The Probation Reality

Why aren't there enough staff? Well, remember there was the rushed, unfathomable TR1 sifting of large numbers of qualified, experienced practitioners followed by the CRC's cull of staff. In March 2015 there was this on this blog for just one of the 21 CRC areas:

"We currently have an establishment of 340 full time equivalent staff (which includes agency and fixed term contract staff) within Cumbria and Lancashire and we will need to move to the full time equivalent of 217 by the Autumn. This is a reduction of 123 full time equivalents."

That included reductions of 17 Probation Services Officers (from 88 to 71) & 25 Probation Officers (from 56 to 31). These 40+ staff were hampered from returning to NPS employment by being re-branded as 'second-class' through the imposition of a range of hurdles, e.g. having to start at the bottom of the relevant scale rather than being transferred across on existing terms & conditions (as NPS to CRC transferees could). Some may have made it back, some may have taken agency work - many (if not most) would have had enough & are now happily engaged in other roles, e.g. making coffees

The whole disastrous, calamitous collapse of the Probation Service was a calculated structural demolition. To repeat the words of Anon in today's blog: "This situation is a failing at Executive and Senior Management level and given lessons are not being learned just when are THEY accountable?" Moreover, the intentional, injurious acts by Grayling & those who carried out his wishes must also be accounted for in giving the context of the tragic systemic failings we are now hearing about.

*****
I'm a fairly new SPO. Workloads are just unmanageable. I spend my day dealing with burnt out staff, I have never known so many staff to have mental health issues. I'm trying my best to keep them in work and wrap as much support around them as possible but it just feels like a sticking plaster. 

Change must come from higher up but they just don't care. I've tried to express my concerns but was told "you can always leave if you wanted". This is not what I want. I did not join probation to be told that! 

Because I'm dealing with staff issues all week and the constant emails full of actions "check this list, plan an event for tomorrow's disability day, audit these cases etc" I have zero time to do my own work. I'm logging on every single night and at weekends. I'm working 65+ hours a week. I've not done a time sheet in years and never claim any of this back. 

I'm not doing anything exceptional, I'm just keeping the office ticking over. Do I get any thanks from senior managers? Nope! I just get told off for not completing my mandatory training. It's an awful organisation to work for right now. Still full of good people though (for the most part) and it's those who I stick around for. But I'm a long way from retirement and I'm not sure I have it in me to stay much longer.

******
I have posted on this blog anonymously for fear of reprisals so it is refreshing that I no longer have to feel scared that I might accidentally reveal myself. I ended up going off sick at the end of May to care for my elderly father (who sadly passed away in June) I became physically and mentally unable to return to work knowing full well what I would be walking back into. 

During my 3 months off not once did I feel supported, I was made subject to Cheshire and Greater Manchester's sickness absence review policy and felt more harassed than anything. When I went off in May I had a predominantly medium risk case load, mainly DV of 85+ cases with severe mental health issues/homelessness. I was a Case Manager/Probation Services Officer.

I can honestly say as an experienced CM/PSO this past 2/3 years have felt like living in hell. I class myself (as do my family) as quite hard core, but the changes and models that were introduced just made it impossible to remain on top of work, to manage risk and effectively support and work with service users. 

Going home every night wondering if I would walk into an SFO the next day leaving me constantly emotionally exhausted, frustrated and angry with management for their complete and utter denial that none of what they'd introduced was working. Constantly send out email after email about targets, how we needed to do better and what we still had to complete, regardless. 

On numerous occasions there may only be two members of staff in the office. Absolutely no exaggeration on lower than low staffing levels in some offices. CGM have lost and continue to lose staff but yet the higher powers-that-be appear to be deluded that the staff that are left can continue to manage big case loads and still meet ridiculous performance targets.

I, along with three other people in pretty much the same month, made the decision to resign and left in September this year - this was a job that for the past 20+ years I have loved (well before TR) and envisaged that I would remain in this employment till I retired.

******
HMIP report: "29% Percentage fall in the number of pre-sentence reports completed from July-September 2013 to July-September 2018"

That's 29% fewer cases where there is significant background information about an individual, a baseline of knowledge which contributes to the "intel" that informs sentencing, sentence planning, parole decisions, rehabilitation needs; a source of information that helps explain how an individual found their way to the interview, what happened to them, what deficits can be addressed.

These are issues the privateers don't give a fuck about because they ain't about rehabilitation, they're about monetisation, profitability & processing commodities. No Aussie capitalisation bank has any interest whatsoever in anything other than improving the financial return on the investment.

And these are issues the new NPS no longer give a fuck about because they're of no interest to the political classes, to the spads, to the career civil servants looking for their next lucrative gong-enhancing posting - New York? Brussels?

The Need for Accountability

Dear Jim,

I am unable to post direct, my apologies, but would like to ask blog readers to please read the summary and conclusion in the HMIP final report following the Independent Review of the case of Leroy Campbell published September 2018 and consider what we are learning today about the Joseph McCann SFO:-

“In our report we have identified some significant shortcomings in the practice and management of this case ( LC)......in many SFO reviews the issues identified are systemic failures, whereas in the case we have identified points where practitioners and managers simply did not do what they should have done.” 

Following this Sonia Crozier (Executive Director NPS) and Ian Poree (Executive Director Interventions) wrote to all staff:- 

“all SFOs are tragic events with impacts on victims, families and staff. We know that staff across probation are dedicated in their efforts to avoid such cases, but if they do happen we also have a duty to learn from them.” 

I am intrigued to know what Ms Crozier and Mr Poree put in place to ensure the learning from the Leroy Campbell case was taken forward. We know LC had a significant number of Offender Managers and this was a criticism in the HMIP report, then today we learn that 4 Probation Officers from Watford Office faced disciplinary concerning the McCann case but no mention is made of action against managers or senior managers.

We all know as practitioners that TR had a devastating impact on Probation, my personal caseload average post TR was 150%. That is not exceptional, other POs have (and currently are) higher. Agency staff continue to be essential workers at this time, the only relief offered to exhausted teams who have been working for years now under this excessive workload. 

My point? Just when are Senior Managers accountable for failure over years to adequately resource this essential Criminal Justice agency? Is our service ever running short of senior managers? No, any such vacancies are promptly filled. But the coal face? Well, there’s the rub. Every LDU is running on fewer practitioners that it should have and the consequences over time are mounting up in ever increasing numbers of SFOs. 

This situation is a failing at Executive and Senior Management level and given lessons are not being learned just when are THEY accountable?

Anon

TR Has Dire Consequences

Regular readers will recall that I mentioned a few days ago that when addressing a London Napo Branch meeting, Nick Hardwick, the former Chair of the Parole Board, warned that there could be high profile cases about to become public and be 'weaponised' during the election campaign. It looks like this is one of them as reported on the BBC website:-

Joseph McCann guilty of sex attacks on 11 women and children

A man who carried out a string of sex attacks on 11 women and children across England over two weeks has been found guilty of 37 offences. Joseph McCann's victims were aged between 11 and 71 and included three women who were abducted off the street at knifepoint and repeatedly raped. The 34-year-old also raped a mother in her home and then tied her to a bed as he molested her son and daughter. McCann, of Harrow, was found guilty of offences including rape and kidnap.

The convicted burglar had been released from prison following a probation error in February before he embarked on a cocaine and vodka-fuelled rampage. McCann's "spree of sex attacks" started in Watford before moving to London, Greater Manchester and Cheshire over two weeks in April and May. Hundreds of officers from five forces were deployed in the manhunt before he was finally caught while hiding in a tree. Det Ch Insp Katherine Goodwin described him as "one of the most dangerous sex offenders the country has ever seen".

Jo Farrar, chief executive of HM Prisons and Probation Service, "apologised unreservedly" for "failings" which led to McCann being released early, adding that "strong and immediate action" had been taken against those involved with the case.

--oo00oo--

This report, also on the BBC website, details the chronology and the consequences of TR that saw experienced staff dumped, a service thrown into crisis and the result of Civil Service process-driven bureacracy and secrecy:- 

Joseph McCann: The failures that let violent criminal back on the streets

The crimes of serial rapist Joseph McCann shocked the country and sparked a nationwide manhunt. But he was a violent offender out on licence from prison. How did justice system failures leave him free to start his spree?

Joseph McCann struck terror and fear into his victims. One teenage girl, who'd been held at knifepoint and raped in front of her young brother, said he had eyes of "pure evil". Although the 34-year-old never appeared in front of the jury during his trial, his threatening and menacing presence was clear from the testimony of those he attacked - and it seems to have been a theme throughout his life.

Born in February 1985, McCann had problems controlling his anger as a child and was in trouble with police from the age of 11, before going on to commit a series of offences including theft, criminal damage and handling stolen goods. While in his teens, there were warning signs of his tendency to carry weapons when he was convicted of possession of a bladed article. Then, in 2008, aged 23, he was jailed for a violent burglary at the home of an 85-year-old man. He broke in through a side door and threatened the pensioner with a knife.

McCann was said by his barrister to be "thoroughly ashamed" of what he'd done. According to a newspaper report of the court case, his "goal" was to live a crime-free life and provide for his family legitimately. He'd missed the birth of his partner's first child because he was in prison and would be locked up when she gave birth again. But because the judge considered him to be dangerous, McCann was ordered to serve a sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP), which meant that after a minimum term of two-and-a-half years he'd be freed only when the Parole Board decided it was safe to do so.

These sentences, designed to protect the public from dangerous prisoners, were scrapped in 2012. They formed part of the recent row between political parties over the release of London Bridge attacker Usman Khan.

It's an indication of how entrenched McCann's offending behaviour was that the board rejected his applications for parole three times, in 2010, 2012 and 2014. However, while in prison, in an effort to convince the authorities he could be safely let out, McCann completed a wide range of rehabilitation programmes, among them courses on thinking skills, victim awareness and building healthy relationships.

He was moved to a unit at Wymott Prison, Lancashire, for inmates with complex offending needs, including those with a personality disorder. He was also sent to Warren Hill jail, in Suffolk, which specialises in helping prisoners show they are suitable for release through a programme of "risk reduction".

By the time of his fourth parole hearing probation and prison officials said McCann's behaviour had improved, and he was freed in March 2017 on condition that he stay initially at an approved premises, also known as a bail or probation hostel, abide by a curfew, undergo drug testing and inform the authorities of any new relationship he entered into. But within months McCann was back in trouble. He was arrested and charged with burglary and, in August, remanded in custody. Crucially, however, the authorities had not followed the correct procedures.

Because McCann had been on licence from prison when he was arrested, he should have been recalled to jail - a process that would have ensured the Parole Board was informed by the Probation Service about his case. But that didn't happen. The failure to do so was hugely significant - it meant the board had no control over decisions about his future release.

"There were shocking consequences, life-changing consequences," said Prof Nick Hardwick, who was chair of the Parole Board at the time. "If the case had been referred back to the Parole Board, as it should have been, he wouldn't have been re-released and those awful events wouldn't have happened."

In January 2018, after being found guilty of burglary, McCann was sentenced. Luton Crown Court heard that he'd broken into a house, stolen car keys and, along with an accomplice, driven off in two BMWs. Judge Richard Foster said McCann had told the jury a "pack of lies" and described his record as "appalling". He noted the offences had been committed while on licence, telling him: "You're pulling the wool over the eyes of your supervising officers."

Judge Foster acknowledged that McCann's case should have been referred to the Parole Board. "You certainly should have been recalled," he said, suggesting it was not too late to do so. "You will serve three years in custody... to run concurrently with your current sentence if you are recalled," he said, adding that his jail term should not be reduced because of "time served" in prison while on remand.

But in spite of being given such a heavy hint by the judge, the recall process was not applied, the Parole Board was not informed about the case and time served on remand was counted as part of his sentence. As a result McCann was dealt with as any offender given a fixed-term, or determinate, sentence would be. He was released at the halfway point, after 18 months, in February 2019. Two months later, he began his devastating spree of offending.

Had McCann been referred to the Parole Board, it would not have considered his release until the summer. A panel would have assessed his case in great detail and the expectation is that he would not have been let out at that stage. Questions about the failure to notify the board centre on the National Probation Service - and in particular, its office at Watford, Hertfordshire, where McCann's case was being handled.

Ian Lawrence, general secretary of the probation union NAPO, said there was a variety of problems there, including a number of senior staff changes. "It was pretty much chaos in the office in terms of the supervisory system," he told BBC News. "It was not a happy place."

In September 2019, an inspection report found that performance in the wider region was undermined by workloads that were "too high", with officers having to manage an average of 42 cases each. The report said there were "significant staff shortages", with gaps filled by agency workers, and identified problems assessing the threat posed by offenders. "Staff did not sufficiently analyse the risk of serious harm or consider victims and potential victims," it added.

As a result of the failings, four probation officers from the Watford office faced disciplinary proceedings, one of whom was found guilty of gross misconduct and has since been demoted. Two other workers were investigated for poor performance, including their handling of the McCann case. One employee was sacked and the contract of the other individual, who was from an agency, was terminated.

But Nick Hardwick believes individual members of staff should not be made scapegoats for more fundamental weaknesses within a system that has had to contend with budget cuts and a controversial re-structuring in 2014. "What we don't know is whether the context of the pressures and resource shortages the probation service are under were contributory factors," he said. "So, it's no good just looking at the person on the front line who made the decision - we need to look at the wider system failures here to see where the buck should stop."

Dr Jo Farrar, chief executive of HM Prisons and Probation Service, offered sympathy to McCann's victims for his "appalling crimes". "We recognise that there were failings and we apologise unreservedly for our part in this," she said. "We are committed to doing everything we possibly can to learn from this terrible case."

In addition to action against those who managed McCann's case, she said the the organisation was taking "significant steps to improve intelligence-sharing between agencies". New mandatory training on recall is being developed for all probation officers, and guidance on when prisoners should be recalled has been updated, added Dr Farrar.

Oven-ready

So, somewhat late in the day, the BBC have finally decided to try and redeem themselves from accusations of bias towards Boris Johnson and the Tory Party. Having endlessly accused Jeremy Corbyn of being 'frit', it turns out it's Boris who is too scared to face some serious scrutiny and where he knows his bullshit and bluster won't wash - ironically in front of arch-Tory Andrew Neil.

Without doubt it's a shocking time for democracy with a bare-faced bully and liar being allowed to pretty much set the political agenda during a general election and avoid any serious questioning that would highlight both his nasty character and endless falsehoods. Both he and his sociopathic minders know full well that Jeremy Corbyn is too decent and will not stoop to personal attack, so Boris gets away with it.

Lets hope the cynical calculation back-fires and next Thursday the Electorate delivers a hung Parliament. Whatever, it's going to be an extraordinary event that's impossible for anyone to call. I've run a Polling Station for over 30 years and been told more staff have been allocated due to a massive amount of recent registrations. I'm sure this pattern is mirrored all over the country and most are likely to be young people. Draw your own conclusion as to what their voting intentions are likely to be.

I gather there's been a surge in postal voting as well and if some seasonal bad weather is added into the equation, it's anybody's guess what could happen. Meanwhile, lets remind ourselves of what Andrew Neil said last night about our scared prime minister:-

"And that concludes our fourth leaders' interview for the general election of 2019. There is, of course, still one to be done. Boris Johnson. The prime minister. We have been asking him for weeks now to give us a date, a time, a venue. As of now, none has been forthcoming. No broadcaster can compel a politician to be interviewed.

But leaders' interviews have been a key part of the BBC's prime-time election coverage for decades. We do them, on your behalf, to scrutinise and hold to account those who would govern us. That is democracy. We have always proceeded in good faith that the leaders would participate. And in every election they have. All of them. Until this one. It is not too late. We have an interview prepared. Oven-ready, as Mr Johnson likes to say.

The theme running through our questions is trust - and why at so many times in his career, in politics and journalism, critics and sometimes even those close to him have deemed him to be untrustworthy. It is, of course, relevant to what he is promising us all now. Can he be trusted to deliver 50,000 more nurses when almost 20,000 in his numbers are already working for the NHS?

He promises 40 new hospitals. But only six are scheduled to be built by 2025. Can he be believed when he claims another 34 will be built in the five years after that? Can he be trusted to fund the NHS properly when he uses a cash figure of an extra £34bn? After inflation the additional money promised amounts to £20bn. He vows that the NHS will not be on the table in any trade talks with America.

But he vowed to the DUP, his Unionist allies in Northern Ireland, that there would never be a border down the Irish Sea. That is as important to the DUP as the NHS is to the rest of us. It is a vow his Brexit deal would seem to break. Now he tells us he's always been an opponent of austerity. We would ask him for evidence of that. And we would want to know why an opponent of austerity would bake so much of it into their future spending plans.

We would ask why, as with the proposed increase in police numbers, so many of his promises only take us back to the future. Back to where we were before austerity began. Social care is an issue of growing concern. On the steps of Downing Street in July he said he'd prepared a plan for social care. We'd ask him why that plan is not in his manifesto.

Questions of trust. Questions we'd like to put to Mr Johnson so you can hear his replies. But we can't. Because he won't sit down with us. There is no law, no Supreme Court ruling that can force Mr Johnson to participate in a BBC leaders' interview. But the prime minister of our nation will, at times, have to stand up to President Trump, President Putin, President Xi of China. So it was surely not expecting too much that he spend half an hour standing up to me. Good night."

Andrew Neil

The Song Remains the Same

This is a truly dreadful election, full of dreadful, lying politicians, spear-headed by our prime minister who continues to break new ground and plumb greater depths in promising the world and distancing himself from the truth regarding everything. The following came in before the events of last Friday and I've been waiting to find the right moment before republishing:-

The song remains the same. For years now, and that includes the BlueLabour years, the move has been towards 'monetising' & 'profitising' anything and everything. It's always been thus in the USA where the pioneer spirit defined the development of that relatively modern nation. And look what they elected as a 'Leader'.

The UK is a different animal. Its place in the global market has always been defined by the privileged 1% (most by accident of birth rather than talent or ability) and a cabal of calculating greedy spivs acting on their behalf. This election is crunchtime for the UK in so many ways.

From my perspective:

• do we let the 1% of privileged bullies continue to drain the public purse for their own enjoyment
• do we sacrifice 'community' for petty personal gain
• do we let multinationals continue to rape the planet
• do we sell the remainder of the UK to a global facilities magnate
• do we abandon all notion of social care for 'career prospects'
• what do we tell future generations when they ask "What the fuck were you thinking?"

Watch Mike Leigh's 'Peterloo'; watch Ken Loach's 'Sorry We Missed You'; watch 'I, Daniel Blake'. They are accounts of how the UK works when the 1% are in charge. Perhaps not everyone sees it.

Perhaps, on take-home salaries of £2k/3k/4k/5k+, its hard to comprehend? For some, perhaps, the caseload of the day live in another world that disappears after 5pm? For others, perhaps, the attitudes and actions of those before the courts are just something to 'highlight, criticise & correct' through punishment?

Do not forget - we are all not so very far away from each other. We have more in common than we are different. It only takes.... a false allegation; a missed payment; a moment of anger; one too many wines after a stressful day; a line of this or that on a night out; a failed company; loss of employment; illness; bereavement...

But hey ho, being a touchy-feely lefty pinko fluffy-bunny just ain't cool:

"Toughen up."
"Get over it."
"We are where we are."
"It is what it is."
"Just fucking do it."
"This isn't a pity-fest."
"You're paid to protect the public, not mollycoddle bloody offenders."

Not one single political party has made one single reference to the probation profession. Not once, not even in passing. The Wales experiment will become the UK experience. It is NOT reunification. It is NOT public ownership. It is NOT a victory for the woefully inadequate & amateur "probation union" (whose staff are nevertheless paid professional-sized fees). It is, as stated above, "Just moving the dividing line and remarketing again".

The consequences for staff, for victims' families and the public in general WILL be far more serious than TR1.

--oo00oo--

I'll combine the contribution above with something I spotted on the politics.co.uk website and slightly edited here:-

Every day of this campaign, our basic standards erode a little further

Not long now. It's the sort of comforting phrase a parent might offer to a whining child complaining about the length of a never-ending journey. Not long now until December 13th and the end of the worst general election campaign in living memory – and I am old enough to remember some really bad ones.

If you are feeling nauseous, weary, depressed, angry, sad – don't worry. That seems like a rational range of responses to what we've been served up. This process is supposed to be about what Sir Robin Day called "the destiny of the nation" – big, serious and important stuff. Instead there are fantasy claims and fantasy accusations, with the combined effect being more like a horror movie than Disney's Fantasia.

It has been profoundly unsettling. But why specifically? What is that persistent, nagging feeling of disquiet which follows so many interviews, 'debates' and election adverts? I think it has to do with the shattering of norms of behaviour and the upending of some fundamental tenets and beliefs.

Chief among these is the until now unchallenged one that we should, as a rule, tell the truth. Apart from assuring our children that yes, we are nearly there, one of the other things we tell them is that lying is bad. It is wrong. 'Cheats never beat', as the old phrase had it. Dishonesty should not be rewarded. The prizes should go to the most talented and the hardest working, not the most slippery and untrustworthy.

Lying has traditionally been frowned upon. Go back to the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. It is the wicked, deceitful serpent who misleads Eve, causes all the trouble, sees us kicked out of paradise and puts back the cause of naturism by thousands of years.

--//--

Fast forward to our delightful general election campaign and you can see how far we have fallen - about as far as Adam and Eve from their earthly paradise.

Of course politicians have always fibbed, spun, and put the best gloss on things. Anthony Eden lied about his intentions over Suez – but then he resigned. Harold Wilson said that "the pound in your pocket" had not been devalued – but then he never again regained a reputation for straight dealing. Tony Blair was not, I think, lying about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Like others he believed in the intelligence, such as it was. But many people were convinced he lied - and he too never recovered.

This time something is different. People talk rather glibly about 'fake news' or a 'post-truth' election. But it's much more serious than that. The very nature and status of truth seems to be being discounted, as though it either doesn't exist or doesn't really matter if it does. The British liar in chief is, of course, Boris Johnson, who no longer seems able to recognise what the truth is, in his public utterances at least. I expect members of the DUP feel his private words cannot be relied on either. Johnson took his lead from Donald Trump. Nuff said.

Perhaps this all sounds naïve and unrealistic. People have always lied, and they always will. Perhaps only believers in the so-called 'just world fallacy' - that heroes are rewarded and villains get their just desserts - are upset by this cavalcade of lies and deception. Perhaps we should even admire and marvel at the consummate, shameless lying of the prime minister and his colleagues and make no objections on moral grounds.

Well I object. And not just out of moral squeamishness. This is a slippery slope. If we give up the fight on truth-telling and facts, which will be the next Enlightenment value to be jettisoned? Will casual violence become acceptable? Theft? We haven't even dealt with existing moral failures such as slavery or rape. What happens to a society in which we just shrug and let the liars win? Returning to a pre-Enlightenment world does not strike me as progress.

We won't always agree about the facts. As Montaigne also said: "Today's truth is not that which is, but that which others find persuasive." But I'm not giving up on facts and truth, and neither should you. Another 18th century voice, that of Jonathan Swift, tells us why:

"Falsehood flies," he wrote, "and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect…like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead."

Not long now. And so much still to lose.

Stefan Stern is a journalist and author. He is a regular contributor to The Guardian and the Financial Times. His latest book How To Be A Better Leader was published in March this year. You can follow him here.

Another Chicken Roosted

You would think that politicians would learn from past behaviour that law introduced in order to gain political advantage, especially in the field of crime, nearly always ends badly, but sadly they don't. A whole number of chickens have been coming home to roost during this election campaign and through a number of tweets the Secret Barrister has rather neatly highlighted another:-

This is the scandal caused by RUI (Release Under Investigation): 

1. The govt tightened the use of police bail to score cheap headlines 

2. Thousands of suspected violent & sex offenders RUI’d with no conditions 

3. Under resourced police take years to investigate alleged offences
4. Under resourced Crown Prosecution Service take months to make a charging decision 

5. Defendants summonsed to court for a first appearance 6 months later 

6. Trial listed in the Crown Court a year later due to lack of open courtrooms 

7. Trial inevitably adjourned because of 6.
8. Three years down the line, witnesses lose heart and the case ends up being dropped on the fourth trial listing. No justice for anyone.

The story has been investigated by BBC Newsnight:-

'Scandal brewing' as thousands of suspects released

More than 93,000 suspected violent criminals and sex offenders have been released without restrictions by police in England and Wales since 2017, figures obtained by BBC Newsnight show. People suspected of offences including rape and murder have been among those "Released Under Investigation" (RUI).

Richard Miller of the Law Society said a "major scandal" was brewing over the way RUIs are being used. The Home Office said the cases must be regularly reviewed and managed.

In 2017, the rules on pre-charge bail changed, making it more difficult for police to keep suspects on bail beyond 28 days. The overuse of RUIs, Mr Miller said, is the unintended consequence of the changes. Unlike pre-charge bail, RUIs do not impose a limit on suspects' movements, stop them from contacting certain people or require them report to a police station. Earlier this month the government announced plans to review the 2017 changes.

In September 2018, Alan Martin, 53, was released under investigation by police in Sunderland, after his estranged wife Kay Richardson had gone to the police accusing him of rape. No conditions were imposed and the police gave Martin the keys back to the home he had shared with Ms Richardson. Martin let himself into the house and waited for Ms Richardson, 49, before attacking her with a hammer and strangling her.

"They might as well have gone and opened the door for him," said Audrey Richardson, Kay's mother. "He killed her," she said. "We've got to accept this and the police is not taking a little bit of responsibility... We are haunted by what happened."

Mr Martin had a history of domestic violence. But Northumbria Police said, because he had not been bailed, officers had no legal right to keep the keys from him. The force were cleared of misconduct by The Independent Office for Police Conduct.

Newsnight's data - obtained under the Freedom of Information Act - revealed there were 322,250 RUI cases between April 2017 to October this year. Of these, 93,098 related to violence against a person and sexual offences cases. The figures were provided by 20 of the 44 police forces in England and Wales - meaning the total number of RUIs since 2017 is likely to be much higher.

Caroline Goodwin QC, chairwoman of the Criminal Bar Association, said there were people being released without "any form of judicial control or indeed police bail control" which "can be dangerous" for victims.

Newsnight found 2,772 of the cases involving violent and sexual offences had been classed as RUI for more than 12 months. "It's unfair on defendants and complainants if these cases are not resolved quickly," said Mr Miller, head of justice at the Law Society. "It also means that the quality of the evidence is impacted as the longer a case is left the more memories fade."

Newsnight spoke to a man who was released under investigation for more than two years, after he was accused of rape. He agreed to speak to the BBC anonymously. "Your life is effectively put on hold. You're put into this limbo where everything starts falling apart around you, you've got no control of it whatsoever," he said. "I felt suicidal." He protested his innocence and was eventually told he would not be charged. "I would expect, with the nature of the crime I was accused of, to have been placed under specific instructions," he added. "But there were no restrictions at all."

The Home Office said the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) released guidance to frontline officers this year stressing the importance of using pre-charge bail where necessary and proportionate, including in high harm cases.

"We will always give the police and the criminal justice system the full support and powers they need to protect the public from harm," said Home Secretary Priti Patel. "We launched a review of pre-charge bail legislation to prioritise the safety of victims and empower the police investigating all types of offences, whilst continuing to make sure cases are dealt with as swiftly as possible."

A Bankrupt System and Philosophy

As always, thanks go to contributors:-

I think once upon a time, the client walking into the probation office, whether they liked going or not, recognised that they may get some benefit or opportunity from it. The person you went to see had some capacity to assist and offer some support with a range of social issues. Your PO was not seen as the enemy.

That's not true today. The PO can offer little assistance or support, and the client walking into the office is fully aware of the PO's authority to impose sanction or recall to custody. Your PO might not be the enemy, but they do represent a perceived danger or risk to the clients continued freedom. I think that's a very fundamental difference with the operational model of probation, and a very damaging one.

Today's relationship between client and PO is based on fear. Both parties are fearful of what the other might do and of what consequences may unfold from their actions. That's a very unhealthy relationship, making the client far less likely to disclose any issues or problems that may result in an adverse reaction from the PO, and the PO never really gets a complete picture of what's going on in the clients world outside the office. It's corrosive to both parties, and advances very little.

Outsourcing the rehabilitation programmes offenders are ultimately required to attend to private enterprise does nothing to enhance the relationship between client and PO. In fact it could be damaging. The one size fits all approach that the private sector brings, to my mind anyway, is just a waste of time and money, it's jumping through hoops and profit oriented process.

--oo00oo--

TR2 will be a disaster because TR1 was a disaster and all this does is fart about with the goal posts for a bankrupt philosophy, and a bankrupt system. Today spent preparing for an oral hearing. So depressing. I cannot recommend release, but the alternative will be couched in terms of the rehabilitative work that will be done in custody, but IT WON'T. 

I have worked with this man for years. He needs individual, proper attention and services offering him grief and trauma counselling, alcohol detox and rebuilding. My heart breaks for him, his children, his victims past and future. But all we have is his recycling through a defunct system and my managers signing off with comments that he cannot be safely managed in the community, thus abdicating any responsibility for managing him in the community, and spitting him out sans support after every sentence.

Probation Responds

For some time there's been a feeling that 'probation' was being air-brushed out of existence, a situation not helped by the conspicuous absence of a high profile champion and widespread misunderstanding of its role and purpose. The special ethos and identity of a once-proud 100 year-old public service was being deliberately subsumed by the forced marriage to the Prison Service and destined to disappear behind a wall of civil service command and control secrecy and bureaucracy. 

Despite all the agony inflicted by Chris Grayling's TR omnishambles, the utter failure of the part-privatisation, exodus of highly experienced staff, collapse of morale, increase in sickness levels and failure of recruitment and retention of staff, the serious plight of probation hardly got a mention by any political party until last Friday. But politicians of all persuasions have never really grasped what the profession is about and just want to win votes with populist messages. Now is the moment for a serious discussion instead and I note Napo have published an open letter, along with academics and others in the Times:-   

London Bridge Incident - Open letter to Amy Rees and Sonia Crozier

Dear Amy and Sonia,

London Bridge Incident

The events of last Friday were shocking and tragic, and members of the public are understandably questioning their safety and the role of the various agencies who are tasked with keeping our communities safe. This a moment when we share in the collective shock, grief and anger of a society reeling from the evidence that the world itself is not a safe place.

We accept that there will inevitably be a move to review practice in light of these events, but we urge you to approach this in the spirit of learning and developing rather than placating some of the shameful calls from certain politicians to blame and scapegoat probation staff. You will know as well as we do that since 2014 Probation has been torn apart by what is now understood to be the failed “transforming rehabilitation” experiment. Our members have worked against the odds and in the face of intolerable stress to carry on doing the best they can despite huge workloads and, in the case of some CRCs, dangerous operating models.

Our members live every day with the knowledge that they are not working in a system where they can do what they know needs to be done to rehabilitate clients and protect the public. Every day they also face the stress and pressure that this causes them. We now ask in the spirit of partnership that you respond in a supportive rather than punitive way to any perceived failings that are uncovered by this and other SFO reviews, and that you take into consideration all of the circumstances, including excessive workloads, when deciding the approach that HMPPS will take.

We have all been moved by the sentiments expressed by the family of Jack Merritt who told us all that Jack would not want to see a hasty reaction that imposed a more punitive approach to sentencing as a result of this most recent outrage. We encourage you to work with us and our members to find a more measured and thoughtful response than that offered by those who support longer sentences and more restrictive approaches.

IAN LAWRENCE General Secretary  KATIE LOMAS National Chair

--oo00oo--

Times letters: The importance of prisoner rehabilitation

Sir, The tragedy at Fishmongers’ Hall will inevitably spark discussion about prisoner reintegration. It would be heartbreaking, however, if the terrible events of Friday were used only for political posturing about ending early release, increasing sentence lengths or, especially, judging important educational initiatives such as Learning Together.

Learning Together has been one of the few true success stories in the UK’s beleaguered prisons over the past five years. Starting with a single Cambridge course at HMP Grendon, Learning Together partnerships between prisons and universities are now found in more than 35 prisons across the UK and beyond. Through its spirit of inclusion and the transformative power of education, the scheme has had an overwhelmingly positive impact on prisons and universities.

Not only were participants and alumni from these Learning Together courses the primary victims of Friday’s tragedy but Learning Together participants — including former prisoners and a serving prisoner on day release from prison — were among the “citizen heroes” who have been rightly celebrated for their bravery in confronting the attacker and performing first aid on the wounded. This truth about prisoner reintegration should not be overlooked: former prisoners can be dangerous, yes, as any of us can, but they can also become citizens, heroic ones even, when they have the opportunity. Learning Together courses recognise and promote this potential of every human being. Friday’s tragedy should in no way detract from this remarkable work.

Prof. Shadd Maruna, Queen’s University Belfast; Prof. Judith Aldridge, University of Manchester; Prof. Lorana Bartels, Australian National University; Prof. Mary Bosworth, Oxford University; Emeritus Prof Denis Bracken, University of Manitoba (CAN); Dr. Rose Broad, University of Manchester; Dr. Anna Bryson,Queen’s University Belfast; Prof. Lawrence Burke, University of Liverpool; Prof. Michele Burman, University of Glasgow; Prof. Sarah Colvin, University of Cambridge; Prof. Rachel Condry, Oxford University; Prof. Ben Crewe, Cambridge University; Dr. Pieter De Witte, K. U. Leuven University (BEL); Prof. Ioan Durnescu, University of Bucharest (ROM); Dr. Rod Earle, The Open University; Dr. Anna Eriksson, Monash University (Aust); Dr Catherine Flynn, Monash University (Aust); Prof. David Gadd, University of Manchester; Prof. Loraine Gelsthorpe, Cambridge University; Prof. Barry Goldson, University of Liverpool; Dr. Hannah Graham, University of Stirling; Dr. Kate Herrity, University of Leicester; Prof. Carolyn Hoyle, Oxford University; Dr. Susie Hulley, Cambridge University; Prof. Nicola Lacey, London School of Economics; Dr. Sarah Lageson, Rutgers University (USA); Prof. Alison Liebling, Cambridge University; Dr. Claire Lightowler, University of Strathclyde; Prof. Ian Loader, Oxford University; Prof. Nancy Loucks, OBE, Families Outside, Scotland; Prof. Lesley McAra, University of Edinburgh; Prof. Kieran McEvoy, Queen’s University Belfast; Dr. Gillian McNaull, Queen’s University Belfast; Prof. Fergus McNeill, University of Glasgow; Prof. Jody Miller, Rutgers University (USA); Dr. Alan Mobley, San Diego State University (USA); Prof. Bronwyn Naylor, RMIT University (Aust); Emeritus Prof Mike Nellis, University of Strathclyde; Prof. Tim Newburn, London School of Economics; Prof. Ian O’Donnell, University College Dublin (IRE); Dr. Brunilda Pali, K. U. Leuven University (BEL); Dr. Coretta Phillips, London School of Economics; Dr. Jake Phillips, Sheffield Hallam University; Dr. Hannah Quirk, King’s College London; Prof. Toby Seddon, University of Manchester; Prof. Sonja Snacken, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BEL); Prof. Richard Sparks, University of Edinburgh; Prof. Cyrus Tata, University of Strathclyde; Dr. Emily Turner, University of Manchester; Dr. Pamela Ugwudike, University of Southampton; Dr. Jason Warr, De Montfort University; Dr. Beth Weaver, University of Strathclyde; Dr. Serena Wright, Royal Holloway, University of London; Dr. Geertjan Zuijdwegt, K. U. Leuven University (BEL).

Sir, Libby Purves is right (“Prisoner rehab programmes do vital work”, Dec 2). The greatest harm that a terrorist can do is to undermine our belief in the possibility of rehabilitation and redemption. The Cambridge University Learning Together team has done remarkable work at HMP Whitemoor, transforming the lives of men who had little to hope for.

We owe it to the inspiring young people who lost their lives to make sure that their work can continue.

Heather Du Quesnay
Vice-chairman, Independent Monitoring Board, HMP Whitemoor

Sir, My former colleague John Samuels, QC, is right in seeking judicial monitoring of all those convicted of terrorism or grave crimes (letter, Dec 2). I recall such monitoring in drugs cases, where the defendant and his family would attend court monthly and progress could be discussed and assessed. While probation supervision is also necessary, the sentencing judge has seen the strength of the evidence first-hand.

However, rehabilitation should not be confused with deradicalisation. Fundamentalism in all forms is long lasting — the ultra-orthodox in any religion rarely abandon their beliefs.

His Honour Barrington Black
London NW3

TR2 Will Also Be a Disaster

Following the very sad events of Friday and the disgraceful decision by Boris Johnson to 'weaponise' the tragedy for political gain despite the ongoing protests from affected parties, at least the 'oven-ready' Brexit mantra is now off the political agenda. It was never intended, but probation is now at the centre of political attention and in particular the omnishambolic part-privatisation driven through by Chris Grayling and equally enthusiastic coalition partners the Liberal Democrats. 

Despite the MoJ admitting it had all been a complete disaster, as accurately predicted by all leading criminal justice commentators including this blog, the Tory government has insisted that the service remains fractured under new proposals currently out to tender. It should be noteworthy that the FT is scathing:-     

Probation service reforms criticised over commitment to rehabilitation

Ministers have been accused of failing to learn the lessons of the disastrous part-privatisation of probation services, after the justice ministry released the first raft of new contracts for outsourced provision in the sector. 

The first tranche of contracts, worth £1.26bn, were put out for tender in November inviting private and voluntary organisations to provide services including rehabilitation, unpaid work opportunities and training for offenders. The documents offer more detail on the “renationalisation” of probation services in England and Wales, which was promised by the government in May when it announced it would scrap the current regime after just five years. 

Probation has come under renewed scrutiny in the aftermath of last week’s terror attack in London. The attack was carried out by Usman Khan who was on licence after being released from prison last year. The botched 2014 reforms by former justice minister Chris Grayling outsourced the management of low-and medium-risk offenders to private providers such as Sodexo and Interserve. The publicly run National Probation Service continued to manage high-risk individuals. The result was a fractured, underfunded system that critics say was not fit for purpose.

Under the proposed new system, the management of all offenders will return to the NPS, with the private sector and charities contracted to provide services and support as offenders return to society. But professional bodies have warned the new regime has failed to address the shortcomings of the one it is designed to replace and would struggle to achieve its core aim of helping offenders reintegrate. Critics point to a preference in the new contracts for “high volume, standardised interventions”, and say it raises concerns about the government’s commitment to rehabilitation. 

Almost half of prisoners reoffend within a year of release, rising to nearly two-thirds for petty offenders serving sentences of less than 12 months, according to the Prison Reform Trust, which puts the cost of reoffending to government at about £18.1bn a year. Mike Trace, chief executive of the Forward Trust, a charity that works with offenders and may bid for some work, said: “There’s a tendency to go for stack ‘em high and treat ‘em cheap programmes to show something is being done.” He said that the market for interventions to reduce reoffending has too often focused resources on cheaper — but ineffective — low-threshold interventions, ignoring the MoJ’s own evidence that placing offenders in safe accommodation, finding them jobs, or helping them to overcome drug or alcohol addiction, are more successful. 

Another concern is that the split between the NPS and contractors would create a system as “fractured” as the one it is designed to replace. “Any case management system that means offenders get passed from pillar to post, and never build a relationship with an adviser or mentor, are flawed,” Mr Trace said. The new contracts, which are set to begin in April 2021 and are split into 12 regions, cover a number of services, including the provision of unpaid jobs for offenders and programmes to help with alcohol or relationship problems. A second tranche will follow early next year, according to the Ministry of Justice, for programmes including resettlement, housing and women’s support.

According to analysts, the decision to split the tendering process and the structure of the new system would mean officers having to co-ordinate an individual’s probation plan with two separate organisations. “Although the splits create different friction points to the previous privatisation, the divisions could again fracture the service and hamper access to consistent high quality rehabilitation,” said Helen Schofield, acting chief executive of the Probation Institute think-tank. 

The Ministry of Justice, which declined to comment citing “purdah” rules during a general election, has previously insisted that the new contracts are designed to reduce the fracturing of services. But David Raho, chair of the National Association of Probation Officers in London, said the reforms would “satisfy no one” and called for the service to be fully nationalised. “What is needed is an entirely joined up and integrated public probation service that frees up frontline professionals to tackle reoffending.” Much will depend on the outcome of the election on 12 December. While a Conservative government would be expected to continue with the reforms, Labour has pledged to nationalise all parts of the probation service.

Actions Have Consequences

The fallout from the Boris car crash interview with Andrew Marr continues as he digs himself ever-deeper into a quagmire of lies he desperately hopes will win the Tories votes as the party of law and order. This from the Guardian:-

Boris Johnson ignores family’s plea not to exploit victims' deaths

Boris Johnson has been accused of twisting the facts of the London Bridge terror attack in a “distasteful” attempt to turn it into an election issue, as he tried to blame Labour for the release of the terrorist who stabbed two people to death. Despite one of the victims’ families pleading for their son’s death not to be used as an excuse for kneejerk political reaction, Johnson claimed that “a lefty government” was responsible for Usman Khan being freed.

The family of Jack Merritt called for the murder of “our beautiful, talented boy” to not be exploited for political gain, as police named the second victim as Saskia Jones, a prisoner rehabilitation volunteer. But the Conservatives nonetheless sought to push a perceived political advantage on the issue, promising to end early release for people convicted of terrorism, while saying Jeremy Corbyn was unable to keep the public safe.

Early on Monday, as the day’s front pages emerged covering a proposed Tory crackdown on those freed after serving sentences for terrorism, Merritt’s father David tweeted saying: 

“Don’t use my son’s death, and his and his colleague’s photos – to promote your vile propaganda. Jack stood against everything you stand for – hatred, division, ignorance.” The family added: “Jack lived his principles: he believed in redemption and rehabilitation – not revenge – and he always took the side of the underdog.”

--oo00oo--

Meanwhile The Independent interviews Ian Acheson who reminds us all that the reason we are where we are is of course as a result of those massive cuts to prison and probation brought about by a Tory government:-

Extremism expert attacks Boris Johnson for misleading public on roots of terror risk and blames ‘crazy austerity cuts’

An extremism expert has blamed “crazy austerity cuts” for the dangers posed by released terrorists and accused Boris Johnson of misrepresenting the crisis after the London Bridge attack. The “destruction of the prison and probation service” under the Conservatives lay behind the threat, said Ian Acheson, who carried out a review for the government, adding: “You cannot get away from that.” 

Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat deputy leader, urged Mr Johnson stop “trying to make political capital out of a tragedy” and to apologise for “misleading people” over the law regarding early release. The cause was “privately acknowledged” by ministers, he said, urging them to admit publicly: “We went far too far, far too fast – we are now reaping what we sowed.”

The criticisms are hugely damaging for the prime minister, coming just hours after he denied any possible link between steep funding cuts and the deadly attack carried out by Usman Khan on Friday. Mr Johnson has blamed Labour sentencing policy and claimed only a Conservative general election victory can keep the UK safe, triggering accusations that he is trying to weaponise the tragedy for political gain.

But Mr Acheson said he was “depressed” by what was turning into an “arms race on sentencing”, arguing it ignored the crucial issue of what goes on in prisons and probation. “What we need to be focusing on is the capability of the public protection services, from the first night of the terrorist offender’s time in custody to the last day of his supervision in the community,” he urged. Having advised governments across the world, Mr Acheson said he was “shocked” by what he found in British prisons when he carried out his review for Michael Gove, in 2015. 

He attacked “a lethal combination of arrogance, ineptitude and defensiveness in Whitehall”, with “fearful” staff struggling because “training simply didn’t exist”. “At the heart of this is the destruction of the prison and probation service through crazy, failed, ideological austerity cuts,” he told BBC Radio 4’s The World This Weekend programme. Mr Acheson, who described himself as “a Conservative”, said he had made 69 recommendations, but they were “conflated” into 11 in an official response to his report.

Earlier, Mr Johnson denied steep cuts to the criminal justice system had been “a mistake”, replying: “No.It was nothing to do with parole, nothing to do with the probation service,” he insisted, on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, referring to Khan’s attack. The prime minister’s focus purely on sentencing rules inherited from Labour – which he wrongly claimed left judges with “no option” but to grant Khan automatic early release – has drawn increasing criticism.