Despite the best efforts of its new owner, Twitter is still an important and useful medium for garnering information and spreading news. Yesterday I became aware of this legal development regarding Raab's attempt at controlling the work of the Parole Board by refusing to allow probation officers and other experts to provide recommendations. As the authors make clear:-
"The message should now go out, loud and clear, to probation officers and others: any suggestion you were not permitted to provide recommendations when asked in Parole Board directions for reports or questions in a hearing is and was wholly wrong."
Secretary of state admits parole board may ask for views or recommendations at oral hearings
Fri, 03 Mar 2023In proceedings before the Divisional Court on 1 and 2 March 2023, at which the Claimants were represented by No5 barristers, Philip Rule leading Michael Bimmler, the Secretary of State for Justice has admitted that a Parole Board Rules change (and associated guidance) issued in the Summer of last year does not:
(1) prevent addenda reports providing recommendations or views on suitability for the release of the prisoner; nor
(2) prevent questions being answered at an oral hearing by which the probation officer, psychologist or psychiatrist may be asked and may give their opinion.
This admission of the effect (as the Secretary of State for Justice now confirms his interpretation is) of the rules and associated guidance may come as something of a surprise to practitioners and professionals, but now represents the maximum possible interference with the Board’s functioning as an independent court, and of the witnesses to do their legal duty to answer directions and questions of a judicial body such as the Board.
Whether even that narrow prohibition has effect awaits the actual judgment of the Court, but the above concession plainly has immediate importance for the panels of the Board, the parolees, legal representatives, and the witnesses themselves. The message is: witnesses can be asked to provide reports with views or recommendations, and can be asked questions of that nature, and if they have such evidence to give then they should provide it under their duty to do so.
The Secretary of State’s counsel advanced no submission that the original guidance had been lawful (through suggested its replacement, having only the limited effect above on the reading the Secretary of State now advances, could be lawful).
The message should now go out, loud and clear, to probation officers and others: any suggestion you were not permitted to provide recommendations when asked in Parole Board directions for reports or questions in a hearing is and was wholly wrong.
The Divisional Court’s judgment is awaited as to whether there is any lawfulness to the rule 2(22) amendment provision that the SSJ says does prohibit views or recommendations in the very initial dossier report which is provided under the Schedule to the Parole Board Rules, but does not prohibit anything else. The Claimants have identified why, on their case, even that construction of the rule does not render it lawful either.
This important development comes many months after a judgment on 9 August 2022 (R (Bailey) v SSJ [2022] EWHC 2125 (Admin)) by which the Administrative Court granted interim relief to ensure that the Parole Board hearing a review of the continued need or otherwise for detention of an individual would receive the evidence it chose to. More details are available at:
https://www.lawnews.co.uk/legal-news/high-court-disapplies-justice-secretarys-new-parole-hearing-guidance-for-first-time/
https://www.no5.com/media/news/high-court-protects-right-of-parole-board-to-obtain-evidence-unhindered-by-secretary-of-state/
In the related claimants’ case before this same Divisional Court (Mr Morris) the Secretary of State agreed not to apply his guidance to the parole hearing (though he had at that time – before adopting his present construction argument for the rule – prevented the additional reports from including the recommendations ahead of that oral evidence).
The case follows the Secretary of State for Justice introducing changes to the Parole Board Rules in July 2022 (by statutory instrument S.I. 2022/717) without prior consultation by which it appeared the aim was to prevent the expert report writers from providing their recommendations – positive or negative – to the judicial body which has hitherto received their evaluations of progress made and manageability of risk on licence. (Read more about the rule change here)
Beyond the rules a detailed guidance was delivered that sought to instruct witnesses as to what they could or could not say at a hearing, and which was accompanied by 15 training sessions run to ensure probation officers and psychologists were told what they should be saying in evidence and what the Secretary of State wished to prevent them from answering.
That now falls away given the argument made by the Secretary of State in this case at the final hearing and in his skeleton argument.
Messrs Rule and Bimmler are instructed by Instalaw Solicitors.
Barristers stretching the truth as usual. Their goal is to get the best deal for their client not necessarily what is right. I prefer not providing recommendations. My last few parole hearings have been much easier. No more sitting there all day on time I don’t have bullied by legal reps and parole chairs for not recommending release. No more prison officers and prisoners phoning me up pressuring me to recommend release. Now when it goes wrong and there’s an SFO probation “leaders” can’t blame me if I didn’t recommend release.
ReplyDeleteI wish Probation staff would stop having a go at legal representatives. They are doing an important job of holding professionals to account. My advice to new staff has always been to prepare to be challenged. In one case a PO gave evidence on oath for over 8 hours as her argument was opened to scrutiny by the prisoners brief. Many colleagues took the view that this was wrong and an abuse of the system. I thought this argument was bogus as the PO pushed back and maintained her position. She prepared diligently and knew her stuff. Why should a PO rock up and expect an easy ride. As professionals we should anticipate and prepare.
Delete“In one case a PO gave evidence on oath for over 8 hours”
DeleteNo evidence should take 8 hours. Not something to gloat about either.
I wasn’t gloating I was merely pointing out that professionals should not expect a free ride when they are effectively (I appreciate the no recommendation malarkey may change things) deciding on a persons liberty. Should I ever need legal representation I would hope that they rip into any evidence and undermine a professional opinion if it fails to stand up to scrutiny. It’s what I would call doing their job.
Delete“I would hope that they rip into any evidence and undermine a professional opinion”
DeleteI’m sure you can understand why many that go through this are then happy to no longer have to provide recommendations.
The parole hearing process has always had too much imbalance.
God help us with this breed of Probation Officer above! As if your clients dont know your views anyway or should do if you are working with them honestly and I've never in 39+ yrs in the job across the country either experienced personally or heard of others being "bullied" by legal reps or OH Panel to know why release not recommended. My worst grillings were from the most oafish Crown Court judges but if one can't deal with being quizzed as to your views...are you in the right job??
ReplyDeleteDo not lie. It is well known that many probation officers have had terrible experiences at oral hearings at the hands of legal representatives and parole board panel members.
DeleteProbation whith no responsibility!
DeleteWhat a novel idea.
15:04 more like God help us get rid of your breed of 1980’s Probation Officers and your rose-tinted gloss. Probation is a different place now, high caseloads, blame culture, complaints, low pay, command and control. Nobody wants your “worst grillings” and if our own probation bosses don’t care about Raab’s recommendations then neither do I.
DeleteI prefer Crown Court judges. They’re the better Parole Board panel chairs. Solicitors can be really difficult when you’re not recommending release. Some pitch the prisoners against probation too. If you don’t know then you couldn’t have had much parole hearings in 39+ years.
DeleteDue to nature of my caseload I had over 4 OH each year to attend which I did in person until Covid lockdown when I had to do 3 via phone. I am not lying -I never experienced bullying within an OH- rudeness yes but never bullying. I only retired last year so I know about high caseloads etcetc. The worst situations of bullying I ever came across were staff on staff..managers v staff and colleagues to eachother. What goes on behind the closed doors of client v supervisor sessions is v rarely exposed but one wonders.
DeleteNo5 barristers, Philip Rule leading Michael Bimmler may be loud but certainly not very clear.
ReplyDelete(1) prevent addenda reports providing recommendations or views on suitability for the release of the prisoner; nor
No. This only refers to addendums to parole reports submitted before the removal of recommendations.
(2) prevent questions being answered at an oral hearing by which the probation officer, psychologist or psychiatrist may be asked and may give their opinion.
No. This only refers to parole reports and related addendums submitted before the removal of recommendations.
This admission of the effect (as the Secretary of State for Justice now confirms his interpretation is) of the rules and associated guidance may come as something of a surprise to practitioners and professionals.
No, no surprise. Admission??
The message should now go out, loud and clear, to probation officers and others: any suggestion you were not permitted to provide recommendations when asked in Parole Board directions for reports or questions in a hearing is and was wholly wrong.
No. It may be wrong but not based on this argument.
@15:45 - Please advise where your interpretation of the SoS's comments comes from, i.e. you say the comments only refer to reports submitted *before* the removal of recommendations.
DeleteYour comments fly in the face of a judgement already established, i.e. a judgment on 9 August 2022 (R (Bailey) v SSJ [2022] EWHC 2125 (Admin)) by which the Administrative Court granted interim relief to ensure that the Parole Board hearing a review of the continued need or otherwise for detention of an individual would receive the evidence it chose to.
We both know you are misleading here.
Delete17:28 this has been explained many times but maybe you didn’t attend the briefing or read the section of the briefing guide labelled “frequently asked questions”.
Delete17:28 The Bailey judgement only refers to Bailey’s parole hearing. It is not universal.
Delete"In proceedings before the Divisional Court on 1 and 2 March 2023... the Secretary of State for Justice has admitted that a Parole Board Rules change (and associated guidance) issued in the Summer of last year does not:
Delete(1) prevent addenda reports providing recommendations or views on suitability for the release of the prisoner; nor
(2) prevent questions being answered at an oral hearing by which the probation officer, psychologist or psychiatrist may be asked and may give their opinion."
So please, @15:45, let us all know why you think it only applies to matters from "before the removal of recommendations"?
Its a very important issue, so pray tell where your special insight comes from?
Its neither misleading nor a trick question.
The comments about the Bailey judgement not being universal (above) are correct, viz-the letter sent by MoJ to Peter Dawson, PRT, 1 Sept 2022 - but there was a date set for a full hearing to consider the lawfulness of those changes:
Delete"You will no doubt be aware that on 9 August, the Court considered an application for expedition from Adrian Bailey, who is serving a mandatory life sentence for murder. Mr Bailey asked the Court to find unlawful the change to the Parole Board Rules, which prohibits probation officers (and psychologists employed by HMPPS) from making a recommendation in their reports as to whether the statutory release test is met. Mr Bailey also asked the Court to find unlawful the non-statutory guidance which HMPPS issued to assist witnesses adapt to the change to their role. The Court granted Mr Bailey interim relief in directing that witnesses should not follow the guidance at his oral hearing (on 10 August in his oral hearing). The Court did not make a more general finding with respect to the guidance. No interim relief was given regarding the changes to the Rules. The issue of the lawfulness of the guidance and the Rules will be set down for full hearing at a later date. HMPPS has not withdrawn the guidance and continues to keep the guidance under review and will consider whether changes need to be made to it."
https://prisonreformtrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2022.09.01-Stuart-Andrew-PD-Eligibility-for-open-conditions.pdf
Apologies - link to PRT page in full here:
Deletehttps://prisonreformtrust.org.uk/guidance-parole-reforms-published/
This from greg clark's letter to raab in jan 2023:
Delete"The Second Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Justice, Dr Jo Farrar, confirmed that since 21 June 2022 His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) staff no longer provide views or recommendations in their parole reports on whether prisoners should be released. She told us that the changes were “absolutely not stopping probation officers and psychologists giving really valuable evidence” and instead of giving a recommendation a probation officer or psychologist would be able to say: “Based on evidence, this is the risk that the offender
poses” (Q27). Dr Jo Bailey, Head of Psychology Services Group and Deputy Director, HMPPS, said that recommendations provided by probation officers and psychologists previously were a “bit
reductionist” because reports with “lots of nuances about risk and behaviour ... would come down
to “I recommend that...” "
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/33808/documents/184632/default/
Surely only lazy, stupid or massively overworked people would write shit reports? My reports - PSR, Parole, addendum, whatever was asked for - were always structured around an evidence-based discussion which led to an argument for a particular route that I believed would offer the best outcome.
DeleteIt wasn't a recommendation. It wasn't a guarantee. It wasn't a hard-&-fast 'risk assessment'. It was a considered argument for a considered option.
Data-In-Data-Out, computer-says, 70+ cases, staff absences, incompetents & lunatics running the asylum, no time for reflection or gatekeeping... there's no wonder reports are poor, inappropriate or just downright shit.
“ ...are you in the right job??”
ReplyDeletePathetic response Anon 15:04. I’ve attended countless parole hearings and helped many towards release. Whatever my views on recommendations, I don’t do this job to be grilled and quizzed by oafs.
Oafs???
DeleteWhat a display of conceited petulant self importance.
Anon 15:04 “My worst grillings were from the most oafish Crown Court judges”
DeleteNo wonder the salaries are so low you are paid to have a professional opinion. Otherwise you may as wellpick anyone in public to attend . That Raab wanted to take it away was and is a disgrace
ReplyDeleteNo, probation officers are paid to follow the mandated policies and practices. We can’t provide Parole recommendations but we can provide progress updates, release plans and risk assessments.
DeleteWhat a sad answer.
DeleteRaab made a political decision. Has nothing to do with good practice nor the smooth running of justice. The decision was taken as a means of distancing the government from previous contentious decisions whilst giving the appearance of improved oversight. It was wrong but understandable if you view it through a political lens. These sorts of things will continue to impact on the service as long as it iss so closely tied to central government.
ReplyDeleteIf you’re with probation long enough you see all sorts of funny laws, policies and decisions. I remember when we were banned from proposing suspended sentences in PSR’s, or fines in breach reports. I don’t think Barristers motivations have much to do with “expert and professional opinions” of probation officers. If it did they’d have piped up a few weeks ago when we were being thrown under the bus, hammered by HMIP and creaking because of overwork and underpay. They’re still calling Napo the “National Association of Probation Officers” when it hasn’t been called that for well over a decade.
DeleteHence why the English probation sevice now has one of the poorest reputations in the world . Puppets follow policies that don't actually serve the purpose that are meant for the task.
ReplyDeleteAin't constitutional law wonderful? Is the concept of the separation of powers completely lost on folk in probation? If you give advice to judiciary you must expect to have to justify what you say - this holds for courts and parole hearings - both have judicial functions. You cannot expect to breach someone on a community order and not be prepared to go into court and give evidence, you cannot write a court report and not be prepared to be called to court to justify your conclusions and you certainly should not write a parole report and not expect to be quizzed about the content. These are all the same things; we are members of the executive branch of the state and the job of the judiciary is to hold us to account. Last time I looked we still lived in a liberal democracy and folk don't get sent to prison just because I said so - thank goodness for that too!
ReplyDeleteGiven the flow and tone of conversation on this blog thread, the following article from Inside Time archives might be a good one to throw into the mix.
Deletehttps://insidetime.org/probation-staff-act-more-link-charlatans/
'Getafix
In claiming probation staff “….are way out their depth…”, Sean Dougall (Inside Time June) joins a growing chorus of complaints. As partner of a long-term prisoner, I have first-hand experience when dealing with the irrational and idiosyncratic mentality of probation officers. As for them, to paraphrase what Boswell scathingly said about patriotism, it seems that ‘professional opinion’ is now the last refuge of the charlatan. For increasingly, in the absence of credible evidence, probation officers invoke ‘professional opinion’ as the prime basis of their negative risk assessments. And ‘charlatan’ – someone who pretends to have a special knowledge or ability – is an apt description of probation staff that hide behind ‘professional opinion’, which rapidly withers under critical scrutiny. Yet it’s a claim they cling to like a drowning man clutches straw.
DeleteAlthough many probation officers claim empirical evidence is an acceptable substitute for that fact-based, what such evidence really boils down to is usually nothing more substantial than an ‘impression’ – a feeling in their water that it’s a bad ‘un they’re dealing with. And what is all the more remarkable is the extent to which other decision makers such as parole panels appear willing to accept unquestioned the professional opinion of probation officers. It’s a gullibility readily exploited by some probation staff.
For they know that prisoners attempting to challenge probation reports on grounds of factual inaccuracy or misleading opinions leave themselves open to suspicion. The inherent scepticism and prejudice attached to anything a prisoner says or does acts as a major handicap. For how dare a convicted criminal have the temerity to challenge a probation officer’s ‘professionalism’? this is the same handicap which faced the 137 wrongly convicted lifers’ listed in a recent edition of Inside Time. If probation officers had had their way, these innocent victims of our criminal justice system would have collectively served over 1567 years incarceration before even being considered for release. And if release depended on the ‘professional opinion’ of probation officers, undoubtedly many would today still be languishing in their prison cells when attempting to clear their names.
Why it is that probation staff can so easily invoke professional opinion in their reports without credible supporting evidence whereas professionals in other areas such as criminology, psychiatry, psychology, etc have to state the factual basis of their opinion? And more to the point, why do too many prisoners accept negative probation reports unquestioned? Is it fear that to challenge them will jeopardise their sentence progression (and have risk factors increased as a result)? Or is it because many prisoners’ educational limitations handicap their ability to spot often glaring flaws (especially false premises) in probation reports?
Or could lack of challenge be because there isn’t any effective mechanism for doing so? Although probation officers like to laud their self-ordained professionalism, there is a noticeable absence of independent verification of such when challenged. Yet other professions have disciplinary bodies such as the General Medical Council for doctors or the Health Professions Council for health professionals including psychologists-in-training. Being unqualified they cannot be taken to task by the British Psychological Society’s disciplinary body which deals with wayward chartered psychologists.
And then there’s the ambiguous relationship between Probation Service staff seconded to a prison who work alongside colleagues employed by the Prison Service. The internal complaints process means that prison staff initially handle prisoners’ complaints about prison based probation offers. This they are loathe to do just as much as they hate handling complaints about Prison Service employees, uniformed or otherwise. So more often than not the complaint is rejected. It is then resubmitted at a higher level until eventually all Prison Service routes are exhausted. As a final resort the only one left open is via the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman. Which is precisely the desired outcome sought by Prison Service staff because they have successfully avoided being placed in the invidious position of having to criticise or even discipline their colleagues working within the criminal justice system. (In this respect they are not alone: a quarter of doctors fail to report incompetent colleagues, according to a recent report published by BMJ Quality & Safety.) This is also the coward’s way out and confirms the abysmal inability of Prison Service managers to manage. It seems they are managers in name only but benefit from the enhanced pay grade attached to it.
DeleteEventually the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman gets round to investigating the complaint and more often than not makes a finding favourable to the prisoner. What happens then? Where possible the complaint is rectified although this is of little consolation after a prisoner has possibly lost their enhanced IEP status, deprived of extra visits, lost his prison job or even received a parole ‘knock back’. Sometimes restitution can be made but what of the perpetrator, the person who made the wrong judgement or gave an erroneous professional opinion in the first place? They fail to learn from their mistakes because they effectively avoid being confronted with them.
One of the problems facing prisoners when dealing with probation officers, prison based or not, is not actually knowing what exactly is their function and/or responsibility. There’s still a belief that it harks back to their previous role of befriending and helping. Nowadays it seems to be anything but this, judging by the number of obstacles placed in prisoners’ way. And the extent to which it is abused has resulted in legislation restricting a return to prison simply for relatively minor breaches of probation conditions.
As for probation officers themselves, some claim to be absolute arbiters of everything relating to a prisoner’s sentence progression. For if a psychological report clashes with a pre-conceived notion that an offending behaviour course be undertaken in prison instead of when paroled, the probation officer will attempt to claim supremacy of knowledge based on their professional opinion. It seems a psychologist’s report is acceptable only if it agrees with a probation officer’s pre-conceived views. Arrogance or what? I know who I would put my money on if ever it’s a toss-up between a fact-based psychology report and one which only professional opinion to substantiate it.
There was an instance recently at Whatton prison when a seconded probation officer squabbled about a psychologist’s report which recommended an escorted town visit for a prisoner. For it was claimed this recommendation is the prerogative of a probation officer and that the psychologist overstepped her role. But such key reports are also expected to make recommendations (or otherwise) for a prisoner’s progressive move, even including release. So why object to a psychologist’s recommendation for a town visit? By treating it as something within the ‘gift’ of a probation officer highlights one of the grey areas of their responsibility and the extent to which it can/is abused. It’s a ‘gift’ often used when rewarding a prisoner for toeing the line, especially when accepting a probation officer’s professional opinion unquestioned.
Presently, while other professionals have disciplinary bodies, there seems there is no effective mechanism for penalising wayward probation officers. For when did you last hear of one being disciplined for incompetence or abuse of authority? If it happens then it is one of the better kept secrets within the Probation Service. I have only heard of one instance when a prison based probation officer, so incompetent that finally No 1 governor – fed up with numerous complaints from prisoners’ solicitors – in despair resorted to locking this person out of the prison. He simply refused to issue her with keys to get around the place.
DeleteBut in the process of challenging so called professional opinion the argument shifts to one of controlling relationships. For the presumption is that a probation officer has the final say in how a prisoner progresses through his/her sentence. Therefore any not prepared to accept ‘professional opinion’ unquestioned risks undermining this control, thus upsetting the balance of power as well as prospects for release. But this power struggle risks losing sight of a probation officer’s prime objective – a prisoner’s rehabilitation. It’s an objective often paid scant regard. Overlooked in this struggle is the nature of the protagonists. For despite being labelled ‘probation officer’ and ‘prisoner’, respectively, they are human beings with all the strengths and frailties unique to such creatures.
No machine will ever be able to replicate their individual characteristics, their moods and especially their prejudices. And as much as it is for prisoners, it is the human dimension which accounts for probation officers’ failings. Admittedly, attempts have been made to depersonalise aspects of their otherwise subjective assessment, such as when using metric quantification of risk, typically that applied in an OASys. But when unable to utilise such quantitative tools and in the absence of credible evidence this when ‘professional opinion’ rears its ugly head.
From a prisoner’s perspective the uncritical acceptance by people reliant on professional opinion is all the more worrying. If unfounded it means subsequent decisions based on them are tainted. And this is more likely to happen when unchallenged by those with a vested interest in the criminal justice system such as line managers as well as the Parole Board. For who amongst them risks upsetting the apple cart? There is only one person with such an incentive and it’s the prisoner. It’s then they place themselves in the position of the little boy who said the Emperor wasn’t wearing any clothing. But everyone had convinced everyone else the Emperor was robed in the finest clothing in the land.
Hans Christian Anderson uniquely and amusingly demolished the fallacy of unquestioned and uncritical acceptance of an otherwise totally implausible concept. It’s a children’s tale which also effectively challenges the fallacy that a probation officer’s professional opinion be accepted unquestioned. For all too often it rapidly withers under critical scrutiny. It’s ironic that those people most entrusted to uphold the law act as though they are above it when airing ‘professional opinion’ which isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, thus confirming that ‘charlatan’ is an apt description of someone who pretends to have a special knowledge or ability.
Not an isolated story JB . I recall the older times when a newly over confident 30s year old woman started in the jail. It was early start and the incoming shift generally 930 stood in the lobby waiting for keys to be issues from the number boxes on the rack. 20 plus officers all 6 ft ish blocking her out and catching passing sharing the keys called out. My 2 other male po colleagues got by in the jail by not ruffling the screws with all that equality noise so they got keys straight away and no espousing. In that she was always accommodated a lost key and always last. They took ages to find and always last. Everyday jumping up here here there where my key and all that fuss. She never learned how deliberate the screws were in their distain of her attitudes. It will be called woke today. The same as equality only really means something else like a specific group and not everyone. Similarly minority staff cannot bully or oppress the rest of us. It's all in need of a rewrite.
DeleteCan you elaborate on this?
Delete“The same as equality only really means something else like a specific group and not everyone. Similarly minority staff cannot bully or oppress the rest of us.”
The article published above should be required reading by every probation officer. It raises the thorny question of our evidence base. I have always struggled with this notion, but I fear that as the training deteriorates this is likely to become more of a concern. As psychologists found, and tried to ignore, a significant number of previously accepted principles were undermined as researches failed to replicate earlier findings. On one level this didn’t surprise me as it’s hard to control variables when dealing with that thing we call the human experience. What it does call into question is the extent to which we can rely on previous research to justify a professional opinion. Which begs the question what evidence can the probation service rely on to justify its work and the decisions we make?
DeleteI hope I'm wrong but 17:16's account reads like an endorsement of institutionalised bullying and sexism. I'd rather have woke colleagues than those two male POs who simply "got by" and let this carry on.
DeleteAnd can you please expand on what you mean by woke ?
DeleteThe last time I made a professional decision was when oasys said I could .
DeleteIs there any chance someone can post a missive or “leaders” diatribe from the esteemed Kilvinder Vigurs? The last one I read had me in hysterics and was easily the funniest post I had read for ages. It’s her tortured relationship to language and grammar that gets me chuckling.
ReplyDeleteAnon 19:02 I was in two minds whether to publish this or not because to be frank many will think it offensive including myself. I have no problem publishing something authored by senior management that might be regarded as bullying, patronising, tone deaf or similar, but not for mangling the English language, not least because it's quite common around here.
DeleteI think rewrite comment was making it as clear as mud but I got the gist. Not to mention the gleeful misogyny from prison. I think
DeleteThat Article contains things which indicates the writer has not checked their facts fully. ( and that’s me being diplomatic)
DeleteBullying? Coercive control? never!!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64870505
"Matt Hancock supported threatening to block a disability centre in a Tory MP's constituency in a bid to get him to vote for the Covid tier system"
These messages are exposing the lying thieving cheating charlatans for what they are... no wonder such behaviour is tolerated in probation. Its modelled by government ministers & the echo-chamber of the civil service merely carries on the tradition down-the-line.
Probation'destroying itself with attitudes like these and the s.mart arses can't even see it, no wonder no-one wants to work for us
ReplyDeleteProbation destroying itself with pointless tasks, erosion of terms and conditions, poor management and poor pay.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder nobody wants to work for us.
From the Daily Heil:
ReplyDelete"Justice Secretary Dominic Raab is expected to provide a recommendation to parole chiefs to keep Venables behind bars, citing an ongoing threat to the community.
But a hearing would also consider advice from prison chiefs, victim impact statements from James's parents and other factors.
Venables' legal team will be hoping to move quickly on any future parole hearings as Mr Raab looks to pass his Victims Bill through Parliament by Easter.
The Bill would allow ministers to block a criminal's release from prison with a 'two strikes and you're in' policy.
It would mean anyone who commits a serious offence while already on parole would never be released.
Additionally, ex-cops would be placed on parole board panels in an attempt to introduce a more 'precautionary approach'."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11794071/James-Bulgers-killer-Jon-Venables-parole-hearing-month.html
Omg not enough police already on everything already now to get cushy jobs after work on extra pay saying no to release like they have 6th sense come on who's fooling who. It's about time parole was truly independent impartial . No police. No police no ex Noddy Bobby. No police ffs.
DeleteThere is too much police involved with probation as it’s is. We have far too much police involvement at MAPPA, IOM, Sex Offenders, we don’t need them at parole hearings too.
Deletehttps://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmjust/932/report.html
ReplyDeletelinks to justice committee's pre-legislative scrutiny
What the hell is happening in London Probation? Can't get them to accept transfers for life nor money. Bloody ridiculous and dangerous! Got people with very serious conviction roaming the streets who isn't being seen because they are shirt staffed apparently! Sorry government this is nit good enough. All I can do is keep calling him and supervision over the phone. Or are we going back to the days of surfs? When the poor had to have permission of their master to leave the County! It's a bloody joke. How am I supposed to protect the public? Something needs to be done as this sitis just deteriorating day by day.
ReplyDelete“How am I supposed to protect the public?”
DeleteDo you honestly believe an appointment at a shite London probation office achieves your so-called public protection?
"How am I supposed to protect the public?"
DeleteFollow raab's teachings - breach, recall or otherwise imprison every one of your caseload at every opportunity.
Public is now protected & caseload is reduced.
Slight change of direction, but still along the lines of power & privilege & certainly relevant to the work of probation staff:
ReplyDeletetweet link here:
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1634152174325301251
Journalist commenting on BBC Question Time moment:
"This is genuinely the most revolting thing I’ve seen on the bbc for a while. Alibhai Brown raises Stanley Johnson assaulting his wife (he broke her nose) & Fiona Bruce cites his friends saying it was a ‘one off’. "
Clearly Fiona Bruce is following the BBC's impartial tory-friendly guidelines, as opposed to that evil Leninist child-snatcher Lineker.
DeleteInteresting article again from Inside Time, that reports that the MoJ are to set up a special supervisory panel to oversee IPP sentenced prisoners.
ReplyDeleteWithin the report it specifically references probation officers for 'special training' in relation to supervising IPP prisoners.
I'm just wondering if that 'special training' will be universal, or targeted at specific officers identified to specifically deal with IPP prisoners?
I wonder too if the thinking behind this approach might inevitably bring change to probation delivery and bring a split between those identified as requiring a more holistic support approach upon release and those identified as requiring a more formally supervision and enforcement approach?
https://insidetime.org/special-supervisory-board-will-oversee-ipp-prisoners/
'Getafix
Teachers will receive a 7% pay rise backdated to last April, a further 5% next month and 2% in January.
ReplyDeleteThis is what happens when you have some balls
Just don’t....... still angry that pay deal voted through
DeleteTeachers, RMT, NHS, fire brigade, ambulance, even the bloody Scottish bin men. They’re all getting decent pay rises because they held out supported by decent unions. Not like probation and our crappy unions that got us a measly pay deal, 3% of nothing.
Delete:@19:06 you should have voted against it and encouraged others to do so
DeleteIt’s not the union it’s the membership it as no mandate to strike that’s why these daft new staff aren’t even members
ReplyDeleteNapo and unison could not get anything together as they represent different groups differently. Neither has a majority of members to own a representative position and there is no collective bargaining agreement or terms since they were agreed away by Napo officials and ex staff. Napo subs pay their wages that's it anything else is a charade .
DeleteHuzzah!!!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-sfo-drops-prosecution-three-former-g4s-executives-2023-03-10/
The collapse of Britain's Serious Fraud Office's prosecution of three former executives at security company G4S on Friday raises serious questions about the agency's resources and criminal disclosure rules, lawyers and campaigners said.
Three ex-employees of G4S subsidiary G4S Care and Justice Services were formally acquitted at London's Old Bailey of seven charges for allegedly defrauding the British government between 2009 and 2012 over an electronic tagging contract.
The Serious Fraud Office's (SFO) lawyer Crispin Aylett told Judge Jeremy Johnson: "While the prosecution considers that there remains a realistic prospect of a conviction against each defendant, we have come to the conclusion that it is no longer in the public interest to proceed with this case."
Two former directors of Britain's biggest retailer Tesco (TSCO.L) were acquitted of fraud and false accounting in 2018, less than two years after Tesco paid a 129 million pound ($154.57 million) fine.
In 2019, a division of Serco (SRP.L) – one of Britain's largest government contractors – agreed to pay a 19.2 million pound fine to draw a line under a long-running scandal over how it billed for electronic tagging contracts.
The prosecution of two former Serco executives was thrown out of court in 2021, also in relation to the SFO’s failure to disclose certain documents to the defence.
With G4S Care and Justice Services, the SFO reached a DPA – a time-limited agreement not to prosecute a company in exchange for a financial penalty and remedial action – in 2020, under which the company agreed to pay a fine of 38.5 million pounds ($46.1 million).
Rules for the rich (& friends of the rich) & rules for everyone else...
https://www.cps.gov.uk/mersey-cheshire/news/mother-four-sentenced-ps100k-benefit-fraud
A mother of four who fraudulently claimed almost £100,000 in benefits has been sentenced.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said that Claire Finney, 41, claimed benefits on the basis that she was living alone in properties in Salford and Eccles between April 2014 and July 2019 and raising her four children as a single parent.
In fact she was living with her husband, Joseph Perry, who was working and supporting her and the children. As a result she was overpaid Tax Credits, Income Support, Housing Benefit and Universal Credit by a total of £97,028.24.
Today, 23 November 2021, at Manchester Crown Court, she was given a 12-month jail term, suspended for two years. She has begun repaying in instalments the amounts she fraudulently claimed.
https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/decent-mum-jailed-benefit-fraud-4196815
A mum-of-two who failed to notify the state that her partner had moved in with her and claimed over £20,000 in benefits has been jailed.
Angela Prendergast, 49, made a genuine claim in 2011 for working and child tax benefits as a single parent with little income. Prosecuting barrister Michele Stuart-Lofthouse told the court that Prendergast believed she could continue to claim tax credits as her partner was only living at her property part-time.
“She and her partner do not have a great deal of money. What that money enabled her to do was pay forward some debts. She doesn’t smoke, she doesn’t drink, they don’t go on holidays and she doesn’t buy expensive clothes."
Judge: "I have to say to you that these offences are taken extremely seriously. It is often thought this is a victimless crime but it is not. Every taxpayer who pays their taxes and behaves lawfully is a victim of offending like this, particularly in the current climate. There has to be an immediate sentence of imprisonment to punish you and to send a message that this behaviour cannot be tolerated."
“Crappy unions” 19:06 or due to a largely non unionised workforce? Discuss…..
ReplyDeleteChicken and egg. If Napo was an actual ‘National Association of Probation Officers’ rather than a damp squib of a largely useless union I’m sure the probation service would be much more ‘unionised’.
Delete1956 you discuss it . This is not a lecture room with those boring half sarcastic clever but not clever old teachers line. Boring. Napo is not a real union and although it has called strike under old process and capable leadership not the current chancer loser. The real issue for me is there is no real understanding or information in campaigns no substance no union view either from a probation professional position or a national union collective. Napo is not affiliated to anything. Napo is a very quiet voice if hardly ever a whisper and has not had a stick since Lawrence got in. He is napos Boris Johnson useless in your face difficult to get rid ambition beyond talent prepared to blister through and we let him. Napo is so weakens by the control group we are effectively non unionised . We all need to just join unison or pcs. Then move our I tweets forward under a larger stronger collective.
Delete“Protect the public” Anon 07:37. Is it patronising (or just plain rude) to probation clients to refer to contact with them as ‘protecting the public’ rather than help and rehabilitation?
ReplyDelete