The Inspector Speaks

Sentencing Act January 2026

I was pleased to see the Sentencing Act receive royal asset yesterday evening, together with the government’s reassurance that the reforms are supported by plans to rebuild the Probation Service – including investment of up to £700m over the next three years, increased ability to tag offenders, and new technology aimed at reducing administration, so staff can focus on work that reduces reoffending.

It is positive that the Act will not take effect immediately, giving the Probation Service time to prepare for the incoming changes. However, we know that some measures, including the extension of Suspended Sentence Orders and changes to Remand, will come into force in just two months, while implementation planning continues for more complex changes.

I have spoken recently about my support in principle for many elements of the Act and the opportunity it provides to transform the justice system.

However, I have been clear that there will be challenges in ensuring the gap between probation resource and the requirements of the Act are reconciled, and that difficult choices will need to be made around what to prioritise for maximum impact.

I have also warned that there is a danger of the reforms collapsing public confidence in probation unless they are implemented with great care and thought, and the right investment is made in the service in the short to medium term. Failing to address these point risks setting the service up to fail.

I look forward to continuing to work closely with the Department throughout 2026 to advise on how our inspection findings can inform next steps. In particular, I will be sharing the results of our Dynamic Inspection of Public Protection programme, which publishes its first report next week (29 January), with a focus on what improved probation practice can do to make the public safer and reduce harm to victims.

--oo00oo--

Dynamic Inspection of Public Protection in Kent, Surrey and Sussex

Chief Inspector’s judgement

This review of the Probation Service’s public protection across Kent, Surrey and Sussex revealed that, whilst there had been improvements since our last inspection, concerningly, work to keep people safe met the required standard in less than half the cases inspected for ‘assessment’ and ‘implementation and delivery’. In addition, just over half the cases met this standard for case ‘planning’ and ‘reviewing’.

The region’s public protection work had been made more challenging by large-scale national changes in response to prison overpopulation. We found that more support was needed for staff managing complex cases, particularly those involving domestic abuse, and work needed to be done to ensure consistency across all cases.

A primary concern was a lack of quality information sharing of the risks posed by individuals on probation, with probation service and police colleagues highlighting the challenges faced by both organisations to balance public protection with proportionate, compliant information sharing. We were encouraged to see work underway and resource allocated to strengthen relationships. However, there remained no centrally driven directive on what should be shared. This was a long-standing issue which continued to undermine the region’s ability to understand fully the risk posed by those they supervised. A national strategic approach to ensure consistency and compliance from both probation and partners was required to facilitate effective public protection work.

The region was affected by ongoing workforce challenges, with understaffing at both probation officer and senior probation officer grades at the time of the inspection. This inevitably affected capacity to manage demanding caseloads and risk to the public. Constraints including proximity to London, associated high costs of living, lengthy vetting procedures and limited autonomy in recruitment continued to compound these workforce pressures.

In response, the region had introduced a range of innovative strategies to optimise resources, including the use of technology and artificial intelligence, and was working to address training gaps to improve the quality of case management, despite limited resources.

While sufficient work to keep people safe was not evident in enough of the cases we inspected, following the region’s inspection in 2024, we also saw strategic progress in strengthening public protection work, improved staff accountability and engagement, and a commitment to building a culture that supported learning and psychological safety.

--oo00oo--

Inspection commentary (highlights)

Case inspections highlighted that, for both assessment and implementation and delivery, less than half the cases met the required standard to keep people safe. Planning and reviewing met the required standard in just over half the cases. There were indicators that the sufficiency of work to keep people safe was on an upward trajectory in Kent, Surrey and Sussex across all the above areas. Practitioners were completing meaningful home visits and speaking to the families and support networks of people on probation where appropriate to improve risk management. MAPPA cases (multi-agency public protection arrangements) were also managed effectively. Planning for restrictions and monitoring was generally stronger than planning for interventions and programmes to address risk. Restrictions were consistently included in plans and compliance arrangements were clear, although there was less detail on interventions that would take place to address attitudes and behaviour.

Large-scale national change and responses to prison over-population, as well as delays in sentencing, had a destabilising effect on people on probation, making public protection work in Kent, Surrey and Sussex more challenging. Those sentenced and released on the day from court, due to time served on remand, meant pre-release planning could not be delivered in a meaningful way. The increase in people on probation due to early release from custody schemes also affected the time available to set services up to meet their needs and manage their risks. Short recall periods were at risk of disrupting continuity and partner agency involvement, often leaving probation practitioners as the only consistent presence throughout the sentence.

Although Probation Reset arrangements were outside the region’s control, they had a detrimental impact on public protection work. Planned service delivery including challenging conversations or interventions were often disrupted by reset, a concern that was most pronounced in complex domestic abuse cases. Regional leaders were implementing a model to transfer all reset cases to a dedicated hub, though this process was still being refined and audited. ‘Quick guides’ outlined eligibility criteria and checklists for pre-reset tasks, with guidance focused mainly on recording and concluding processes. However, casework inspections highlighted varied and inconsistent practices in which victim and risk information was prioritised at transfer, creating a sense of instability and lack of coherence. Reset hubs were in the early stages of implementation, with communication and monitoring mechanisms already in place, though their intended effect on consistency had not yet been fully realised.

Challenges faced in managing risk to the public were compounded by long-standing staffing challenges, influenced by proximity to London and the associated high cost of living. Since the previous inspection, the percentage of qualified probation officers in post had declined, with current staffing at approximately two-thirds of the target level. There was also understaffing of senior probation officers by over 10 per cent. This inevitably affected capacity to manage demanding caseloads. The region was actively implementing measures within its control to optimise resources, such as a focus on the retention of PQiPs, where significant numbers were resigning or withdrawing. However, additional constraints, such as vetting processes and limited autonomy in recruitment, continued to complicate efforts to address these workforce pressures.

In response to continuing staffing pressures, the region had introduced a range of innovative and accountable strategies to optimise resources. These included the use of technology, artificial intelligence, and the See the Way Forward approach, which streamlined complex or duplicate processes. Sometimes tasks were reallocated, to free practitioners’ time for meaningful work, including activities that promoted public protection. The region sought to identify gaps in training by conducting training needs analyses and exploring new ways to improve this activity. The region introduced a range of activities to strengthen staff capability and support informal learning. Examples included deploying quality development officers (QDOs) to provide specialist guidance and development in key areas and implementing pod structures to promote informal learning and peer-to-peer knowledge sharing. Technology had been particularly effective, offering practitioners practical support and reassurance that solutions were being developed to alleviate workload pressures. The region was proactive in engaging in trials from central HMPPS, designed to improve the recording and accessibility of information for practitioners.

Capacity issues with APs were identified in both weeks of the inspection, compounded by lack of available bed spaces, transfers, co-working arrangements, and contingency measures that were not always effective. The region was concerned about this issue and had pursued conversations with national AP colleagues, which they felt had reached a conclusion but with no resolution. People on probation posing the highest risk of serious harm in Kent, Surrey and Sussex were often refused an AP bed due to capacity issues or placed throughout the country. This contradicted public protection principles of developing stability through support networks and resettlement.

New Narrative Required?

A recent reminder from regular contributor 'Getafix pointed us in the direction of the Revolving Doors charity and the following very insightful blog post from last October which we seem to have missed. Although apparently not attributed, I feel it's quite likely to be the work of their policy manager and former Probation Officer Kelly Grehan. We've featured her work before, for example here in 2023 The Need for Probation Reform and she is clearly 'on the money'. 

Time for a change in the narrative for probation and public expectations?

Few would disagree that we are in the midst of a criminal justice system crisis for England and Wales. Years of under-investment have come home to roost, with insufficient recognition of the interdependencies between the police, probation, prison, courts, Crown Prosecution Service and other essential services. Repair work is going to be complicated, but now is the time for a new government to rebuild a comprehensive, connected system fit for the future.

A shift in the rhetoric and public expectations of what can and cannot be achieved through community supervision will be essential. Public media coverage of probation practice is preoccupied with failure. This ranges from a surprise that probation practitioners do not have immediate access to accommodation for anyone being released homeless, to missed opportunities uncovered by serious further offence investigations, which report missed information sharing and swift enforcement opportunities.

It seems timely to ask: Are public expectations of what can be achieved through community supervision realistic and are recommendations being directed to the correct service/agency provider?

‘Rehabilitation does not end at the prison gate’

I would argue that, unless there is a much wider shared community commitment to and understanding of inclusion and access to essential public services, then expectations and confidence in probation practice will remain stuck in an unrealistic and low place.

The excessive use of imprisonment may satisfy appetites for retribution, but the reality is that prisoners come from the community and, for the vast majority, return to the community. Rehabilitation does not end at the prison gate.

If we want to reduce the likelihood of reoffending then our communities need to be ready to support and improve access to providing accommodation, speedy access to mental health and substance misuse services and a readiness to accept and encourage ex-offenders into the workplace and education.

Frustration at lack of community support

Probation practitioners can signpost and support referrals to these essential services, but do they have confidence that the door will be open?

The probation service is one of the smallest and usually most invisible public services – unless something has gone wrong. The public usually shows little interest in the criminal courts and work of the probation service unless they or a member of their family work there or they have found themselves the wrong side of the law or a victim of crime.

Most who work in the criminal justice system are highly committed and passionate about their work, wanting to do all they can to prevent further harm, improve lives and develop safer communities. I don’t think in my forty plus years working in many different roles for probation I have ever met a colleague who did not think the justice system could be improved and did not remain frustrated at the lack of access to services in the community to support rehabilitation and reintegration.

Success stories for probation nearly always demonstrate examples of strong multi agency partnership work that support integration and celebrate the individuals’ efforts to move forward. The challenge has always been one of negotiating the tightrope between care and control.

I question whether we have shifted the expectations and balance too far in the direction of control, raising the bar for public protection measures so high for so many that we have lost sight of the imperative to support and nurture rehabilitation. All too often the starting point is “what is the risk assessment?” rather than “what is the risk and needs assessment”? Effective probation practice requires attention to both the management of risk of harm and reducing reoffending through well planned and delivered rehabilitation support services. If offenders get their lives back together the risk to the public generally falls.

High vs. low risk: a harmful dichotomy

The introduction of the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) at the start of the century had an impressive impact, encouraging probation to separate out those who presented the highest risk of serious harm. The mantra that resources followed risk makes sense; so that the agencies collaboratively take concerted efforts to ‘control and monitor’ those whom we have good confidence could cause further harm and victims.

However, what has followed is a polarisation of political and media reporting of high or low risk of harm. Transforming Rehabilitation, the restructuring of probation services in 2014, crystallised this dichotomy, with oversimplified explanations dividing the caseload between high-risk offenders to the public sector National Probation Service and the ‘low-risk offenders’ to the outsourced Community Rehabilitation Companies. In truth over half of the caseload is assessed as ‘medium risk of harm’. Risk of harm assessment is dynamic and can quickly change, hence the need for regular contact and engagement.

Since the further restructuring in 2021 back to one service, probation has struggled to find the balance between care and control. The direction of travel has been dominated by a mixture of juggling to achieve national consistency, offset rising prison population pressures, struggling to retain or train a sufficient skilled workforce.

We have also seen politicians who have been all too easily swayed by high-profile serious further offence investigations and the promise ‘that it will never happen again’, raising public expectations higher as to what can be managed and assured, when managing supervision of an individual in the community.

Few in the media have paused and asked what can be achieved by one probation practitioner managing a caseload in excess of fifty? How many times a month might the practitioner actually be able to meet with them to develop an influential relationship and remain on top of their needs, risks and changing circumstances? It is not like prison where you know where they are all the time. How much access is there in the community to access immediate accommodation, for instance? If someone is homeless, their preoccupation is with day-to day-survival, it is almost impossible for the probation practitioner to find space to address their ‘thinking behaviour and motivation to change’.

How can we support probation staff and those they supervise?

Probation staff need to be better supported by other services in the community to enable individuals on release from prison to access the immediate needs that bring about some basic stability.

A sizeable chunk of the caseload is assessed as ‘medium risk of serious harm’: people with complex lives that require both significant support for rehabilitation, as well as careful assessment and management of risk indicators such as domestic abuse and/or histories of previous violence. It is here that lies the knot for probation to untangle. What should be expectations and priorities for probation practitioners working with this group?

Good quality probation practice requires attention to both public protection, which involves good information sharing and the use of some controls and restrictions and good interventions and access to services to support rehabilitation. One without the other inevitably falls a long way short of effective practice.

The risk of exposure to criticism for a failure to attend to safeguarding measures now tends to overshadow attention to rehabilitation and resettlement. Low public confidence saps staff morale and motivation. This in turns contributes to turnover, poor recruitment and high vacancies. The imbalance is felt keenly by those being supervised. The supervisor – supervisee relationship becomes one of control rather than engagement and partnership. High caseloads, combined with excessive processes can result in a lack of time to develop effective, meaningful relationships that can support behaviour changes.

Moving forward it would be encouraging to see: 

• Greater public understanding of what realistically can be achieved through supervision in the community.

• Support for community ownership, collaboration and inclusion for those being released from prison, including quick access to services that provide stability.

• An improved balance between attending to risk of harm and needs to support rehabilitation.

Kelly Grehan 28th October 2024

Guest Blog 97

Probation re-set, revise and regret

I reset my email password today, that’s something you re-set. You do not re-set an entire organisation with over 100 years of history. It’s been discussed in the shadows for some time now, but the dye has been cast, the touch paper is lit. They’re calling it Probation Re-set, the whisper has become a reality though we do not need a “re-set”, we need resources, independence and staff.

First they “transformed” probation, which really meant dismantling and privatising. Then they “unified” probation which meant joining two disjointed organisations and papering over the mistakes of the past decade. Now the wallpaper is peeling off the walls and HMPpS is using probation to absorb the smoke of the prison overcrowding crisis, blaming probation for recalls and deluding us to believe it needs to be “re-set”. My question is re-set to what exactly?

Probation is not being re-set to its gold medal award status of over a decade ago, it is not being re-set and returned to its social work roots of advise, assist and befriend, it is not being re-set and detached from the hangman’s noose of the civil and prison services. The “re-set” will scrap PSS and terminate all supervised cases at the two thirds point, excepting those registered as MAPPA and child protection cases. All sentence management contact under PSS will cease. All supervision appointments delivered by probation will cease in the final third (unless the exception criteria is met). Contact for People on Licence (PoLs?) will cease in the final third (unless exception criteria is met).

I remember when probation fought to provide supervisory support to those sentenced to under 12 months in custody. We didn’t expect this to arrive in the form of Post Sentence Supervision (PSS), which ramped up workloads and forced support onto many released prisoners that did not require it. Short term sentences should have been replaced by community sentences and PSS should have been legislated as optional for those released from short term prison sentences. If PSS needed to be mandatory then this should have been for the first three months and only extended by mutual agreement and without enforcement practices. Instead there has been a total u-turn and community supervision is being reduced, PSS to be suspended or scrapped altogether and supervised individuals no longer supported in the last third of their supervision. Have we missed the evidence-based research that told HMPpS experts those in the last third of a sentence do not need support, won’t commit crime, or pose a risk to themselves, victims and communities?

If probation is an agency of rehabilitation, enforcement, risk management and public protection then this surely will not be achieved by cancelling supervision and support when it could be needed most. Under “re-set” guidelines an individual could be sentenced to a few years in prison or put on probation, released 60 days in advance of the half way point, to then have their supervision suspended after 6 months on probation. Without dwelling on whether this is what the Courts and victims expect a sentence to be in actual fact, it does not sound very rehabilitative for those in need of help and support.

The rhetoric is that “we will reset probation so that practitioners prioritise early engagement at the point where offenders are most likely to breach their licence conditions. That will allow front-line staff to maximise supervision of the most serious offenders”. The first big elephant in the room is that once again probation is being twisted into an agency for supervising “serious offenders”. Many individuals do not start off as serious offenders and can still require support which will no longer be available. The support that could be needed for those released from prison 60 days early, homeless, penniless and addicted is to be reduced instead of improved. 

The second is that supervisory relationships do not always flourish until the very last periods of sentences. This will no longer happen when supervision is cancelled, not for good progress, but because the computer calculated that an individuals two thirds are up.

The cynical person I am thinks that Probation Re-set is part of the grand design of OneHMPpS which has consumed the Probation Service alive, warts and all. All HMPPS, Rees & Co needed to do was let go of their grip on the Probation Service and allow it to improve its staffing, practices and resources under a more localised control structure. Instead they’re continuing Grayling’s legacy by dismantling what’s left and ensuring probation is no longer a provider of probation services. Or we can be like the Emperor and believe the lies that Probation Re-set is going to save probation, at least for five minutes!

“The Emperor walked under his high canopy in the midst of the procession, through the streets of his capital. All the people standing by, and those at the windows, cried out, “Oh! How beautiful are our Emperor’s new clothes! “But he has nothing at all on!” at last cried out all the people. The Emperor was upset, for he knew that the people were right, and the Emperor walked on in his underwear.”

Probation Officer

Fancy Being a Probation Officer? 4

Remember when initial allocation of a case was followed by a groan, then to be informed “they are in custody” - gave a sigh of relief and respite. However, under the ever-changing ECSL tectonic plates, release dates of prisoners now calculated in something akin to an FA Cup draw or ‘Wheel of Fortune’ format, rather than being something planned and embedded. The pressures and chaos this creates, along with an already substantial and sustained level of change, is leaving staff utterly bewildered. I am now of the opinion that if a custody case is allocated it will now be met with a groan.

****
As much as early release of prisoners will cause significant problems for probation, probation itself is part of the problem. There are many thousands in prison on recall, not because they have re-offended, but for non compliance. It's penal ping pong. Prisons release and probation recall. Prisons are full because there's too many routes into them. Is there really any need to have everyone leaving prison subjected to at least 12mths probation supervision?

****

With all this going on we’ve been told we must fill in weekly timesheets to explain our hours. Our SPO then told us from Monday she’s coming into the office 5 days a week “to model it to you all”. Not sure what’s going to be modelled. This SPO sits in her office with the door closed firing off emails and gossiping to her cronies all day. Ask her about a case she’s like a cat caught in the headlights.

****

If we are all due to be called back into the office five days a week, watch the sickness rates increase exponentially! Flexible working prior to Covid was a joke and you needed a letter from your mam and the local priest to be granted a work from home day. We also do not have the infrastructure for it. They have changed most if not all offices to only hold 60% of the work force in the buildings.

****
I’ve just received a call from my SPO. They are releasing a very high risk case on 2nd April and apparently there’s lot more of them. POP is on a standard recall but his sentence is less that 12 months custody so those cases are all being altered to fixed term recalls and being released, regardless of risk or MAPPA. Ive asked if this was national and he said he was but this is the first I’ve heard about it. I’ve been told not to share this with my colleagues because the legislation is not yet finalised. They also don’t want all staff seeing the list of names on there and they said this is because it’s confidential data but they don’t normally have a problem when we can see each others POP’s names on PP Dashboard, daily performance reports or when we need to cover another PP’s case on delius. Maybe they don’t want my colleagues to see the list for other reasons.

****

"I’ve been told not to share this with my colleagues because the legislation is not yet finalised. They also don’t want all staff seeing the list of names on there and they said this is because it’s confidential". This is an absolute shitshow. Back awhile the term Omnishambles was coined. This is on a whole new level: Omnishambles on Amphet. Ministry: doing what exactly? Doubling down on failed strategy. Ministers presumably hiding under their temporary desks,
Civil Service: doubling down on failed strategy and waiting for eviction of Ministers, so they can advise the New Boss to be Just Like the Old Boss.

Professional Leadership 1 HMPPS: that leader is a prisons leader. Number one priority get some space in the prisons, probation - whatever that is - will have to cope

Professional Leadership 2 Probation: (where is the Chief?) No idea

Local Management: Fractured coms, headless chickens, rabbits in headlights

Frontline: not enough staff, and being churned out of training into the frontline on a wing and a prayer.

...in the trenches, at all levels actually, good decent people are trying to get the best done for people, living and breathing human beings who should be entitled to a competent service. In every place, a knackered stressed person coming out of prison is faced with a knackered stressed person in a probation office and neither of them have much options. Omnishambles squared.

****

I am more than qualified for PQiP - at level 7 already - but I won't make that transition from PSO because of what I read about from current NQO's and RQO's, who criticise the excessive caseload, stress that creates due to the extra free time put in to meet deadlines - and there is the fear of SFO's which is more likely to come from a PO caseload than a PSO's. What is the point of working hours free of charge only to paid per hour the equivalent of a much less stressed specialist PSO?

****
The academic side of the PQIP is somewhat easier now the 8,000 word dissertation requirement has been removed. Caseloads are not in the mid-20s/30s before qualifying because of the high profile tragic and horrific cases that have caused Probation to reflect rather than the daft conceit of piling work on as a trainee in preparation for the high caseload to come. This never tackles the caseload, but further puts the emphasis on the NQO/PQIP- this is a 'get out of jail free' card for Probation to continue to culturally emphasise that it's the NQO's fault of how they manage cases not the caseload itself. PQiPs don't have to do duty if they're doing a PAROM - when the kitchen sink was thrown at me when I did my training. But will they be prepared to undertake high risk on their own without co-working? 

Cases all start with proper work made in the courts or prisons with meaningful work to prepare them for community testing - not the attitude that most offenders have when they believe that when they leave prison that's the 'end of their sentence'. Much more has to be done at the Court or prison end of the system so as to make the COM's job just slightly less arduous. In addition, cases are often more or not a success if the allocation is made as well as it can be. This comes from risk literacy and making sure that an NQO doesn't have a case of abiding magnitude that they feel overwhelmed and this may turn into an SFO.

****
The ads for the job are basically lies. A lot of the trainees that join would make brilliant probation officers. But they’ve been lied to, they’re disillusioned, and they want a better working life. Nobody can blame them for that. They may lack life experience, but they don’t lack intelligence. They value themselves. The younger generation would rather walk out of a job that makes them unhappy, and find jobs that pay less, if it means they’re happy, and not burned out every moment of every day. I respect them for that. They’re being honest with themselves. They’re valuing their worth and their mental health.

Maybe it’s not the trainees that should be criticised, but the recruiters. Recruiters know how pressurised the job is. The high staff turnover is a clear indication of that. Recruiting for numbers doesn’t work. There needs to be a re-examination of the recruitment process. Having hundreds of people join only to have hundreds of people leave again is a waste of time and resources. All it does is add to the pressure the existing staff are already under. It’s an optical illusion so the powers-that-be can say they’re recruiting X number of people to help ease the pressure, when in reality they’re just making it worse, through being dishonest about the leave-rate. Criticise the right people, and not those who try.

****

I qualified 18 months ago and have never felt so undervalued in a job. My WMT is 175% and my anxiety is through the roof for fear of an SFO. I do not feel supported. I cannot manage risk when I do not have the time to spend with the people I manage. I'm ready to quit.

Another Graphic Illustration of Failings

With quite astonishing testimony coming in on the state of probation, including cocaine use and 90% of the job being work on the laptop, one cannot escape the conclusion that fundamental restructuring cannot be far off. As the latest SFO review from the new HM Chief Inspector confirms, the present state of affairs is untenable. Here's the press release:-  

Independent serious further offence review of Joshua Jacques

Background:

On 25 April 2022 police forced entry to a property in Bermondsey, London, where the bodies of Denton Burke (aged 68), Dolet Hill (aged 64), Tanysha (Raquel) Ofori-Akuffo (aged 45), and Samantha Drummonds (aged 27) were found. All four victims had suffered stab wounds and lacerations. Joshua Jacques was charged with these murders.

In June 2022, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State asked the Chief Inspector of Probation to undertake an independent review into how the Probation Service managed Joshua Jacques, as he was under probation supervision when he was arrested for these offences. This review was completed in November 2022 and can now be published following the completion of criminal proceedings.

Statement:

Chief Inspector of Probation Martin Jones CBE stated:

“There were serious failings in the supervision of Joshua Jacques. Despite concerns about repeated non-compliance with his licence conditions, enforcement practice was inconsistent and opportunities to recall Jacques to custody were missed.

“Joshua Jacques was incorrectly allocated to a newly qualified probation officer who had only finished their training three months before being assigned the case. Under guidelines by HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), Jacques should have been allocated to an experienced, qualified probation officer. The probation practitioners in this case lacked the required experience to respond adequately to the complexity of the case. The management oversight of the probation practitioners involved in this case was also insufficient. Probation staff reported a lack of confidence in decisions made by their line manager, contributing to a reluctance to seek out further management oversight.

“There was a lack of professional curiosity in all areas of probation practice in this case. This meant several events, such as an arrest for further offences, disclosure of declining mental health, problematic behaviour towards neighbours, a new relationship, and the unpermitted use of social media, were not responded to or explored sufficiently.

“Joshua Jacques was appropriately assessed as posing a high risk of serious harm to the public prior to his release from custody. However, his risk in other categories, including to staff or potential partners was underestimated. No risk assessment was completed for Jacques following his release which resulted in no risk management plan or sentence plan in the community being completed.

“Probation practitioners were aware of Jacques’ mental health history, including that he had been sectioned in 2018 and that he had behaved violently during a period when his mental health was not stable. Jacques had also reported that random aggression could be a symptom of declining mental health. In February 2022, Jacques disclosed to probation court staff that he was experiencing a decline in his mental health; however, no action was taken. Inspectors found during this review that probation staff felt ill equipped to understand and respond to mental health concerns, with limited training and support being available to them.

“The case records show that Jacques was routinely using cannabis whilst on probation, and his licence contained a condition to engage in a drug abuse intervention on release from prison. No such intervention was organised by the Probation Service and our inspection found no evidence of a referral to a drugs agency.

“Sadly, this case is symptomatic of the issues we have observed across the probation service in recent years. A reliance on an inexperienced cohort of probation staff, a lack of support for mental health and substance misuse issues alongside insufficient management oversight are concerns which have been highlighted repeatedly. As a result of this review, eight recommendations were made to HMPPS. They have accepted all these recommendations and responded with an action plan for implementing them.”

The following extracts are from the full report and although lengthy, give a graphic illustration of the fundamental flaws in how the probation service as simply not fit for purpose as part of HMPPS and under civil service control.  

1. Foreword 

In April 2022, Joshua Jacques was charged with the murders of a family of four: Denton Burke, Dolet Hill, Tanysha Ofori-Akuffo, and Samantha Drummonds. On 21 December 2023 he was found guilty of murder following trial. 

Joshua Jacques was under probation supervision when he was arrested for these offences, having been released from prison on licence in November 2021. Ordinarily, the Probation Service would conduct a review of the management of the case, in the form of a Serious Further Offence (SFO) review. In this case, the Secretary of State for Justice asked HM Inspectorate of Probation to complete an independent review into how the Probation Service managed Joshua Jacques. 

The impact of these shocking crimes cannot be underestimated and will have had a profound impact on their family and the wider community. We offer our sincere and heartfelt condolences and recognise that the family need information about how Joshua Jacques was supervised in the community and answers as to whether there were failings in this practice.

This report presents the findings of our independent review and sets out that the practice in this case fell below the expected standards. 

As a result of recent recruitment drives and of experienced staff leaving the Probation Service, many probation teams now have large numbers of newly qualified officers (NQO) or recently qualified officers. In the Southwark Probation Delivery Unit (PDU), this situation impacted on the level of experience in the teams available to manage high risk and complex cases, something our core inspections have also routinely found. 

We found Joshua Jacques’ case was incorrectly allocated to an NQO, and the lack of good quality management oversight of this member of staff impacted on the quality of decisions made. There was a notable absence of professional curiosity1 across all areas of probation practice from court through to sentence management, and a failure of the probation practitioners overseeing the case and their manager to meet fully their expected responsibilities. As a result, several significant events, such as an arrest for further offences, disclosure of declining mental health, problematic behaviour towards neighbours, a new relationship and use of social media when not permitted to do so, were not responded to sufficiently. 

While appropriate referrals were made to Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) and to Approved Premises (AP) by the probation practitioner, these critical elements of increased supervision did not fulfil their potential in supporting the management of risk of serious harm posed by Joshua Jacques. An initial OASys assessment was not completed upon his release, which meant that his management in the community was not supported by a robust risk management plan, nor a sentence plan to inform his supervision on licence. The pace and level of engagement of Joshua Jacques with his licence was seemingly determined by him, rather than the probation practitioners, who viewed his engagement and progress too optimistically.

There were concerns Joshua Jacques was not complying with the conditions of his licence and, though this happened repeatedly, they were each dealt with in isolation. Practitioners did not see the bigger picture and missed opportunities to respond sufficiently to his concerning behaviours, for example through a recall to prison. 

Many of the findings of this review mirror those of our thematic and regional probation inspections. This review makes eight recommendations to His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service which we require implementation of as a matter of urgency to ensure learning is implemented quickly and nationally, not just in the PDU where this case was supervised.

Martin Jones CBE 

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

5. Summary of Key findings 

JJ’s supervision was characterised by several practice deficits and missed opportunities which impacted on how JJ was managed on licence. Nine key themes identified from the independent review are outlined below. 

Risk of serious harm assessment 

In custody, two OASys assessments were completed which concluded that JJ posed a high risk of serious harm to the public, specifically identifying the public to be drug users and peers operating in drug supply. This was an appropriate assessment, however it failed to identify all factors that were linked to the risk of serious harm such as his mental health, substance misuse and current accommodation. JJ was assessed as posing a low risk of serious harm in all other categories, which was an underestimation of the level of risk he posed. 

An initial OASys assessment was commenced upon release, however, this was never fully completed and remained an incomplete document. This was poor practice and was not in line with organisational expectations. 

The failure to complete an OASys assessment on release resulted in no assessment of risk of serious harm and no risk management plan in the community to inform how the risk posed should be safely managed while on licence. Additionally, there were no sentence plan objectives to support and inform the supervision appointments, which should have been targeted to address those factors most likely to contribute towards further offending. Further reviewing did not take place following MAPPA meetings, nor in response to changes of circumstances and significant events. Completing a review would have enabled the probation practitioner to consider the significance of new information, and review the sentence and risk management plans accordingly, to ensure the necessary arrangements were in place to protect the public. 

The pre-sentence report prepared for court, and the OASys completed following sentence to the suspended sentence order, both replicated the pre-release assessment and did not take the opportunity to consider all available information to support an updated and holistic assessment. 

MAPPA meetings considered the level of risk of serious harm posed by JJ; however, this did not negate the need for an OASys assessment to be completed. This is essential probation practice to ensure that the management of each case is supported by a robust and defensible assessment of risk of serious harm and need. In the absence of a formal assessment using the OASys tool, inspectors would have expected to see other evidence of assessment and planning within case management records. However, there were no such records to satisfy us that a clear understanding of how to manage the risks posed were in place. 

Professional curiosity and optimism bias 

PO1 and PO2 put a strong focus on addressing JJ’s needs, such as accommodation and employment. Though these were important factors and progress was made, the supervision sessions were not underpinned by a sentence plan and there was no evidence of interventions which focused on offender behaviour being delivered. Inspectors found that this strong emphasis on relationship building and addressing JJ’s needs was not balanced against the need to manage risk of serious harm. 

Probation practitioners viewed JJ’s behaviour on licence through an over optimistic lens and did not fully understand the expectations on them to be professionally curious and proactive. As a result, they did not adequately explore issues such as why he had purchased a vehicle, or his problematic behaviour in his accommodation and they failed to inform police of a second breach of the criminal behaviour order (CBO). 

These skills of professional curiosity grow and develop with practitioner confidence and experience, and with the effective support and oversight from peers and managers. There was a lack of experience within the probation practitioner staff group at Southwark PDU and lack of robust management oversight further contributed to this. Where a workforce has limited experience, they need guidance from those with a more established level of knowledge to provide support and oversight to aid their development. 

Enforcement 

Good probation practice seeks to motivate people on probation to comply and engage positively with the requirements of their sentence. While this should include a focus on desistance from further offending, it should also include appropriate enforcement action being taken when required. Instances of non-compliance should be responded to in a proportionate, fair, and transparent manner.

Enforcement practice in this case was inconsistent, with instances of non-compliance considered in isolation rather than seen in the round. Opportunities to escalate and consult with the delivery unit head (HOS1) were not sought. There was a failure to act upon a pre-release assessment that identified that swift enforcement of the CBO and licence were required to manage the risk of serious harm posed by JJ. Enforcement guidance issued in October 2021 was not followed. Our inspectors felt the decision not to recall JJ following his arrest for further offences was defensible. However, in making the decision, senior manager oversight should have been sought by SPO1 and the failure to do so was against expected practice. The enforcement practice in this case did not analyse the behaviour being displayed by JJ, nor did it explore whether additional supportive or restrictive measures short of recall were needed to manage his licence. 

Resourcing and workload 

Southwark PDU had been operating under ‘green’ status under the national prioritising probation framework but had several vacancies, particularly at probation officer and probation service officer grade. Many staff within the PDU were at early stages of their career and there were limited numbers of experienced staff available. The probation practitioners in this case lacked the required experience to respond adequately to the complexity of the case and behaviours being presented. In addition, the pace and volume of work impacted on the quality of work undertaken in this case. 

HMPPS’s Tiering framework and case allocation guidance was not followed, and JJ’s case should have been allocated to a more experienced probation practitioner. The allocated probation practitioner in this case was within their newly qualified probation officer (NQO) period and in allocating the case, the SPO should have been assured that PO1 had the required knowledge, skill, and experience to manage the case effectively. JJ’s tier increased following the initial MAPPA meeting and this should have prompted re-allocation of practitioner in line with the expected practice for NQOs. 

Management oversight 

Management oversight was of an insufficient standard. Staff reported a lack of confidence in decisions made by their line manager, contributing to a reluctance to seek out further management oversight. When sought, decisions made by the probation practitioners would generally be approved without the necessary discussion or scrutiny needed to ensure that the most appropriate course of action was being taken. Opportunities to escalate to HOS1 were also missed. 

Similar to the findings from the Inspectorate’s broader local inspection programme, the workload, and responsibilities of line managers in this Probation Delivery Unit were found to be concerning. SPOs were managing large teams and were expected to provide support and oversight of their staff and manage human resource issues, as well as provide oversight and scrutiny of each probation practitioner’s caseload. SPOs also have additional lead responsibilities, such as MAPPA, which impact on their ability to perform their role to the expected standards. 

Inspectors also found insufficient processes in place to manage staff absence. PO1 was absent from work for a period of three months. While during this time PO2 had maintained contact with JJ on their own initiative, the process for caseload reallocation during an absence was not clear, which resulted in a lack of clear ownership of this case and many of PO1’s other cases during this period. 

Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) 

JJ’s index offence (the last set of criminal actions that brought him into contact with the criminal justice system) meant that he was not automatically eligible for management under multi agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA). Therefore, it was good practice for JJ to have been referred to MAPPA as a Level 2, Category 3 case. However, there was insufficient evidence that this MAPPA referral positively impacted upon the management of the case. 

The MAPPA referral for JJ was completed late, only one month prior to release. To allow effective coordination this should have been done six months prior. In recognition of the complexity of the case and imminency of need, it was positive to see that JJ was listed promptly for discussion once he had been referred. However, the initial delay in referral resulted in little time for MAPPA to effectively contribute to the pre-release planning, with PO1 having already set licence conditions with the prison, without a contribution from the MAPPA panel. 

The minutes from each of the four the MAPPA meetings held to discuss JJ were of an insufficient standard, providing limited evidence that partner agencies were active in supporting the management of risk of serious harm he presented. 

There were missed opportunities for meaningful actions to be set in response to new information, and a lack of oversight of outstanding actions. JJ was de-registered from MAPPA oversight without an adequate rationale, whilst two actions which had already been carried forward remained outstanding. 

Approved Premises 

The Approved Premises (AP) placement was an opportunity to positively contribute to the management of JJ’s risk of serious harm. Key work sessions were held by AP staff which were appropriately focused, with structured sessions on the immediate needs of JJ; exploring issues such as registration with a GP, finance, and education, training, and employment (ETE), which supported his resettlement into the community. However, professional curiosity was not applied during AP staff interactions with JJ. There is no evidence that there was sufficient exploration of his behaviour and movements, which would have aided the probation practitioner’s understanding of how JJ was spending his time away from the AP. 

AP staff should play a significant role, both in providing relevant risk information to the probation practitioner and in contributing to effective risk management. It is essential that they understand the risk of serious harm presented, are actively involved in the delivery of the risk management plan and are part of MAPPA meetings. An AP representative was not able to engage in pre-release planning due to the delayed referral, and subsequently did not attend the MAPPA meetings held, which impacted on pre-release planning, information exchange and the effective risk management of the case.

Mental health 

JJ had been sectioned previously in 2018 and had informed probation practitioners that feelings of anxiety and paranoia were normal for him. Prior to release, JJ’s mental health was described to be stable, and probation practitioners stated that there were no obvious signs of a mental health decline upon release into the community. 

However, he was described by PO1 as presenting as ‘low’ on occasion, which was attributed to boredom and need for structure in the community. Days prior to the SFO, JJ was described as talkative and going off on irrelevant tangents in his conversations with probation staff. Furthermore, JJ informed PSR1 that when committing the further offences on licence, he had been experiencing poor mental health. This was not explored further and there was a lack of significance given to this statement, resulting in no analysis or action. 

Probation practitioners were aware of JJ’s mental health history but lacked any detailed information. They were also aware that he had behaved violently during a period when his mental health was not stable, and JJ himself had reported that random aggression could be a sign of his mental health declining. However, this was not identified as a factor linked to risk of serious harm within OASys assessments. Additionally, the correlation between his continued use of illegal substances and his mental health was not sufficiently explored or responded to. Prior to JJ’s release from custody, information on JJ’s mental health was sent by the prison mental health in-reach team to his registered GP, however they were not aware that the GP had retired. Upon registration with a new GP, this prior information on JJ’s mental ill health was not passed to them. 

There was a reliance on JJ recognising and self-reporting a decline in his mental health and on the one occasion he disclosed such concerns no action was taken. Probation practitioners stated that there was a gap in services available to support those with mental health, particularly if there were also substance misuse concerns. As emphasised by the report published in 2021, A joint thematic inspection of the criminal justice journey for individuals with mental health needs and disorders, mental health can present significant challenges for probation practitioners, and is often characterised by insufficient information exchange and the need for better training and support. Inspectors found during this review that staff felt ill equipped to understand and respond to mental health concerns, with limited training and support being available. 

Substance misuse 

JJ had used cannabis since he was a child and was described to be lacking insight into the harmful effects of his substance misuse. Probation records and a psychiatrist’s assessment indicate a link between JJ’s substance misuse use and mental health, and that JJ’s sectioning in 2018 had been preceded by the consumption of medication, alcohol, and cannabis. Additionally, much of JJ’s offending was linked to substance misuse. 

Probation case records show that JJ was routinely using cannabis while on licence. He had completed substance misuse intervention programmes in custody and his licence contained a condition to engage in a drug abuse intervention on release from prison. However, such an intervention was not organised by probation practitioners, and we could find no evidence of a referral to a drugs agency. 

Inspectors found that probation practitioners did not explore the underlying reasons for JJ’s substance misuse, and minimised and tolerated regular use while he was on licence. This was underpinned by a failure to adequately analyse the impact of substance misuse to the risk of serious harm he posed.

Risk Assessments Inaccurate and Incomplete

I notice HMI Justin Russell has published an alarming report highlighting serious failings in a key part of the work of Probation. This from the press release:-

Serious Further Offences (SFO) Annual report – assessments of risk of harm remain inaccurate and incomplete

HM Inspectorate of Probation has published its second annual report of Serious Further Offence (SFO) reviews, finding that assessments of the risk of harm people on probation pose remain inaccurate and incomplete – not enough is being done to stop them reoffending and SFO reviews remain below the expected standard.

Serious Further Offences (SFOs) are specific violent and sexual offences like murder, manslaughter and rape committed by people who are, or were recently, under probation supervision. Over 500 SFOs are notified to HMPPS every year and for the victims and families affected the impact and consequences cannot be underestimated.

The vast majority of SFO reviews are conducted by HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) itself. The Inspectorate is occasionally requested, by the Secretary of State for Justice, to conduct an independent SFO review, and has this year published reports into the review of the case of Damien Bendall and the review of the case of Jordan McSweeney.

For this annual report, we looked at 20 per cent (86 cases) of the SFO reviews conducted by local probation regions between April 2022 and April 2023 – 30 of these involved a serious further offence of murder, and 20 of rape. In comparison to last year’s findings, it was concerning to see that we have seen the percentage of reviews we rated as of either ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’ quality reduced from 69 to 52 per cent.

Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell said: “It is disappointing to see the quality of satisfactory reviews of serious further offences conducted by the Probation Service reduce by nearly 20 per cent. It is clear, both from the SFO cases we have looked at and our own independent SFO reviews, that the Probation Service must strive to do a better job of consistently and accurately identifying the minority of people on probation at risk of causing serious harm. And learning the lessons from these very concerning incidents.

“This will involve using all available information, to properly assess and monitor risk, with public protection at the forefront of planning and decision making. I hope that our recommendations, and those from our recent independent SFO reviews, will mean improvements that future lead to high-quality probation services that can safeguard potential victims and keep people safe.”

Of the cases covered by the 86 SFO reviews we analysed, we found:

• 44 per cent of the risk of harm assessments were inaccurate or incomplete
• 42 per cent of the offences were committed by a person on probation who had been assessed as posing only a medium risk of serious harm before the offence happened. 44 per cent were committed by an individual assessed as posing a high risk of serious harm (this is up from 33 per cent last year)
• 42 per cent were managed under Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA).

Mr Russell continued: “It is very concerning that assessments for the risk of harm a person on probation may pose remain inaccurate, incorrect, or incomplete. It is clear that reduced staffing levels within local services continue to have an impact on the quality of work we are seeing, both in these serious further offence reviews and the findings from our local inspections. Once again, I call on HMPPS to ensure services have the staff they need in order to manage every person on probation actively and effectively to monitor any risk of reoffending.”

This annual report makes a number of recommendations for improving the quality of SFO reviews, including revising the operating model used to produce them and maximising the way that learning is shared.

--oo00oo--

From the Report :-

Chief Inspectors Overview

Each year His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) is notified of around 500 Serious Further Offences (SFOs) like murder, manslaughter and rape which are alleged to have been committed by people who are under Probation Service supervision. Following each of these incidents, the Probation Service undertakes what is called a Serious Further Offence review. In 2020, the Secretary of State for Justice asked us to start to independently quality assure a sample of these reviews. We began this role in April 2021, and this is our second annual report into this activity. 

Between April 2022 and April 2023, we quality assured a total of 86 reviews – approximately 20 per cent of the total produced by the Probation Service over this period. Concerningly, we have seen the percentage of reviews we rated either ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’ reducing from 69 to 52 per cent compared with the previous year’s findings. I was also concerned to see an increase in the proportion of reviews that relate to people on probation who had previously been assessed as high risk and who therefore should have been subject to the highest and most robust standard of supervision by the service. 

More needs to be done to improve the quality of SFO reviews and the work that the service does to assess and manage the risk of serious harm to the public from people on probation. The Probation Service needs to ensure that it produces high quality SFO reviews that identify all available learning and support practitioners to improve the way they manage risk of serious harm. Our quality assurance work is demonstrating that this is not being done consistently, with notable regional differences in the quality of the SFO reviews being produced. 

Last year, I raised concerns about the grade and independence of those undertaking SFO reviews, given that these reviews are carried out by middle managers from within the region in which the SFO itself occurred. Given the results of our quality assurance of reviews over the past year, my concerns have, if anything, increased and I would recommend that HMPPS give serious consideration to ensuring that reviews, certainly those involving the most serious incidents, are conducted by more senior staff from a different region to that in which the offence occurred. 

Earlier this year we also published two independent reviews into the cases of Damien Bendall and Jordan McSweeney. Both identified serious concerns in relation to risk assessment, workload, management oversight, professional curiosity, case allocation and case management. These findings mirror the concerns identified within the broader range of SFO reviews we quality assure and those of our local probation inspections. 

Positively, HMPPS accepted each of the 27 recommendations that we made in the Bendall and McSweeney reviews, many of which centre on needing to improve the assessment and management of the risks of serious harm. I hope that the recommendations in this annual report, and those from our independent reviews, will result in the urgently needed improvements that can lead to high-quality services that safeguard potential victims and keep people safe. 

Justin Russell 

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

Conclusion 

This report has highlighted a decline in the overall standard of the SFO reviews quality assured this year, with the numbers rated as ‘Outstanding’ or ‘Good’ reducing from 69 per cent to 52 per cent. 

We emphasised in last year's annual report that more work was needed to improve the overall quality of SFO reviews, therefore this year’s findings place an even greater emphasis on this.

 SFO reviewers are not sufficiently considering practice at all levels, and this failure to consider whether systemic or procedural factors underpin poor practice is also impacting on how well all learning opportunities are identified. There has been a notable decline in the quality of both the learning and victim elements of SFO reviews, both of which are key factors in meeting the overall aim of these reviews. 

We published two independent reviews this year, which made a total of 27 recommendations to support HMPPS in making critical changes and improving how people on probation are managed in the community. Each of these recommendations has been accepted by HMPPS.

Recurring practice deficits are being identified through the SFO process, many of which also correlate with the findings of the local inspections and those from the two independent reviews we published. This raises further concerns that SFO reviews are not fulfilling their aim or potential in driving forward change and preventing practice deficits from reoccurring. 

Our work over the forthcoming year aims to support HMPPS in driving improvements in the quality of SFOs reviews, as well as monitoring how well the action plans are implemented and effect change. It is imperative that SFO reviews meet the expected standard so that victims and their families have a transparent overview of the practice in the case and relevant learning can be taken forward effectively and drive change. 

We make the following recommendations to HMPPS to improve to the quality of SFO reviews:

1. promptly review the SFO review document format to maximise the opportunity to produce high quality and informative SFO reviews that meet the needs of victims and their families 

2. ensure that the learning identified is translated into meaningful and impactful actions 

3. ensure that where applicable, all learning linked to the Probation partnership working is identified and shared with the relevant agencies 

4. develop a process to ensure that learning from SFO reviews is fed back into the organisation to inform and shape developments within probation regions and more widely across HMPPS 

5. ensure that robust and rigorous countersigning takes place on all SFO reviews before they are submitted for quality assurance 

6. put robust processes in place to ensure that, following quality assurance feedback, all required changes to the SFO review document are made timely and to a sufficient standard. 

7. SFO reviews, particularly those of the most serious offences, should where possible be undertaken by a separate probation region to that responsible for supervising the case at the time of the SFO. And consideration should be given to raising the grade of SFO reviewers, particularly for the most serious or complex cases.

Some Sound Advice

I notice the Quakers are offering the Labour Party some sound advice as we head towards a general election:- 

Quakers in Britain submission to Labour Policy Forum ‘Safe and secure communities’ consultation

Introduction 

Quakers in Britain is a national church of Quakers across England, Scotland and Wales. We are also a charity, working for positive change in areas such as peace and democracy. 

Affiliated to Quakers in Britain are Quakers in Criminal Justice, an informal network of Quakers with experience (including lived experience) and professional knowledge of many aspects of the criminal justice system. 

Quakers have worked for positive change in criminal justice since our emergence in the seventeenth century. Our testimonies to peace and equality lead to an emphasis on prevention, rehabilitation and restorative justice. We are passionate advocates of democracy, human rights and community peacebuilding. 

This consultation response reflects our faith perspective and our experience and expertise in building safe and secure communities. We recognise that both structural and personal changes are needed. 

1. How should Labour tackle anti-social behaviour and ensure people feel safe in their homes, workplaces and local communities? 

We welcome the Labour Policy Forum’s intention to address these complex and important issues. Our response focuses on local communities. “Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime” was a promising slogan but was not honoured in an even-handed way under the last Labour government: the response to crime was given more emphasis. Any new strategy must address causes. Many of the coercive and divisive “anti-social behaviour” strategies, pursued in isolation, proved counterproductive. In the austerity regimes that have prevailed since 2010, valuable preventive measures such as SureStart were undone, and the task of addressing causes has become harder. 

Most of the interventions that improve the feeling of security and reduce fear of crime, or build community cohesion, are to be found in non-criminal justice areas such as health (and especially mental health), housing, education and employment. 

Investment in programmes for young people, such as mentoring, especially in groups at a disproportionate risk of becoming involved in crime – such as young men not in education or employment – would be worthwhile. Of course, these approaches will only reduce crime, not eliminate it, and criminal justice agencies such as police, youth justice and probation will need to be involved. Where they are, close working with local partners is key, based on the smallest reasonable geography: local authority or police command unit, or smaller. Locally inspired solutions are the most effective and sustainable but this requires a commitment to devolving money and decision making, again, to the lowest decision making level or smallest geography. The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) published a report on Crime and Justice after Devolution in 2010. It spoke in favour of greater local identification of priorities and design of services and interventions. Labour could pursue and update the agenda developed here. 

Labour’s key message on anti-social behaviour must be that communities will not tolerate or harbour hate crime or discrimination of any sort. All public services and their staff must be encouraged to show this commitment through their work and engagement with the community. Successes should be publicised in a range of media: this is one small way of countering the punitive media rhetoric which denigrates and often undermines serious efforts at reform and improvement. 

Some community problems can only be addressed by nationally-initiated efforts. We think Labour should work for a humane and compassionate response to drug users and look at the experience of other jurisdictions in this regard. 

We welcome Labour’s emphasis on the safety of women and girls. On this too there needs to be a strong sense of national direction and prioritisation. Misogyny needs to be tackled in all institutions and agencies, including in the police itself, both in terms of restraints on its expression and education to challenge and undermine it. 

2. What resources and tools do the police and enforcement agencies need to keep our streets safe and to deal with neighbourhood crime? 

There is a clear need for immediate police responses to harmful anti-social behaviour and neighbourhood crime, but in the medium and longer term this is not an issue for police forces alone. Neighbourhood policing, in which officers on the ground have a chance to build up trusting relationships with residents and spot “signs of trouble” early have social value, even where they may not seem cost-efficient. Additional sensitivities are required in policing communities of colour, and to the appropriateness of placing police officers in schools. 

We encourage Labour to question how militarised British policing should become, and how transparently accountable armed officers should be after controversial shootings, which can rouse whole communities against the police. 

Most of the significant developments in effective practice in the last two or three decades have come from the advances in frontline, multidisciplinary working. Examples include the original 1997 youth offending team legislation, drugs work and the management of high-risk offenders through multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA). 

Without suggesting specific tools or resources, we feel it sensible that any policy should be assessed as to whether it can and should be delivered through a multiagency or multi-disciplinary approach, and where possible with some sort of pooled budget to ensure alignment and “buy-in”. 

For instance, despite some notable efforts on working with families, there has been an absence of any strategic priority to improve wrap-around service to families identified as having high needs or with children at risk of offending or dropping out of education. This priority should be restored. Support (not just classes) for parents or families experiencing separation could and should make a difference to the trajectory of young people, away from criminal justice. 

Much of police work involves dealing with people who show signs of mental distress. It therefore makes sense for mental health specialists to work closely alongside all police forces. Where homelessness is an issue, there needs to be close working with housing officials. The more efficiently people in need can be handed over to those trained and able to assist them, the less these burdens fall on the police. 

3. How can prevention and diversion schemes be improved to reduce crime and reoffending?

Prevention, at its best, is about far more than liaison and diversion schemes. It involves applying the research which shows us why and how people fall into crime in the first place. The following all play their part: adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), poverty, school exclusion, failure to provide for the needs of looked-after children, lack of drug and alcohol treatment centres, insufficient mental health services, closing of youth centres which has been linked to the growth of gang culture, and intergenerational limited opportunities. 

Given the massive costs of reoffending in England and Wales (estimated by the Ministry of Justice to be around £18 billion) together with the cost of housing a growing number of prisoners across the prison estate at £48,000 per person per year, a radical approach to prevention is called for. This would not only bring huge savings down the line but contribute to the well-being of society overall. 

Local, community-based responses to alcohol abuse and the crime associated with it can be made, but this really needs a national strategy which reaches all parts of the UK at local level. There are many aspects of local social policy that require overarching national or regional strategies before they can ever make a difference at neighbourhood level. There is always a danger of demanding or hoping that local communities solve their own problems when they no longer have the resources or morale to do so. 

4. What approach should the Labour Party take to improving justice? 

Court back-log 

It is clear that ‘justice delayed is justice denied’. But this has been happening for a long time. When the heads of the four criminal justice inspectorates in England and Wales came before the Justice Committee (June 2020) to answer the question ‘what is the most serious issue we face?’ the answer was ‘the court back-log’, given as 40,000 in the crown court and 483,678 in the magistrates court. For the sake of victims, witnesses and defendants this must be tackled. Court services could be provided in accessible community settings with appointment times that are convenient for working people. 

Prison, probation and rehabilitation 

The longstanding crisis in Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) has its roots in the long-term underfunding of both prison and probation services. Furthermore, staffing levels, recruitment, retention and morale in both areas have been deeply affected by poor policy choices in the recent past: the ‘Fair and Sustainable’ cull of prison staff and the ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ exercise which part-privatised and effectively dismantled probation from 2014, leading, among other things, to a collapse of sentence confidence in community penalties. The newly unified statutory National Probation Service has not recovered from the damage that has been inflicted on it. The stresses under which often inexperienced officers with impossibly large caseloads (because of staff shortages) struggle cannot be underestimated. We support the ideal of trauma-informed practice for all service users who need, but recognise that it is a long way from being realised. 

There is a counterproductive trend towards ever-longer sentences, despite no evidence that this works as a deterrent. It is our experience, through the work of prison chaplains and visitors across the prison estate, that the system is unable to recognise when a prisoner has accepted guilt, started to turn their life around and is keen for the rehabilitation and resettlement work that over-crowded prisons are unable to provide. Parole hearings have long waiting times and are frequently postponed. Lord Ramsbotham, former Chief Prison Inspector, stated that ‘enforced idleness is not good for mental health’. In a retrograde step, the Secretary of State for Justice has recently limited recommendations that can be made to the Parole Board, strengthening the role of the department over those voices of professionals who have knowledge of the person under consideration. 

The current Justice Secretary has not accepted the main recommendations from the House of Commons Justice Committee on dealing with the legacy of the abolished sentence of Imprisonment of Public Protection (IPP) in England and Wales, created in 2003. The call for evidence produced the highest number of submissions that the committee had ever received, most of which were hugely critical of IPP, which was technically abolished in 2012. The findings must not be dismissed in this way. We call on any future Labour government to take forward the recommendations at the first opportunity, and to press for them while still in opposition. This includes developing a new IPP action plan with clear performance measures.

Evidence-based approaches 

Longstanding empirically-based answers are available to all of the questions on justice in this consultation document, in academic research and the reports of think tanks, working parties and committees of enquiry. We appreciate that such questions should be asked anew with new generations of voters, but we sincerely hope that Labour will respect established and unfolding truths about creating safe and secure communities. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. We advocate the full implementation of a number of ground-breaking expert reports and reviews that have addressed a wide range of areas relevant to this consultation. These are: 2007 Corston (women offenders); 2009 Bradley (mental health); 2015 Taylor (under-18s); 2016 Coates (education and more); 2017 Lammy (BAME); 2017 Farmer (improving family ties); and the Neurodiversity Action Plan currently under consideration. 

The strategy of ‘justice reinvestment’ is relevant here. It usually means saving money on criminal justice interventions and investing it back into the poorest communities where crime and victimisation rates are highest, and that have the largest rates of resettling offenders returning to them from prison. It is undeniably a good idea, but no political party has taken it seriously since it first emerged in the 1990s. We encourage Labour to consider it. 

Labour must also give more strategic attention to restorative justice (RJ), and the variety of practical forms and legal and administrative contexts in which it can be applied. Much lip-service has been paid to it over the past 30 years, some progress has been made in its use with young offenders, but its potential as a means of addressing crime and anti-social behaviour, and its utility as a means of reducing conflict in communities, remains unrealised. There is a postcode lottery in availability. While RJ services should be victim-led, with victims having a right to information on it (as well as other relevant services), the proven value of its positive impact on offenders should be recognised. 

5. In what ways can devolution and constitutional reform empower people and bring our communities closer together? 

Cleaning up Westminster 

Quakers have engaged with political power since our earliest days. We are committed to democracy as the embodiment of our testimonies to equality, peace, truth and integrity. In recent years we have become concerned about the increasing amount of policy, legislation, rhetoric and behaviour that threaten both the structures and the culture of democracy. 

We are keen to ensure that if elected, Labour does not accept our weakened democracy as the status quo, and instead takes steps to strengthen it. We agree with the finding of the Commission on the UK’s Future that significant reform is needed to restore ethical standards and their safeguards, and therefore help improve trust in politicians and our political system. We would like Labour to prioritise truth and integrity as fundamental values underpinning our democracy. 

We ask the Labour Policy Forum to consider how the Commission on the UK’s Future’s proposals can be improved to ensure that the system does not still rely on the governing party to regulate itself. For example, the Commission report suggested that the Prime Minister or Parliament should decide whether to accept the proposed Integrity and Ethics Commission’s recommendation on how to deal with rule breaches by members of parliament. If the governing party has a strong majority in parliament, this leaves the power with that party. Similarly, the Commission on the UK’s Future report does not specify who will make sure the recommendations of the citizens’ jury are implemented, and whether this body will be independent or party-political. This risks leaving the system open to abuse by a governing party with a strong majority. 

Promoting human rights 

Quakers believe there is ‘that of God’ in everyone and that every human being should have the chance to flourish. Labour must do everything it can to ensure the Human Rights Act is protected. We welcome the Commission on the UK’s Future’s recommendations to entrench and expand some human rights in UK law. We would like environmental rights to be included in that list. 

The rights to freedom of assembly and expression have been undermined by recent changes in policy and legislation. These rights are key to a thriving democracy, ensuring that people can raise concerns when their voices aren’t being heard through other democratic channels such as voting. Protest has helped bring about many positive political changes in history, such as votes for women and the end of apartheid. We welcome the Labour leadership team’s emphasis on policing by consent. We ask Labour to ensure that peaceful protest is enabled, and the policing of protests is limited, proportionate, consistent, predictable and accountable. This includes repealing Part 3 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act (PCSC Act) and scrapping the Public Order Bill. These could be replaced with legislation that enables peaceful protest. 

Nurturing civil society 

We believe civil society is fundamental to democracy and social change. Charities and other civil society organisations can bring a huge amount of knowledge, expertise and ideas to benefit policymaking at a national and local level. Civil society engagement results in better-designed policies, and ensures that essential services have a greater positive impact. It also helps the collective experiences and views of ordinary people to influence political and policy decisions, and enables people to participate in efforts to bring about social change. 

Yet civil society in the UK has had to contend with a challenging political and operating environment for years, including: 

• Legislation such as the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 and Elections Act 2022 

• The politicisation of regulatory bodies such as the Electoral Commission 

• A dominant narrative that seeks to de-legitimise campaigning and other work on injustice and discrimination e.g. criticism of the National Trust for exploring its colonial history. 

We ask the Labour to take steps to improve the relationship between government and civil society. A cross-departmental engagement strategy is needed to set out how a Labour government would involve civil society organisations, and the people they work with, in all strategy and decision-making processes. This includes full consultation, pre-legislative scrutiny and equality impact assessments ahead of all planned new legislation, and meaningful engagement ahead of emergency legislation. The strategy must ensure that all engagement between civil society and government is meaningful, inclusive, and deliberative.

We think it would be helpful to appoint a standalone Minister for Civil Society who acts as a champion for civil society within government and beyond. They would be most effective if placed at heart of government in the Cabinet Office. The Civil Society Directorate should also be moved back to the Cabinet Office and given responsibility for setting strategy and targets on civil society across government. There must be clear accountability mechanisms so that it can hold other departments to account. 

Regulators exist to provide accountability. It is therefore crucial that they are independent from both government and party politics. This enables them to be effective, and credible in the eyes of the public. We ask Labour to protect the regulatory independence of the Electoral Commission, Charity Commission, Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies, and Equality and Human Rights Commission. Restoring the independence of the Electoral Commission will require amending or repealing Part 3 of the Elections Act 2022. 

Reform of the public appointments process is needed to increase the power of parliament, increase fair competition, and prevent the appointment of unqualified candidates. We ask Labour to give the House of Commons formal control of appointment processes, provide Select Committees with an effective power of veto at pre-appointment hearings, and ensure terms for the Chairs of regulatory bodies are non-renewable and fixed. 

6. What are the specific implications of policy proposals in this area for (a) women, (b) Black, Asian and minority ethnic people; (c) LGBT+ people, (d) disabled people and (e) all those with other protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010? 

People with protected characteristics have been disproportionately negatively affected by recent changes in policy and legislation around democracy and human rights. For example, Black people are disproportionately affected by stop and search, which has been expanded in England and Wales via the PCSC Act and Public Order Bill. The PCSC Act also put many Gypsies and Travellers at risk of criminalisation through creating new police powers and sentences around trespass. The introduction of voter ID in the Elections Act will disenfranchise many people from minoritised groups. We ask Labour to repeal parts 3 and 4 of the PCSC Act, scrap the Public Order Bill and reform electoral law so that everyone who is eligible to vote can participate fully in elections and can engage in public debate.