Wednesday, 1 February 2023

Third SFO

Yes, a third SFO and we await the Review, which will surely be published. As always, we must think of the victims, their families and the officers involved and hope all are well-supported. This is most certainly not a good time for probation, but we must all endeavour to make sure that the systemic and structural issues, as well as political decisions, are all brought out into the open, examined and explained so that lessons really can be learned. 

Last night's Ch4News top story about pressure to alter risk levels for spurious reasons such as resource allocation is a case in point. The probation service must now be allowed to speak up for itself and not be forced to remain silent under HMPPS/MoJ imposed administrative silence. This from the BBC website:-   

Lee Peacock sentenced to life over Westminster double murder

A "jealous" killer has been sentenced to life in prison for killing his girlfriend and an associate weeks after being released from jail. Lee Peacock, 50, attacked his partner Sharon Pickles, 46, and Clinton Ashmore, 59, in Westminster over two days in August 2021. An Old Bailey jury found him guilty of the two murders on Tuesday. Jailing him for a minimum of 39 years, Judge Mr Justice Murray said Peacock would likely die in prison.

The self-confessed burglar, who had been released from prison on 4 June 2021, refused to attend his sentencing hearing. The jury previously heard Peacock, who denied the two murders, had gone out to "punish" Ms Pickles and Mr Ashmore.

On the evening of 19 August 2021, Peacock's father alerted police that his son had visited him and confessed to being a killer. Officers went to Ms Pickles' home in Marylebone and found her body wrapped up and hidden under a bed, with a signed confession nearby. Later that day, Peacock was captured on CCTV walking with Mr Ashmore towards his Westminster flat, then leaving alone 15 minutes later. Two hours later, Mr Ashmore was discovered dead by friends. Both victims died from similar knife wounds to the neck.

'Fit of rage'

The judge concluded that while the killing of Ms Pickles was not premeditated, there was "a significant level of premeditation and planning" in the murder of Mr Ashmore. Addressing a court room packed with grieving relatives, Mr Justice Murray said the defendant had "lashed out at Sharon in a fit of rage, jealous of her sexual relationship with another man", while a bedridden man she cared for slept in another room. In his remarks addressed to Peacock, he said the minimum term meant "that even if you live a long life, there is a strong possibility that you will die in prison even before you are eligible for consideration for release by the Parole Board".

Before the killings, Peacock had been supervised by the London Community Rehabilitation Company before being transferred to the London branch of the Probation Service when the system was nationalised on 26 June 2021. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has said it was not appropriate to comment on the findings of a review into how Peacock was able to commit serious crimes while on probation until they have been shared with the victims' families. An MoJ spokesman said: "This was a horrific crime and our sympathies are with the families of Sharon Pickles and Clinton Ashmore. Serious further offences are rare but we are investing £155m more every year into the Probation Service and recruited thousands of extra staff to improve the supervision of offenders and, keep the public safe."

38 comments:

  1. These are scary times to be in the probation service.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another PO is probably going to get thrown under the bus then….

      Delete
    2. Probably already has been. From the time of the manhunt.

      “A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Justice, which speaks for the Probation Service, said a local review has been carried out into Peacock's case, but she could not comment further until it has been shared with relatives of the victims after the sentence.”

      Delete
  2. The number of SFO notifications received in 2021/22 increased by 6% to 529 compared to the previous year.
    27 Oct 2022

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That figure is not as meaningful without the total number of people under the supervision. For instance did the number of people supervised increase by 6% year on year, therefore the proportion of SFOs remain the same, or is it higher/lower.

      Also is there a pandemic effect? There was a growing backlog of cases during going through the Courts. If there was a significant increase in cases dealt with as we unlocked this could increase SFOs. Certainly violent crime went down during the lockdowns which could influence the figure. It would be nice to see a source and proper analysis of the statistics.

      Delete
    2. As I suspected a year on year increase tells as little without the context, which is that the trend is downwards. The following is from the Serious Further Offences Bulletin 2022 which is available on the web:

      "Statistician’s comment
      “Between 2014/15 and 2016/17, annual SFO notifications and resulting convictions
      increased markedly as a result of the implementation of the Offender Rehabilitation Act
      (ORA) 20141. The number of notifications has since trended downwards, the latest figure
      being a decrease of 23% from 2016/17. However, there was an increase of 6% in the latest
      year from the year before, likely due to pick up in court activities following relaxation of
      COVID-19 restrictions.
      Latest conviction data indicates a continuing decrease in the annual number of SFO
      conviction figures since 2017/18. And this is likely a reflection of the decreasing number of
      notifications received.
      We have seen a decrease in the number of offenders convicted for an SFO of murder for a
      second year (this conclusion holds even if all the outstanding cases that have yet to
      conclude at court were to result in a guilty plea). This follows the increases we saw in SFO
      convictions for murder from 2015/16 to 2018/19, partly as a result of the introduction of ORA
      and increases in the overall murder convictions (non-SFO and SFO) in the same period.
      The number of offenders convicted for SFO offences related to rape and associated
      offences has trended downwards in the last three years to 2019/20, and this also reflects
      the general decreasing rape-related convictions generally.
      The number of annual SFO notifications has been decreasing since 2016/17. There is likely
      to be a corresponding decrease in the number of SFO convictions as cases progress
      through the courts."

      Delete
    3. but the statisticians do not acknowledge the change in criteria to meet SFO threshold

      Delete
    4. 0752 perhaps you can enlighten us on the change of criteria and when it occurred.

      Delete
    5. @11:00 - please refer to "Anonymous 2 February 2023 at 23:53" below

      Delete
    6. I have checked the info below and the criteria changed in 2008. This appears to have no bearing on the information in the document on SFOs published in 2022 which I quoted, as that refers to statistics from 2014/15 onwards.

      Delete
    7. "perhaps you can enlighten us on the change of criteria and when it occurred."

      As if by magic some kind soul did exactly that (thank you, anon @ 23:53 on 2/2/23) & took the time to lay out the facts for all to see, but still the self-important bleating continues.

      What does it take to appease some peoples' thirst for blood?

      Delete
  3. Is this London Probation and Westminster Probation Office once again.

    Didn’t they just award the senior manager for this probation office an MBE?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jim, what we don’t talk about is the number of serious offences committed that just don’t meet the criteria of being recorded as an SFO as a number of offences were removed from SFO criteria. A number of people released on parole licence ( including lifers) have committed offences such as attempted kidnap and this just doesn’t count as an SFO now so not measured or reflected in any data. It just worries me what is being hidden.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Having just been through my first SFO interview, I cam confirm that it's an awful position to be in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It’s an awful process. The aim is to find fault.

      The worst practitioners and managers join SFO teams, but they think they’re the cream of the crop.

      Treat the SFO interview and all communication with the interviewer as you would an oral hearing. The investigation reports never read how you expect.

      I couldn’t do it.

      Delete
    2. Awful awful awful. Please get whatever support you can, my heart goes out to you with fellow feeling, Its a dreadful process and they dont have your back. It took me a lot of therapy to get me to the point where I forgave myself -however blameless its a pervasive thing

      Delete
    3. There is no support. They contact you nice as pie then damn you. It’s not a nice process and in most cases there’s not much you could have done differently but they still demoralise you for everything that’s way beyond your control.

      Delete
    4. It’s a flawed process given most SFO investigations are carried out by SPO level staff they have no authority to make findings against those more senior to them. Given accountability for most decisions rest with PDU heads and Regional heads, they after all taken the resource allocation decisions, they are protected from any findings about their decisions because it reviews actions downwards. No autonomy to look at the bigger picture by the SFO team means no eyes on the actions or behaviour of the decision makers. “ if you don’t ask the right questions you don’t get the right answers. A question asked in the right way often points to its own answer. Asking questions is the ABC of diagnosis only the inquiring mind solves problems” ( E Hodnett)

      Delete
  6. You should write to Jim about the experience it would make for a interesting blog and probably scare the life out of the POs we haven’t experienced this but worry about the process

    ReplyDelete
  7. An MoJ spokesman said: "Serious further offences are rare..."

    Erm, fraid not, lying-through-your-teeth MoJ spokesman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to the 2020 thematic inspection of SFOs by HMIP, 0.2% of our caseload are charged with an SFO. If that's not rare what is?

      Delete
    2. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/843382/Serious_Further_Offences_-Bulletin.pdf

      "Since 1 December 2008, an SFO review will be triggered when an offender is charged with an offence listed in Schedule 15a to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, alleged to have been committed within the probation supervision period or within 28 working days of the supervision period terminating."

      "Users should refer to the ‘2012 Compendium of Reoffending Statistics and Analysis’ for further definitions of the terms used in this annex, and for commentary to help interpret these."

      https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis

      "There are three issues with this data: first, the significant under-reporting which occurred prior to April 2006; second, the method of counting SFOs changed on 1 April 2006 and then again on 1 December 2008"

      https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1113507/Serious_Further_Offences_bulletin_2022_-_Final.pdf

      Its fair to say there *has* been a steady increase in concern, especially post-TR, if we look at the numbers of Notifications Received (didn't find data for 11/12 & 12/13 at time of writing):

      2009/10 = 266
      2010/11 = 206
      ...
      2013/14 = 418?
      2014/15 = 477
      2015/16 = 559
      2016/17 = 685
      2017/18 - 680
      2018/19 = just shy of 600
      2019/20 = about 540
      2020/21 = about 500
      2021/22 = 529

      https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1036084/annex-a-sfo-qualifying-offence-list.pdf

      There is also Annex A in the 2012 compendium which lists the Home Office codes for all SFO-eligible offences post-1 Dec 2008.

      Delete
    3. It's worth noting that TR involved a significant expansion of the number of cases supervised as from 2015, ORA meant that people who received custody of under 12 months were now supervised by probation and previously they weren't. The more people we supervise, the more SFOs there will be. 0.2% of a bigger caseload will mean a higher number of SFOs.

      Delete
  8. https://amp-lbc-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.lbc.co.uk/news/labour-calls-investigation-claims-probation-staff-pressured/?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_ct=1675327614411&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16753276095185&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Flabour-calls-investigation-claims-probation-staff-pressured%2F

    ReplyDelete
  9. From Daily Mirror 2/1/23:-

    Labour has demanded an investigation into claims that probation staff are “pressured” into lowering the risk of dangerous offenders.

    It comes after a whistleblower this week claimed probation officers are under “organisational pressure” to allocate lower risk ratings to offenders.

    The anonymous source told Channel 4 News: “The more complex and riskier cases, the more resources allocated to it.

    “There is some organisational pressure to lower the risk rating because you can pass more cases on to a person if they are less resource heavy.”

    A murder is carried out every week by an offender on probation, according to Labour analysis of official figures.

    The party is now calling on Justice Secretary Dominic Raab to launch an independent investigation led by the Chief Inspector of Probation Justice Russell into the claims.

    Shadow Justice Secretary Steve Reed said: “The Government stands accused of letting murderers and rapists loose on our streets without the necessary supervision. This is a clear threat to public safety causing great alarm given the high number of murders being committed by offenders on probation.

    “The Government must launch an investigation into these allegations urgently. If under this Conservative Government dangerous prisoners' risk levels are being downgraded on release, they are responsible for increasing danger to the public.

    “Labour is the party of law and order. We will get a grip of the failing probation service and end this outrageous practice that puts public safety at risk in the most alarming way imaginable.”

    A Ministry of Justice Spokesman said: “There is no pressure to lower risk ratings. Probation officers use clear frameworks and risk assessment tools alongside their professional judgement to assess and allocate cases.”

    However last week Mr Russell said he cannot guarantee the public is being properly protected without urgent Government action to reverse cuts.

    He was speaking after his report slammed failings that left a sex predator free to kill Zara Aleena.

    Keir Starmer told Rishi Sunak the probation service is "on its knees" after the report found probation staff missed a “catalogue of chances” to stop a man with a history of violence murdering the 35-year-old law graduate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://www.burytimes.co.uk/news/23289930.james-frith-the-tories-failed-every-level-keep-us-safe/

      Delete
    2. I've just been informed by my director that budgets will be cut next year despite all the publicity and political posturing!

      Delete
    3. But there are also strange practices of leaving offenders assessed as high risk for the entire sentence while others are reduced to low risk because they turn up and liked by their probation officers.

      Delete
  10. I can recall on more than one occasion being asked to explore if high risk cases I managed could be lowered, said in a way that put pressure to do so. Same with all my colleagues in the division at the time. I even said that I wanted noted I didn’t agree with this method of reducing risk. I’m pretty sure that this has been a regular occurrence over the years.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Just sent this to NAPO. I don’t expect anything back, but enjoyed the vent.

    I wanted to write to you, my union, to express my utter frustration, anger and huge regret at the state of the probation service and the terrible impact on victims of the inevitable SFOs that are starting to come to the public’s attention.

    May I ask what is your strategy for moving forward to really engage employers to move to improve the experience of operational staff and stop the misery?

    From my perspective the response by the MOJ to recent events looks like “same old”. In my 30 years of working in the service I fear what is coming down the line is another political sticking plaster on a weeping wound.
    “If we make them look over here, no one will notice that nothing has actually changed” more victims and more frontline careers in tatters.

    I am begging the Union to push back on any proposed “MOJ solutions” that equate to bolt ons in the maelstrom of probation data bases. There are no answers there to the problems we are facing.

    History tells us that is where they will go hunting. It therefore raises the question do we really need additions to ever lengthening drop down lists and yet more questions in oasys? All that appears to do is spew out stats and keep operational staff on the task of recording, not necessarily doing. The employers actually need to interrogate data bases and recording tools. Strip out time wasting tasks, endless inputting and inputting.

    We need time for one to one contact with those we supervise and meaningful multi agency working in the local area and the communities we live and work. Activities that actually aid monitoring, control and skilling up offenders.

    If yet again, operational staff are instructed to do more IT tasks I would encourage NAPO to tell it’s members not to engage. Instead ask the employer what their contingency plan is as the main plan could well fail.

    Also with spending cuts coming down the line again, perhaps NAPO could encourage the service to consider moving “experienced” seconded staff back into operational posts for a time to help stabilise the relentless failings of the service? Invest in the front line, start getting the basics right again and stop the ridiculousness of the facade that all is going so well we can afford to have significant numbers of qualified staff seconded into non operational roles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Napo will take some irritation you asking them to indicate any strategy. They have no intention to challenge. They know who you are though and I suspect they will be dropping your name in someone's ear publishing here. Napo cannot be trusted.

      Delete
    2. That would be a sad reflection on our union to not be in dialogue with a member reaching out to them. Let’s see, perhaps my subscription can be put to good use elsewhere.

      Delete
  12. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/jun/10/probation-service-interviews

    Found these old gems of wisdom as I was browsing probation cuts.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I gather HMPPS is revising the WMT, I wonder if it will increase the weighting on any cases (he said sarcastically)

    ReplyDelete
  14. I note that yesterday saw the publication of an updated probation workforce strategy.

    https://touch.policeoracle.com/news/article.cfm?id=110499

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Boy you are on the ball 'Getafix! Yes we'll quite likely be covering that tomorrow. :)

      Delete