Well done for the BBC in bringing us this five-part series on how the Parole Board operates and their reported five year battle with the institutions involved to get agreement, but if the first episode is anything to go by, it's going to be far from reassuring.
I'll nail my colours to the mast straight away and say that I absolutely detest 'remote' interviews and hearings of any kind and especially in dealing with people connected to such life changing situations as this. It's no way to treat people and I don't think sound assessments can be made sat in a bloody office gazing down an often poor line two-dimensionally rather than being in-person and three dimensions. Talking of which, there should be three members of a Parole Panel in cases such as this, not two. All this in the cause of spending cuts of course.
I think I want to raise the issue of the 'Independent' as well. Probation Officers of long-standing will recall that the practice in the past was that several months prior to an Oral Hearing a prisoner was visited by an 'independent' member of the Parole Board for an in-depth interview that formed part of the dossier that went before the members of the Hearing Panel. An extremely valuable method of gaining a broader picture of an individual, but axed due to cost I assume.
We then come on to the role of probation in all this. In the case of the lifer, a uniformed Custody Offender Manager who had undertaken some offence-focused work, but other than that the classic 'keeps a clean and tidy cell'. No Community Probation Officer was present, but we are to assume the recommendation was to release, such ability having been a key professional function of a Probation Officer until recently prohibited by Dominic Raab of course. Sadly we heard nothing of the no doubt carefully-crafted Release Plan, so probation's input seemingly air-brushed out of the whole process.
As for the probation input towards the serial fraudster and preyer-upon women, the 'Community Offender Manager' - I hate that term and have always refused to use it - astonishingly washed her hands of the guy and hence the Parole Board felt obliged to keep him in custody until his automatic release date and hence release unsupervised! Wow. 'Job done' it seems by both probation and the Parole Board 'protecting the public'? I think not!
Given the on-screen info (i.e. redacted images) I'd suggest the community-based probation worker was present but didn't want to be involved. A great shame there was no explanation or resume of their input because it gave exactly the impression you have formed as someone who knows the system, i.e. probation wasn't present.
ReplyDeleteSeems like another great opportunity missed due to editorial control by media types for the sake of a 'good story' as opposed to CJS professionals ensuring the accuracy of the account.
A bit like the case of a serial fraudster, perhaps?
Yes think that's about it sadly.
DeleteMuch the same view taken by the i newspaper " a great opportunity missed" suggests its headline.
DeleteI'm sure however last night wasn't the first time that a parole board hearing has been shown on TV, although I'm unable to locate where and when on a Google search.
I did however run across the following documentary from 1980. In part 4 (approx 1hr in) it gives a short look into how the parole board worked way back then.
Apart from giving something to compare and contrast and how things have 'progressed', I found some of the attitudes displayed by all parties taking part fascinating.
I might be a trip down memory lane for those of a particular age, or it might even be of interest to younger recruits, who knows?
https://youtu.be/FfrsUANQO4M
'Getafix
Well done 'Getafix for unearthing the 1980 film and as you suggest is fascinating to compare - Board has 4 members including a High Court Judge, Senior Probation Officer, an 'Independent' and chaired by a psychiatrist. Admittedly not strictly comparable as a 'paper' review for progression of a lifer, but I think the downgrading of the process is self-evident over 40 years. Also of interest is mention of the 'Local Review Panel' - from memory it included a local SPO.
DeletePicking up on your comment at 17.38 Jim. So are all our public services, our infrastructure, eroded. This decline was set in place well before any arguable need to save money. The war against the public sector has been going on a long time. However set out his mission to "roll back the public sector", but that was always going to go down well as a. Nobody actually likes paying taxes b. Longstanding culture of deigrating public service workers, just pick up any of many early comic songs from the late (and wonderful) Bernard Cribbins).
ReplyDeleteFast forward to the need for "efficiency" a word now denoting cuts. In the era of , I think it was called "speedy justice", we had a student on learning experience in our magistrates Court. The DJ was showing off how fast he had processed all the days cases in conversation at the end of the day. Student pipes up " The cases are called Hearings, but nobody got to be heard". Out of the mouths of observant youngsters.
Anon 19:00 "So are all our public services, our infrastructure, eroded." A fundamental question and I suspect a three hour pub conversation at least. I guess on one level it fits the stereotypical notion that's all-too tempting to subscribe to towards the end of one's career/life than the beginning. The fact is, my memory tells me that the Parole process was much more thorough and fair in the past than what we have today. Probation? ditto - without a doubt.
Delete… and probation is soon to be the missing P in HMPPS! #OneHMPPS
ReplyDeleteMaybe the PO did not want to be filmed for obvious reasons like personal safety. maybe the filming was imposed on them by higher people above!
ReplyDeleteThe whole thing appeared basic and did not really probe. I think the public will not be reassured as it dumbed the process down.
ReplyDeleteYou're all looking the wrong way, thinking Prisons are taking over Probation, when in reality, it's the police, just saying..
ReplyDelete