Thursday 16 March 2023

Raab's Chickens Roost

So it came to pass, just as we discussed on Saturday, with chickens coming home to roost for Dominic Raab, firstly the High Court declaring his meddling in the affairs of the Parole Board to have no legal basis, and then Amy Rees duly telling staff they are urgently required on the prison front-line. This from the Telegraph:- 

Dominic Raab’s parole board reforms may have set dangerous prisoners free

High Court judges found Lord Chancellor’s rule change to ban MoJ staff’s opinions on releasing high-profile offenders was unlawful

Dangerous prisoners may have been wrongly set free because of a botched attempt by Dominic Raab to reform parole board hearings, the High Court has found. The Lord Chancellor changed the rules in July last year in an effort to ban Ministry of Justice (MoJ) staff from expressing a view on whether offenders should be set free from prison.

Raab wanted the power to offer a “single Secretary of State view” in high-profile cases, without the risk of being contradicted by prison or probation staff in their expert reports and evidence. However, judges in the High Court on Wednesday found the rule change was unlawful and that it may have led to prisoners being released by mistake.

In a highly critical ruling, Lady Justice Macur and Mr Justice Chamberlain found MoJ guidance from July, which was updated in October, estimated it covered more than 12,000 Parole Board hearings.

“Its promulgation may well have resulted in prisoners being released who would not otherwise have been released and in prisoners not being released who would otherwise have been released,” said the two judges. They warned it could also have exposed staff who gave evidence to parole board hearings to contempt of court accusations because of their legal responsibility to give “honest” evidence to the board.

‘Party line’

Raab’s rule said reports on the prospect of prisoner release should “present all relevant information and a factual assessment pertaining to risk”, but “must not present a view or recommendation as to the prisoner’s suitability for release or move to open prison conditions”.

Staff were told not to give their opinions, and were handed a series of example phrases to avoid including: “My assessment of the likely outcome should Mr/Ms X be released is….”

The judges, presiding over a legal challenge by two serving prisoners to the changes in Parole Board procedure, said the reforms would not have worked as intended by Raab, and suggested there had been a misunderstanding of how Parole Board hearings – which are quasi-judicial – actually work.

“As with an expert in court proceedings, the value of any opinion evidence given by an HM Prison and Probation Service staff member in proceedings before the Board depends on its being the witness’s honest and candid professional opinion, expressed in the witness’s own words”, they said.

“Any suggestion that the witness was tailoring their evidence so as to be consistent with their employer’s view would substantially reduce the weight that could be given to it. The suggestion that the Secretary of State can properly insist on a ‘party line’ on the ultimate issue seems to us to emanate from a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of these judicial proceedings and the role of professional witnesses in them.”

‘No legal basis’

Finding the rule change was “unlawful”, the judges concluded: “One of the Secretary of State’s principal purposes in making it was to suppress or enable the suppression of relevant opinion evidence which differed from his own view in cases where he expressed one. That purpose was improper.

“The decision to make the rule was an attempt by a party to judicial proceedings to influence to his own advantage the substance of the evidence given by witnesses employed or engaged by him and an impermissible interference with a judicial process. The fact that the attempt failed because the drafters did not achieve his purpose does not save the decision from being unlawful.”

The judges said there was “no legal basis” for an instruction to staff not to answer Parole Board questions about their ultimate view on a case, opening up the possibility that Raab’s directions could have “induced” staff to commit contempt of court. Judges will now hear submissions from parties in the case on what to do next, as a consequence of the unlawfulness found and the possible contempt of court issue.

The Ministry of Justice said there was no evidence the policy led to wrongful releases. A spokesman added: “This is a disappointing result and we are carefully considering our legal options to ensure we are able to press ahead as intended. The Government is committed to ensuring that our parole system functions properly to protect the public and keep dangerous offenders behind bars. Our Parole reforms will be brought forward soon to further put public protection at the heart of the system.”

--oo00oo--

This from the Daily Mail:-

'From one crisis to another': Probation workers will be redeployed from Whitehall to prisons due to staffing crisis

Civil servants at the probation service's HQ are being redeployed to work in prisons because of a staffing crisis. The department's chief has written to senior managers saying they must hand over 5 per cent of their Whitehall workers from today.

Labour claimed the move, which would involve around 90 staff members, could see 'more dangerous offenders left to walk the streets unsupervised'.

It follows a series of reports by the probation watchdog that uncovered sub-standard work in high-profile cases, including the murder of law graduate Zara Aleena.

An email from Amy Rees, director general of HM Prisons and Probation Service, said: 'Given the continued capacity issues across the prison estate and associated staffing pressures, I am writing to request your support in releasing HQ staff to the front line to help with the mitigating actions to address this ongoing issue.'

She added in the message, sent last week: 'I am asking you all to immediately identify 5 per cent of your staff to be released to assist the front line. Staff identified will be directed to temporarily move to priority front-line roles. If these numbers do not meet the demand, this ask could increase to 10 per cent.'

On Monday this week, a follow-up email from Ian Barrow, executive director of the Ministry of Justice's probation workforce programme, said some of those reallocated could work remotely but added: 'There will be an expectation for some staff to be physically deployed to prisons.'

Labour justice spokesman Steve Reed said: 'The public will be rightly worried that with staff being diverted, more dangerous offenders could be left to walk the streets unsupervised. Our probation services are in chaos after 13 years of Conservative mismanagement, with [Justice Secretary] Dominic Raab lurching from one crisis to another. The service has been left with a shortage of probation staff facing unmanageable workloads and rock- bottom morale.'

A probation source said of the redeployment: 'It is absolutely shocking that we had no advance warning that this was coming.' Officers with experience of working in jails are being prioritised for the scheme but it is not a requirement, internal emails said.

Jails in England and Wales are full – with 84,137 inmates at the end of last week. Ministers have already launched an emergency scheme – Operation Safeguard – to allow hundreds of convicts to be kept in police station cells rather than prisons. Yesterday a report from the probation watchdog warned criminals were being freed without adequate oversight because probation teams had too few employees.

Justin Russell, chief inspector of probation, yesterday slammed the service for failing to protect the public from released criminals. He highlighted 'disappointing' findings warning that efforts to assess risks posed by criminals 'fell well short of our expectations'. The report noted the probation service was working with a 30 per cent staff shortfall, which meant officers were overloaded. This led to 'superficial' assessments being made of offenders.

In January, Mr Russell published two damning reports that found crucial failings in how killers Jordan McSweeney and Damian Bendall were handled by probation. Predator McSweeney, described as a 'ticking timebomb', was left free to kill aspiring lawyer Miss Aleena, 35.

Mr Russell said McSweeney should have been recalled to prison six days before the attack in east London and could have been back in his cell by the time of the murder if staff had followed procedures. Another report scrutinised failures in the way Bendall was supervised before he murdered three children and his pregnant partner.

An HM Prison and Probation Service spokesman said: 'We are temporarily moving around 90 qualified staff from desk-based roles to help frontline colleagues in prisons and probation.'

--oo00oo--

This from InsideTime explains some of the background to 'Operation Panic' :- 

Prisoners are to be let out of jail up to six months before their release date, in a new early release scheme which will help to tackle prison overcrowding.

The expansion of the Home Detention Curfew (HDC) scheme will extend the period which prisoners can spend at home, wearing an electronic tag, from 135 days to 180 days at the end of their time in custody. Officials believe the change will free up between 400 and 600 prison places.

It means that someone sentenced to four years for burglary, who at present would serve one year and seven-and-half-months in custody, could in future serve only one year and six months. The reform, which requires a change in the law before it can take effect, was set out in a draft Statutory Instrument laid in Parliament early in February, without publicity. It is scheduled to come into force on June 6.

In a letter to the House of Commons Justice Committee explaining the change, Prisons Minister Damian Hinds said that it was intended to promote rehabilitation. However, an impact assessment published by the Ministry of Justice acknowledges that “an additional benefit may be that by reducing demand for prison places, it will reduce crowding and improve prison conditions for both offenders and staff”.

At the same time, eligibility for the HDC scheme will be restricted so that people convicted of particular offences linked to domestic abuse, such as stalking, harassment and coercive control, are no longer eligible. People convicted of sexual offences, and those serving sentences of longer than four years, were already ineligible. The estimate for the number of prison places which will be freed up takes account of this new curb.

The move comes as jails are overflowing, with the Operation Safeguard scheme to hold remand prisoners in police cells overnight starting to be used in three English regions in February and being extended across England and Wales in March. The Prison Governors’ Association has warned that it will take legal action if the Government tries to squeeze more prisoners into existing jails.

According to the impact assessment, “our best estimate suggests this option will increase the HDC population by up to 450 offenders when it reaches steady state”. It goes on: “The current maximum period that an offender may spend in the community on HDC is 135 days. Extending this period to a maximum of 180 days (six months) will provide further opportunities for offenders to prepare for the transition from custody to supervision under licence in the community, while subject to strict monitoring conditions … It is very unlikely that the impacts forecast by this change – around 400-600 reduction in prison place demand – will lead to the closure of prison cells, wings or entire prisons.”

HDC was introduced by Tony Blair’s Labour government in 1999, when the maximum period was set at 60 days. This increased to 90 days in 2002 and to 135 days in 2003. At the time, the Conservatives opposed the policy, calling it evidence that Labour were soft on crime. In 2000, then-Conservative shadow home secretary Ann Widdecombe called the policy “disastrous”, telling MPs: “When it was put through Parliament, we described it as wrong and we opposed the early release of prisoners under the scheme.

Faced with forecasts that the prison population could rise from around 80,000 to 100,000 over five years, then-justice secretary Robert Buckland put forward an identical proposal to increase the HDC limit from 135 days to 180 days in early 2020. However, the plan was withdrawn shortly after the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, which saw a fall in prisoner numbers due chiefly to court closures. It has now been revived by Buckland’s successor, Dominic Raab.

The number of prisoners in England and Wales has jumped by 1,700 since the start of January, and is forecast by the Government to carry on rising by 5,000 a year over the next two years. Part of the reason for the increase is a new law introduced by the Government which means that many people serving sentences longer than four years must now spend two-thirds of the time in custody, instead of half.

To be eligible for early release on HDC, prisoners must be serving a sentence of between three months and four years, and they must have a suitable home address where they will be monitored via the tag. Some prisoners without a home to go to may be provided with housing by the Community Accomodation Service. Besides people convicted of sexual offences, other categories of prisoner who are excluded from the scheme include people convicted of terrorism offences and foreign nationals liable for deportation

22 comments:

  1. So does this mean they are not undertaking prison vetting before moving staff into prisons? Surely another risk! Probation are understaffed by 30% and another 5-10% are being moved to prisons, while more prisoners are being released and the pressures on probation caseloads will continue to increase. There's nothing been done to stem the exodous of experienced probation officers, and raw Pquip recruits are going to be pressured into holding more cases and more complex cases sooner than they have experience to safely manage. It's all going to push a greater churn in newly qualified staff as well as experienced staff. I find the direction of staff interesting, none of the probation staff took a job on the basis they could be directed to work in a prison, the vast majority do not have the training to work in this environment safely, nor will they have the motivation. I can't think of one person in my team who would willingly volunteer, so some will be pushed, which I suspect will lead to an increase in absence, and threats from senior managers that middle managers have to discipline absentee's. Who will they blame for the next SFO - an overworked, stressed PO not Amy Reece!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jim. You’ll be getting a call soon, instructing you back to the frontline.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I really despair at this Government’s Criminal Justice Policy and once again lack of strategic thinking. When these knee jerk policies are put forward purely for the optics for the Tory Party who WHO WHO does the balanced assessment? Again I criticise Probation Senior Leaders and their lack of strategic thinking, which is the very reason they are paid higher salaries. Are they quiet or just dumb?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think the high court judgement on Rabbs meddling with the parole board is right. I also think it's quite damning on him. It's basically calling him out as an ideologically driven megalomaniac. I think that's actually exactly what he is.
    And what a wonderful example of respect for your workforce encapsulated in an email that says.

    "If these numbers do not meet the demand, this ask could increase to 10 per cent."

    There isn't even an attempt to mask the threat!
    I do think however, this is a worrying development for probation, and it might even be a glimpse of the future. Could it be the first steps towards getting rid of the prison and probation officer role and the creation of the generic 'criminal justice officer?
    Probation has become so integrated into the prison system, it's no longer the first part of reintegration after custody, it's become the last part of the prison sentence itself. As such, it's easy to make the case for those who want to, that if you work in HMP outdoors then you shouldn't have a problem being redeployed to HMP indoors if the call comes.
    This is very dodgy ground for probation, and I think the unions should be getting very curious about what this might mean for probation staff in the future.
    Reducing the prison population by extending the period a prisoner can be tagged for? That seems like an oxymoron when the MOJ are flapping about trying to build super prisons that they cant staff, and using probation workers to plug the staffing gaps in the existing estate.
    Personally I'd focus on the recall process to help control the prison population. Theres no real point in letting more out earlier if more are being returned on recall.
    Still theres hope I guess, theres an army of over 50s, sick and disabled being prepared right now to solve all these problems!

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probation officers directed to probation offices is one thing, but directed to prison omu’s and prison wings is another. Everything prisons is under prison governor line management so how is that contractual for probation staff? If unions (#Napo #unison #gmb where are you?) and probation leaders had any balls they’d be reigning in Amy #OneHmpps Rees from now.

      Delete
    2. Be warned staff mobility is a contractual matter and appointment term. It will hold if challengers put up argument. Napo bullshitters who sold off the conditions of service for nothing dumped a series of non existent unchecked Nps descriptions on us. Time to reject to protect or fall trying as Napo assist the management shaft us. Don't fund a union who support management join another in solidarity who can speak for all staff.

      Delete
  5. The poor probation service has been desperately in need of staff for the past few years. It’s beyond breaking point with skyrocketing caseloads but they are sending “HQ” probation officers to prisons instead of probation offices!! Won’t have time to care about parole board recommendations because the last thing I need is a parole report I haven’t time to complete, especially with all the HDC prison releases about to come our way!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Morning Campers

    Do not fear for the safety or well-being of those HMPPS HQ staff redirected to prisons. They'll be well remunerated for their troubles. There'll no doubt be all-inclusive 5* hotels with fine dining, access to spas/gyms/pools, bonuses for the disruption & not-so-tricky tasks to complete in office environments. Those staff already in the prisons will be the ones directed from their office chairs to the wings to get around the security clearance issues.

    As for you lot in the community - all leave is cancelled in preparation for the avalanche of early releases & the WMT has been adjusted to 250%. The SFO-ometer will be switched off to keep the baying right wing press quiet, but...

    TAKE NOTE: any & all new offences committed by the prisoners released into your care by our excellent HMPPS Sirocco teams (they're full of hot air) will result in large fines which you will pay individually. We can't afford to lose any more staff so we'll simply deduct from a sliding scale of penalties out of your salary. Details to follow.

    Love, Amy & the gang.

    ReplyDelete
  7. https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/bailey-and-morris-v-secretary-of-state-for-justice/

    ReplyDelete
  8. Who are HQ probation officers? I didn't know there were any?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know that there are some qualified POs that work at Petty France in the Executive Release section

      Delete
    2. PPCS, Probation Workforce Team, HMPPS policy unit, Effective Practice Team. There’s loads of departments in HMPPS upper ranks. It’s an elephant’s graveyard for managers that fled the frontline.

      Delete
  9. I mean really can this get any worse? Further proof, if needed, of the decline in the way criminal justice services operate in England and Wales. The Ministry of Justice continues to polish its turds and is failing on all sides now. Completely dysfunctional and not fit for purpose. This level of incompetence will no doubt lead to various promotions as inept senior managers stumble ever upwards on the probation and prisons gravy train. I recall my manager telling me that we are facing a new world of opportunities. Well he certainly got that right…but probably not in the way he intended….

    ReplyDelete
  10. So probation officers are to be moved into prisons exacerbating the shortages in probation. The prison sentences are getting longer and prisons are getting so full there's a scheme to release them early putting more pressure probation who've just had their resources reduced so they'' need their guys back from the prison estate.

    Who came up with this plan Baldrick?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think this is an important blog piece by secret barrister as it applies across all criminal justice roles:

    https://thesecretbarrister.com/2023/03/15/we-need-to-talk-about-gary-glitter/

    And I think it helps explain why JB sometimes walks a fine line; opinion is fine, but context & facts are essential.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I started reading it but got distracted. "And I think it helps explain why JB sometimes walks a fine line; opinion is fine, but context & facts are essential." I agree so am very interested if you could expand on that statement.

      Delete
    2. ok.

      The blog is curated by you, JB.
      It is a compendium of opinions, mostly anonymous.
      Those opinions come from a wide range of standpoints.
      The 'fine line' is that anonymised posts are welcomed BUT they need to be read & understood in the context of factual subject matter.
      I enjoy the blog very much.
      I find some posts painful to read.
      Not the spiteful digs of politically motivated interlopers & not the shit-shovelling of those with a personal agenda.
      The most painful are those that evidence an overwhelming sense of the loss of humanity, of the loss of humanitarian values, posts that inherently dispaly lethargy, division & selfishness, a bit like most new-build houses come fully furnished with appliances & decor, i.e. they lack a sense of authenticity of an individual or any element of risk-taking.

      But this is an example of what I enjoy here:

      "I quite liked not having to make recommendations.

      I don’t care about all that professional responsibility malarkey. Nobody respects poorly paid and overworked probation officers as it is.

      I hope Raab appeals and wins."

      I'm torn as to whether that's mischief-making by a sad bastard or a real person saying what they really believe.

      The subsequent post, however, will have opened some eyes as it placed those comments in a context with facts:

      "Bear in mind CRC POs were effectively removed from parole processes for many years."

      Maybe that's what raab wants, i.e. the CRC-model of a PO that just does what's asked without feeling the desire to involve themselves in other peoples' lives, other peoples' business or hold any sense of professional values.

      He could demote any number of managers at any level of his organogram & get exactly that, of course.

      Hope this was the kind of expansion you wished for.

      Delete
    3. Anon 19:40 Thanks for that - it's a good example and you will no doubt be interested in a subsequent response - "I detect the signature contrarianist style of a blog troll, Jim." I thought that too and hesitated for quite a few minutes whether to delete or publish. The blog continues to pose both wonder and disappointment in equal measure, but my guiding principle has always been to try and facilitate honest and reasoned argument that is both grounded and within an understood context. I miss it being unmoderated, but experience has proved that phase has passed. It is a fine line I guess, but as always it's the quality of the contributions that make it worthwhile.

      Delete
    4. Take it a bit further. Stop focusing on Raab and his recommendations or Grayling and his privatisation. We could pretend to believe the Probation Officer was once a professional elite. A silent pillar of the Criminal Justice System, neither social worker nor enforcement agent. An expert at resettling prisoners after long sentences, helping aggressive or prolific offenders to CALM or Think First, walking those with complex needs through drug, alcohol and mental health support, and being the link between the Court, prison, the community and their future. An advisor to the Court, Parole Board, Mental Health Tribunals and anyone else needing an expert witness, opinion, risk assessment or plan involving a supervised offender.

      It’s a nice memory for some, a rose-tinted nightmare for others. If we are to believe it was true, but then came successive Justice Ministers who stripped away the Probation Officer’s professionalism and removed their values while our Chief Officers, managers and unions stayed silent, mostly. Even that Probation Institute still hasn’t amounted to much more than “the lipstick on the TR pig”.

      First, the Probation Officers title was changed to Offender Manager, Responsible Officer and Practitioner.

      Second, our beloved Probation Service was changed to Trust, NPS, CRC then back to a Service again that looked very different from it once was.

      Third, we were made to work for private companies for profit who made us follow erroneous practices, or cower under the civil service and government ministers that removed our professional authority to make independent decisions and recommendations.

      Fourth, we were forcibly vetted and scrutinised by the police, made to adopt police assessments and procedures, and made to partner with the police at MAPPA IOM and elsewhere.

      Fifth, we were denied pay rises for a and compelled to work increasingly excessive hours, with unmanageable caseloads and in unsafe, unhealthy and toxic office environments which caused hundreds and thousands to leave in droves never to return.

      Delete
    5. I could go on and on, it ends with the Probation Service being exposed as inadequate, dragged through the mud, and with some Probation Officers thrown under the bus, becoming mentally ill and committing suicide. It is this that has led to the “model of a PO that just does what's asked” because that is what is now required of a Probation Officer. The expectation is that targets, instructions and JFDI are followed “without feeling the desire to involve themselves in other peoples' lives, other peoples' business or hold any sense of professional values”. Probation Officers are not required to show “humanity”, or humanitarian values”, and how could they possibly do so within a Probation Service that by the very nature of its application causes “lethargy, division & selfishness”.

      I’ll put it in simple terms so you don’t overthink this too much. I became a Probation Officer because it’s what I chose to do and initially I loved it, but now I don’t. Tomorrow I’ll turn up for work with a 170% caseload of 60 mostly high risk offenders. I’ll be bombarded by emails demands and requests from dawn until dusk from managers, prisons and other colleagues and professionals alike. I’m under constant threat and hoop-jumping of SFO investigations, complaint procedures and HMIP audits. I’m expected to turn up at legal hearings, team meetings and training events I have no time to prepare for. I’m trying my best but I can’t keep up unless I work 35 hours extra every week, which means I won’t spend enough time with my family and for a job that barely enables me to pay the bills or plan my future. It’s not just me, there are PQIPs, PSOs and PO around me that feel exactly the same, some have no idea what they’re doing and there’s not an experienced colleague or a manager in sight to learn from. The rest are off sick so receptionist is the most experienced person in the office.

      If not making recommendations means one less paragraph in a report, one less hour at a hearing or one less question from an offender, their POM and their legal representative harassing me about whether I’m recommending their release then I’m all for it. I’d rather not complete another Oasys, AP referral, EPF assessment ever again either. This by no means makes me “lethargic, selfish or divisive”, nor lacking “humanitarian values”. I am being the Probation Officer that the Probation Service has created in every single office across England and Wales. Not the rose-tinted one of of a decade ago but the robot-dog one of 2023. It’s not a vocation or a job for life either. I want a better job, a better paid one and as far away from the Probation Service as possible.

      Delete
  12. Dear 23:27, I am a veteran SPO still in post -just- but breathless at the end of every day with the pressure of work.
    I have read your post with despair - and thus we fade away! My old mentor from the 1980's, who is now in his 90's, asked me once ' What have you done with the probation service? I thought I had left it in safe hands' I am now months from retirement myself and I cannot even ask my friends question let alone answer it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 10:42 Both I and lots of 'old timers' will share your concerns and to be honest are often mystified and horrified in equal measure. However, can I encourage you to write of your thoughts and experiences, possibly via a guest blog piece? Contact details on the profile page. Thanks.

      Delete