For the 28th Annual McWilliams Probation Lecture on 14th July 2026, Professor Melissa Hamilton will speak on 'Artificial Intelligence in Probation: Opportunities, Risks, and Responsible Use'.
Melissa Hamilton is a Professor of Law & Criminal Justice at the University of Surrey and a Surrey AI Fellow with the Surrey Institute for People-Centred Artificial Intelligence. She holds a Juris Doctorate (law) and a PhD in Criminology and is a member of the Royal Statistical Society, International Corrections and Prisons Association, American Psychological Association, and the Association of Threat Assessment Professionals.
Her research is interdisciplinary and focuses on the use of AI and related technologies in criminal justice, sentencing practices, interpersonal violence, and trauma-informed approaches to legal and correctional decision-making. Before entering academia, Melissa worked as both a police officer and a prisons officer, experience that continues to inform her research and teaching.
Melissa’s work has been published across law, social science, and criminal justice journals. She also regularly contributes to public and professional discussions through print media, radio and television broadcasts, and online platforms including blogs and podcasts.
The respondent is David A Raho. David is a PhD researcher in Law and Criminology at the Institute of Law and Social Sciences at Sheffield Hallam University, investigating AI Maturity Models, AI Cultural Readiness, and the comparative adoption of artificial intelligence in probation and rehabilitation services across England & Wales, Brazil, and Japan. He has extensive frontline experience as a Probation practitioner spanning nearly four decades and now works as a member of the AI Team at HMPPS HQ. He has contributed to publications on the use of technology in Probation for both CEP and the UN, and is a member of the UNESCO expert network on AI and a Tutor at the University of Oxford on AI Governance. He is both a Fellow and a Trustee of the Probation Institute and a proud Napo member, having previously served as a Branch Chair in London and also as a National Vice Chair.
This event will be held at the Institute of Criminology in the lower ground floor seminar rooms.
Lunch will be served at 1pm. The lecture will begin at 2pm. Tea will be served at 3.45pm.
Please register for in-person attendance here.
Please register for online attendance here.
AI isn’t a future prospect in probation, it’s already here. It’s not hard to see where this leads: keyboards and IT hardware replaced by transcription recordings and voice control, intake points using biometric scans, individuals tracked from entry to exit through linked systems. Electronic tagging evolves into continuous, remote supervision, potentially layered with facial recognition. Risk assessments, licence conditions, even sentencing recommendations, already, much of this can be generated at the press of a button.
ReplyDeleteAnd the justification is familiar. We’re told the same story each time: workloads are too high, resources too thin, and this technology will make things more efficient, freeing up time for meaningful work. But in practice, that time rarely materialises as more time in the room with people under supervision. Instead, it’s absorbed elsewhere, redirected into managing the system itself and the PO becomes ignored and obsolete.
The trajectory is clear, but the real question isn’t what AI can do, it’s where human judgment remains non-negotiable. At what point does a practitioner step in, rather than defer? When does a relationship, built through presence, trust, and discretion, stop being central to supervision? Because if decisions are increasingly shaped upstream by automated systems, there’s a risk that practitioners become implementers of outputs rather than authors of them, asking AI what to do before deciding what should be done.
And underpinning all of this is a quieter, murkier issue: who is actually designing these systems, and whose assumptions and bias are being coded into them? If the logic behind risk, compliance, and intervention is embedded in software, then those choices don’t disappear, they’re just harder to see, and harder to challenge.
See you at the lecture.
What stands out in the comment above is the shift from “AI as a future tool” to “AI as a present influence on practice.”
DeleteIn probation, the key issue isn’t whether technology can support us, it clearly can in areas like transcription, information access, and consistency. The concern is more subtle: how much of the decision-making process is being shaped before a practitioner even begins their assessment.
If risk classifications, suggested licence conditions, or intervention pathways are increasingly pre-structured, then professional judgment risks becoming a form of confirmation rather than authorship. That has implications not just for practice, but for accountability, particularly if the underlying logic of those systems isn’t transparent or open to challenge.
The discussion I’d be interested in hearing at the lecture is where the boundary sits. What decisions remain firmly human, and how is that protected in policy and system design, not just in principle, but in day-to-day use?
Because the value of probation has always been relational and discretionary. If those elements become secondary to system outputs, then the role itself quietly changes, even if the job title doesn’t.
The practitioner has become the administration assistant for the tools they are forced to work with.
DeleteBe it AI or algorithms, the 'tools' have constricted the practitioners ability to make decisions to such narrow parameters it has become just about redundant.
https://www.globalgovernmentforum.com/uk-civil-service-trade-union-sets-out-demands-for-use-of-ai-in-government/
'Getafix
It’s a good read Getafix but PCS are not one of the recognised Probation unions and have no clout in our world. We are pseudo civil servants at best. You realise that when you don’t get shortlisted for jobs outside probation. Important to look beyond the hype and scaremongering. AI tools cost money and there is none to spend. Since when did Probation get the benefit of serious cash? We will get some off the shelf tools and some of our existing systems will be modernised but that’s about it. Don’t expect Robocop, the Terminator and Skynet just yet. If any money does become available the MoJ will not let HMPPS and the other agencies have it as they will spend it on their own staff and vanity projects first. HMPPS will get a few scraps.
DeleteA UK civil service trade union has set out seven elements for negotiation with government as part of “substantive national‑level discussions” on how artificial intelligence should be used in government.
DeleteThe Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union highlighted that AI is being introduced into a range of civil service functions, and has written to the Cabinet Office calling on it to negotiate on the ground rules for its use.
PCS assistant general secretary John Moloney wrote to Simon Claydon, Cabinet Office director of civil service pay, policy and pensions, proposing talks on a “constructive, practical framework to ensure that AI and robotics are introduced in a way that protects staff, supports good work, and ensures that technology delivers genuine public value”.
The union said that a framework would help align the shared interests of both employers and employees: to make sure AI improves work, maintains fairness, and avoids decisions that could adversely affect staff or citizens.
PCS set out a basis for discussions covering seven areas:
1. Union consultation and approval
2. Restrictions on AI use
3. Job protection
4. Mandatory information before rollout
5. Training and career development
6. Sharing productivity gains
7. Ongoing oversight
This is the second time that the union has called for talks with the Cabinet Office, having initally launched a campaign for legislation “that protects unions, jobs and workers’ rights in the face of artificial intelligence” in July 2024.
"As part of the "Transforming Rehabilitation" reforms introduced by then-Justice Secretary Chris Grayling in 2013-2014, the probation service in England and Wales began supervising an additional 40,000 to 50,000 offenders annually."
ReplyDeleteThe total annual probation caseload in England and Wales increased by 39% from ~175,000 in 2000, reaching 243,434 in 2008.
caseloads at 30 Jun 2010 = 239,041.
Total annual caseload reached approximately 241,000 by the end of 2015, following a low of 217,359 at the end of 2014.
Total Caseload @ end of September 2025: 246,502 offenders.
https://data.justice.gov.uk/probation/offender-management/caseload-total
So where did the additional 50,000 cases go, as promised by grayling?
Staffing crisis? Caseload crisis? What crises?
Based on data from the UK Parliament, the total number of probation staff in England and Wales in 2000 was approximately 15,240
175,000/15,240 = 11.48
At the end of 2010, according to Q4 2010/11 data, there were approximately 19,369 FTE total staff
239,041/19,369 = 12.34
By December 2025, there were 21,407 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff
246,052/21,407 = 11.49
______________________________________________________
Smoke, mirrors, pisstake, scam.
The figures are useful, but I think they risk oversimplifying what practitioners are actually experiencing on the ground.
DeleteA relatively stable caseload-to-staff ratio doesn’t necessarily mean the work is comparable over time. The nature of probation practice has shifted significantly since the early 2000s - more complex cases, higher levels of risk management, increased recall activity, and substantially greater administrative and compliance demands.
“Caseload” as a number doesn’t fully capture:
- the intensity of supervision required per case
- the volume of recording and system interaction
- or the fragmentation of time across multiple platforms and processes
So while the headline ratio may look similar, the weight of each case is arguably much higher.
The question isn’t just “how many cases per officer,” but “what does each case now involve?”—and whether staffing levels have kept pace with that complexity.
That’s where the sense of a workload crisis comes from, even if the raw figures appear broadly consistent.
I don't think there's any increase in complexity of cases or "intensity of supervision required per case", but would certainly agree with "volume of recording and system interaction" which comes with the necessary arse-covering & the burden of increased recalls.
DeleteBefore trusts there were comprehensive & intensive one-to-one supervision sessions & weekly team meetings which, in my experience, weren't the waste of time the 'new' managerialism labelled them as; they were key to the successful management of complex cases & intensity of case management.
But no-one has yet managed to explain the magic trick aka where grayling's additional 50,000 tr cases went.
Seen on the internet:-
ReplyDeleteGood Morning all
Payslips for April indicate employer contributions for pensions have tanked to 18.5% from 26%. Wider civil service contributions remain around 28.5% across other sectors.
The whole sweetener to get us to go into the civil service on terrible pay following TR was the pension contributions.
Was this part of the vote which they neglected to share with us?
So we got 6% pay rise and HMPSS saved paying 7.5% into the LGPS?
DeleteI had a look into this. The LGPS is a defined benefit scheme, so it won't affect the value of the pension at retirement, however, it means that the 6% pay rise is being funded by our own pension surplus! HMPPS and the complicit unions are laughing at us.
DeleteA public official called the Certification Officer oversees the registration, annual returns, mergers and finances of trade unions and determines any complaints about elections, as well as some other ballots and union rules.
Deletehttps://www.gov.uk/guidance/complain-to-the-certification-officer-about-a-trade-union-or-an-employers-association
I’ve looked at my March and April payslips alongside the GMPF valuation, and it looks more like a change in what’s being shown rather than an actual reduction.
DeleteMarch showed the full employer contribution (~26.5%), which includes both the primary rate (~18%) and secondary rate (~8%). April appears to show only the primary rate (~18.5%).
So the “missing” 8% is likely still being paid, just not visible on the payslip anymore.
That said, without any explanation, it understandably looks like a cut. It would be helpful for payroll to clarify exactly what’s changed and why.
https://www.cspa.co.uk/news/capita-and-civil-service-pensions-latest-update/
DeleteJust to clarify one point, not everyone in probation is in the Civil Service pension.
DeleteThose who came through CRCs remained in the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS), and many are still in that scheme post-reunification. Others, originally in NPS, are in the Civil Service Pension Scheme.
So although we’re now all working under HMPPS, there are still two different pension schemes in place.
That’s part of why figures and contribution rates can look different and also why changes like the one being discussed here can cause confusion if they’re not clearly explained.
I was in NPS and remain in LGPS. There is no transparency as some staff are in CS pension. Perhaps new employees get CS pension?
DeleteNo I was NPS and joined from prison service and had to go onto LGPS - I wasn’t able to keep my civil service pension
DeleteI have always been LGPS since the day I started and when sifted into NPS. There are no benefits having a Civil Service Pension. Discipline staff in prisons are having a nightmare since it transferred to Capita. The only reason we are classed as civil servants is so that the faceless HR teams can bounce you out when you are on the sick and your friendly SPO sends you warning letters and demands meetings with you as per HR handbook. The management are the puppets of the HR Gestapo.
DeleteHeard there's been another incident. This time at a London AP
ReplyDeleteStepping back slightly from the payslip issue, I think there’s a separate point here that’s worth acknowledging.
ReplyDeleteEven if the apparent drop from 26.5% to 18.5% is just a change in how LGPS contributions are displayed, it highlights a wider inconsistency. We still have staff doing the same roles under HMPPS but in two different pension schemes—LGPS and the Civil Service scheme.
They’re both defined benefit schemes, but they’re structured differently, and the Civil Service scheme does accrue benefits at a higher rate. So it’s not unreasonable that people look at this and question whether things are aligned fairly.
That’s not about suggesting anything improper is happening—it’s more that the legacy of TR still shows up in ways like this, and it becomes more visible when changes (or perceived changes) aren’t clearly explained.
At the very least, transparency around both pension contributions and scheme differences would help avoid confusion like this.
Quick update on pension contributions as I spoke to Greater Manchester Pension Fund.
ReplyDeleteThey confirmed that the LGPS is a defined benefit scheme, so the employer contribution rate (whether 26.5% or 18.5%) does not affect the value of the pension itself. The pension is built each year at 1/49 of pensionable salary, so what you receive at retirement is based on that formula, not the percentage shown on a payslip.
In simple terms, the employer contribution is about funding the scheme overall, not an individual “pot,” so changes to that rate don’t reduce your personal pension entitlement.
However, that still leaves a separate issue. March payslips showed an employer contribution of 26.5%, whereas April shows 18.5%, and HR have confirmed this as the new rate without explaining what has happened to the difference.
So while this doesn’t appear to impact pension value, it does raise questions about transparency, particularly given how significant pension contributions are as part of overall remuneration.
At the moment, the concern isn’t about losing pension benefits, but about understanding what has changed and why it hasn’t been clearly communicated.
Thank you informative and now illustrated the less we get paid the smaller our pensions will be.
DeleteThat’s partly right, but it’s more about how the scheme works than the contribution rate itself.
DeleteIn LGPS, your pension is built each year at 1/49 of your pensionable salary, so yes—if salary is lower, the pension built each year will also be lower.
But that’s separate from the employer contribution percentage. Changes to that % don’t reduce your pension; they’re about how the scheme is funded overall.
So the key link is between pay and pension, rather than the contribution figure shown on the payslip.
Thanks again complicated but when we see a calculation over 20 years we can see how much worse off they are building in for us. It was bad when they changed it in 2014
DeleteHmm, try looking at private pensions and see how much you would have to pay to get anywhere near
DeleteAI - slop, hallucinations & case records of the future? Imagine what happens to a case when (not if) JusticeTranscribe decides to change someone's records, amend the risk, create new offences...?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/ai-will-monitor-offenders-to-prevent-crime-before-it-happens/5124437.article
"Artificial intelligence is being tested to monitor offenders on licence to 'prevent crimes before they happen'. In a pilot of new monitoring procedures announced by the government, offenders on licence will have to answer to remote check-in surveillance on their mobile devices. Offenders will be required to record short videos of themselves, AI will then be used to confirm their identity. Offenders will also be required to answer questions about their behaviour and recent activities."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002scl9
"While browsing online, the journalist and author Sophia Smith Galer was surprised to find a biography of herself on Amazon. She discovered that it was full of inaccuracies - and most likely written using generative AI. It's part of a new phenomenon in publishing and flooding all parts of our information landscape: AI slop, low quality content made quickly using artificial intelligence.
While we might be used to slop on social media, what happens when it infiltrates areas where we expect fact rather than fiction? On her quest to get answers about her biography, Sophia looks at how far AI slop has polluted places we previously thought safe - from investigative journalism to academia - and asks if we can ever escape the onslaught of slop."
Its not going to end well.
https://rm.coe.int/presentation-mike-nellis-ai-coe/1680a3fbbf
Delete"Some Implications of Artificial
Intelligence for Probation and
Imprisonment in Europe - a powerpoint"
______________________________________________
https://www.cep-probation.org/artificial-intelligence-ai-and-probation-services-by-mike-nellis/
"AI’s impact on probation services may be minimal now, and its trajectory is genuinely hard to discern, but some probation services have already appointed AI specialists to their senior management teams, and there is a debate to be had about what is coming next."
________________________________________________
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-remote-face-scanning-tech-to-monitor-offenders-and-cut-crime
"offenders will have to answer to remote check-in surveillance on their own mobile devices. This is in addition to their tough licence conditions, like GPS tags and in person appointments with their probation officer, to make our streets safer."
_______________________________________________
https://ai.gov.uk/knowledge-hub/tools/speech-ai/
"The challenge
Justice system professionals, particularly probation officers, face significant administrative burden from manual note-taking and documentation during meetings and interactions with offenders, reducing time available for meaningful engagement, relationship building, and higher-value rehabilitation work.
The results
AI transcription pilot programs launched in 2025 across probation services have demonstrated significant operational improvements:
75% reduction in note-taking time achieved in early pilot testing
4.5/5 staff satisfaction score from participating probation officers
Staff report using freed-up time for more meaningful work and better decision-making"
I joined in 2001, surrounded by an eclectic, intellectual and widely diverse bunch of POs - sometimes intimidating (by their interlect) sometimes in awe of their compassion and empathy, sometimes in an awe of their endurance against social inequality, often in awe of their political awareness, often in awe of their grit in court defending the downtrodden the marginalised the traumatised. They have largely gone and I am tired so despite my nostalgia of those who inspired me I am going. Fuck AI and the shedheads at the centre, you know not what you have lost. You should have listened to Jim a long time ago! LIONS LED BY DONKIES unfortunately ruled
ReplyDelete"Class ridden snobbish uppity superiority benevolent condescending marginally qualified certificates in social work let the Victorian values flood over their collective group."
ReplyDelete"Practice partial treatment and intrinsic inequalities of that lot just shat on anyone not favoured. That value set runs through today some in the blog with it's don't like the truth censorship."
Just two snippets from the regular, angry, barely literate rants that appear on here from someone determined to insult me, my qualifications to practice as a Probation Officer and my profession.
I am someone generally speaking of understanding and liberal persuasion and have tried to oversee this endeavour to try and ensure it educates and informs all those who are interested and concerned about the developing criminal justice crisis. I will not under any circumstances have it undermined or threatened by anyone, especially the author of what I've just deleted. So yes, I've resorted to censorship again and yes, because of one individual, we have comment moderation in place.