With news of the alarming increases in deaths both in prison and of people under probation supervision in the community, the role of the Prison and Probation Ombudsman comes into sharp focus, especially in light of a new appointment. The cynical might feel there could be cause for concern with the post being filled by an 'insider'. This from Rob Allen:-
The Mystery of the Prison Ombudsman and the Justice Committee
The new Prison and Probation Ombudsman (PPO), Sue McAllister started work yesterday. It’s an important role which had its origins in the Woolf Report into the 1990 Strangeways riot. Its remit has extended over time – it now adjudicates complaints from people on probation and immigration detention as well as prisoners. Since 2004 the PPO’s office has investigated all deaths in prisons, probation approved premises, immigration detention facilities and secure training centres.
The terms of reference for the post say that the PPO is appointed by the Secretary of State for Justice, following recommendation by the House of Commons Justice Select Committee. In this case, for some reason there has been no recommendation by the Justice Committee, at least not publicly.
There was a pre -appointment hearing on 17 July, just before the Parliamentary recess. Ms McAllister was given a good grilling over her use of social media and attitudes towards private prisons amongst other things. Committee Chair Bob Neill closed the hearing by saying “We will consider our report”. But there isn’t one.
According to the Liaison Committee (whose membership consists of the chairs of the House of Commons select committees) one of the purposes of pre-appointment hearings is “providing public reassurance…. that those appointed to key public offices have been selected on merit”. Another is “providing public evidence of the independence of mind of the candidate”. Maybe these purposes could be said to have been achieved by the hearing itself, the transcript of which is available for anyone to read. But it’s highly unusual for a Committee not to publish a view about whether a preferred candidate is appointable or not.
I have no reason to doubt Ms McAllister's capability to do the job- although in the future I do think there is a case for this post to be held - like the Chief Inspector post -by someone who has not worked for the Prison Service. The perception of independence is crucial.
And I do think the process of appointment should have been done properly. Maybe the Committee forgot about the report over the recess and hoped no one would notice. Or maybe they couldn’t agree. Whatever the case, failing to publish an opinion looks as if the MPs have not discharged their responsibility. Mr Neill should explain why.
Rob Allen
--oo00oo--
This from Wikipedia:-
Originally from South Yorkshire, Sue McAllister joined Her Majesty's Prison Service in England and Wales and worked for the service for 25 years. This included roles as the Governor of both HM Prison Gartree, an adult prison, and HM Prison Onley, a young offender institutions. McAllister was involved in the review team who investigated the suicide of Colin Bell, an offender under the care of the Northern Ireland Prison Service at HM Prison Maghaberry in 2008. The report was highly critical of the way in which his case was managed. She then worked in the Ministry of Justice as head of the Public Sector Bids Unit until she retired in 2012.
She was announced in May 2012 as the new head of the Northern Ireland Prison Service, the first time a woman was named to this post, or a similar post elsewhere in the UK. McAllister replaced Colin McConnell, who had become head of the Scottish Prison Service. She took over the post in July 2012. In August 2016, she announced that she would be resigning from the post in October that year in order to retire. McAllister was named a Companion of the Bath in Queen Elizabeth II's 2017 New Years honours for services to the Northern Ireland Prison Service.
--oo00oo--
My sense of unease has not been helped by finding this on a blogsite from 2016:-
Sean Lynch, Sue McAllister and the prison ‘service’
Sometimes the action or inaction of authority isn’t as hard to take as their attitude to it. A prime case unfolded yesterday evening.
The source for what happened was impeccable: NI’s Prisoner Ombudsman. In a report, the Ombudsman tells of how Sean Lynch, a prisoner in Maghaberry, injured himself twenty times while prison staff watched this happen on a monitor but didn’t intervene. As a result of his self-harming, Sean Lynch is now blind.
Shocking indeed. But the interviews given by the director general of the prison service, Sue McAllister were equally or more shocking. Remember this is the person with whom the buck stops. Interviewers from first UTV and then the BBC asked her whether she found the conduct of prison staff in this instance shocking and if they shouldn’t be dismissed from their jobs.
Ms McAllister’s response: nothing to see here, move along please. The important thing was that the prison service should ponder on the event and learn from it.
EH? But had she considered an apology to the family of Sean Lynch? Again, Ms McAllister batted the question away. This was not a matter of responsibility or apologies; this was a matter of learning from this upsetting incident.
On Facebook and Twitter, a number of people were outraged by her stance and said it was shocking that she couldn’t bring herself to apologise for what had happened. I agree, except I think apology is going the wrong way. David Cameron apologized for what the Parachute Regiment inflicted on innocent Derry people in 1972: we killed fourteen people that day but honest, we’re sorry now. Agus sin é. There should be no focus on apology in this case. The focus should be on people whose duty was to protect those in their care and who brazenly didn’t even attempt to fulfill that duty.
As for Sue McAllister, the person at whose desk the buck stops: for her demonstrated incompetence and failure to appreciate the enormity of what occurred under her supervision, rather than an apology, a P45 with immediate effect might be in order.
If you don’t agree, maybe have a chat with the family of Sean Lynch would change your mind.
Jude Collins
"Ms McAllister’s response: nothing to see here, move along please. The important thing was that the prison service should ponder on the event and learn from it."
ReplyDeleteFFS!!!
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-inescapable-fact-growing-leniency-equals-rising-crime/
ReplyDeleteFrom the late 1950s Britain’s official attitude towards crime began to change. Instead of being viewed as bad behaviour that needed to be punished and controlled, it was increasingly judged to be a symptom of a social or psychological malaise. The offender was seen as being forced into crime by poverty, inequality or other forces beyond his control which society could, and should, alleviate. Greed, laziness and the wish to dominate others were no longer recognised as the motives for violent crime. Persistent violent and dangerous criminals, who spurned hard work and thrift as the route to a comfortable standard of living, were rewarded with state protection from prosecution whenever possible, and the guarantee of their human rights, even in the face of their violence and law breaking. What was required, our ruling elites argued, was the application, wherever possible, of non-custodial sentences (even for violent offenders), such as the supervision of offenders in the community, to identify and alleviate the ‘underlying causes of crime’.
DeleteThis has never worked, either to reform offenders or to protect the public. The re-offending rates of supervised criminals have steadily worsened. Forty years ago they were 41 per cent measured over two years. They are now at least 56 per cent measured over one year. This equates to millions of offences committed against the public every year by offenders trusted with their freedom. Further, between 1998 and 2014 there were at least 6,300 of the most serious violent and sex crimes, such as murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, committed by criminals on the probation service’s books.
During the 1990s the probation service embraced the idea that ‘thinking skills’ programmes, designed by psychologists, could identify faults in the way offenders made decisions and so help them avoid crime. They were hopeful that years of failure could at last be reversed. But four years later the published results showed that not only had they had failed to reform the offenders on these programmes, but that in many cases their offending had increased.
What probation and other officials will not admit is that crimes are not committed because of faulty thinking skills, nor because of some pressing social or psychological need, nor because of problems associated with poverty and inequality, but because the offender chooses to commit them.
Fraser comes across as a twat and an embarrassment to the service. Wonder if he's considered joining the PI as a fellow?
DeleteAnyone on here recall him from his time of working with us?
Prison sentences seem likely to continue to be incvreased in length so that more folk stay in prison into their dotage
ReplyDeleteFrom Europe (sigh) the UK looks as insane in its obsession with locking up offenders unnecessarily, as the US looks to the UK with its obsession with guns.
ReplyDeleteIn IL's blog on the NAPO website, apparently Sodexo have made a "sub par" wage offer to their staff.
ReplyDeleteTangentially, he also mentions a increase in the amount of interest in NPS job advertisement.
I'm sure the two aren't linked...