As probation officers continue to struggle with the absurdity of the recently introduced parole changes, the following contribution being typical of the issues being raised, I thought it would be useful to publish the Q+A section from the official HMPPS guidance document.
This is the problem with rushed delivery and poorly thought out statutory instruments that haven't had scrutiny, debate and proper implementation. As another commentator said, this will either lead to the report writers losing incentive to produce well thought out reports and plans, or will lead to confusion about whether the author's stated purpose in putting forward the plan was that they felt it would be effective or not. This will either lead to a reduction in releases, or the parole board assuming that stated plans are always effective and releasing inappropriately.
What I can't work out is what is supposed to be achieved by this, what the purpose of the changes are and the lack of transparency is what is causing the anger and confusion. For an organisation that says it is "honest", "transparent" and "works with integrity", it seems to be wholly failing on all counts.
Frequently Asked Questions – Recommendation Changes
Q: Why is this change happening?
Following the Root and Branch Review of the Parole System which concluded in March this year, the Deputy Prime Minister decided to change the way in which recommendations are made to the Parole Board – that HMPPS report writers would not provide a view or recommendation in any cases where the Parole Board are asked to consider release or to recommend a move to open conditions. In certain cases, a single Secretary of State view will be provided to the Parole Board which will take into account the full evidence and risk assessments provided by report writers. This is to ensure that staff providing evidence on behalf of the Secretary of State do not offer an alternative view of a prisoner’s suitability for release or progression to open conditions.
Q: What happens if I submit a report with a recommendation in after 14 July?
Any reports that include a view or recommendation submitted on or after 14 July will be rejected by the Parole Board and will need to be rewritten. Where this happens, PPCS will request that the report writer amends the report and resubmits it to PPCS so that the case can be referred again to the Parole Board.
Q: What about the open test? Do I still have to provide a recommendation?
From 14 July onwards, you must not provide a view or recommendation about the suitability of a move to open conditions. However, staff can still provide the information and evidence in respect of all three criteria of the test in order that the Parole Board or Secretary of State can reach a decision on whether open conditions are suitable.
Q: I am worried that because I am no longer allowed to say whether I assess someone as being unsafe to be released, that people who otherwise would have been kept in custody will now be released. What should I do?
If you are concerned that release has been directed for someone who presents a public protection risk, and you believe that the Parole Board’s decision was irrational, in that there was no evidence presented to support the decision, or it was procedurally unfair, a request for reconsideration can be made.(Reconsideration Mechanism Guidance - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)). This enables the Secretary of State to ask the Parole Board to reconsider the decision in certain circumstances. If you think this may apply to your case, or you have significant concerns about the possibility of release and think we may need to use this mechanism, please speak to ppcs.policy@justice.gov.uk as soon as possible.
Q: Does this have anything to do with the ‘Johnson’ judgement?
No. Separate communications will come to staff about that judgement, and staff do not need to do anything differently in relation to the Johnson judgement.
Q: Are HMPPS staff allowed to express a view about suitability for release outside of the report and oral hearing – for example, are we allowed to express a view in a MAPPA meeting?
Yes. There is nothing preventing you from discussing your professional assessment and views outside of the parole reports or oral hearings, including in any kind of professionals meeting and including in conversation with the prisoner. Having an honest and transparent relationship with the individuals we supervise is crucial to assessing and managing risk and enabling people to change.
One of the concerns staff may have is that if they express their view about the suitability of release to the prisoner, this could be repeated by the prisoner in the hearing and staff could be questioned whether this was the case. If this happens, staff should respond by explaining that they are no longer allowed to provide a view or recommendation in the hearing.
As part of preparation for the hearing, HMPPS staff should discuss the process with the prisoner; it will also be important for staff to explain these changes to prisoners. This could include explaining that in their evidence, staff will advise whether risks have reduced, what the sentence and risk management plan is and what, if any, further measures are required to reduce risk. Staff should explain that they won’t be able to express a view or recommendation about suitability for release, and that if questioned about their view, they will have to politely decline to answer. Staff should tailor their approach to each individual they work with in order to establish what would be helpful to explain and how.
Q: What should I tell the prisoner?
It will be important as part of your ongoing conversations with the prisoner to discuss this change. We are planning to ensure that information provided to the prisoner about parole and recall reports includes information about these changes. It may be that we are not able to produce these new leaflets prior to 14 July. You can and should talk about release and have a full and frank conversation as you normally would. It would be helpful to reassure prisoners that any progress they have made in custody will be properly reflected in the reports and hearings. You may wish to consider whether they would benefit from any additional support and what the impact of these changes will be on their wellbeing.
Q: What does this mean for executive release?
This is one of the issues that the central policy team are looking at urgently. We will be able to update staff in due course. We will be updating this document so please save the link.
Q: I sent my report off before the 14 July – why am I being asked for it to be re-written without a recommendation?
PPCS are not able to refer your report to the Parole Board unless other mandatory documents are also able to be sent. Where these mandatory documents are outstanding, this may prevent PPCS from sending the dossier, including your report, to the Parole Board prior to 21 July. In these cases, PPCS will contact the Probation Practitioner and request that the report is amended to remove the recommendation.
Q: Where can I find the new reports?
The new Part B and C templates will be on NDelius where you would usually find them. The On/Post tariff PAROM1 templates and addendums will no longer be on the digital platform, but will be available in a Microsoft word IWP template linked to NDelius. The location for the pre-tariff PAROM1s and addendums will not change, but they will be replaced with new templates to reflect the changes. All the new templates are on nDelius here: Parole (justice.gov.uk)
Q: What is the Parole Board doing about recommendations from previous parole reviews in dossiers?
The Parole Board are aware of the changes and have agreed that previous recommendations will not be removed from dossiers. The Board will make their decision based on all of the evidence before them. Specifically, it will not be necessary to remove the recommendations from the reports, and report writers can expect Panels to question them on their recommendations. If your report was submitted prior to July 14 with a recommendation, it is fine to continue as normal and discuss your recommendation.
Q: What if a Parole Board panel member or solicitor / barrister asks me for my view on suitability for release during the oral hearing?
The Parole Board is aware of these changes. It is very likely that Panel Members and the prisoner’s legal representative will ask you whether you assess the risk to be manageable in the community, whether your risk management plan is considered sufficient to protect the public, whether the prisoner is safe to be released or is suitable for transfer to open conditions. You cannot answer as it would constitute a view on suitability for release/open and instead should politely tell the Panel Members and/or the prisoner’s legal representative that your role is not to provide the Panel with a recommendation but rather your assessment of the prisoner’s risks. If this does happen, you may wish to speak to your line manager following the hearing.
Q: Are lawyers allowed to ask our opinion about release in an oral hearing?
The Parole Board rule changes do not bind legal representatives for the prisoner in the same way that they do HMPPS and Parole Board panels, so yes, they could ask this question in a hearing. As stated above, and in the same way that other inappropriate questions to witnesses that are beyond their professional remit are handled, you will need to respond by politely declining to answer. You should explain that you cannot provide a view on suitability for release and that you are able to answer other questions within your remit.
Q: What language would constitute a ‘view or recommendation about suitability for release or open conditions?’. How can I check whether what is in a report is allowed?
We have set out some examples of language above but we recognise that there may be uncertainty as this policy is embedded. If you are a report writer, you can ask your manager to have oversight of the language. You can review your reports in line the Parole Quality Assurance Framework tool when it is published, check with your line manager if you are a report writer or check with the ppcs.policy@justice.gov.uk who can help check whether the language in the report is within the policy.
Q: How will I know if my case is a ‘noteworthy’ case where a single Secretary of State view is being provided?
PPCS have a list and will inform those staff involved. For those cases due to be heard imminently, the staff involved have already been told. PPCS will provide additional support to these staff in what we anticipate will be a very small number of cases.
Q: What are the consequences if it is judged that a practitioner has provided a ‘view or recommendation’ to the Parole Board?
It is possible that the decision by the Parole Board could be reconsidered, set aside or legally challenged and possibly changed. During this transition period try not to worry as it is going to be difficult to balance all the changes. Prepare for each case and be ready for what you can/cannot comment on. We know all staff will make every effort to implement this change at short notice, but we also appreciate that there may be cases where a recommendation has been provided in error. If staff think this may be the case, they should discuss this with their line manager and let the PPCS Case Manager know.
Q: Should practitioners be providing information to PPCS prior to writing a parole report or Part B / C to inform decision-making about cases being ‘top tier’ or ‘Single Secretary of State view’ cases?
PPCS work with the Secretary of State to initially identify cases considered to be noteworthy. If circumstances arise where practitioners think a case should be considered for a ‘Secretary of State view’ process, they should contact PPCS immediately. We anticipate that there will be very few cases in this category.
Q: Will there be recommendations about suitability for release or open conditions in psychology reports?
Where psychology reports are written by HMPPS staff or external staff commissioned by HMPPS, they will no longer contain recommendations about suitability for release or a move to open conditions from 14 July onwards. Psychology staff and Probation Practitioners can discuss and record in case notes their professional views about suitability, but these views must not be provided to the Parole Board.
Q: Does anything need to change about the rest of the report now that a recommendation about suitability for release or a move to open conditions is no longer allowed?
Not necessarily. The rest of the report should remain the same. The analysis of risk and what is best required to reduce risk, factual information as well as analysis about offending behaviour patterns, information and analysis about risk management and sentence planning should all remain the same. We do need to be confident that we are providing all of the evidence that would enable the Parole Board / Secretary of State to assess whether the release / open test is met. It will be important to be as specific as we can about what the risks are and how best we intend to manage them in various scenarios. We will need to adopt a ‘show, don’t tell’ approach whereby our analysis can inform decision-makers in the absence of us being explicit about our own conclusions.
Q: Will the rest of the oral hearing be any different?
Yes. Witnesses should expect Panels to question them even more closely on their risk assessment. Prepare in your usual way and seek support from your line manager if you need to.
Q: Does the Parole Board know about these changes?
Yes, and HMPPS staff have been working closely with them to ensure that we can continue to deliver our service without disruption.
Q: Will other witnesses be able to provide a view?
Yes, for example psychology reports commissioned by the legal team of the prisoner, or witnesses attending from outside of HMPPS. We must not comment on an external recommendation. We are not able to say whether we agree or disagree.
Q: Do the legal representatives of the prisoner know about these changes?
Yes, communications are being sent to legal representatives outlining these changes.
Q: I have started my report in the template in NDelius that has the recommendation section. Do I need to move everything on to a new template?
Report writers should use the new templates for all parole reports, Part B and Part C reports for all reports due for submission on or after 14 July. If you previously began these reports on the old template, you need to move the content over to the new report in order to submit it on or after 14 July. In the rest of the report, you must not provide a view or recommendation about the suitability of release or a move to open conditions.
Q: Is the Parole Quality Assurance Framework changing?
There will be changes to the questions in the quality development tool. The tool was due to be refreshed in the next couple of months with changes relating to the EPF2 tool, the new open test and questions relating to mental capacity now included. We are now bringing forward the publication of the latest version to coincide with these changes in order to include a new question relating to changes to recommendations.
The process whereby practitioners no longer require the tool applied to their reports following 3 successive ‘Good’ ratings is not changing. With all parole reports, the SPO is expected to have a Touch Points Model conversation with the Probation Practitioner. This should now always include a check by the SPO for any language in the report which could be considered a ‘view or recommendation about suitability for release’.
Q: Am I allowed to include in the report any views from the prisoner on release?
This would mainly be the remit of the prisoner or their representative rather than for HMPPS to provide. Report writers can include information about whether a prisoner has expressed intentions regarding compliance with a release plan, or other information and analysis pertinent to risk and how it might be managed. This might include assertions by the prisoner that they are worried they would go on to commit an offence upon release for example, or they have expressed concerns that they will not cope in an approved premises.
Q: If an addendum parole report is due after 14 July, can it refer to what the recommendation was in the original report that was submitted prior to 14 July?
No. You cannot make any reference in an addendum report to a view or recommendation about suitability for release that you made in the PAROM1.
Q: If I’ve submitted a parole or recall report previously with a recommendation, but the oral hearing is after 21 July, can I repeat the recommendation I have already given in the hearing?
Yes. If the report was submitted before July 14 and contained a recommendation, you can discuss it. See the transitional arrangements for more advice.
Q: Recall cases – for determinate cases that go to oral hearing, is the practitioner allowed to repeat the recommendation they make in the part B / C?
Yes. If you have written the report and submitted it before 14 July, you can repeat that view or recommendation in hearings on and after 21 July. Reports submitted on and after 14 July should not contain a recommendation about the suitability for release or move to open conditions.
Q: If the POM and COM have different views about risk and progress etc, will that be allowed, or will there still be a requirement to align your views prior to writing a parole report, if there is no clear recommendation?
There is still a requirement for reports by POMs and COMs to align.
Q: If I am in an oral hearing for a case where there is a single Secretary of State view provided, and I am asked whether I agree with the SoS view, what do I say if, in my professional assessment, I disagree?
You should say politely that it is not within your remit to answer and that you can answer questions about your own assessment.
Q: How will it be possible for the panel or the legal representative to challenge my professional views in an oral hearing if I can no longer provide a recommendation?
The responses from the witness can always begin ‘I cannot provide a view on suitability for release, but in respect of that question about risk…..’. A witness can always ask for the question to be repeated, or to check the understanding of the question again by asking for further clarification.
It is right that legal representatives and the panel can challenge professional assessments in hearings. As always, witnesses will need to be prepared to evidence their assessments, but this will no longer involve them expressing a view about the suitability of release.
It is possible that Panel Members and, very likely that the prisoner’s representative, will ask report writers for their view as to whether the prisoner is safe to be released or suitable for transfer to open conditions. When answering these questions, report writers should tell the Panel Members and/or the prisoner’s legal representative that their role is not to provide the Panel with a recommendation but rather their assessment of the prisoner’s risks.
Q: Will there be a change to ability to request fixed term/standard recalls?
No, this process will remain the same.
Q: Will the Parole Board still set targets for prisoners within their decision letters?
Yes, nothing about the decision letters will change for now.
Q: Can I recommend a fixed or standard term recall in a Part A recall report still?
Yes. There are no changes to Part A recall reports. This is because Part A reports do not go before the Parole Board for a decision to be made. The changes in this document only affect those decisions relating to the Parole Board.
Q: What will this mean for Victim Liaison Officers (VLOs) who won't be able to advise victims of recommendations being made?
The way VLOs communicate the parole and recall processes to victims will change and the victims' team are issuing specialist guidance separately to VLOs. It will continue to be important for POMs and COMs to liaise regularly with VLOs at all key points in the sentence.
Q: Can we confirm whether or not our risk management plan is robust enough to manage a prisoner on release?
No, this is not allowed.
Q: What do I need to do if a panel member wants me to answer a question that is now outside my remit?
You must reaffirm that you cannot provide a view or recommendation about suitability for release or a move to open conditions. If you feel you were put under undue pressure to answer a question outside of your remit, you may then wish to inform your line manager of the incident, following the hearing.
Frequently Asked Questions – Open Test
Q: I thought we’re not supposed to talk about the third criteria for the open test anymore?
Decisions about whether the third element of the new test applies in individual cases will now be a matter solely for the Secretary of State or his delegated official. However, HMPPS must still provide information and evidence, where available, to enable that decision to be made. This could include information about media interest, impact on the local community or other information relevant to the issue. What HMPPS staff and the Parole Board are no longer required to do is assess or analyse whether a move to open conditions would undermine public confidence.
Q: When discussing the open conditions test could witnesses be asked to provide a yes or no response as to whether the prisoner is, for example, at low risk of abscond? Will this mean that the witness is providing a view about the suitability for a move to open conditions?
The witness could be asked a question like that, yes. We do not consider responding truthfully to that question to constitute ‘providing a view’. The witness is providing their professional assessment to an issue of risk and how it is managed and not stating whether they think the prisoner ought to move to open conditions.
Q: What about reports that have already been written without reference to the new open test?
There is no requirement for the Prison or Probation Service to provide a further report, where one has already been submitted, unless it is directed by the Parole Board or requested by PPCS.
Where an oral hearing is underway and reports have been submitted, practitioners should be mindful that they may be asked about the case in the context of the new test at the oral hearing, particularly where the Parole Board is considering recommending a move to open conditions. Where the Parole Board directs an update, this must be provided.
Q: Is there still a presumption that Terrorist and Terrorist Connected Prisoners are unsuitable for open conditions?
Yes. Terrorist and Terrorist Connected Prisoners are presumed to be unsuitable for open conditions unless exceptional circumstances can be evidenced. Alternative options should be considered e.g., a Progression Regime. It is for PPCS to determine whether the circumstances are exceptional.
Q: How do I apply the new open test?
We no longer apply the test and instead provide evidence and information to allow others to assess whether the test has been met. This is a professional judgement and will depend on the specifics of the case.
Q: Do I need to evidence whether the prisoner meets the new open test?
You must provide the evidence and information about the criteria to allow the Parole Board / Secretary of State to assess whether the new open test criteria have been met.
Q: How much evidence does the Parole Board need to establish whether someone is a low risk of abscond?
The new open test has not changed the process for assessing a prisoner’s risk of abscond, and the assessment remains one based on professional judgement. This should continue to be completed by prisons in the normal way. In terms of the amount of evidence the Parole Board will require, this will be different depending on the nature of the case.
Q: I have a high-profile case where there was a significant impact on the community. Am I allowed to put this in the report?
Yes. When analysing the impact of the offending behaviour or providing analysis on the risk management plan, including issues relating to the local community, you should provide this information as part of the report. You are no longer required to specifically assess whether a move to open conditions would undermine public confidence.
Q: What criteria will the Parole Board apply when considering whether a prisoner should move to open conditions?
From 28 June 2022, the Parole Board will only be deciding whether the first two aspects of the new open test criteria have been met. The Secretary of State Directions to the Parole Board have been updated to confirm this. A copy of these is available via this link: Secretary of State's Directions to the Parole Board - Transfer of ISPs to open conditions.
Q: How will the third criteria of the open test be applied by the Secretary of State?
The third part of the open test is to evidence that ‘a transfer to open conditions would not undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system’. Where the Parole Board recommends a move to open conditions, the Secretary of State is responsible for deciding whether to accept or reject this recommendation. As part of this, the Secretary of State will consider whether all three parts of the new test have been met.
Q: Do I need to automatically move an ISP currently in open conditions back to closed based on the new test?
No. The new test should not be used as a reason for a prisoner’s removal to closed conditions where an adverse development has NOT occurred. If an open prison considers that prisoners no longer meet the new criteria, this cannot be used as a reason to remove them to closed conditions. Where an adverse development has occurred, the new test should be applied when completing a LISP4 i.e. they have absconded, assaulted someone etc. or there are changes in behaviour which the prison assesses results in the ISP’s risk being unmanageable in open conditions.
Q: Should I apply the new test for a move to open conditions when completing the LISP4 for an adverse development?
Yes. As part of the recommendations within the LISP 4 to PPCS, practitioners should now only consider the first two aspects of the new test for open conditions. PPCS remain responsible for reviewing the case and deciding whether the prisoner should be issued with a warning letter, remain in closed until the next scheduled parole review or refer the case to the Parole Board for advice on their continued suitability for open conditions/refer the new information to the Parole Board where there is an ongoing parole review underway.
REMEMBER: When considering whether to raise an adverse development and move a prisoner back to the closed estate, prisons should consider whether the behaviour displayed by the prisoner can be managed within open conditions i.e., does not present an escalation of risk, and should be dealt with in line with local prison processes. In these cases, the LISP 4 does not need to be submitted to PPCS.
The new test should not be the reason for an ISP’s removal to closed conditions, but it should be taken into consideration as part of the LISP 4 where removal to closed has happened and continued suitability is being considered.
Frequently Asked Questions – Recommendation Changes
Q: Why is this change happening?
Following the Root and Branch Review of the Parole System which concluded in March this year, the Deputy Prime Minister decided to change the way in which recommendations are made to the Parole Board – that HMPPS report writers would not provide a view or recommendation in any cases where the Parole Board are asked to consider release or to recommend a move to open conditions. In certain cases, a single Secretary of State view will be provided to the Parole Board which will take into account the full evidence and risk assessments provided by report writers. This is to ensure that staff providing evidence on behalf of the Secretary of State do not offer an alternative view of a prisoner’s suitability for release or progression to open conditions.
Q: What happens if I submit a report with a recommendation in after 14 July?
Any reports that include a view or recommendation submitted on or after 14 July will be rejected by the Parole Board and will need to be rewritten. Where this happens, PPCS will request that the report writer amends the report and resubmits it to PPCS so that the case can be referred again to the Parole Board.
Q: What about the open test? Do I still have to provide a recommendation?
From 14 July onwards, you must not provide a view or recommendation about the suitability of a move to open conditions. However, staff can still provide the information and evidence in respect of all three criteria of the test in order that the Parole Board or Secretary of State can reach a decision on whether open conditions are suitable.
Q: I am worried that because I am no longer allowed to say whether I assess someone as being unsafe to be released, that people who otherwise would have been kept in custody will now be released. What should I do?
If you are concerned that release has been directed for someone who presents a public protection risk, and you believe that the Parole Board’s decision was irrational, in that there was no evidence presented to support the decision, or it was procedurally unfair, a request for reconsideration can be made.(Reconsideration Mechanism Guidance - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)). This enables the Secretary of State to ask the Parole Board to reconsider the decision in certain circumstances. If you think this may apply to your case, or you have significant concerns about the possibility of release and think we may need to use this mechanism, please speak to ppcs.policy@justice.gov.uk as soon as possible.
Q: Does this have anything to do with the ‘Johnson’ judgement?
No. Separate communications will come to staff about that judgement, and staff do not need to do anything differently in relation to the Johnson judgement.
Q: Are HMPPS staff allowed to express a view about suitability for release outside of the report and oral hearing – for example, are we allowed to express a view in a MAPPA meeting?
Yes. There is nothing preventing you from discussing your professional assessment and views outside of the parole reports or oral hearings, including in any kind of professionals meeting and including in conversation with the prisoner. Having an honest and transparent relationship with the individuals we supervise is crucial to assessing and managing risk and enabling people to change.
One of the concerns staff may have is that if they express their view about the suitability of release to the prisoner, this could be repeated by the prisoner in the hearing and staff could be questioned whether this was the case. If this happens, staff should respond by explaining that they are no longer allowed to provide a view or recommendation in the hearing.
As part of preparation for the hearing, HMPPS staff should discuss the process with the prisoner; it will also be important for staff to explain these changes to prisoners. This could include explaining that in their evidence, staff will advise whether risks have reduced, what the sentence and risk management plan is and what, if any, further measures are required to reduce risk. Staff should explain that they won’t be able to express a view or recommendation about suitability for release, and that if questioned about their view, they will have to politely decline to answer. Staff should tailor their approach to each individual they work with in order to establish what would be helpful to explain and how.
Q: What should I tell the prisoner?
It will be important as part of your ongoing conversations with the prisoner to discuss this change. We are planning to ensure that information provided to the prisoner about parole and recall reports includes information about these changes. It may be that we are not able to produce these new leaflets prior to 14 July. You can and should talk about release and have a full and frank conversation as you normally would. It would be helpful to reassure prisoners that any progress they have made in custody will be properly reflected in the reports and hearings. You may wish to consider whether they would benefit from any additional support and what the impact of these changes will be on their wellbeing.
Q: What does this mean for executive release?
This is one of the issues that the central policy team are looking at urgently. We will be able to update staff in due course. We will be updating this document so please save the link.
Q: I sent my report off before the 14 July – why am I being asked for it to be re-written without a recommendation?
PPCS are not able to refer your report to the Parole Board unless other mandatory documents are also able to be sent. Where these mandatory documents are outstanding, this may prevent PPCS from sending the dossier, including your report, to the Parole Board prior to 21 July. In these cases, PPCS will contact the Probation Practitioner and request that the report is amended to remove the recommendation.
Q: Where can I find the new reports?
The new Part B and C templates will be on NDelius where you would usually find them. The On/Post tariff PAROM1 templates and addendums will no longer be on the digital platform, but will be available in a Microsoft word IWP template linked to NDelius. The location for the pre-tariff PAROM1s and addendums will not change, but they will be replaced with new templates to reflect the changes. All the new templates are on nDelius here: Parole (justice.gov.uk)
Q: What is the Parole Board doing about recommendations from previous parole reviews in dossiers?
The Parole Board are aware of the changes and have agreed that previous recommendations will not be removed from dossiers. The Board will make their decision based on all of the evidence before them. Specifically, it will not be necessary to remove the recommendations from the reports, and report writers can expect Panels to question them on their recommendations. If your report was submitted prior to July 14 with a recommendation, it is fine to continue as normal and discuss your recommendation.
Q: What if a Parole Board panel member or solicitor / barrister asks me for my view on suitability for release during the oral hearing?
The Parole Board is aware of these changes. It is very likely that Panel Members and the prisoner’s legal representative will ask you whether you assess the risk to be manageable in the community, whether your risk management plan is considered sufficient to protect the public, whether the prisoner is safe to be released or is suitable for transfer to open conditions. You cannot answer as it would constitute a view on suitability for release/open and instead should politely tell the Panel Members and/or the prisoner’s legal representative that your role is not to provide the Panel with a recommendation but rather your assessment of the prisoner’s risks. If this does happen, you may wish to speak to your line manager following the hearing.
Q: Are lawyers allowed to ask our opinion about release in an oral hearing?
The Parole Board rule changes do not bind legal representatives for the prisoner in the same way that they do HMPPS and Parole Board panels, so yes, they could ask this question in a hearing. As stated above, and in the same way that other inappropriate questions to witnesses that are beyond their professional remit are handled, you will need to respond by politely declining to answer. You should explain that you cannot provide a view on suitability for release and that you are able to answer other questions within your remit.
Q: What language would constitute a ‘view or recommendation about suitability for release or open conditions?’. How can I check whether what is in a report is allowed?
We have set out some examples of language above but we recognise that there may be uncertainty as this policy is embedded. If you are a report writer, you can ask your manager to have oversight of the language. You can review your reports in line the Parole Quality Assurance Framework tool when it is published, check with your line manager if you are a report writer or check with the ppcs.policy@justice.gov.uk who can help check whether the language in the report is within the policy.
Q: How will I know if my case is a ‘noteworthy’ case where a single Secretary of State view is being provided?
PPCS have a list and will inform those staff involved. For those cases due to be heard imminently, the staff involved have already been told. PPCS will provide additional support to these staff in what we anticipate will be a very small number of cases.
Q: What are the consequences if it is judged that a practitioner has provided a ‘view or recommendation’ to the Parole Board?
It is possible that the decision by the Parole Board could be reconsidered, set aside or legally challenged and possibly changed. During this transition period try not to worry as it is going to be difficult to balance all the changes. Prepare for each case and be ready for what you can/cannot comment on. We know all staff will make every effort to implement this change at short notice, but we also appreciate that there may be cases where a recommendation has been provided in error. If staff think this may be the case, they should discuss this with their line manager and let the PPCS Case Manager know.
Q: Should practitioners be providing information to PPCS prior to writing a parole report or Part B / C to inform decision-making about cases being ‘top tier’ or ‘Single Secretary of State view’ cases?
PPCS work with the Secretary of State to initially identify cases considered to be noteworthy. If circumstances arise where practitioners think a case should be considered for a ‘Secretary of State view’ process, they should contact PPCS immediately. We anticipate that there will be very few cases in this category.
Q: Will there be recommendations about suitability for release or open conditions in psychology reports?
Where psychology reports are written by HMPPS staff or external staff commissioned by HMPPS, they will no longer contain recommendations about suitability for release or a move to open conditions from 14 July onwards. Psychology staff and Probation Practitioners can discuss and record in case notes their professional views about suitability, but these views must not be provided to the Parole Board.
Q: Does anything need to change about the rest of the report now that a recommendation about suitability for release or a move to open conditions is no longer allowed?
Not necessarily. The rest of the report should remain the same. The analysis of risk and what is best required to reduce risk, factual information as well as analysis about offending behaviour patterns, information and analysis about risk management and sentence planning should all remain the same. We do need to be confident that we are providing all of the evidence that would enable the Parole Board / Secretary of State to assess whether the release / open test is met. It will be important to be as specific as we can about what the risks are and how best we intend to manage them in various scenarios. We will need to adopt a ‘show, don’t tell’ approach whereby our analysis can inform decision-makers in the absence of us being explicit about our own conclusions.
Q: Will the rest of the oral hearing be any different?
Yes. Witnesses should expect Panels to question them even more closely on their risk assessment. Prepare in your usual way and seek support from your line manager if you need to.
Q: Does the Parole Board know about these changes?
Yes, and HMPPS staff have been working closely with them to ensure that we can continue to deliver our service without disruption.
Q: Will other witnesses be able to provide a view?
Yes, for example psychology reports commissioned by the legal team of the prisoner, or witnesses attending from outside of HMPPS. We must not comment on an external recommendation. We are not able to say whether we agree or disagree.
Q: Do the legal representatives of the prisoner know about these changes?
Yes, communications are being sent to legal representatives outlining these changes.
Q: I have started my report in the template in NDelius that has the recommendation section. Do I need to move everything on to a new template?
Report writers should use the new templates for all parole reports, Part B and Part C reports for all reports due for submission on or after 14 July. If you previously began these reports on the old template, you need to move the content over to the new report in order to submit it on or after 14 July. In the rest of the report, you must not provide a view or recommendation about the suitability of release or a move to open conditions.
Q: Is the Parole Quality Assurance Framework changing?
There will be changes to the questions in the quality development tool. The tool was due to be refreshed in the next couple of months with changes relating to the EPF2 tool, the new open test and questions relating to mental capacity now included. We are now bringing forward the publication of the latest version to coincide with these changes in order to include a new question relating to changes to recommendations.
The process whereby practitioners no longer require the tool applied to their reports following 3 successive ‘Good’ ratings is not changing. With all parole reports, the SPO is expected to have a Touch Points Model conversation with the Probation Practitioner. This should now always include a check by the SPO for any language in the report which could be considered a ‘view or recommendation about suitability for release’.
Q: Am I allowed to include in the report any views from the prisoner on release?
This would mainly be the remit of the prisoner or their representative rather than for HMPPS to provide. Report writers can include information about whether a prisoner has expressed intentions regarding compliance with a release plan, or other information and analysis pertinent to risk and how it might be managed. This might include assertions by the prisoner that they are worried they would go on to commit an offence upon release for example, or they have expressed concerns that they will not cope in an approved premises.
Q: If an addendum parole report is due after 14 July, can it refer to what the recommendation was in the original report that was submitted prior to 14 July?
No. You cannot make any reference in an addendum report to a view or recommendation about suitability for release that you made in the PAROM1.
Q: If I’ve submitted a parole or recall report previously with a recommendation, but the oral hearing is after 21 July, can I repeat the recommendation I have already given in the hearing?
Yes. If the report was submitted before July 14 and contained a recommendation, you can discuss it. See the transitional arrangements for more advice.
Q: Recall cases – for determinate cases that go to oral hearing, is the practitioner allowed to repeat the recommendation they make in the part B / C?
Yes. If you have written the report and submitted it before 14 July, you can repeat that view or recommendation in hearings on and after 21 July. Reports submitted on and after 14 July should not contain a recommendation about the suitability for release or move to open conditions.
Q: If the POM and COM have different views about risk and progress etc, will that be allowed, or will there still be a requirement to align your views prior to writing a parole report, if there is no clear recommendation?
There is still a requirement for reports by POMs and COMs to align.
Q: If I am in an oral hearing for a case where there is a single Secretary of State view provided, and I am asked whether I agree with the SoS view, what do I say if, in my professional assessment, I disagree?
You should say politely that it is not within your remit to answer and that you can answer questions about your own assessment.
Q: How will it be possible for the panel or the legal representative to challenge my professional views in an oral hearing if I can no longer provide a recommendation?
The responses from the witness can always begin ‘I cannot provide a view on suitability for release, but in respect of that question about risk…..’. A witness can always ask for the question to be repeated, or to check the understanding of the question again by asking for further clarification.
It is right that legal representatives and the panel can challenge professional assessments in hearings. As always, witnesses will need to be prepared to evidence their assessments, but this will no longer involve them expressing a view about the suitability of release.
It is possible that Panel Members and, very likely that the prisoner’s representative, will ask report writers for their view as to whether the prisoner is safe to be released or suitable for transfer to open conditions. When answering these questions, report writers should tell the Panel Members and/or the prisoner’s legal representative that their role is not to provide the Panel with a recommendation but rather their assessment of the prisoner’s risks.
Q: Will there be a change to ability to request fixed term/standard recalls?
No, this process will remain the same.
Q: Will the Parole Board still set targets for prisoners within their decision letters?
Yes, nothing about the decision letters will change for now.
Q: Can I recommend a fixed or standard term recall in a Part A recall report still?
Yes. There are no changes to Part A recall reports. This is because Part A reports do not go before the Parole Board for a decision to be made. The changes in this document only affect those decisions relating to the Parole Board.
Q: What will this mean for Victim Liaison Officers (VLOs) who won't be able to advise victims of recommendations being made?
The way VLOs communicate the parole and recall processes to victims will change and the victims' team are issuing specialist guidance separately to VLOs. It will continue to be important for POMs and COMs to liaise regularly with VLOs at all key points in the sentence.
Q: Can we confirm whether or not our risk management plan is robust enough to manage a prisoner on release?
No, this is not allowed.
Q: What do I need to do if a panel member wants me to answer a question that is now outside my remit?
You must reaffirm that you cannot provide a view or recommendation about suitability for release or a move to open conditions. If you feel you were put under undue pressure to answer a question outside of your remit, you may then wish to inform your line manager of the incident, following the hearing.
Frequently Asked Questions – Open Test
Q: I thought we’re not supposed to talk about the third criteria for the open test anymore?
Decisions about whether the third element of the new test applies in individual cases will now be a matter solely for the Secretary of State or his delegated official. However, HMPPS must still provide information and evidence, where available, to enable that decision to be made. This could include information about media interest, impact on the local community or other information relevant to the issue. What HMPPS staff and the Parole Board are no longer required to do is assess or analyse whether a move to open conditions would undermine public confidence.
Q: When discussing the open conditions test could witnesses be asked to provide a yes or no response as to whether the prisoner is, for example, at low risk of abscond? Will this mean that the witness is providing a view about the suitability for a move to open conditions?
The witness could be asked a question like that, yes. We do not consider responding truthfully to that question to constitute ‘providing a view’. The witness is providing their professional assessment to an issue of risk and how it is managed and not stating whether they think the prisoner ought to move to open conditions.
Q: What about reports that have already been written without reference to the new open test?
There is no requirement for the Prison or Probation Service to provide a further report, where one has already been submitted, unless it is directed by the Parole Board or requested by PPCS.
Where an oral hearing is underway and reports have been submitted, practitioners should be mindful that they may be asked about the case in the context of the new test at the oral hearing, particularly where the Parole Board is considering recommending a move to open conditions. Where the Parole Board directs an update, this must be provided.
Q: Is there still a presumption that Terrorist and Terrorist Connected Prisoners are unsuitable for open conditions?
Yes. Terrorist and Terrorist Connected Prisoners are presumed to be unsuitable for open conditions unless exceptional circumstances can be evidenced. Alternative options should be considered e.g., a Progression Regime. It is for PPCS to determine whether the circumstances are exceptional.
Q: How do I apply the new open test?
We no longer apply the test and instead provide evidence and information to allow others to assess whether the test has been met. This is a professional judgement and will depend on the specifics of the case.
Q: Do I need to evidence whether the prisoner meets the new open test?
You must provide the evidence and information about the criteria to allow the Parole Board / Secretary of State to assess whether the new open test criteria have been met.
Q: How much evidence does the Parole Board need to establish whether someone is a low risk of abscond?
The new open test has not changed the process for assessing a prisoner’s risk of abscond, and the assessment remains one based on professional judgement. This should continue to be completed by prisons in the normal way. In terms of the amount of evidence the Parole Board will require, this will be different depending on the nature of the case.
Q: I have a high-profile case where there was a significant impact on the community. Am I allowed to put this in the report?
Yes. When analysing the impact of the offending behaviour or providing analysis on the risk management plan, including issues relating to the local community, you should provide this information as part of the report. You are no longer required to specifically assess whether a move to open conditions would undermine public confidence.
Q: What criteria will the Parole Board apply when considering whether a prisoner should move to open conditions?
From 28 June 2022, the Parole Board will only be deciding whether the first two aspects of the new open test criteria have been met. The Secretary of State Directions to the Parole Board have been updated to confirm this. A copy of these is available via this link: Secretary of State's Directions to the Parole Board - Transfer of ISPs to open conditions.
Q: How will the third criteria of the open test be applied by the Secretary of State?
The third part of the open test is to evidence that ‘a transfer to open conditions would not undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system’. Where the Parole Board recommends a move to open conditions, the Secretary of State is responsible for deciding whether to accept or reject this recommendation. As part of this, the Secretary of State will consider whether all three parts of the new test have been met.
Q: Do I need to automatically move an ISP currently in open conditions back to closed based on the new test?
No. The new test should not be used as a reason for a prisoner’s removal to closed conditions where an adverse development has NOT occurred. If an open prison considers that prisoners no longer meet the new criteria, this cannot be used as a reason to remove them to closed conditions. Where an adverse development has occurred, the new test should be applied when completing a LISP4 i.e. they have absconded, assaulted someone etc. or there are changes in behaviour which the prison assesses results in the ISP’s risk being unmanageable in open conditions.
Q: Should I apply the new test for a move to open conditions when completing the LISP4 for an adverse development?
Yes. As part of the recommendations within the LISP 4 to PPCS, practitioners should now only consider the first two aspects of the new test for open conditions. PPCS remain responsible for reviewing the case and deciding whether the prisoner should be issued with a warning letter, remain in closed until the next scheduled parole review or refer the case to the Parole Board for advice on their continued suitability for open conditions/refer the new information to the Parole Board where there is an ongoing parole review underway.
REMEMBER: When considering whether to raise an adverse development and move a prisoner back to the closed estate, prisons should consider whether the behaviour displayed by the prisoner can be managed within open conditions i.e., does not present an escalation of risk, and should be dealt with in line with local prison processes. In these cases, the LISP 4 does not need to be submitted to PPCS.
The new test should not be the reason for an ISP’s removal to closed conditions, but it should be taken into consideration as part of the LISP 4 where removal to closed has happened and continued suitability is being considered.
Apart from the practical issues these changes bring, there is also something I find very sinister underpinning them.
ReplyDeleteThe only opinion that will be expressed is that of the State.
All other professional opinion wishing to be expressed to an independent body will be silenced.
If the States position should fail to be accepted the State have the right to revisit.
It changes the whole process from being State operated to being State controlled.
These are exactly the type actions the the UK would criticise countries like China and Russia for taking.
'Getafix
Hear hear
ReplyDelete"Any reports that include a view or recommendation submitted on or after 14 July will be rejected by the Parole Board and will need to be rewritten... if you are worried that you are no longer allowed to say whether you assess someone as being unsafe to be released... a request for reconsideration can be made via the Reconsideration Mechanism Guidance - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)."
ReplyDeletePlease send your request for reconsideration via the Reconsideration Mechanism with copies sent by recorded delivery to:
- the Secretary of State
- the Parole Board
- the grieving relatives of the latest victim/s
- the coroner/s of the relevant areas
- your own legal representative
- the Victim's Commissioner
For those detained under the "Fuckwit Probation Officer Who Let A Dangerous Prisoner Go Free" Act 2022, it may be that you cannot access the internet at your local prison. In such circumstances you may find it useful to speak to your wing officer, who will inform the Governor, who will inform the Secretary of State, who will inform the Home Secretary of your attempt to access the internet.
Please Note: For those who are successful in accessing the internet, favourable arrangements for International Recorded Delivery have been agreed with the Rwandan Government. All missives must be paid for by the deported prisoner in US dollars, cash only.
Transparency Declaration: The Secretary of State will take a 20% commission on any and all International Recorded Deliveries.
Totally agree. The disdain and disrespect now shown by the state to the legal system, lawyers and anything related is beyond arrogant... it signifies darker times ahead
ReplyDeleteGod save the queen
ReplyDeleteThe fascist regime
They made you a moron
A potential H bomb
Don't be told what you want
Don't be told what you need
There's no future
No future
No future for you
Glen Matlock / John Lydon / Paul Thomas Cook / Stephen Philip Jones
Q: What do I need to do if a panel member wants me to answer a question ***that is now outside my remit***?
ReplyDeleteA: You must reaffirm that you cannot provide a view or recommendation about suitability for release or a move to open conditions.
Now its time to see the true colours of probation staff in the light of Raab's totalitarianism.
How many practitioners & "excellent leaders" will happily take the State's shilling?
Equally its time to see what Napo - "The Trade Union, Professional Association and campaigning organisation for Probation and Family Court staff" - are really made of. Can Lawrence & co redeem themselves from almost a decade of failure?
And what view might the Parole Board have?
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/parole-board/about/our-governance
Caroline Corby, Chair
Martin Jones, Chief Executive Officer
Peter Rook, Judicial Vice Chair
Gary Sims, Non-Executive Director
Alan Clamp, Non Executive Director
Julie Dent, Non Executive Director
Cassie Williams, Parole Board Member
Maneer Afsar, Parole Board Member
Rob McKeon, Parole Board Member
No Napo are incapable demonstrated at every point with this lame leader and pathetic staff group. The ten years you mention is clear illustration shall we list them.
DeleteWhen IPP came in it was seen as the ultimate in the long term management of risk, abolished in 2012 there are a number of individuals and families still experiencing the Blunkett manoeuvre, will this latest attempt at ‘toughing up’ the parole process lead to a blockage in the open estate and therefore prison places in general.....but wait there is a new prison building programme in place.....and they will need all of their places being filled,,,now it makes sense....ministers sensing changes soon at the top are likely to be looking for cushy private billets.....the veil is lifted and all becomes clear, the prisoners are commodities argument is alive and well......
ReplyDeleteSFOs belong to the Secretary of State.
ReplyDeleteDon't look here, my opinion was silenced.
"Why is this change happening?
ReplyDeleteFollowing the Root and Branch Review of the Parole System which concluded in March this year, the Deputy Prime Minister decided to change the way in which recommendations are made to the Parole Board – that HMPPS report writers would not provide a view or recommendation"
Am I completely missing something here? Doest this simply explain what the change is, rather than why, beyond "the secretary of state says so that's why?"
There are many things about the parole process that I personally think need to change...but if I were to state what those are I would at least be able to articulate my rationale. If a root and branch review of parole took place, then surely the first step is to publish this and explain what is so utterly wrong with different report writers coming to different opinions?
Dialled into one of the 'listening' events with the big wigs today. Well that was predictably pointless.
ReplyDeleteThere's a regional director taken a little time away from snapping Fray Bentos to tell staff they mustn't post anything critical of governmental policy for fear of falling fouls of the ministerial code. Priorities right there.
ReplyDeleteDear Mrs Beeton
DeleteI am a Probation Officer. I have been a Probation Officer for a long time. Many moons ago I was one of three full-time report writers in a busy city Court Team. I prepared Pre-Sentence Reports based on information gleaned mostly from one or two interviews with the defendant & access to CPS papers. I also held a small caseload of long-term prisoners - some lifers, others with long tariffs - who I kept regardless of the core team I was based in. I regularly visited that caseload, regularly wrote reports - including Parole Reports - and wherever possible attended Parole Hearings to offer my professional opinion as just one amongst numerous other professionals & thus contributed to the wealth of knowledge about the individual concerned. I would readily & candidly state my views about progress, about risk & about suitability for release. I would be very clear with those on my caseload that I could not mislead or gild the lily and they knew before anyone else what my recommendation was going to be and why. It wasn't much fun telling someone you didn't think they were ready to be released, knowing your view would be taken seriously by the Parole Board, but it often proved to be a significant point in the working relationship - usually positive... eventually.
For many years the Probation Service has been facing erosion of its professional status from a variety of directions, e.g. divorcing & diluting training, placing probation under prison service control, imposing tick-box systems, automating reports, faux privatisation via Trusts, actual part-privatisation via TR, and the final humiliation of stuffing everyone into a padded civil service pigeonhole held in the name of the most fascist government this country has ever seen.
In HMPPS no-one can hear you scream, mainly because everyone is threatened with being baked in a pie if they make a sound. Worse still, the subsequent feasting gets published on social media. Cheers!
Raab is the latest in a long line of career politician fuckwits; but he's perhaps the most dangerous piece of shit to date. He has insulted every single member of probation staff with his dismissive missives - except for those who willingly do his bidding, prioritising loyalty to their own career path & bank balance over a duty to discharge the skills, knowledge & professional role of the Probation Service.
I am not a minister so cannot fall foul of the ministerial code.
Yours in-digestion
Hansel, Probation Officer.
“ This is to ensure that staff providing evidence on behalf of the Secretary of State do not offer an alternative view of a prisoner’s suitability for release or progression to open conditions.”
ReplyDeleteGod forbid we’d disagree with the all-knowledgeable Secretary of State !
Rabb has had a lot to say in the last week.
ReplyDeleteJust guessing, but if someone has to see the same judge/magistrate at least once a month and is subject to 'intense ' supervision, then that judge/magistrate will want updates and reports on how that intensive supervision is progressing?
If this is ever rolled out fully, it could be even a bigger resource expenditure then making the under 12mth group subject to compulsory supervision.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-problem-solving-courts-to-combat-drug-and-alcohol-fuelled-crime
'Getafix
The all-knowledgeable Secretary of State may as well take on recall, breach and PSR recommendations too. Raab has turned us into glorified admin workers. Probation leaders complicit as usual.
ReplyDeleteHMIProbation is running a consultation on proposed regional standards for our probation service inspections. Have your say by 21 August:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/about-hmi-probation/consultations/
https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/07/Consultation-on-probation-inspection-standards.pdf
https://twitter.com/HMIProbation/status/1549303498004729857
He was a limp dick of a probation minister, not least because he wouldn't use the term 'probation' but... this is worthwhile:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/proginfo/2022/29/the-long-history-of-argument
“While people on probation is better than offender, with its negative overtones, or service user, which just never felt right, I feel very uncomfortable about it being shortened to PoPs. It sounds belittling and dehumanising, the opposite of what’s intended. Or is it just me?”
ReplyDeleteSaw on LinkedIn from the Butler Trust CEO. Raises a good point. We’re effectively calling them by an abbreviation that has another meaning.
Also, the plural of PoP is PoP, not PoPs.
I can see a load of public sectors got a pay rise today. Anything on probation?
ReplyDeleteAs usual, doesn’t include probation
DeleteA thought or two about these "interactions" with the employer.
ReplyDelete1. The questionnaire they have sent out recently allows repeated responses, so the bots have the biggest voice
2. We are being gaslighted. Tomorrows invitation to hear our Minister and Deputy PM and ask questions about his "reflectons on HMPPS success"...was posted to us half way through today, so no time to rally, let alone book a minute from the coalface, and there will be a carefully selected bunch of questions up front. If you can get one in on Parole, hats off to you.
They won’t take unscreened questions and the chat will be restricted.
DeleteI, too, was staggered by this rushed invitation - half the workforce probably haven't even checked the communication yet or have people lbooked in to see, reports to write, Delius risk registers to update, and the god awfulness of writing the all important OASYS reviews - absolutely astounding! And against the backdrop of everything that has happened this week, to present this is "celebrating HMPPS' successes" the corporate messaging was, as ever, completely off pitch.
DeleteWhat questionnaire? Can you elaborate?
18:40.According to the NAPO website, negotiations on pay are ‘ongoing.’
ReplyDeleteI am recently retired after 30 years and can only remember ever getting our pay rise on the anniversary date once following a two year deal the previous year.
It never ceases to amaze me that NAPO and the ministers seem to be taken by surprise every time and whilst I acknowledge that arrears are eventually paid, I think they might have something to say if you delivered a PSR several months late.
They always come up with some nonsense about ministerial or parliamentary approval. Have they sought approval for next years increase yet. It’s a bit like Christmas, it comes round every year although unlike Christmas, they often give nothing.