Future of Parole

Thanks go to the reader for pointing me in the direction of this recent LSE blog:-

After Worboys: what next for the parole system in England and Wales?

A fair, transparent, and robust process for the termination of prison sentences is critical to the effective operation of our criminal justice system, writes Thomas Guiney. In light of the Worboys case and the attention drawn to the parole system as a result, he explains what reforms are necessary in order to build a modern parole process that is fit for purpose.

In 2009, John Worboys was found guilty of 19 sexual offences against 12 victims. He received an indeterminate sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection and ordered to serve a minimum tariff of 8 years imprisonment before he could be considered for parole. Following a review of his case by the Parole Board it was announced in January 2018 that he would be released from prison and supervised under licence in the community for the rest of his life.

In accordance with Parole Board rules the conditions placed upon his licence were not made public. However, in a subsequent statement the Chairman of the Board revealed that the Worboys case had been considered by a three-member panel, was chaired by an experienced female member, and included representation from a psychologist. The panel considered a dossier of 363 pages and heard evidence from four psychologists as well as prison and probation staff.

The decision to release John Worboys has generated significant media interest, while Secretary of State for Justice, David Gauke announced a review of the ‘Law, Policy and Procedure Relating to Parole Decisions’. In parallel, a number of parties were granted leave to pursue an application for judicial review against the Parole Board. On 28 March 2018, the High Court quashed the decision to release Worboys and upheld legal challenges against: a) the rationality of the decision given the failure to undertake further inquiry into the circumstances of his offending; and b) the prohibition against disclosure of information as set out in the Parole Board Rules 2016.

On the same day, Nick Hardwick stood down as Chairman of the Parole Board. His resignation letter made clear that following a meeting with the Secretary of State his position had become untenable and expressed serious concerns about the independence of the Board moving forward.

The parole system at present

The Worboys decision will be re-considered by the Parole Board in light of the judgement of the court, but the perfect storm now enveloping this case has far wider policy implications for the parole system and the risk-appetite of the Board. Taken that even small changes in law, policy and procedure can have unintended consequences, it can only be hoped that recent history will serve as a warning against the perils of a knee-jerk response.

Overall, the Parole Board has a strong track record of protecting the public from serious harm, with the relevant statutory test requiring it not to give a direction for release unless it is satisfied ‘that [confinement] is no longer necessary for the protection of the public’. Accordingly, in 2016/17 the Parole Board concluded 5,184 cases, of which 872 were recommended for moves to open conditions (17%), 1,825 cases were refused (35%), and 2,468 were recommended for release (48%). In the last four years less than 1% of the total number of decisions made by the Parole Board have resulted in a serious further offence being notified to the Board.

Moreover, it is increasingly clear that while the Board has become a lightning rod for public anger, the case has far wider implications for the administration of justice in this country. Since the offences committed by John Worboys first came to light, criticism has rightly been levelled at historic police failures in responding to allegations of sexual assault, the evidentiary challenges of successfully prosecuting complex sexual offence cases and the overall experience of victims at each stage of the criminal justice process. Reform of the parole system cannot allay these wider concerns and nor should it.

How to strengthen the system

So, what should happen next? It is 50 years since a parole system was first established in England and Wales, and expectations are now far higher. If the Parole Board, and the institutions it relies upon, are to operate effectively in this demanding climate they must be equipped with the right tools for the job:

First, the overuse of indeterminate sentences should be ended as a matter of urgency. In England and Wales, more than twice as many people are serving indeterminate sentences than in France, Germany and Italy combined. For this growing cohort of prisoners, the burden of proof in parole decision-making has been almost completely inverted and this has resulted in a significant number of individuals being held far beyond their tariff expiry dates. Our over-reliance on prison as a place of containment has undermined attempts to build a stronger strategic focus on sentence progression and the community infrastructure needed to support individual desistance in the long term.

Second, the government should re-visit the case for reconstituting the Parole Board as an independent (and inquisitorial) tribunal. A two-tier tribunal structure would create a clear legal pathway for the appeal of parole judgements (where leave is granted by the lower tribunal) and in many cases, this would dispense with the often time-consuming, and prohibitive costs associated with the judicial review process. Administration by the Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service would bring the Parole Board into line with comparable bodies but above all else, a tribunal structure would help secure its independence and insulate the system from any semblance of political interference.

Third, the parole system has always operated on the basis of public trust; the renewal of this contract demands that victims and the general public have a far better understanding of how decisions are made. A wide-ranging transparency agenda is long overdue but this must be delivered in a way that is consistent with the overarching aims of the parole system. There is little sense in publishing detailed licence conditions, such as place of residence, if this undermines supervision and licence compliance, or encourages vigilantism. In seeking a more appropriate balance, the government should:

• place far greater emphasis upon improving public understanding of the parole process, and the sentencing pathway more generally;
• publish a parole compact that sets out what victims, prisoners, and the general public can expect from the parole system;
• follow the example set by the New Zealand Parole Board and publish concise 1-page public statements summarising parole decisions where these are requested by the public;
• establish a publicly accessible information management system that provides access to select, and quality assured information, held by the Parole Board.

Fourth, it must be recognised that transparency and accountability are mutually inter-dependent. Recent inspectorate reports reveal a penal system that is overcrowded, under-resourced, and in many cases failing short of basic standards of care. This pervasive operational fatigue has impacted upon parole decision-making. In 2016/17, approximately a quarter of all parole cases were adjourned or deferred. Furthermore, the system does little to prepare prisoners for their eventual release.

Fifth, the fallout from the Worboys case will have significant resource implications for government who should now implement a standardised system of recall for offenders serving fixed-term prison sentences. In the past three decades the caseload of the Parole Board has been re-orientated towards the most serious offences and the complexity of these cases has necessitated far greater use of automatic release for the majority of prisoners serving fixed-term sentences. In this policy context, the growth of determinate recall cases must be considered anomalous and should be removed from the Parole Board caseload. This would entail a fixed recall period (not exceeding a certain percentage of the overall sentence) with the emphasis upon preparing the individual for release and ensuring robust risk-management systems are in place to actively manage individuals in the community.

Conclusion

A fair, transparent and robust process for the termination of prison sentences is critical to the effective operation of our criminal justice system. The overwhelming majority of men and women sent to prison will return to the community at some point in their lives and the Worboys case has demonstrated why far greater strategic focus is needed on the ‘back door’ practices of release, recall and resettlement. The changes outlined here represent an important first step in that direction if we are to build a twenty-first century parole system that is fit for purpose in this rapidly changing environment.

Note: the above draws on a recent paper prepared for the Prison Reform Trust.

About the Author

Thomas Guiney is a Visiting Fellow in the Mannheim Centre for Criminology at the London School of Economics and Political Science. His first book ‘Getting Out: Early Release in England and Wales, 1960-1995’ is forthcoming with Oxford University Press (Clarendon Studies in Criminology).

Latest From Napo 174

Here we have the latest blog post from Napo General Secretary Ian Lawrence:-

SO, WILL MINISTERS BE RESIGNING AS WELL?
I have hung back on this weeks Blog post to await the outcome of the Judicial Review in the ‘Worboys’ case, in anticipation of the finger pointing that was bound to follow irrespective of the High Court verdict.

It was of course good to see Secretary of State David Gauke ‘bat for the team’ in pointing out that the NPS recommendation to the Parole Board was against the release of this client. He is also stumping up on the costs for those who took the JR when he chose not to do so himself. Unfortunately the same can’t be said in terms of his disgraceful scapegoating of the Parole Board Chief Executive Nick Hardwick which forced his resignation. Unfortunately, it was also a bit predictable in the wake of previous MoJ responses to embarrassing revelations about the damage that has been caused to the wider criminal justice system.

Once again we see the demise of a hard working and dedicated public servant prepared to speak uncomfortable truths to those in power because of one, albeit serious in the view of the judges, error by a parole board panel. I was heartened to see that one of the victims has criticised the subsequent resignation of Mr Hardwick and has called for questions to be asked about what has really been going on behind the scenes.

I have had a number of members including some VLO’s contact me directly and through my social media links (@ilawrenceL and FB) to say that they were pleased at my defence of their role in the Worboys case, and agreeing that Dame Glenys Stacey had established very early that all victims who had registered with the contact scheme had been advised of the possibility of Worboys being released.

Not that some elements of the media have let a few facts get in the way of a good story of course, with some quite hysterical coverage about how the various agencies have let victims down.

When it comes to letting people down you don’t have to look very far at a succession of ministers starting of course with everyone’s favourite Chris Grayling, who masterminded the demise of a gold standard Probation service, placing half of it into the control of private companies who have, with the exception of a few examples of good practice, been found seriously wanting by a plethora of HMI probation reports.

Letting victims down? Yes, why not ask Nadine Marshall about being let down? Nadine, whose son Conner was brutally murdered by a perpetrator who was in the wrong place at the wrong time because the standards of supervision introduced by a private probation provider were, in her own publicly stated words, just not good enough. Nadine doesn't blame the staff just the system that failed to protect her son. Sadly, its not the only example of a serious offence taking place under an untried and untested operational model and there are many more just like it elsewhere, but I don’t see high level resignations being announced by people who claimed that Transforming Rehabilitation ‘was safe’ or those who won contracts by lying about their ability to deliver whilst continuing to coin it from the taxpayer whilst treating their staff like dirt. You know who you are of course; and yes, we know that you were ‘just following orders’ blah, blah, etc.

Letting victims down? Yes, like those who have experienced sexual offences and who have recently seen more chaos or a collapse of the investigative and prosecution process which in itself is a further highly traumatic ordeal because forensic and data analysis services have been farmed out to private companies by police forces unable to cope because of austerity driven cuts.

Ask the families of the victims of violence in our prisons or those driven to self-harm because of appalling overcrowding, systemic bullying, gang culture and the massive increase in psychoactive substances into the prison estate, or maybe on that on we ought to blame the overworked guard dogs who have failed to bark loudly enough to deter the drones flying in over the prison walls.

We await news of a spate of politicians and other senior CJS leaders honourably falling on their swords because victims have been let down. Sadly I suspect it will be a long wait.

NEC APPROVE CAMPAIGN PLANS ON PAY
Your National Executive Committee met last week and addressed an especially testing agenda. Key amongst the many issues was the latest situation on pay and members can expect a detailed briefing over the course of the next week as to the current position, but here is a brief summary of the issues that were debated.

Firstly we were able to report on the outcome of the meeting that Yvonne Pattison and I had attended with the Rory Stewart a couple of days before. Here we had left the Minister and Martin Beecroft the HMPPS HR Chief in little doubt about the disrespectful and farcical manner in which his department had engaged with the probation unions over 2017-18 pay.

Having been delayed until November 2017 because of Treasury remit clearance, we were told that permission had only been granted to spend 1% in this financial year. However, Mr Spurr and Mr Beecroft initially claimed that all of the money had been spent on incremental progression for staff below their band maxima. The unions challenged this, pointing out the obvious fact that this couldn’t be true if around 25% were at the maxima and so had received nothing.

Its now grim history that in January we were eventually told, in Michael Spurr’s letter that no money was available as the HMPPS had overspent their overall pay budget – in effect probation staff had some of their 1% diverted towards meeting the higher than expected prison pay award.

Where are we now?

The NEC heard how we told Rory Stewart of our serious lack of trust as we await a decision on longer term pay reform and why we needed a ministerial decision to allow us to get things moving.

Your negotiators also reported to the NEC that pay reform is obviously the more significant and bigger prize than a minimal increase in 2017-18. Even prior to TR, pay reform was recognised by all sides as being an issue that would need to be addressed. Shadow negotiations about what this would involve began in late 2015. We were working jointly to build an informed business case for the Treasury, as NPS/MoJ said they recognised the scale of the investment needed, as well as the wider contractual consequences for CRCs. Good progress was being made up to December 2016 when the first SOP failures diverted the NPS pay team towards full- time crisis management.

This was formally acknowledged as a failing by NPS management and in mid-2017, Mr Spurr publicly stated that addressing probation pay reform was a top priority for his department, even ahead of prison pay reform. He also appointed additional staff to lead on this work with us. Some further shadow negotiations took place and again these were positive and productive. In October 2017, we were told a business case had been submitted. However, alarmingly, we were also told that Mr Spurr had now said, because this was such a priority, funding had been found within the HMPPS/MoJ budget for probation reform and therefore all they were asking the Treasury for was permission to spend the money they have set aside.

Market Forces Supplements Amplify the Chaos
At December’s Trade Union Engagement Meeting, Mr Beecroft also explained the extraordinary mess the NPS has generated for itself around paying Market Forces Supplements. These are targeted recruitment and retention payments aimed at specific sites. New starters are recruited at a higher starting salary. Existing staff doing the same work in the same places then have their salaries uplifted to avoid leapfrogging, undermining morale and retention issues cancelling out any gains.

We have been told that Beecroft this requires the HMPPS getting separate permissions to pay MFS to new starters and to existing staff. Napo are still exploring if this is the case elsewhere in the civil service as it isn’t an issue we’ve seen imposed before. We are also still exploring if this was a breach of contract, although it appears that when MFS payments were originally agreed with unions, the requirement to uplift existing staff salaries was not necessarily contractually secured.

This is why we issued the joint circular with UNISON last week asking impacted staff in MFS sites to raise grievances where necessary. Click here to access it.

Pressure Building in CRCs
Meanwhile CRCs are becoming concerned about the lack of progress in the NPS pay reform talks as well, as the weaknesses in the current model are impacting upon their own ability to reward staff and manage recruitment and retention difficulties.

No CRCs have yet sought to formally open up negotiations for unilateral reform of pay structures – because they can’t afford this and will want to respond to the NPS reforms. However, the pressures are mounting, especially in areas like London and the South-East and some northern cities where recruitment and retention is also proving to be very difficult. Competition from the NPS already exists but is being contained by the NPS insisting staff transferring have to start on their band minima (except potentially in MFS sites) but there is anecdotal evidence of more staff opting to work for agencies because of perceived reduced pressure and greater flexibility.

Equality Angles
As we have told the Minister there are evident risks of indirect age discrimination built into the probation pay model. These arguably should have been obvious when the model was agreed with only 1% annual progression contractually guaranteed. This deal was done just before I joined Napo but It is assumed all parties gambled that the 3-4% annual progression promise would be kept. This was before the austerity policies imposed by the Coalition government kicked in during 2010

If negotiations are stalled for a prolonged period then these equalities risks grow and become more expensive to resolve – putting further pressure on the validity of a business case submitted back in 2017 and already strained as inflation rises. The unions will need to decide at what point we should attack focussing on equal pay.

We can't wait forever
The NEC considered a range of campaigning options, and as I said earlier these will be covered in more detail shortly, but broadly here is the direction of travel.

The first proposal is to hold some joint activity (a pay protest day but not industrial action) with the other unions in late April/early May. This would be built around a consultation around a lack of confidence in the NPS senior management to deliver pay reform and involve encouraging members to visit/contact MP’s and invite them to their workplaces. This would then be followed by a day to ‘celebrate Probation’ before the end of the summer recess, which would include a parliamentary lobby and a focus on the need for pay reform.

Another possibility is to hold an indicative ballot to test the water for industrial action given that we have two live AGM motions directing us down this path if necessary. Then there is the question on how and when we move the equality arguments to the centre of the dispute.

Meanwhile we are in discussions with UNISON and GMB SCOOP to explore the formulation of a joint pay claim with the aim of submitting this to all employers. The NEC also agreed to make resources available in support of these activities and that these will of course be monitored by the NEC Finance sub-Committee.

Happy Easter
There is so much going on at the moment so I intend to bring you more news on other important NEC decisions and various parliamentary activities in next weeks blog post. Also look out for a Campaign Special bulletin which is also work in progress. Meanwhile, I hope that all of our members working in the NPS, CRC’s, Probation Service Northern Ireland and Cafcass as well as their families have a restful and enjoyable Easter holiday.

Pick of the Week 49

Lazy blogging but still worth a read. The comments above describe probation as a bad place to work. Worst comment award goes to “I have been in probation for 24 years”. So many are stuck in probation and need to get out of this sunken place! The consensus is that probation is not a profession, the pay is poor and the conditions abysmal. The methods Probation uses to recruit and train are flawed, and credible ongoing development is nil.

In my opinion, the current trend of probation box-tickers are mostly 23 year old females fresh out of university. Most will not be competent to have an opinion on justice, rehabilitation and the lives of others. With 15-18 months training and a probation diploma I understand why some will spend time clarifying they're not stating fact, and that what they're about to say is very subjective. I understand why they hide behind phrases like “my manager said”, “MAPPA said”, and “the risk assessment said”.

Many will leave after 2 years to better careers, a few will be enticed into probation management as ‘yes men’. The rest will join the current probation workforce whom have gained the skills and experience to have an opinion but are no longer effective as they’ve been stuck in a worsening dead-end profession “for 24 years”.

The end is nigh for probation and Humpty Dumpty won’t be put back together again. OMiC spells the end for NPS probation officers. The moment the MoJ is ordered to stop bailing out CRC’s will be the end for CRC probation officers.

*****
Certainly one of the comments resonates... well, more than one... there is, I feel, something about the culture of working for the Probation service that engenders a belief that your skills do not transfer. I feel stuck! I still feel a certain value to the job I do but that is what it is now. A job. I work hard, long hours and if I felt I could work elsewhere, I think I would go. That is a scary proposition though and whilst I read here of people having "escaped", I can't see a way out!

*****
Stick your head above the parapet. Talk to people in allied organisations.Do a CV and think about the training you have done in its broadest sense.Training before TR will have value to other organisations.Think about the alleyways you have gone down in your current role. What areas are you seen the 'To Go To' Person? Safeguarding? Community links? Learning Disability? Look at what the OU and your local colleges have to offer. Stick your hand in your pocket and be prepared to invest in yourself. It is not easy but can be done. After 35 plus years I got out into another job, taking a pay cut and grade reduction, but it was worth it because I took control. That is the key.

*****
An easy trap to fall into. Probation management devalues its workers and cause them to believe they are worthless. Probation isn’t structured to develop its workers and their ambitions. Historically workers were led to believe that promotion was only possible after many years service. The old school boys club was at work and promotees were hand picked for services rendered or subservience. The rest were left to rot in the frontline and encouraged to believe probation was the best they could do. This is obviously bullshit and it’s quite easy to get better paid jobs elsewhere. Probation skills are transferable and many organisations welcome former probation officers who come with strong education and work experience.

*****
Most trainees I know are uni leavers who joined probation with the intention of leaving on being qualified two years. A handful of others intend to qualify then temp in the CRC. Nobody wants to stay in probation long term anymore for all the reasons above and more. There’s plenty more jobs out there.

*****
Hmmm. "The Devolution Agenda". And a chicken and egg debate about which should come first: improvement work or devolution. Somewhere in MoJ PR department, an operative is chewing her expensive pencil and doodling "Rehabilitation: Revolution to Devolution", and when the soundbite is polished, it will be a policy.

*****
Devolving will make sod all improvement to anything if they same sorry shower stay in charge. Especially if the service is not reunified. Civil Service, Commercial owners, and craven managers.

*****
Big fan of Dame Glenys, without her team's probation inspections I and others would have been just grumpy malcontents and dismissed as such. As ever her ability to remain distant from the fray is impressive. However, I did like her joke about research which evidences that inspections can drive forward immature markets. That made me chuckle.

*****
HMIP inspections have done nothing to improve or change the mess this government made of probation. Dame Glenys may as well stick to inspecting farms; plenty fences to sit on there!

*****
I'm a fan, Dame G and team have done a professional job within their remit and I dare say given political pressures with some courage and yes, diplomacy. I think the message has landed, must do better! The government will decide the model for Probation ultimately. I would caution against trying to mature the market in Rehabilitation, rather invest in public services and collaborative pragmatism between public, private and voluntary sectors.

*****
Everywhere you look in the CJS you see the word "rehabilitation" popping up everywhere. Police, prisons, probation, and all sorts of other agencies push the word. I used to think I understood what it meant, but I'm not sure anymore. It's almost become just a buzz word to be used in a sales pitch or newspaper article and seems to have different meanings depending on the context it's being used in. Maybe there needs to be a conversation about what the definition of "rehabilitation" really means. It seems to me that it no longer has anything to do with where the person ends up and their ability to lead a normal life, but all about completing the process and steps someone has put in place for them. The process seems to define rehabilitation rather then the end result. It's a bit like doing the washing with no soap powder, you've achieved doing your washing, but your cloths are still dirty at the end of the process. I think "rehabilitation" is a very over used and a very misunderstood word in today's CJS.

*****
As ever, makes great observations. This is a sentence from a local report of sentencing. Clearly there is NO understanding of the meaning of 'rehabilitation'. In addition to a specified period of suspended sentence the judge said "... X must also complete a group work course, a three-month night-time curfew and rehabilitation." Whether they were the judge's *actual* words or the reporter's interpretation is both unclear & irrelevant, it's further evidence that so few people know or care about probation.

*****
How can privatised public services be devolved to local councils? The contracts are agreed, signed and held by central government. Local councils will have no influence on the terms of contracts or how they're delivered. The only thing councils can do is raise council tax to pay for the services, and not know exactly what they're paying for because everything is protected by corporate confidentiality.

*****
Doesn’t sound positive for probation in London. Reading between the lines of this “whole-system approach to offender management”; Victims services will no longer be the responsibility of probation. Thanks to Worboys and Crozier! Offenders 18-25 will be supervised by the Youth Offending Service instead of probation. Privatisation of probation services will continue, incorporating both CRC and NPS. Serco, G4S & Co are set to receive a huge tagging contract. Ker-ching for Mr Mayors’ coffers. No word from Napo and Unison as usual.

*****
'It will review probation services, amid criticism of under-performing Community Rehabilitation Companies.' This blog will surely ask of privatised Probation, part of the problem or part of the solution? Police, Mental Health services, Drug Treatment services, Courts, Communities, Social Services, Health Services, Local Authorities etc all expected to work together so that privatised Probation can turn a profit? Get real! Payment by results, really? So let's imagine everyone in the group effort is tasked to deliver and turn a profit. It gets so blindingly stupid it is hard to imagine the set of chumps that dreamt up privatising Probation services. Aaaargh!

*****
It's the same model the good old USA operate, and it's just another way of outsourcing.
Each devolved authority has total freedom to do what ever as long as they abide by a "broad" understanding of when "federal" intervention is required. As local councils are now becoming evermore responsible for finding ways to fund their services and they keep hiking council taxes to pay for things like social care, libraries and parks, it won't be long before (just like the good old USA model) offenders on probation will have to pay the private companies.

*****
A few points from a broader perspective:
1. Victim services should never have been part of the probation service in the first place (this was a result of empire building in the 90's ) and believe it or not it is just not America where victim services are separate from Probation, Canada  New Zealand and most of the rest of the world are if you care to look.
2. If you are 18 to 25 and in London you may be now about to get a better service given the funding for YOT. You may not but you are probably not going to get a worse service.
3. Whilst it could be the start of charging it could also be the start of the demise of CRC they only remember have 4 years to run and a whole bunch of clients will now go plus If you are a PPO in a CRC there may now be an escape to YOT teams.

*****
This is a fascinating turn. 18-25 group going to YOTs has been kicking around a while. But they choose a time when local authorities have never been so strapped for cash to formally float the idea. 25 year olds attending the same office as 12 year olds to report? Not sure about that! I essentially agree with services being run locally but is this really the best way to it? Particularly given the separation of the service? As always the devil will be in the detail. I just hope it is properly planned and piloted first but I’m not holding my breath.

*****
I'm wondering how the youth offending teams are feeling about absorbing the 18 to 25 year olds. Apart from being a very problematic group they're hugely expensive too. The Homelessness Reduction Act comes into force next month, and between the lack of benefits available to those aged under 25 and the enormous cost of London rents, greatly increased for emergency or supported accommodation, the budget needs must be eye watering. The 18 to 25s must also include a significant proportion of those involved in gang culture, and London has a significant problem gang culture. The research needed to keep certain elements apart will be a huge drain on resources, particularly when you're working with younger offenders who may not yet be identified as being involved with gangs but may in some way be linked by circumstance, family, friends etc.

Are there legal or moral issues to think about when someone being supervised by the youth offending team is imprisoned and enters the adult custody estate because they're over 21? I know there's been much talk about placing 18 to 21s or 18 to 25s within the young offending programme, but I think talk is all there's been. If I worked in the youth offending team in London I'd have a lot of questions to ask, and I'd be pretty apprehensive too.

*****
I'm quite confused. Most Probation clients are under 26. Desistance studies tell us that the rate of offending drops off dramatically after this age. But if these cases go to YOS what does that leave for the CRCs?

*****
Obviously more going on behind closed doors and being kept quiet. The biggest complaint by CRCs is they didn't get the numbers they thought they would. To be told that those numbers are to be chronically reduced by losing everyone under the age of 26 and there's no threat of legal action or announcements of withdrawing from their contract suggests to me they've been assured they will suffer no financial loss.

*****
Jesus, what will MOJ come up with next? If it hadn't done so much damage to careers and society this would be amusing. MOJ are so desperate to find some sort of solution to this mess that they will try anything. What will be next I wonder? Perhaps base future delivery models using proven therapeutic methods known to to aid desistance, and we could have standards to ensure consistency of delivery. We could call it 'What Works' and the 'Offender Management Model'.

*****
I'm sure the same correlation will occur in adult crime figures. Cuts to mental health organisations and charities for example amongst the many contributing factors. Governments never seem to learn that cuts actually save money because they never do.

*****
Very true. What does save money is investment. Ironically. If I, a bear of little brain can see this, why can’t all the clever people in charge? Short term measures, knee jerk reactions, sound bites is what we have to contend with. And these don’t get the baby bathed.

*****
I think the idea that cuts elsewhere have an impact on rates of offending questions the nonsense of payment by results for CRCs to reduce reoffending. The best can feasibly have the worst results and the worst the best depending on how the wind blows locally. We need National Policy that is interpreted to the needs of local communities, that directs services to work together. The best of these collaborations are where mutual interests are identified. These interests are to my mind glaringly obvious. Although I protest privatised Probation services, the Private sector has a huge role to play as do the voluntary sector. It has been staggering to see the extent to which TR rather than enhancing these arrangements has eroded and destroyed them in what I consider to be a self interested, naive and frankly reckless way. The list of cooperative endeavours are numerous and waiting for a government catalyst and some up front investment to realise them.

*****
This I think is only the beginning of a long line of legal challenges. It's right to describe the case as a mess from the start, but I feel it's been resolved in a very disturbing way. Not least because Worboys was never charged or convicted for anything against one of the appellants taking the case against him in the capacity of a victim. I have no doubt that she was one of Warboys many victims that didn't see their day in court and feels cheated by the justice system, but I personally feel very uncomfortable with the idea that someone that you've never been charged with an offence against can bring a legal challenge to prevent your release under the banner of a victim. That just opens up a legal quagmire.

Another uncomfortable aspect is what the Parole Board was told that they should consider "the Parole Board should have taken into account "critical evidence" of the "wider allegations" against Worboys." I think the Parole Board have a duty to consider a persons offending in a wider context than just the things they're charged with, but it's not the Parole Board's duty to determine guilt. That should, and always be the function of the courts. Move away from that and justice moves to a dangerous place. If anything Worboys should have been charged with further offences, and the police and prosecution services being the ones to deal with the fall out that would have brought.

I have much sympathy with Nick Hardwick, I think he's an honest, committed and honourable person, and his demise is really come about by politicians pandering to media pressure. I don't care about Worboys, he can stay locked up, but I do care about the justice system and how some decisions it makes can have very damaging consequences in unintended ways. I'm saddened Hardwick has been forced out, and saddened too that the decision taken today by the courts seems more to do with media-led hysteria, and not the rule of law.

*****
It must be clear that most prolific offenders convictions are very likely to be less than the number of offences they have committed and, therefore, the number of victims. The case surely has ramifications throughout the system given the precedent set. Scrutiny of Parole Board decisions in respect of cases such as Worboys is one possibility, belt and braces approach?

*****
Well if the Parole Board had listened to the Probation Officer at the hearing who told them “do not release” Nick wouldn’t be joining the unemployment queue. The Parole Board were never independent and only released Worboys because of government pressure to release IPP prisoners - oh how that has backfired! I’m sure it won’t be all doom and gloom for Nick, after all his cosying-up to David Gauke and Dame Glenys Stacey he’ll probably be handed a job with the MoJ or HMIP and made a fellow of the Probation Institute.

*****
According to the news at one, Hardwick has been scapegoated by Gauke. Apparently the MoJ failed to include important information relevant to Worboys case in the dossier given to the Parole Board. Gauke is also being criticised over rule 25, the blanket ban on disclosing information on decisions they reach. Rule 25 is something the MoJ imposed, not the Parole Board. Gauke makes a statement in the house on the matter shortly.

*****
If there's a mechanism for the MOJ to add material to a parole dossier, I don't know what it is. Typically documents are requested by the Parole Board or we can ask for them.

*****
Typical bloody politicians to look around and find a scapegoat for their own failures. I only met Nick Hardwick once at HMP Bronzefield when he led the team doing an inspection in 2010. I talked to him about whether there was anything the inspectors could do to assist a mentally ill prisoner who was being bullied by one of the officers. He said he couldn't take up the case of individual prisoners but when I got back to the wing, I discovered that he had immediately left education, gone over to the wing and had a half hour long conversation with the prisoner followed by a conversation with the staff on duty on the wing that day which included the officer conducting the bullying, although Mr Hardwick was very careful not to point fingers. The officer never again bullied that particular prisoner. 

I met him again in 2013 at Downview when he and his team conducted a surprise inspection. On both occasions I was thoroughly impressed by his professionalism, care and standards. He made an excellent head of Parole bringing the same qualities to that role as he did as Chief Inspector of Prisons. Gauke clearly looked around for a scapegoat and Hardwick was the most obvious choice (after all how often do you see a Minister willingly fall on his or her sword?). Granted Gauke wasn't in charge when Worboys was convicted and has no culpability for anything that has happened since, but Gauke should not have sacked Nick Hardwick because that's exactly what he did in practice.

*****
If Nick Hardwick has to resign as head of the Parole Board then Sonia Crozier should resign as head of the Probation Service. If they have to resign then so should David Gauke. All “weak and pathetic”.

*****
Simple solution (?) to cases like Worboys'... give Parole Board a budget to access independent specialists, e.g. psychiatrists, psychologists. Their 3rd party objective views can be weighed against the inevitable subjectivity of supervising staff, prison staff, programmes' staff, reports commissioned by prisoner's legal team.

Hmm, wonder who was REALLY behind the cutting of Nick Hardwick's throat today? Independent, Jan 2016: "Nick Hardwick: Prisons inspector steps down with attack on Chris Grayling for trying to influence his work... he revealed that the former Justice Secretary Chris Grayling had “robustly” tried to influence his reports despite his supposed independence from the Government." Grayling never forgets...

*****
How many Govt heads would open an interview like this (from jan 2016):

Prison UK: Thank you for agreeing to speak to me and to the readers of this blog about your work as Chief Inspector.

Nick H: I think yours is one of the best blogs – and the most insightful – about prison life. It’s something I’ve turned to for information and perspectives. I know a lot of people read it, so I thought it would be a good way of communicating.

No wonder the Tory mafia wanted him out of the picture.

*****
It would help if the obligatory MoJ/SoS representative actually attended the Hearings!

*****
Pissed off that people are saying the MOJ failed to add significant documents to the dossier; no, the parole panel failed to apply forensic scrutiny and ask for that documentation. MOJ doesn't contribute to parole processes, probation officers do though, despite not being legally qualified, in a quasi judicial setting and often in opposition to experienced legal professionals. If the MOJ want to start providing solicitors routinely in parole hearings, that'd be fine too.

*****
If the documentation missing from the dossier was significant enough that the Parole Board failed in its forensic scrutiny by not requesting it, shouldn't it have been important enough to be included in the dossier by those that compiled it? Can't ask for something if you don't know it exists.

*****
Who do you think compiles a dossier? It's prison admin on 17k salaries, then a governor signs it off. Probation staff might provide reports but aren't responsible for the overall contents. What it contains is routinely shaped by the Parole Board itself, who would have known of the existence of all the documentation described as absent from the dossier in today's judgment.

*****
You’re talking out of your backside. The responsibility of probation is to provide a parole report not an entire dossier. The parole dossier responsibility is with the 1. prison parole clerk who compiles it, 2. Parole Board case manager and 3. Public Protection & Pre-release sections in the MoJ. The latter two make decisions and directions about what information they want, and who from.

Read the judgment. The Parole Board were sloppy and released against recommendations of most professionals involved. “The Parole Board ought to have carried out, or have instigated the carrying out of, further inquiry”. The dossier included details of 80+ victims”. Of the 12 Worboys was convicted of he minimised his offending and recently admitted guilt. The Parole Board did not have police and CPS documents on the index offences to challenge Worboys with. Nor sentencing comments. They did have a probation pre-sentence report, a psychiatric report identifying him as a high, continuing and significant risk. 

The Parole report by probation and the psychological report did not recommend release. These would have detailed Worboys offending. In 2017 new psychological assessments recommended release, one arranged by Worboys legal team - no surprise. Both probation officer and prison psychologist objected to these recommendations and stated he should not be released. The judgment summary is clear details of Worboys 80+ victims were contained in these reports and objections. The Parole Board could not say they were unaware. From the detail they were aware and should not have granted release. Would it have been different if the Parole Board hadn’t been under pressure to release IPP prisoners?

The MoJ Public Protection & Pre release sections should have scrutinised the release decision, and the Justice Secretary could have stepped in any time. Instead it took a news campaign and a crowdfunded prosecution by victims to stop him being released. The buck should stop at the door of David Gauke, Justice Secretary. This is why Nick Hardwick has been scapegoated to take the heat off the MoJ and Gauke.

*****
PPCS? never seen them do anything constructive to contribute to a parole dossier without direction from Parole Board. Never seen evidence of them giving critical consideration to the content of a dossier at all.

*****
Let’s not forget Worboys legal team are the ones that argued for his release and arranged for a forensic psychologist to recommend his release. It is a sign of our corrupt system that a solicitor was able to financially profit by presenting Worboys lies, and paid handsomely for securing his release to rape more women. The Parole Board should have listened to probation and other professionals that said he should not be released. That panel should be investigated. The MoJ and Gauke should have stepped in to determine why the Parole Board did not listen to probation and other professionals. The MoJ and Gauke should be investigated. I’m waiting for NPS Sonia Crozier to tell Gauke to stop blaming “HM Prison and Probation Service” for the dossier, but she’ll probably apologise instead.

*****
Nick Hardwick on BBC Breakfast - faces grilling from tv presenter, handles it with dignity, explains his position, accepts his mistakes, expresses his concerns - it's still not enough for the baying mainstream media. The REAL issues will be lost in the white noise surrounding Worboys. Police, CPS, MoJ failures will all be erased as the iconic headline of Hardwick's sacrifice is pushed through letterboxes, TVs and over the internet. Can't wait to see which favoured lickspittle lackey is chosen to replace him. Spurr? Or maybe Gove's personal favourite Dame Glenys could squeeze the Parole Board in between HMIP & Cowsheds?

*****
Still don't see which arm of the MOJ is being hung out to dry here. Probation prepare reports but don't shape the dossier. PPCS don't, in my experience, have a meaningful understanding on the contents of the dossier, or what might be missing from it, either.

*****
Probation do not have responsibility for the dossier, the content and documents requested is the responsibility of the MoJ Public Protection Caseworker and the Parole Board Caseworker. They request Probation provide a Parole Report not the entire dossier. This request is via the Prison Parole Clerk who collates the dossier.

*****
With respect, I don't think Gauke is being thick. He's being sly and trying to shift blame and responsibility to where it doesn't belong. Having read above what he stated in Parliament, perhaps probation chiefs or even NAPO should push for clarification on his comments and why he's suggesting the compilation of the dossier is the sole responsibility of the NPS.

*****
Probation don't shape dossiers, I've said so repeatedly, but neither have I ever had any indication that the PPCS have so much as read the reports or hold any insight into the intricacies of a case other than that directed by the Parole Board. Will the outcome of this be that PPCS gains a greater remit in some instances, or that our responsibilities swell further?

*****
The dossier is the responsibility of PPCS and the Parole caseworker. On many occasions I've been involved in and observed requests by both for information and documentation. Probation responsibility is simply to provide a parole report and other REQUESTED documents. Probation are merely witnesses at the hearing. The Prison Parole Clerk simply collates the documents sent according to request sent by PPCS and the Parole Caseworker. The NPS and Napo need to make a public statement about this quickly, but won’t because NPS directors are in Gauke’s pocket and the Napo GS doesn’t understand probation work.

*****
Try having a conversation with a PPCS caseworker about the contents of a dossier. Other than hitting the required timescale s, they're at best disinterested and more often than not clueless.

*****
Totally agree. PPCS refer everything back to the disinterested and clueless Parole Board Caseworker, who refer everything over to the disinterested and clueless Parole Board Case Manager, who refer everything to the Parole Board Panel Chair who is usually disinterested and clueless too. BUT, the dossier is still the responsibility of the PPCS and the Parole Board. It is not the responsibility of the Probation Service. Probation Officers are witnesses at Parole Hearings to attend and answer question about their Parole Assessment Reports and Risk Assessments and nothing more, not to provide the dossier, not to arrange the logistics, not to make tea, nada.

*****
The Parole Board panel was reckless in making its decision as many are, but Hardwick’s is not the only head that should be on the block. The position of the entire panel should be considered “untenable”. Gauke had the authority to be represented at the hearing and to intervene into the decision but chose not to. The dossier was the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice and the Parole Board, not the probation service. Gauke must stop attempting to lay blame on the probation officers who did their job, who are not responsible for the parole dossier and who opposed release. What say NPS Sonia Crozier about this, and if she apologises again then her position is “untenable” too?

If Hardwick’s position was “untenable” then so is Gauke’s. The right to practice of the forensic psychologist that recommended release against the advice of all other professionals, paid for by Worboys legal team, should be considered “untenable”. Worboys legal team abuse of legal processes should also be scrutinised for bring the legal profession further into disrepute.

Bottom line, we have broken justice system wherein a Parole Board achieved ‘success’ by ignoring all professional advice, and solicitors achieved ‘success’ by duping said Parole Board into believing the lies of a serial rapist, and made a decision to release Worboys onto the streets of London to rape again. Is this not considered “untenable”?

*****
Worboys should not be released yet but at the same time shouldn’t have to suffer because of the system failure. How hard will it be for him to work towards rehabilitation and release when he is now facing the wrath of every IPP and Parole prisoner that now won't be released.

*****
All my experience of working in the Criminal Justice System tells me that when it works successfully victims, offenders, the public, the different professionals all have a sense that the right thing has been done. Some of them may not like it, but they acknowledge it is just and ordered. Gauke has topped a series of failures with a decision which fails to do the right thing on every measure. Weak, political decision: all it indicates is that Gauke has neither ability nor intent to put his department into order. I hope he doesn't get away with this.

*****
Hardwick is leaving out there was a Parole Board Post Tariff Review in 2015. Full documents were available and release was not granted. The 2017 Parole Board Panel would have had access to this decision. The recent Judgment states there was an indication of Worboys convictions and 80+ victims in the dossier and the Panel could have sought further information at any time. This is not just about not having all the information, it is about not properly analysing what they had and making no attempt to obtain what was further required.

*****
Gauke will claim he has taken responsibility, "On the dossier that was provided by the National Probation Service—and, therefore, my Department—for the hearing that occurred on 8 November last year," But really he is scapegoating the NPS, and saying he is "forced" to accept some responsibility but only because the NPS are under his ward. Hardwick has taken the right stance, there were cock ups made, some by the Parole Board, and some by various other involved parties, lets accept that and sort the problems out. Everyone else however seems to be trying to pass the hot potato. It's interesting that Hardwick is the only one that seems to be commanding any respect, yet he's the one who's had to take the biggest fall.

*****
Yes Gauke is scapegoating both the Parole Board and the National Probation Service. Does this mean the head of the NPS is to resign too? The truth is the dossier was not provided by or the responsibility of the National Probation Service—and, therefore, Gauke’s own Department the MoJ Public Protection Casework Section—is responsible for the dossier. At any point in the process Gauke had the authority to intervene in the decision being made to ensure public protection and the interests of justice.

*****
So Ian Lawrence said nothing about Hardwick and Gauke wrongly blaming probation for the dossier? And nothing about wrongly blaming probation for victims not being informed when this wasn’t the responsibility of probation? In fact our Ian just endorsed the scapegoating of probation by stating “Privatising probation, ... , I’m not surprised crucial information was missing“. Utterly useless!

*****
Lawrence puts his finger on the real problem. If you spend years destroying the justice system, dismantling long established structures, dividing agencies and outsourcing critical parts to third parties, then poor communication and serious mistakes are going to be inevitable.

*****
I think not and the judgment does not mention Ian’s view. This was nothing to do with privatisation or poor communication. Probation did it’s job, prisons and it’s psychologist did it’s job, and as Hartley-Brewer called it; “Bizarrely, the Parole Board members seemed to be the only people who didn’t know his history. But also the fact that they seemed to take as gospel truth the fact he had converted to religion – I don’t see how that’s relevant – and that he was a changed man. It seems a level of utter incompetence and incredulity.”

*****
Ian Lawrence may as well have blamed Australian ball tampering and poisoning of Russian spies on probation privatisation too!

*****
The judgment recommends more serving and retired judges on Parole Board panels. Maybe this will stop the shady practices of solicitors and barristers at parole hearings. I’ve seen nothing in the media or from the legal profession about Worboys legal representatives presenting his lies and arguing for his release. Where did they find that psychologist who recommended release?

*****
Given all the finger pointing because of the lack of information presented on Worboys probable offending, and Nick Hardwick being effectively sacked, this report says that the SoSs representative at Worboys hearing opposed release on the basis of what he was 'convicted' of, and didn't feel the need to elaborate on his possible further offences. Who's at fault now Mr.MGauk?

*****
An MOJ spokesman said: "The department's representatives at the hearing made clear that they had analysed the offences of which (Worboys) had been convicted and opposed release on the basis that he remained high risk. "They did not feel the need to analyse any other offending in order to reach this firm conclusion." Those are the accusations against the Parole Board which forced the resignation of Nick Hardwick. If the MoJ are now saying they are guilty of the same error, then who's going to resign from that department?

*****
I suspect “the departments representatives” means the probation service. This is misleading the truth because the probation officer who submitted a report and attended the parole hearing as a witness is not responsible for the Parole Board's failure. What we want to know is why the other “departments representatives” the Ministry of Justice Public Protection Casework Section which is responsible for the dossier failed to include the correct information, and why the “departments” head, the Justice Secretary David Gauke and David Lidington before him failed to intervene.

*****
I don't think the blog piece title 'The Wrong Guy Resigns' hits the mark. We work in imperfect systems, with contradictory guidance and flawed science but do our best in light of this. I think the Judges got the balance right in their summation. My view based on what I have read is that no one needed to resign, the opportunity to reconsider and reflect on Parole decisions is the challenge in light of what happened. Public grandstanding by Politicians is a sign of immature politics and serves no one well. I would respect Gauke if he reconsidered Hardwick's resignation and worked with him to bring about considered changes to the Parole system, they appear to agree fundamentally on much.

*****
What a shower of comments half wrong at that. I read the blog on the basis I thought it was declining in reader feedback but here we have a little lift because of a simple resignation. The way this reads is simple If Hardwick had anything about himself he would said FO to Gawky boy and said sack or shut it! Instead he helped the Gawky boy and fell on a sword not a murmur of protest. In my view at least he asked for it! No fight no respect.

*****
I disagree. Bowling into the committee ranting and raving blaming everyone else aka Phillip Green should earn zero respect in my view. Unfortunately behaviour like that amongst the elite means they get weasel out of what’s coming their way. Hardwick took responsibility as managers often don’t and resigned. An honourable man in my view. Unfortunately in this day and age viewed as weakness to some.

*****
The judgment came to the right conclusion. The Parole Board panel made a number of shoddy errors. I’ve known shoddy PB release decisions before, but never against recommendations of probation officers, prison psychologists and MAPPA, and never on a high profile case. Hardwick knew Gauke planned to point the finger in one direction so had no choice but to resign. Hardwick resigning meant Gauke didn’t have to for not intervening, it’s simple as that. Gauke has not come out unscathed and now known as an incompetent Justice Secretary. It won’t be forgotten he refused to take responsibility and threw everyone else under the bus, including the probation service.

Final thoughts: Use of non-convictions in Parole hearings will remain a grey area. There’re structural problems of solicitors representing dangerous clients at parole hearings as if were innocent defendants in courts of law. The probation officer involved should be commended for a tight Parole report, recommendation and risk assessment.

*****
I too found it astounding that Worboys still a Cat A prisoner should have been even considered for parole so soon after tariff expiry given what he was convicted of. I've known people on IPP's who had to go through decreasing levels of secure prisons to open conditions to "prove" themselves before being considered for release and they had lesser tariffs than Worboys for much less heinous offences. But then again the Baby P mother was released from Holloway before her tariff expired and there have been a few other similar cases, some of which have ended up being recalled so probably shouldn't have been released. I know one woman with learning difficulties who had an 8 month IPP tariff who spent 8 years inside before she got released and who wasn't really a danger to anyone had she received the help she should have been getting in the first place. Yet Worboys does a few months over tariff and bingo up for release! Mind you it's the same sort of headscratcher as sentencing where people committing say fraud for roughly the same amount can get wildly differing sentences.

*****
Secret Barrister appears to be suggesting that all the professionals were recommending release. It is my understanding that the OM, OS and prison psychologist were not and it was only Worboys' psychologists who were recommending release. Another point which I am surprised no one has commented on before is the matter of Worboys being denied a move to open conditions in August 2017. I may be wrong on this one but I regularly review the categorisation status on Lifer and IPP prisoners. These cases never progress to open conditions as HMPPS doesn't have the power to grant such a move. Even though it is something of a pointless exercise this happens to lifers and IPPs on an annual basis. I suspect the same happened in Worboys' case.

*****
Secret Barrister has said "Yes, his release was opposed by his offender managers but supported by psychologists instructed by his solicitors and by NOMS. My piece is not clear about that - I’ll amend. Thanks."

*****
A great deal is being made of Worboys being a Cat A prisoner. It is unlikely due to his notoriety and nature of his crimes that he will (for his own safety) be allowed out of the High Security Estate and will therefore, if release is ever granted again, go straight from Cat A to an AP.

*****
I think there's a distinction to be made about being housed within the category A prison estate and actually being a Category A prisoner. There's a big difference, both in legal terms and security arrangements. There's a couple of things the Warboys case has made me think about, and they haven't really been spoken about.  I think firstly moving away from the legal issues, there was a general feeling that he just hadn't served long enough for the offences he committed. I think that was the primary driver for legal action and the legal arguments were easy to find to present a case for JR.

Secondly, his release challenged many assumptions that people hold about the CJS that may not be actually correct. The CPS assumed the number of cases he was charged with would be sufficient to put him away for a far longer period then 10 years, that too I believe was an assumption by the police, and indeed alluded to by police to at least one victim. I think too that when the public and press hear a sentence being imposed of IPP they assume the person receiving that will be in prison for far longer then the minimum period set by the judge.

I don't know the answer, but was there an appeal by the state or prosecution or any of the victims when Worboys was sentenced about the leniency of the minimum term imposed? Perhaps there's assumptions being made in legal quarters there if no appeal was made? People (including myself) think they know things about the CJS, and they perhaps do know much, but the Warboys case has challenged what people really know, what's fact what do we assume, what protocols and processes within the CJS that aren't found in legal text do we rely on and expect, perhaps sometimes wrongly expect, to keep the wheels turning?

*****
Less than 1% of those released by the Parole Board go on to commit further serious offences. You wouldn't think the risk was so low given the agitation at the proposed release of Worboys. Worboy's notoriety puts him in the court of public opinion. The judicial review was not without its irrational aspects, though when judges are in a fix to justify something they will always cite exceptional factors. - and you can see the judicial review as another episode in a long series of incompetence which started with failures to investigate by the police and failures to prosecute by the CPS.

Worboys will be kept in prison as further punishment for the offences that were never put before the sentencing court. I would have no confidence in risk assessment which is a blend of groupthink and pseudo science. As for the Parole Board considering sub-conviction information and police intelligence, Mappas have been doing this for aeon's in reaching risk assessments. And such information can be withheld from the Mappa subject whose human rights are secondary to protection of the public considerations.

If the statistics showed that 99% of those released on parole went on to commit serious offences, what chance of anyone being released? But the reverse is true and was true before before the shiny risk assessment tools arrived. Risk assessment is a tool for justifying incarceration whereas experience shows that it's safe to release in 99% of cases. And it's irrational to think we can ensure safety 100%.

*****
Recalls cover a multitude of sins, real and imagined. The 1% relates to the actual commission of a serious sexual or violent offence.

*****
And the extent to which recall prevents SFOs will never be known precisely, but fair to say the 1% would be higher if not for preemptive action. High recall rates are, in my opinion, at least partly the price paid for release of IPPs who aren't yet ready to be back in the community.

*****
Pre-emption like pre-crime reminds me of Minority Report. The 1% statistic has endured for decades – it predates OASys and it predates the shift to aggressive recall policies by probation over the past 15 years or so. Risk assessment has become an industry of illusions and there is no evidence that it beats experienced professional judgment, common-sense and a belief that people mature and change.

*****
I enjoy reading these Branch Reports but wonder if other areas report to their members like this. It would be extremely helpful to have this exposure and accountability of the management everywhere else.

*****
Well done to Dino and the rest of the SSW Branch Executive for holding the line on behalf of its Members and continuing to hold WLA to account and be that ever present 'thorn' in the flesh. As a lesser mortal I myself (for a number of reasons) bailed out of the disaster that is DDC about 15 months ago.I take my hat off to those who have stuck it out, and continue to question and challenge the employers on their employment practices. I fear as a country we are rapidly heading back to 'master -servant working conditions.

*****
"I'm sure probation employers of all descriptions must sleep much easier at night". Sadly your words are 'on the money', Jim. We only have to look at the ease with which the CRC owners breezed through a very comfortable session before the JSC recently, throwing statements of self-congratulation around like confetti & enjoying the free airtime for their PR machine. I admit to being more than a little frustrated with Bob Neill for letting them get away with that, especially in the light of the damning PAC report that was published not many hours later. I despair! But to those probation staff in the South West I send my best wishes & moral support. It doesn't pay the bills & it doesn't stop the bullying - but hopefully the idea that there are people in support of your fight helps a little bit?

*****
No April fooling here. Barristers taking action is old news in scheme of things. Interesting to look at Probation in Ireland (North & South) and Scotland and how the role of Probation Officer remains positively aligned to Social Work base and qualification remains Social Work with Criminal Justice specialist orientation. [In England] I am wondering if Probation works annexation from Social Work leaves it somewhat stranded, isolated and maybe vulnerable? Note I am DipPS not CQSW and so no axe to grind rather enquiring.

*****
I have a CQSW and after many years in the Probation Service, Registration is not for the feint-hearted and you have to take personal responsibility. If your manager wants you to do something you professionally disagree with, then be prepared to defend your client, reputation and registration. Not sure some of the recently-recruited 'yes' people in the Probation Service are up to that. Just saying and putting on my tin hat at the same time.

Barristers Take Action

Yet again the legal profession demonstrates the power of solidarity and unity. This from the Law Society Gazette:- 

'Direct action' over cuts starts on Sunday, barristers announce

Criminal barristers will refuse to take new work from Sunday in protest at government cuts to the legal aid budget after 90% of survey respondents backed direct action, the Gazette can reveal. The Criminal Bar Association (CBA) said today that the decision was taken with ‘heavy hearts’ but that the situation was ‘desperate’.

Over the past week the CBA surveyed members on whether there should be ‘action for justice’. According to today’s announcement, of 2,317 respondents, 2,081 voted in favour of action over a new formula for calculating legal aid fees for advocates. It marks the first time direct action has been taken since the ‘no new work and no returns’ action of 2014 and 2015.

Angela Rafferty QC, CBA chair, said: ‘The system is desperate as are we. We are informing our members today that they should consider not taking any work from April 1, the implementation date of the reforms. We will hold days of actions. We will fight to improve the justice system for us and everyone else. We announce this action today with heavy hearts.’

Barristers sets Garden Court Chambers, 25 Bedford Row and Doughty Street Chambers have all already indicated that they will support action.

The CBA’s move comes after it emerged the House of Lords’ secondary legislation scrutiny committee had written to the Ministry of Justice seeking clarification on the revised Advocates Graduated Fee Scheme (AGFS), which determines how advocates are paid in legal aid cases. A government impact assessment claimed the changes would increase legal aid spending by an additional £9m per year but the Bar Council and the CBA say the reforms actually amount to a £2m cut.

Rafferty added that, according to the Treasury’s own figures, the MoJ resource budget will fall by 9% over two years to £6bn by 2019/20. ‘The budget for justice is now forecast to fall an initial £400m next year from £6.6bn in 2017/18 to £6.2bn in 2018/19, then to £6bn for 2019/20. Meanwhile the poor and vulnerable in society are being denied access to justice,’ she said. 'The system is desperate; it cannot endure any more cuts.’

The government has also cut the Litigators’ Graduated Fee Scheme, which remunerates solicitors. Earlier this week legal aid solicitors indicated that they would stand shoulder to shoulder with barristers, and today the Young Legal Aid Lawyers issued a statement of support. Law Society president Joe Egan said: ‘The action announced today by the Bar shines a light on wider concerns shared by lawyers that criminal legal aid services across England and Wales, and justice itself, are under threat. The same concern has led us to issue judicial review proceedings against cuts to fees for Crown Court work.’

He added: ‘The rates paid to legal aid solicitors have not been increased since 1998 and the Law Society has consistently warned that the fragile criminal legal aid market cannot stand any further cuts. Despite this, the MoJ implemented further fee cuts in December 2017.’

Shadow justice secretary Richard Burgon, said: 'That lawyers feel they now must resort to taking action underlines the depths of this crisis. Labour has submitted a motion opposing the government’s planned changes to the criminal legal aid remuneration scheme and calling for any changes to be debated fully in parliament. More widely, the government must urgently step forward with investment to fix our broken justice system.'

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: 'We are extremely disappointed with the position the CBA has taken today, especially given that they and other members of the bar participated fully in the design of the scheme. Our reforms will reflect the actual work done in court, representing better value for the tax payer, and will replace an archaic scheme under which barristers were able to bill by pages of evidence. They added: 'We greatly value the work of criminal advocates and will continue to engage with the bar moving forwards.'

--oo00oo--

The full statement can be found here:-

Statement by Chair and Vice-Chair of the Bar 

Having sought the views of its members, the Criminal Bar Association has today issued its statement on the state of the criminal justice system and on the funding of criminal legal aid. This sets out the stance of both the leadership of the association and of the Criminal Bar at a grass roots level.

As Chair and Vice-Chair of the Bar Council, we stand by the Criminal Bar Association and the Criminal Bar in striving for the proper funding of the criminal justice system, as we stand by all others who strive for the proper funding of other parts of our system of justice. 

We stand by them, too, in seeking to secure a future for the Criminal Bar, whose dedication and commitment are essential to ensure that we can deliver justice fairly and efficiently. Legal aid across the board - including criminal legal aid - requires sufficient funding from the Government. There is just no alternative if we want to achieve effective, fair and efficient justice. The current level of funding is just not sufficient. 

Slashed funding for justice 

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) budget has been slashed across the board in the last decade. The effects, in every area, are becoming ever clearer: courts and prisons in a deplorable state of repair, leading to unacceptable conditions; litigants struggling to deal with their own cases without legal help in the most trying of circumstances; overloaded courts and judges; increasing delays; and judicial morale at rock bottom, to name but a few. Previous programmes of reform have failed to produce the intended benefits through a lack of funding and political will. While the current investment in the court reform programme is substantial, it cannot hope to reverse all of the harm that has already been done, and continues to be done, and its focus is really elsewhere. When the required annual savings of nearly £260 million are taken out of the system, then these latest reforms may also falter; and if the intended efficiencies are not achieved, then it may even add to the current problems. 

Those who suffer from all this are the public; the most vulnerable; the victims of crime; witnesses called to give evidence; and those who are innocent of the offences with which they are charged. This can only lead to miscarriages of justice - the conviction of the innocent and the acquittal of the guilty - which harm both the public and the rule of law of which we are, and wish to remain, so proud. 

Much of the brunt of this underfunding has been borne by the publicly funded Bar, through an ever growing workload, worsening working conditions and a deterioration in the quality of our working lives. That has not been met - as anyone else might expect - by increases in pay to compensate for the changes which have been imposed: quite the contrary. 

Criminal legal aid 

The main fixed fee scheme which pays for most criminal defence advocacy was first introduced in 1997. Between 1997 and 2007 there were no increases, only cuts. Inflation over that time was 26%. In 2007, following Lord Carter’s review, the Government was finally persuaded to increase those fees, but the increase was only 18% overall: still 8% short of inflation. The repeated cuts to criminal legal aid since then add up to an overall fall in fees of more than 40% in real terms since 2007. The result is that the Bar has suffered two decades of falling fees in real terms for criminal defence work. We are not aware of cuts of this magnitude in any other area of public service in the UK. 

The system staggers on only through the dedication, commitment, resilience and goodwill of the Criminal Bar. If the Criminal Bar feels that this situation cannot continue, that is hardly surprising. 

The low level of morale was revealed in a recent Bar Council survey. More than a third of those criminal barristers who responded were dissatisfied with their careers and either considering alternatives or planning to leave the Criminal Bar soon. That was more than double the rate reported in other areas of practice, with the main reasons given (both in private practice and in the CPS) being poor income and work-life balance. If criminal barristers choose individually to take action to make their feelings clear to those in Government who hold the purse-strings, while remaining true to the ethos of our profession, then we believe that they will have the support of their colleagues across the Bar. 

The revised AGFS 

The process that led eventually to the revised Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme that is to be brought in as from 1 April 2018 began life in response to a threat of a yet further cut of 8.5%. That would have resulted in a halving of fees since 2007. While that final cut may now have been averted, the Bar has always made it clear that even before that cut, the fee levels on offer vastly undervalued what is required of the Criminal Bar, and were causing real harm to its long-term future. As so many Heads of Chambers have told us, this remains the case today, and we have sought their support for gathering further evidence of this. 

At no time has the Bar accepted that current levels of funding were adequate - quite the contrary. 

At no time has the Bar accepted that fees should stay the same, year on year, becoming steadily eroded by inflation - quite the contrary. 

We recognise, however, that levels of funding are different from the structure of any fixed fee scheme. The final structure of the revised AGFS is not the same as that proposed by the Bar in 2015, but the MoJ’s recent announcement about the new scheme confirms that a key aim remain; that the Bar should be paid for the work that we actually do, with the iniquities of ‘bundling’ removed. 

Some of the ways in which we asked that this be recognised have also survived, such as separate payments for PTPHs, sentencing hearings and the second day of a trial. The new scheme also includes some graduation - although not to the extent for which the Bar argued - reflecting the greater skills and experience required to conduct more difficult cases. 

While we should never have been subject to a scheme which lacked these features, it is right that we should recognise that the MoJ accepted the Bar’s arguments, and included these features in the new scheme. These features are a significant step forward from where we found ourselves. 

Many, on all sides, worked hard to devise a new structure to replace one that was, in so many respects, unfit for purpose. We believe that all those involved, both the officials at the MoJ as well as the many barristers from all quarters and of all levels of seniority, sought to do the best they could to design a better structure, and we thank them for their efforts. 

But the process was hamstrung by the requirement that was then insisted upon, at a political level, of ‘cost-neutrality’; nor does the final scheme reflect all of the elements for which the Bar fought hard. 

Against that background, it is right that we should look fairly and objectively at the structure of the new scheme, but in doing so we need to consider all of its aspects, and we need to do so with care. We also cannot ignore the effects of ‘cost-neutrality’ on either the structure or on what barristers will actually be paid; nor can we ignore the fundamental question of whether it will have the result that barristers are paid fairly for the work that they have to do in each case. 

We are in the process of obtaining the most recent full year’s figures from the MoJ (those for 2016-17), and have commissioned detailed analysis. We will carry that out as rigorously as we can. 

What ‘unbundling’ the fees payable for criminal defence work has already achieved, however, is to show the true level of payment, and it can clearly be seen that the fees are just inadequate. This leaves many of the most talented unwilling or unable to remain in practice at the Criminal Bar. Quite simply they can, and may need to, earn more for their skills and talents in other fields of practice or in other walks of life altogether. 

With that in mind will be looking particularly carefully at those areas in which many at the Criminal Bar tell us that there will be real unfairness under the revised scheme. In particular:

• Many have explained to us how the revised scheme fails to achieve the aim of paying for the work that we do in some important respects. Figures that have been shown to me by several sets of chambers seem to bear this out, particularly in those cases in which not just skill and experience are needed, but also very many hours to review and consider large volumes of relevant material that just cannot be ignored or readily condensed. 
• In many cases, the recent and developing explosion in relevant electronic data, particularly social media data, has exacerbated this. 
• There is real concern that this will now be the situation in even more cases than before, as a result of the widespread failures to deal properly with evidential and undisclosed material. 
• Those cases comprise many to which more junior practitioners aspire. If those cases pay inadequately, then that will be another blow to the future of the junior Criminal Bar, which it is just not able to sustain. 
• For many senior juniors, particularly women, a small number of these cases make their practices viable. Without them, yet another blow may be struck against improving diversity among the most senior practitioners at the Criminal Bar. 

Such concerns cannot be ignored. In particular: 

• All cases must be fairly remunerated within the scheme. Where fair remuneration is now absent, increases to reflect the work required cannot be delayed. 
• To ensure that this remains the case over time, fees must be index-linked, so that they are not eroded by inflation. 
• The likely impacts of the new scheme on the future of the Criminal Bar must be assessed sooner, and more broadly, than the MoJ currently intend. 

We would also urge the MoJ to reconsider other missed opportunities to support a healthy future for criminal defence advocacy, such as the package of proposals put forward under the Lord Chancellorship of Michael Gove. 

A common purpose 

We understand the concerns across the Criminal Bar. We will continue to work closely with the Criminal Bar Association, under the strong and determined leadership of Angela Rafferty QC supported by Chris Henley QC, the Circuits and Heads of Chambers to support the Criminal Bar as they strive to secure a viable future. 

On our side, channels of communication remain open with the MoJ. We believe that many at the MoJ and in related agencies, at both a political and civil service level, understand and share the Bar’s concerns about the state of our justice system. We understand that funding decisions are not theirs alone, and that they are not responsible personally for where we now find ourselves. The MoJ will have our support in any arguments they may seek to make in other places to secure greater funding for justice. We urge them to make those arguments. 

We remain committed to playing our part in representing and supporting the Bar, and in promoting justice. The Bar and its leaders must stand together to defend the delivery of proper justice, and to secure the funding from Government that is so urgently required. 

It is time to frame a fresh campaign for justice across the board around which the whole Bar can unite, and to give new impetus to our lobbying of all those with influence, to secure the rightful place and priority for justice in Government. 

Andrew Walker QC, Chair of the Bar 
Richard Atkins QC, Vice Chair of the Bar