ReplyDelete