Madness

From Twitter yesterday:-

Academic - "Very concerned to see that psychology and probation staff being directed to give no opinion in parole boards. This seems to make a mockery of asking for a specialist opinion. It is driven by politic rather than evidence based practice."

Nick Hardwick - Eh? 

Academic - "It will not make the public safer and will make rehabilitation more difficult and I suspect be a barrier to genuine desistance. The idea that the Justice Minister has any real idea about risk management than the professionals is frankly absurd."

Academic - "It seems that there has been directive today given to HMPPS psychology and probation staff about not being able to give recommendations to the parole board. Imagine from MoJ would be good for them to confirm or refute."

Academic - "Have seen it come up on several forensic groups practitioners are involved with. If true it’s deeply worrying state of affairs."

Nick Hardwick "Madness - again"

Academic - "It would seem so, poor sighted and not in interest of risk management, public protection or rehabilitation. Maybe Dominic Raab could clarify this is not the case."

PO - "Hastily scheduled staff briefings throughout probation. All reports now have to be written on new 'template' avoiding any mention of a 'recommendation.' How weak and poorly-led is the probation service that it was not even consulted!"

--oo00oo--

This from Inside Time 11th July 2022:-

Parole Board will no longer see recommendations from professionals

Psychologists, prison staff and probation officers are to be banned from telling the Parole Board whether they think prisoners should be released.

Under the present system, parole panels considering applications for release are presented with reports from professionals who have worked with the prisoner. The reports set out details of the case, make risk assessments, and recommend whether the individual should be released.

Later this month the system will change so that the parole panel still receives the separate reports – but without recommendations. In a few of the most serious cases, the Justice Secretary will offer a “single view” recommendation, drawing on the evidence from the professionals. However, in the majority of cases the Parole Board will be left to reach a decision without seeing any recommendations.

The Ministry of Justice told Inside Time that the new rule would apply to “all cases that go through the parole process, regardless of sentence or offence type”.

The rule-change was approved by Parliament without debate on June 30, via a Statutory Instrument. It will take effect on July 21, the Ministry of Justice said. All staff working for HM Prison and Probation Service will be affected – including forensic psychologists who have assessed the prisoner, prison officers who have worked with them, and probation officers who have monitored them.

Justice Secretary Dominic Raab explained the reason for the rule-change in a House of Commons exchange on July 5. Labour MP Kate Green asked: “Careful parole decisions are important to minimise reoffending. Can the Justice Secretary explain why new Parole Board rules will mean that expert report writers will be forbidden to provide a view on suitability for release of the most serious offenders?”

In response, Raab said: “At the moment, when the vital question of risk is assessed, there is a risk that separate reports, whether from psychiatrists or probation officers and those who manage risk, may give conflicting recommendations. Therefore, in those serious cases … there will be one overarching Ministry of Justice view, so that the Parole Board has a very clear steer.”

Peter Dawson, director of the Prison Reform Trust, has written to the Ministry of Justice questioning the justification for the rule change, asking why no consultation was carried out, and seeking clarification of how it will work.

In his letter he said: “Given that the reports in question are gathered explicitly to inform those decisions, it seems extraordinary that the Parole Board should be denied the professional, expert opinion of the people compiling them.”

He also queried whether the professional ethics of the individuals writing the reports would allow them to decline to express an opinion if they felt that a person’s safety would be put at risk by their failure to do so.

--oo00oo--

I see the Prison Reform Trust are on the case:-

Victoria Atkins MP 

Minister of State 

Ministry of Justice 

102 Petty France 

London SW1H 9AJ 

4 July 2022

Dear Minister, 

Further parole changes made on 30 June 

I wrote to you on 16 June about major changes to the parole system announced by press release on 5 June. I explained that those changes came into effect with no accompanying information for either staff or prisoners. We are already hearing accounts from prisoners serving very long sentences who have been informed of those changes by means of a note pushed under the cell door. But to be fair to prison staff, there is still nothing that they can draw on to explain the practical implications, or what prisoners can do to meet the new tests you have set out. Your failure to prepare for such a significant change has created a risk to the safety of the people most affected by it, and distress for the families on whom they depend for support both now and in the future. 

So it is deeply concerning that you should now have repeated this inadequate process in the publication on 30 June of new Parole Board rules. The majority of those new rules implement a policy on public hearings on which you consulted widely and published a detailed reasoned response to consultation. While we disagreed with the policy you chose to pursue, the process of arriving at it was transparent and resulted in detailed provision designed to meet the many concerns which respondents raised. As a result, it should at least be possible to explain to prisoners and their families what those various safeguards are, and it is disappointing that you have chosen not to do so at the moment the policy is implemented. 

For the remainder of the new rules, so far as we are aware there has been no process of consultation or consideration outside the department of their practical implications. In particular, provision is made for a “single view” from the Secretary of State to inform Parole Board panels considering both release and transfer to open conditions. The only explanatory text accompanying the statutory instrument appears to be contained in the accompanying press release, which says:

 Recommendations for release or moves to open prison for the most serious offenders – including murderers, rapists, terrorists and those who have caused or allowed the death of a child – will also now be made by the Deputy Prime Minister before going to the Parole Board for its final decision. 

Although the general public is unlikely to realise this, we assume that what it means in practice is that those recommendations will be made in the overwhelming majority of cases by officials acting with delegated authority. So, similar questions arise as in my previous (so far unanswered) letter: 

• To which cases will this process apply? The press release appears to imply that it will be a “top tier” of 700 or so cases annually, but of course the Parole Board rules apply to all cases considered by the board. 
• Who will those officials be? 
• How will they be trained and what will be the basis of their expertise? 
• What access will prisoners have to them? 
• What access will parole board panels have to them? 
• To what criteria and guidance will they work in forming a single view on the Secretary of State’s behalf? 

The statutory instrument raises at least two other questions on which the accompanying press release is wholly silent. 

First, it forbids report writers (and, on the face of it all report writers whether or not employed by the Secretary of State) to provide a view on the prisoner’s suitability for either release or transfer to open conditions. Given that the reports in question are gathered explicitly to inform those decisions, it seems extraordinary that the Parole Board should be denied the professional, expert opinion of the people compiling them. So far as we are aware, there has been no explanation given for this unusual prohibition. So it would be helpful for prisoners and their families to be told: 

• The reason for this prohibition on the expression of a professional opinion. 
• To which cases it applies (all, or the “top tier”, or some other yet to be defined cohort) 
• To which report writers it applies, and how such a prohibition will be enforced if it applies to report writers not directly employed by the Secretary of State 
• Whether the prohibition is compatible with the professional ethics of the report writers concerned. For example, can a report writer decline to express an opinion in a case where they believe a person’s safety would be put at risk by not doing so? 
• Whether it will apply retrospectively, with opinions from previous dossiers excluded, or censored from dossiers currently under preparation or disclosed 
• Whether officials acting under the Secretary of State’s delegated authority who will have the freedom to express an opinion will also be involved in explaining to prisoners in the years leading up to parole what they must do to satisfy them that either a move to open conditions or release may be recommended

Secondly, in obvious contradiction to the statement in the accompanying press release, the new rules suggest that the Secretary of State will form a “single view” on a prisoner’s suitability for release only “where considered appropriate”. So it would be helpful to know:

• What the test of “appropriateness” will be for the expression of a view on release by the Secretary of State prior to a parole hearing 
• In how many cases the Secretary of State anticipates that test of appropriateness will be met 
• Why, in the remaining cases, the Secretary of State would choose to reserve their view until after the Parole Board has reached a conclusion, and what the implications of that delay might be for the prisoner’s ability to present their case in full knowledge of the Secretary of State’s concerns 
• Whether the expression of a single view on suitability for open conditions will also be subject to a similar test or will, as the absence of a reference to it in the amendment rules implies, be supplied in all cases. 

These are all wholly predictable questions and the people who are currently struggling to understand the practical implications of this chaotic series of announcements will no doubt have many more. I cannot over-emphasise the urgency of answering them, including the questions in my previous letter of 16 June. Creating this confusion for prisoners and families is both unfair and dangerous. Moreover, it puts the people whose job it is to motivate prisoners to progress in an impossible position, undermining the relationships of trust and confidence on which the system depends. Please give these matters the urgent and detailed attention they deserve. 

Yours sincerely, 

Peter Dawson 

Director Prison Reform Trust