Irrespective of 'Operation Safeguard' having been triggered and now operating in certain police areas, it's rapidly sunk in that even all 400 police cells aren't going to touch the surface of the impending crisis of prison capacity. It's generally regarded as safe and expedient to operate with headroom of around 1,800, but that has evaporated with talk of it being as low as 425.
I'm getting news from a number of sources that a whole flock of chickens are coming home to roost for Dominic Raab at HMPPS and MoJ HQ. Due to his messianic desire to seek public approval for locking up more people for longer and not letting people either progress to open conditions or gain parole, HM Prisons are basically now full and there is an emergency plan being hatched for the rapid re-categorisation, ROTL or release on HDC of as many people as possible.
So, an urgent call is due to go out to get as many suitably-qualified probation staff re-deployed immediately to crisis manage the task and urgently assist HM Prison Service with mass OASys re-jigging. This of course would somewhat make a mockery of all the 'protecting the public' rhetoric if the criteria are just 'adjusted' in order to make the prison population fit the space available. We have all been made aware that tragic consequences can flow from risk being adjusted to suit operational need.
Emergency re-deploying a rumoured 5% of staff will also have a knock-on effect in terms of other work not being able to be undertaken. It will add yet more stress to an already struggling and under-staffed Probation Service with all the inherent effects that inevitably flow. There is very serious concern that should not enough volunteers be forthcoming, staff will be directed.
--oo00oo--
This from InsideTime on 7th March regarding Operation Safeguard:-
Operation Safeguard extends across the country
Emergency measures to hold prisoners in police cells when jails are full are being extended this week, the Government has announced.
Prisons Minister Damian Hinds told the House of Commons last week that Operation Safeguard will come into use throughout England and Wales from Monday, March 6. The move follows a surge in the prison population, which has risen by 1,700 since the start of January.
Police forces nationwide have been asked to set aside 400 police cells to hold prisoners on a short-term basis. On February 20, the cells began to be used in three police regions – North-East, North-West and Central. During the first week of the operation, 83 prisoners were held in this way. It is thought that most were remand prisoners, detained for only one night ahead of a court appearance.
Operation Safeguard was last used in 2008 under the then-Labour government. Today’s Conservative Government has pledged to build 20,000 prison places at a cost of £3.75 billion, to cope with a forecast growth in the prison population from the current level of 83,800 to an estimated 94,400 by March 2025. However, three proposed new jails are still awaiting planning permission, while prison governors are warning against any move to squeeze more prisoners into already-crowded existing jails.
Hinds told the House of Commons on February 28: “On Monday 20 February, the first Operation Safeguard places became available for use in the North-East, North-West and in the Central Police regions. As of Friday 24 February, 83 prisoners have been held in Operation Safeguard places in police stations in the North-East, North-West and in the Central Police regions and have since been moved into prison. On Monday 20 February, HMPPS gave the Police the required 14 days’ notice to activate Operation Safeguard in remaining regions (for use from Monday 6 March).
“HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) has engaged with the National Police Chiefs Council and relevant forces frequently on Operation Safeguard, and before police cells were used to house prisoners HMPPS issued clear operational guidance to staff and partners, and remain in regular contact.”
Emergency measures to hold prisoners in police cells when jails are full are being extended this week, the Government has announced.
Prisons Minister Damian Hinds told the House of Commons last week that Operation Safeguard will come into use throughout England and Wales from Monday, March 6. The move follows a surge in the prison population, which has risen by 1,700 since the start of January.
Police forces nationwide have been asked to set aside 400 police cells to hold prisoners on a short-term basis. On February 20, the cells began to be used in three police regions – North-East, North-West and Central. During the first week of the operation, 83 prisoners were held in this way. It is thought that most were remand prisoners, detained for only one night ahead of a court appearance.
Operation Safeguard was last used in 2008 under the then-Labour government. Today’s Conservative Government has pledged to build 20,000 prison places at a cost of £3.75 billion, to cope with a forecast growth in the prison population from the current level of 83,800 to an estimated 94,400 by March 2025. However, three proposed new jails are still awaiting planning permission, while prison governors are warning against any move to squeeze more prisoners into already-crowded existing jails.
Hinds told the House of Commons on February 28: “On Monday 20 February, the first Operation Safeguard places became available for use in the North-East, North-West and in the Central Police regions. As of Friday 24 February, 83 prisoners have been held in Operation Safeguard places in police stations in the North-East, North-West and in the Central Police regions and have since been moved into prison. On Monday 20 February, HMPPS gave the Police the required 14 days’ notice to activate Operation Safeguard in remaining regions (for use from Monday 6 March).
“HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) has engaged with the National Police Chiefs Council and relevant forces frequently on Operation Safeguard, and before police cells were used to house prisoners HMPPS issued clear operational guidance to staff and partners, and remain in regular contact.”
--oo00oo--
On the same day Bob Neill MP sought clarification from Raab regarding his Parole Board meddling:-
Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
By email only 7 March 2023
Dear Dominic,
Thank you for your letter of 30 January following up your evidence to us in November. The Committee recently took evidence from the Prison Reform Trust (PRT) during which moves to open conditions for prisoners serving life or IPP sentences was discussed. I am writing to seek clarification and further information. In your letter of 30 January you stated that:
In 2022-23 the Parole Board has made 261 recommendations for moves to open conditions, 13 of which have been accepted, with 218 awaiting a final decision, by Ministers (or an official with delegated responsibility).
However, in a response to an FOI request made by the PRT, dated ten days earlier, 20 January 2023, the MoJ said:
Between 140 recommendations for transfer to open conditions were considered by the Secretary of State (or his officials) between 6 June 2022 and 30 November 2022, with 109 rejected under the policy in place to 6 June 2022, and 17 rejected under the new policy introduced by the Deputy Prime Minister on 6 June 2022.
14 recommendations for transfer were accepted under the policy in place to 6 June 2022 with none accepted under the new policy between 6 June 2022 and 30 November 2022, though recommendations made under the new test have been considered since that date.
I would be grateful if you could set out the reasons for the different figures in the two responses.
I would also be grateful if you could set out:
• How many spaces there were in the open estate, and how many of these were vacant (a) in the most recent period for which information is available, and (b) as at the start of 2022;
• How many people serving a life or IPP sentence have committed a serious offence while absconding from an open setting in each of the last three years;
• How many of the decisions taken in 2022-23 to date on whether to accept Parole Board recommendations for moves to open conditions have been made (a) directly by Ministers and (b) by officials, and which posts those officials hold.
I would be grateful for a response by 23 March.
Yours sincerely,
Sir Robert Neill MP
Chair Justice Committee
--oo00oo--
It's worth noting that such is the panic at MoJ HQ, Magistrates were quietly stripped of their increased sentencing powers yesterday. This from the Guardian:-
Magistrates ‘incredibly disappointed’ as sentencing powers scaled back
Powers had been doubled less than a year ago to tackle backlog in courts and cut prison overcrowding.
Sentencing powers for magistrates have been scaled back less than a year after they were doubled in an effort to tackle the courts backlog.
In May, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) announced magistrates in England and Wales would be able to hand out jail sentences of up to a year for a single offence – up from the previous maximum of six months – as part of efforts to deal with the number of criminal cases waiting to be heard. But on Friday the government department confirmed the plan would be paused. Although it said the measures could be brought back in future if needed.
The Magistrates Association said it was “incredibly disappointed” at the decision – which it said was after efforts to cut prison overcrowding – and warned it would “slow down justice”.
The Criminal Bar Association (CBA), which represents barristers, previously criticised the plan and said it could increase the risk of people being jailed for short sentences, piling further pressure on prisons.
Last week, it emerged criminals could be spared jail to avoid adding strain on prisons that are almost full. Senior judges reportedly ruled courts should take into account overcrowding in prisons when deciding whether to jail criminals. It comes after the government announced plans – known as Operation Safeguard – to hold some prisoners in the north of England in police cells to try to cut “acute and sudden” overcrowding in jails.
The Magistrates Association said:
“The extension of magistrates’ sentencing powers from six to 12 months is something we had long campaigned for as a vital means of ensuring speedier justice for all. It was succeeding – delivering faster results for victims, witnesses and defendants. This new statutory instrument is likely to slow down justice. It highlights the importance of a well-resourced justice system that can cope with the volume of cases considered by the courts. We have been assured that the pause is temporary, and we will be urging the government to restore magistrates’ extended powers as soon as possible. To not do so would further erode magistrates’ already low morale and may well result in resignations at a time when the government is actively seeking to boost the number of sitting magistrates. We await confirmation of a date for a formal review of the statutory instrument.”
An MoJ spokesperson said:
An MoJ spokesperson said:
“We thank the magistrates for all their hard work to help us bring down the backlog following the pandemic and ensure victims get the justice they deserve. Increasing their sentencing powers was one of many measures introduced to help address the impact of the pandemic on the criminal justice system, but we have always retained the flexibility for this to be changed as needed. We continue to make sure those who commit the most serious offences are put behind bars for longer.”
--oo00oo--
Finally, as mentioned above, the Judiciary have started taking the prison overcrowding situation into account as outlined in the following recent Judgment:-
18. A further exceptional factor arises from the fact that the appellant was sentenced at a time of very high prison population. On 30 November 2022 the Minister of State made a statement in Parliament announcing Operation Safeguard. The Government thereby requested the use of 400 police cells to hold people who were remanded in custody or serving prison sentences in the adult male prisons. He explained that this was because "a surge in offenders is coming through the criminal justice system, placing capacity pressure on adult male prisons in particular." On 5 December 2022 Parliament was informed that it was not possible to estimate the duration of the protocol.
20. On 24 February 2023 the Deputy Prime Minister wrote to the Lord Chief Justice saying:-
23. Accordingly, we quash the sentence of 6 months' imprisonment and substitute a suspended sentence order for 6 months' imprisonment, suspended for 18 months. Given the time which the appellant has spent in prison, we do not impose an unpaid work requirement. Nor do we impose any other requirements, given his satisfactory conduct during his 18 months on licence between July 2020 and January 2022.
20. On 24 February 2023 the Deputy Prime Minister wrote to the Lord Chief Justice saying:-
"You will appreciate that operating very close to prison capacity will have consequences for the conditions in which prisoners are held. More of them will be in crowded conditions while in custody, have reduced access to rehabilitative programmes, as well as being further away from home (affecting the ability for family visits). Prisoners held in police cells under Operation Safeguard will not have access to the full range of services normally offered in custody, including rehabilitative programmes.".22. The judge in this case did not refer to this consideration, and he is obviously not to be criticised for that, given the chronology set out above. We have concluded that there were strong arguments for suspending the sentence in this exceptional case, for the reasons we have given. Any doubt we may have had on that issue is resolved by this additional factor which we do take into account in dealing with this appeal. This factor will principally apply to shorter sentences because a significant proportion of such sentences is likely to be served during the time when the prison population is very high. It will only apply to sentences passed during this time. We have identified above the starting point for the relevance of this consideration for sentencing, which we take to be the implementation of Operation Safeguard 14 days after 6 February 2023. Sentencing courts will now have an awareness of the impact of the current prison population levels from the material quoted in this judgment and can properly rely on that. It will be a matter for government to communicate to the courts when prison conditions have returned to a more normal state.
--oo00oo--
Postscript
The Judgment is worth reading in full and particularly in order to take note of this:-
17. However, in the present case, there is a realistic prospect of rehabilitation. With the exception of the present offence, the appellant's response to the sentence imposed in January 2019 has been very positive. By the time he was sentenced for the present offence, he had completed his licence period for the earlier offence and had received the very positive report from his probation officer to which we have referred. The judge said this:-
"I accept that there is a realistic prospect of rehabilitation, indeed on the face of it you have rehabilitated yourself."
Bravo!
So, contrary to everything we are supposed to believe justice is a moveable feast, the menu for which changes according to the palate of the gluttons in power on any given day.
ReplyDeleteFrom Secret Barrister on Twitter:-
ReplyDeleteA JUSTICE FLOW CHART:
1. Dominic Raab has a bad idea
2. People who know what they’re talking about warn Dominic Raab it’s a bad idea
3. Dominic Raab does the bad idea anyway
4. The bad idea fails
5. Dominic Raab quietly abandons the bad idea
6. Repeat
Same recipe as used by grayling - except for the 'quietly abandons' procedure
DeleteRabb has been put on warning by the prison governors association that they will take legal action if he trys to force them to take more prisoners above the already agreed capacity, although Norwich prison have received a number of emergency 'temporary ' calls this week.
Deletehttps://insidetime.org/well-sue-if-you-increase-prison-capacity-governors-tell-raab/
'Getafix
Prison governors have threatened the Government with legal action if it tries to squeeze more prisoners into already-crowded jails.
DeleteIn a letter to Justice Secretary Dominic Raab, the Prison Governors’ Association (PGA) said that any attempt to solve the prison capacity crisis by increasing the number of prisoners detained at existing establishments “is likely to result in overcrowding to unsafe levels, increasing the risks to prisoners and our members alike”.
The warning follows a surge in the prison population of England and Wales, which has risen by 1,700 since the start of January to stand at 83,800. The Ministry of Justice has forecast that it will reach 94,400 by March 2025, driven by longer sentences and the recruitment of additional police officers. The Government’s drive to build 20,000 extra prison places, including six brand new jails, has been set back by delays in obtaining planning permission at three of the sites. Prisoners are now being kept in police cells overnight when local jails are full.
Every prison has a fixed “operation capacity”, which is the maximum number of prisoners which it is permitted to hold. The figures are set by HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) taking into account the physical layout of the building, the facilities and the number of staff.
Last year, with prisoner numbers rising, every prison in England and Wales reviewed its operational capacity to assess what extra capacity could safely be made available. In its letter, the PGA told Raab: “A limited number of additional spaces were identified so as to increase the capacity of individual prisons across the estate. Although freeing up more spaces meant more overcrowding, the PGA supported this increase after receiving assurances that the increased total capacity was a ‘red line’ which would not be crossed. The Association was further reassured that you had agreed to this.”
However, the letter went on: “A few months later, the available capacity is close to exhausted. The Association has been calling for a credible plan to reduce the prison population but has been met with a vacuum of information and dialogue with HMPPS on this matter. The Association and its members fear it may be politically expedient to breach the ‘red line’, rather than initiate some form of early release scheme, for example. We wish to put you on notice that any increase in capacity is likely to result in overcrowding to unsafe levels, increasing the risks to prisoners and our members alike. In the event of such an increase, we will take legal advice with a view to immediate legal action.”
The letter, dated 24 February, was signed by PGA President Andrea Albutt and two officials, and was made public by the PGA on its website.
Raab is now proposing an early release scheme, extending the period of Home Detention Curfew from four-and-a-half months to six months, in a move which HMPPS says could lower the prison population by 600. However, this on its own would not be enough to resolve the capacity crisis.
Prison governors shout loud so the government acts to bail out failing prisons.
DeleteProbation directors are silent so probation officers brace themselves for more donkey work.
So the probation service is failing and in crisis because of 1000’s of vacancies.
ReplyDeleteWe expected: provide proper training, better pay and conditions, get rid or reduce PSS, close useless OMiC’s and direct probation officers back to probation offices.
They decided: push trainees through competent or not, increase community sentences and probation workload, direct more probation officers from probation offices to prison work, say thank you to Raab.
Anybody still believe HMPPS hasn’t absorbed the probation service into the prison service?
Not in the OMU where I work - they’ve been advertising for POs for the last 3 years & we’re still 10 short as nobody applies, or if they do they are not even qualified. 🤷🏻♀️ We’re constantly on our knees under the weight of ridiculously high caseloads.😭
DeleteIt has- and COMs notice because of the arrogance of POMs and OMUs who can't be bothered to do resettlement work and liaise with other agencies outside the prison gates, despite having landlines and access to the internet and dump it on the COM, even though, they should know that (and they do, but still try and take the Michael) until that offender is released, they are the responsibility of the POM/OMU/Resettlement team/Governor and not the COM- no if, buts or maybes on this. The fact that this being normalised, shows who is in control here and it's certainly not community Probation- we are very much second class and a POM can disassociate themselves from being a Probation Officer by having or choosing to assimilate into the prison estate culture, which is clearly where the focus is, and where the arrogance and laziness grows like a toxic weed. Meanwhile, COM Probation work remains in crisis. You'd have to be fairly myopic not to see what's going on. It's not likely to improve either, as the absorption continues apace, and it's not in the community Probation's favour.
ReplyDeleteI’ve been a POM and a COM (currently a COM) and there are good and bad practioners in both roles. Under OMIC, responsibility transfers to COMs at least six months prior to release. How could I, as a POM in Derbyshire source suitable accommodation for someone being released to London? This is where local knowledge comes in. Which services liaise best with Probation, which areas would be unsuitable for gang members etc. We need to work together as a Probation Service and stop pitting ourselves against each other.
DeleteWe are not really “working together” when Prison probation staff are sitting pretty doing the easy work and the Community probation staff are picking up all the work from 6 months prior to release and into the community.
DeleteIt makes no sense to have all those “offender managers” twiddling thumbs in prison OMUs when the real work and risk is in preparing for and supervision upon release.
Oh dear really. The views of the poms by coms is appalling and deservedly so. Let's get back to real community based rehabilitation please than the pretend nonsens in a jail. Let out probation back at least 15 years .
DeleteWhat with the pom poms & rom coms & non doms & popsicles & ricicles are nicicles... I can't cope!!!
DeleteGreat plan. Prisons overcrowded so force Probation Officers to fast-track release work and release 1000’s early under Probation Service supervision. Ignore Probation has no staff. More unmanageable caseloads, SFO’s and JFDI for Probation. #OneHMPPS
ReplyDeleteYou can't be responsible 6 months in advance of any release if you get allocated the case only days or weeks ahead of said release, which isn't in the gift of the COM. It's impractical. Very unlikely you get a six month window for anything. As far as local knowledge goes: you can liaise with the COM, but the internet is not boundaried and more work needs to be done in prisons. Besides, if the offender has been there for some time, then the POM knows them better. I could find out about housing in another part of the country from where I am: it starts with contacting the local council via the internet. Not difficult. The COM can tell the POM such and such council or this is the person to speak to and, for once in their lives, the POM can do the laborious Duty to Refer. The balance and onus on who does what and when must be recalibrated, especially when COMs often have higher caseloads. I agree no one should be pitted against another, but then I don't sit on my hands feeling I smell better than the POM. I get off my backside and do it. And stop being trigger happy on Delius when the offender leaves prison- it smacks of 'thank god he/she's not on our books and let the COM deal with it" (when it reverts back to 'unallocated'). It's about the only efficient piece of housekeeping the POM does on Delius. if we want to work together then let's do that; let's put aside these cultural negatives and be more team-orientated. I think the prison can start by setting the example. I've yet to see it. £700 extra for being in a custodial setting does not also then mean not pulling your weight in offender management.
ReplyDeleteI have been thinking of my moral position on a difficult issue around this and I am intrigued to know which choice colleagues would decide on. I do appreciate that many people in prison are not violent and do not commit fraud or identity theft against people but I have deliberately only give 2 options to get a feel of colleagues answers when a brutal situation is presented. I would also like why you would chose that one over the other.
ReplyDeleteA. Have overcrowded prison with potentially 3-4 persons per cell, increased suicides and violence by prisoners against fellow prisoners. People confined in small spaces for long periods of time with other people is likely to create more hopelessness and violence thereby increasing the harm and potential risk of death to prisoners. There is also the increase risk to prison officers and other staff of having violence used against them when they are not responsible for the situation. This may also lead to some prison officers using to much force when dealing with prisoners.
B. Change risk assessments to reduce risk (thereby lying) to enable more people to leave prison early, there is also the potential for pressure on PP’s to Risk assess less for parole cases so people can be release on parole when they may not be suitable. This while PP’s are overworked and there are not enough PP’s to manage the risk. This leads to an increase in risk to the public creating victims from the public who are just trying to go about their lives. This will likely lead to more innocent children, women and men being seriously harmed and killed.
So do you go with the human rights of the traumatised person in prison or protect the generally innocent public.
I know that we are free thinkers and I won’t be influencing anyone by giving my opinion so I’ll start off.
I would choose B.
-Situation A: This is dreadful for the human beings that we have locked up in cells and there is an ongoing risk to them, many are past victims of abuse and trauma caused by others. I do not like this situation as it causes more problems in society down the line. It is also vital that we treat our most vulnerable and marginalised people humanely as it supports humanity towards us as well, if our most marginalised get treated well then we all get treated well.
-Situation B: As much as I do care for people’s human rights in prison the truth is I care more for my family, friends and myself more, I also do not want the public harmed by people who struggle in our society. If the Probation Service was properly staffed and politically managed then it would be easier to choose option A as the risk would be lower overall to the community. However given the current crisis leading to me potentially have to chose between prisoners suffering or my family being harmed I chose my family. I do recognise that this choice could mean higher risk in the future due to further trauma to people in prison but the cruel reality is that if they are in prison they are not able to harm people now.
I do also wonder if I am storing up “and there was no one left to speak for ”.
How many times will we go through this overcrowding malarkey?
DeleteI won’t be “re-jigging” Oasys risk levels because HMPPS said so. We all know who will be blamed if those with “re-jigged” risk levels commit serious further offences.
They can do what America does. Double, triple, quadruple up on cells, turn Prison gyms and open prisons into dormitories. Or learn from progressive countries, invest in Probation services and don’t send to prison in the first place.
They won’t do any of that. It’ll be blame Probation and pressure to endorse HDC and early release, no recalls to prison, no PSS breaches, no custody or suspended sentence recommendations in PSRs. It won’t be enough so they’ll suddenly release a few thousand on early release.
It is quite simple, stop sending people to prison for non-violent and non-sexual offences.
DeleteInvest in probation, community sentences and social support.
Remove police from IOM schemes because they think recall is a supervisory strategy.
So, more assessments for HDC, likely to be allocated to PQiPs or the new PSOs as “ development “ ( don’t forget most probation practitioners in PDUs are working at over 100% capacity) what can possibly go wrong?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/18-female-guards-single-jail-29431833?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target
ReplyDeleteEighteen female guards at a single jail have been fired for hooking up with inmates. The forbidden relationships all happened at HMP Berwyn, Britain’s biggest prison.
DeleteThe record figures, uncovered in Freedom of Information requests, come after three of the women ended up in court over the illicit flings. The relationships took place over the past six years at the privately run jail in Wrexham, North Wales.
Jim how do you cope with this glut of fear to express an opinion of faith in being able to work with someone to boost their ability to manage without offending &/of fear that anyone released from prison early,who comes to roost within their caseload ,will commit a SFO. I don't know how you manage to keep this Blog going. In the early days it seemed to me the Blog was a way of expressing faith in certain values and articulating the desire to fight to hold onto them. Now I'm not sure what it does other than allow staff and interested others to vent (and what provokes the desire to call out or vent is very often so very different. Fear seems a more significant trigger than the previous passion and anger...Getafix being the most notable, articulate and welcomd exception to this!)
ReplyDeleteThe first part is fairly straightforward in my view - such a balance has always been a fundamental part of professional judgement required to do the job. Right from day one it was always clear to me that any assessment or recommendation had to be capable of robust examination by anyone and in any scenario. There is and always has been an element of risk involved - Judges know this; the Parole Board know this; Coroners know this; the public know this; it's ignorant politicians that choose to deny this that are the problem.
DeleteThe second part is more difficult because I have to balance belief with reality. I absolutely believe in the underlying probation philosophy but find it increasingly difficult to acknowledge the seemingly inexorable drift away as the nature and mindset of the workforce responds and changes instead of challenges and campaigns. The blog will remain as a platform for recusants for as long as there are any and hopefully as a lasting audit trail and historical reference for when the time comes for someone to say "what went wrong and why?"
Yes nice one JB exactly as I see it.
DeleteThe pressures to reduce risk has become the norm, despite denials from the MOJ, and as such we become the conduit for this. The recent whistleblower examples - and fuck how much do you respect these brother and sisters- say it all. Be careful colleagues and make sure you are in a defensible position by putting every entry on delious but knowing management can delete entries, so send them/ bcc them to a second source.
ReplyDeleteIf you’re sent a list of any cases for risk reduction or to endorse release without assessment. Reply to manager saying you disagree and cannot prioritise but will proceed on their instruction and reply instructing you to go ahead. Print and keep the email.
DeleteDoes anyone know who is eligible for redundancy under one Hmpps?
ReplyDeleteI would have thought no one in London, SE or other areas that have staffing issues.
DeleteYes it’s in their own document but when it was published last year it was a bit woolly essentially saying anyone can be....we were promised a more thorough review in the spring, as you can see I and others I know are watching developments on this very closely
ReplyDeleteThe shitty realisation is that all the recent pqip and pso recruitment and decisions around that are not to help probation’s staffing crisis but to provide bums on seats to relieve pressure in prisons. They’ll probably whip away more of our agency staff to to those cushy numbers completing oasys remotely. All this talk of pqips and pso doing oasys and hdc for prisons is disgusting when probation offices have been crying out for staff for the past 24 months. Most probation practitioners in PDUs are working at over 100% and I guarantee come next week demands are going to start coming thick and fast to prioritise hdc and early release. Well they can fcuk right off and go and redirect prison poms to complete all those oasys, home checks, epfs and licences.
ReplyDeleteCan you please explain how this us and them rhetoric is helpful to anyone? It is clear from some of these posts that staff do not understand that OMiC is a framework, part of which is the custody element of sentence management. The people being disparaged are colleagues of community staff who are doing their best to deliver in difficult and under resourced circumstances. The challenges faced in custody are different to the community but no less stressful. If prisoners are given the best opportunities pre-release, to rehabilitate and reform, then the jobs of the community becomes easier. The difficulties come from resource pressures and a lack of understanding of expectations, roles and responsibilities of POMs. POMs are not responsible for delivering the hole that was left by the removal of ETTG, that is the role of the Community Probation staffed pre-release teams and COMs. However, because POMs do not want to see people being released without support, they are picking up work that isn’t theirs, while trying to to their day job, with many vacancies. People need to stop being disparaging of others and consider the real issues, lack of resources across HMPPS and a lack of understanding of roles and yes complexities of models, this includes unification changes. This is not the fault of your colleagues, please stop berating staff based in prisons. People also need to remember what we are here to deliver, rehabilitation and public protection, not infighting and finger pointing!
ReplyDeleteNo pre release team in my office so the work falls to the COM?
ReplyDeleteFrom Twitter:-
ReplyDelete"This person needs to give their head a little wobble & spend time in a custody OMU. Maybe then they'll realise how understaffed & stretched the OMiC model currently is."
From Twitter:-
ReplyDelete"Disappointed. As a Probation POM moved under OmiC, I can promise you my ‘outstanding to do’ list is as long as it ever was in Community & my contact with PiP’s is far more limited than I would ever hope for due to workload. Feel like I’m failing every day juggling all the balls!"
From Twitter:-
ReplyDelete"I'm an NQO, meant to be protected with a WMT of 165%. I am at breaking point and just want to quit. I'm working evenings and weekends just to keep up. How can they fill vacancies when they can't retain their existing staff?"
I'm about to lose my NQO status and I already had 47 cases. I'm at breaking point too. But the narrative is always your handling of the work, not the work itself. This is disingenuous, dangerous and will only lead to more resignations. Then they pick the ones for the next round of PQIP and probably place bets who will be able to cope or will drop out. This business model is madness. The powers that be need to realise that clearly people are very interested and passionate about being in Probation, but the reality, once sucked into the vortex, is very different. It becomes a daily negotiation of should I stay or should I go. This short-termism isn't doing anyone any favours. One thing that could help: SPOs using a bit more emotional intelligence (as POs are expected to-empathy) in terms of allocating cases. Not just saying, "yes, you're on a high WMT"- go somewhere else to allocate your community case. Don't give beleaguered POs the excuse of having to employ vociferous push back. The SPO should already know this.
DeleteFrom Twitter:-
Delete"But the case needs to be allocated. Notwithstanding periodic exceptions, I suspect everyone is over WMT, so the SPO ‘understanding’ or not is a misnomer."
From Twitter:-
Delete"Unite! …. Individually nothing will change. Unite! Follow policy. Unite! Stick to your contract of work hours. Unite as one. Unite! It is the only way…… if positive change is your goal (not to mention work life style balance). UNITE!"
The Public Interest Stage
ReplyDelete4.9 In every case where there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution or to offer an out-of-court disposal, prosecutors must go on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.
4.10 It has never been the rule that a prosecution will automatically take place once the evidential stage is met. A prosecution will usually take place unless the prosecutor is satisfied that there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which outweigh those tending in favour. In some cases the prosecutor may be satisfied that the public interest can be properly served by offering the offender the opportunity to have the matter dealt with by an out-of-court disposal rather than bringing a prosecution.
4.11 When deciding the public interest, prosecutors should consider each of the questions set out below in paragraphs 4.14 a) to g) so as to identify and determine the relevant public interest factors tending for and against prosecution. These factors, together with any public interest factors set out in relevant guidance or policy issued by the DPP, should enable prosecutors to form an overall assessment of the public interest.
4.12 The explanatory text below each question in paragraphs 4.14 a) to g) provides guidance to prosecutors when addressing each particular question and determining whether it identifies public interest factors for or against prosecution. The questions identified are not exhaustive, and not all the questions may be relevant in every case. The weight to be attached to each of the questions, and the factors identified, will also vary according to the facts and merits of each case.
4.13 It is quite possible that one public interest factor alone may outweigh a number of other factors which tend in the opposite direction. Although there may be public interest factors tending against prosecution in a particular case, prosecutors should consider whether nonetheless a prosecution should go ahead and those factors put to the court for consideration when sentence is passed.
4.14 Prosecutors should consider each of the following questions:
ReplyDeletea) How serious is the offence committed?
The more serious the offence, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required.
When assessing the seriousness of an offence, prosecutors should include in their consideration the suspect’s culpability and the harm caused, by asking themselves the questions at b) and c).
b) What is the level of culpability of the suspect?
The greater the suspect’s level of culpability, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required.
Culpability is likely to be determined by:
the suspect’s level of involvement;
the extent to which the offending was premeditated and/or planned;
the extent to which the suspect has benefitted from criminal conduct;
whether the suspect has previous criminal convictions and/or out-of-court disposals and any offending whilst on bail or whilst subject to a court order;
whether the offending was or is likely to be continued, repeated or escalated;
the suspect’s age and maturity (see paragraph d below).
A suspect is likely to have a much lower level of culpability if the suspect has been compelled, coerced or exploited, particularly if they are the victim of a crime that is linked to their offending.
Prosecutors should also have regard to whether the suspect is, or was at the time of the offence, affected by any significant mental or physical ill health or disability, as in some circumstances this may mean that it is less likely that a prosecution is required. However, prosecutors will also need to consider how serious the offence was, whether the suspect is likely to re-offend and the need to safeguard the public or those providing care to such persons.
c) What are the circumstances of and the harm caused to the victim?
ReplyDeleteThe circumstances of the victim are highly relevant. The more vulnerable the victim’s situation, or the greater the perceived vulnerability of the victim, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required.
This includes where a position of trust or authority exists between the suspect and victim.
A prosecution is also more likely if the offence has been committed against a victim who was at the time a person serving the public.
It is more likely that prosecution is required if the offence was motivated by any form of prejudice against the victim’s actual or presumed ethnic or national origin, gender, disability, age, religion or belief, sexual orientation or gender identity; or if the suspect targeted or exploited the victim, or demonstrated hostility towards the victim, based on any of those characteristics.
Prosecutors also need to consider if a prosecution is likely to have an adverse effect on the victim’s physical or mental health, always bearing in mind the seriousness of the offence, the availability of special measures and the possibility of a prosecution without the participation of the victim.
Prosecutors should take into account the views expressed by the victim about the impact that the offence has had. In appropriate cases, this may also include the views of the victim’s family.
However, the CPS does not act for victims or their families in the same way as solicitors act for their clients, and prosecutors must form an overall view of the public interest.
d) What was the suspect’s age and maturity at the time of the offence?
ReplyDeleteThe criminal justice system treats children and young people differently from adults and significant weight must be attached to the age of the suspect if they are a child or young person under 18.
The best interests and welfare of the child or young person must be considered, including whether a prosecution is likely to have an adverse impact on their future prospects that is disproportionate to the seriousness of the offending.
Prosecutors must have regard to the principal aim of the youth justice system, which is to prevent offending by children and young people. Prosecutors must also have regard to the obligations arising under the United Nations 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Prosecutors should consider the suspect’s maturity, as well as their chronological age, as young adults will continue to mature into their mid-twenties.
As a starting point, the younger the suspect, the less likely it is that a prosecution is required.
However, there may be circumstances which mean that, notwithstanding the fact that the suspect is under 18 or lacks maturity, a prosecution is in the public interest. These include where:
the offence committed is serious;
the suspect’s past record suggests that there are no suitable alternatives to prosecution; and
the absence of an admission means that out-of-court disposals that might have addressed the offending behaviour are not available.
e) What is the impact on the community?
The greater the impact of the offending on the community, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required.
The prevalence of an offence in a community may cause particular harm to that community, increasing the seriousness of the offending.
Community is not restricted to communities defined by location and may relate to a group of people who share certain characteristics, experiences or backgrounds, including an occupational group.
Evidence of impact on a community may be obtained by way of a Community Impact Statement.
f) Is prosecution a proportionate response?
In considering whether prosecution is proportionate to the likely outcome, the following may be relevant:
The cost to the CPS and the wider criminal justice system, especially where it could be regarded as excessive when weighed against any likely penalty. Prosecutors should not decide the public interest on the basis of this factor alone. It is essential that regard is also given to the public interest factors identified when considering the other questions in paragraphs 4.14 a) to g), but cost can be a relevant factor when making an overall assessment of the public interest.
Cases should be prosecuted in accordance with principles of effective case management. For example, in a case involving multiple suspects, prosecution might be reserved for the main participants in order to avoid excessively long and complex proceedings.
g) Do sources of information require protecting?
In cases where public interest immunity does not apply, special care should be taken when proceeding with a prosecution where details may need to be made public that could harm sources of information, ongoing investigations, international relations or national security. It is essential that such cases are kept under continuing review.
Those are the CPS guidelines for Public Interest ... or, as it should be known, balancing how they give preferential treatment to the wealthy & powerful vs. how they crush the desperate, the poor, the uneducated & the 'little people' in general.
ReplyDeleteSee also:
http://probationmatters.blogspot.com/2023/03/a-loud-and-clear-message.html?showComment=1678476726428#c681184438876958606
What is the public interest test applied by probation when instigating recall?
ReplyDeleteI see little service being gained by the public (or anyone else) when someone is returned to custody for a few weeks for compliance failures rather then committing a further offence or becoming a risk to the public.
'Getafix
As a member of the public watching the parole tv programme I'm horrified by those given the roles of determining the release of parolees. They have significant powers but they do not seem to have any grasp on reality.
ReplyDeleteProbation on BBC2 - What a shit show
ReplyDeletehttps://www.aol.co.uk/news/garry-glitter-returned-custody-breaching-190000022.html
ReplyDeletePaedophile pop star Gary Glitter has been recalled to prison following a breach of his licence conditions less than six weeks after being released.
So what who cares. They are now reporting all prison stuff is a waste of time as is community action as no jobs or housing for release. Same old same old. Anti rehab policies.if they spent half a billion on us instead of the French border we could dramatically change the lives of ppl.
DeleteGary ffs glitter media storm. It deflects the underlying social policies. Another opportunity to probation bash. No one is able.to speak up for us with credibility.
Delete