Ok, so I've been encouraged to watch episode 2 of the new BBC 2 series Parole. "Can Leopards Change Their Spots" screens tonight at 9pm, but I've watched it already. I knew it would irritate, just like series one, but it's my duty I guess, and I've been remiss in ignoring the new series.
Tonight's episode covers just two cases, a woman serving a life term for murder with a 13 year tariff from memory, and a prolific burglar serving the dreaded IPP x 2 and well over his 9 year tariff. Interestingly, the woman's Oral Hearing was in person at the prison and with a full 3 person panel. The guy's was down the line on video link, also with a full panel, but my strong antipathy towards this cash-saving practice is no secret to regular readers. It's no way to treat people in such life-changing situations in my view.
Now we all know Oral Hearings are quasi-judicial processes and often lengthy, certainly 2/3 hours minimum and as such pose a serious problem for any TV producer and especially if you use lots of specially recorded sessions with each prisoner as well. I mention this because we have no idea what ended up on the cutting room floor and if it might help explain the lack of probation input.
Ok, the guy had a Community Offender Manager and she states her involvement had been over 10 months and included lots of video calls. This is the moment to state video is not conducive to building a sound professional relationship in my view, but prison visits are not allowed for cash saving reasons.
We did not hear the officer advocating strongly on the guy's behalf, or speak at length regarding the many worrying issues along the way during sentence, including screwing up in open conditions by absconding and going on a burgling spree that earned him 5 years on top of the IPP. We never heard mention of him attending any programmes during his sentence.
In essence, I think he was poorly served, especially by his brief and left me pondering on how much better informed the Board could have been under the old system of long involvement by a community PO who could have spoken more authoritatively. I also suspect such an arrangement might well have prevented the guy going AWOL from open with the distorted thinking 'I decided I'd done my time after my tariff'.
I feel really sad for this guy as of course he perfectly represents the gross miscarriage of justice all IPP's find themselves in and the suicide rate is utterly heart-breaking. His absconsion rules out another period in open, so for him it's going to be very tough indeed to demonstrate taking the risk of release any time soon.
There was no mention of any community probation involvement with the female lifer, so we are all left pondering on that. Did anyone from the community write a report? We assume the Prison Offender Manager did, but again we didn't hear any great advocacy or evidence-based professional judgement. To err on the side of fairness, I guess we must presume this all fell foul of editing, but one has to wonder how many Prison Offender Managers had been involved in this woman's case over the years.
On a positive note, we heard of her period of over 4 years in a Therapeutic Unit and I'm sure this may have helped address the many issues she had from her troubled early life and adolescence. It's one reason why Probation Officers had to be qualified social workers of course. I can't remember why she wasn't in open conditions (drug taking?), but I think I was surprised at the decision to release. Ok it's to a Probation Hostel and I very much hope she does well there and can avoid drugs, alcohol and negative influences. It'll be tough though and she will need a lot of support from the field probation team. But we all know risks must be taken and we all have a duty to offer as much support as possible.
Will I watch the whole series? I suppose I'd better, but I know it will only annoy me as to how downgraded the whole probation input has become and we must hope the new government honours its election promise of a 'Review'. We must thank the BBC for persisting over 5 years to gain permission to cover this topic. I just wish it put probation in a better light though....
It is entirely possible that the COM declined to participate in the process because of the editing that takes place in order to show what the producers want…….pro parole board for a reason.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0023dqn
ReplyDeleteReleased On: 01 Oct 2024
Available for over a year
Yvonne Jewkes, Professor of Criminology at the University of Bath, talks to Laurie Taylor about the design of prisons and the importance of an architecture of hope which nurtures the possibility of rehabilitation, from Limerick to Norway. They’re joined by Lynne McMordie, Research Associate at the Institute for Social Policy, Housing and Equalities Research at Heriot-Watt University, whose research suggests that the congregate nature of hostels and shelters for homeless people often compound the problems of residents, rather than providing a safe space or route to secure housing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2lnkgplvgzo
ReplyDeleteThe standard of education received by children in young offender institutions (YOIs) in England and Wales is in rapid decline, according to a report.
The review, by the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP), found some children having only half an hour per day out of their cells.
That is because many YOIs struggle to deal with children's complex behavioural issues and have to keep them apart.
The government said it was determined to tackle the issues raised in the report "head on".
The report said children needed more time out of their cells and called for the recruitment of better teaching staff.
** Oftsed chief inspector Sir Martyn Oliver said the provision in some YOIs was so "shockingly bad" some inspectors needed "counselling" after their visits. **
“There was no mention of any community probation involvement”
ReplyDeleteAnybody surprised? The general approach by the MoJ, HMPpS, HMIP, nowadays is to show what probation officers don’t do rather than what they do!
https://insidetime.org/newsround/parole-hope-for-the-innocent/
ReplyDeleteThe Parole Board has said that prisoners who maintain their innocence do not necessarily pose a higher risk to the public, and in some cases may be less likely to commit crimes upon release.
DeleteIn guidance to parole panel members on how to handle cases where a prisoner claims to have been wrongly convicted, the Board says it is a “misconception” that such people are automatically a greater danger. It says that maintaining innocence could be a “protective factor” that makes the individual a lower risk to the public.
The guidance comes after the case of Andrew Malkinson, who served 17 years in custody after being wrongly convicted of a rape committed by another man. He was eligible for parole after seven years but was repeatedly refused release – because, according to his barrister, he would “not falsely confess to abhorrent crimes which he did not commit.”
The new 15-page document, issued in July and titled ‘Guidance on prisoners who maintain their innocence’, is the first of its kind published by the Parole Board. Previously, panel members relied on a two-page chapter in a more general handbook, which referred to prisoners maintaining innocence without saying this could be a protective factor.
The new guidance repeats the Board’s long-standing policy that panels must accept a jury’s guilty verdict and cannot treat a prisoner as having been wrongly convicted. However, it goes on to state: “There is a misconception that those who maintain their innocence must pose a higher risk of harm. In some cases, it can be an indicator of higher risk, such as where the prisoner has not completed work that could evidence a lower risk. In other cases, it may not impact upon the assessment of risk, and could be considered a protective factor.”
Explaining why maintaining innocence might lower the risk of future offending, the guidance says that denying a particularly shameful crime, such as a sexual offence against children, might improve a prisoner’s feeling of self-worth and also help them to preserve ties with their family and community. This could apply whether the individual is innocent or guilty.
The guidance says: “People are more likely to desist when they have strong ties to family and community, employment that fulfils them, recognition of their worth from others, feelings of hope and self-efficacy, and a sense of meaning and purpose in their lives; this may be easier to achieve if someone maintains their innocence.”
One reason why prisoners who maintain innocence have struggled to be granted parole is that they were ineligible to join courses such as the old Sex Offender Treatment Programme, which required participants to discuss their conviction and express remorse. However, newer programmes such as Kaizen and Horizon may be open to people who deny the crime they are serving time for.
A spokesperson for the campaign group Progressing Prisoners Maintaining Innocence said: “We welcome this guidance document. It does not mention that one reason prisoners might maintain innocence is because they are factually innocent, and of course this can be a significant factor making future offending less likely.”
Those who deny pose a lower risk (Commentary by Peter Pratt)
DeleteI very much applaud the recent publication of the Parole Board guidance on prisoners who maintain their innocence. I am sure that many prisoners who are ‘maintaining their innocence’ will welcome the clarity and advice, and use it well when preparing their case for an oral hearing.
I particularly welcome the mention of Harkins (2014) which shows, for sex offenders, via a large and unchallenged piece of research, that those who deny have a lower risk than those who admit. This is almost certainly due to offenders wanting or needing to maintain some self-esteem, and maintain family ties. In other words, prisoners in this category have something to prove, and therefore will go the extra mile to avoid recall.
One of the main problems for individuals who maintain their innocence is to show remorse. This can be bypassed by sharing suitable feelings for other victims, and there are plenty of harrowing accounts in the media.
A second problem is where some similar offences are denied and others are admitted. Then, offenders must focus on those they admit. It has also been stated (Gill 2010) that offending behaviour programmes are neither necessary nor sufficient to demonstrate that risk has been reduced.
Paragraph 3.11 of the guidance, on risk factors, is particularly important. Prisoners maintaining their innocence must focus on these items and try to identify how they got accused in the first place. If children were involved, will they have contact with children in the future? If the issue was consent, or not, with an adult female, what extra measures will they take to almost guarantee consent the next time?
It is also very helpful that the MoJ have moved away from only focusing on the index offence and its context. They now carefully review the attendant lifestyle choices and, on a good day, utilise the Good Lives Model to enable prisoners to become good citizens. Having a job, a stable lifestyle, free from drugs and excessive alcohol, good friends, and a set of law-abiding attitudes will go a long way to show the Parole Board that your risk has reduced.
Most of all you need an informed lawyer and perhaps a good independent psychologist who you trust and with whom you can genuinely communicate. Good luck.
Dr Peter S Pratt is a consultant forensic psychologist and member of Progressing Prisoners Maintaining Innocence
08:36, as stated previously, nobody really knows what probation do any more other than fill in forms and thump a keyboard.
ReplyDeleteAny fundamental review needs to establish the purpose of probation, the qualifications needed and a means of assessing efficacy.
I’m afraid that as things stand probation serves no useful purpose other than being used as a scapegoat.
For my money, it is ‘advise, assist and befriend,’ or go bust!
Completely agree annon@09:11.
DeleteTodays probation service is just about getting staff to complete repeditive tasks rather then providing any meaningful purpose to those on probation.
'Getafix
I agree, we spend the vast majority of our time filling in forms and justifying what we do, rather than actually doing anything. The mind boggles! In it's current state the probation service has no meaningful role to play in either protection of the public (why does it continue to claim to be able to do this?) or rehabilitation, and is a waste of taxpayers hard earned cash that could be better spent on early intervention services (providing much needed education to our parents of the future) and community policing. I for one would jump at the chance to share my wealth of experience towards breaking the cycle of domestic abuse, poor parenting and shaping the experiences of our children to come for the better. Bring on the review and please, please make it good one!
DeleteAnd a review with probation practitioners involved and I mean PROBATION OFFICERS who are currently doing the job (and recently departed) …. Good ones !! That’s the only way we’ve any chance of getting back to basics of what probation work is and should be.
DeletePolice Constables and prison officers earn more now ,
ReplyDeleteBoth can be called ‘offender managers’ too.
DeleteI’m going to try an experiment. I’m going to see if not filling in the people survey makes me feel less angst than previous years when I’ve spent time outlining my concerns and fears only for nothing to change. So far not doing it is winning but I might yet cave. I’ll check back and let you all know if I hold out.
ReplyDeleteThey didn't change anything before, they are not going to do it now!
DeleteAs we always states, the best predictor of future behavior is.....?
… and that one line helped 5000 people be subjected to “inhumane” IPP sentences !! They abolished IPPs but when are they going to abolish that rigid insurance based risk nonsense.
DeleteThe best predictor of future behaviour is certainly not past behaviour. This only applies under certain conditions because otherwise a good person would always be good and a bad person always bad. We all know that’s not true!
DeleteThe risk industry never sleeps when there's money to be made with their blather & smoke:
Delete"Actuarial risk assessment is based upon statistical calculations of probability. Well used in the insurance industry (Green, 1997), actuarial methods for offender risk prediction utilise the basic methodology pioneered by Burgess (1936) for parole violation. From the study of a large number of cases, certain factors that statistically relate to risk, are selected. These are then retrospectively validated by application to cases with a low expectancy of risk and to those with a high expectancy of risk. Risk factors are then retrospectively validated in terms of statistical probabilities. Such factors are often referred to as static risk factors as they are deemed largely unchangeable and rooted in historical and demographic factors." - based upon the leopard & spots principle.
May’s study of over 7,000 offenders concluded that whilst criminal history is the best predictor of re-offending, those offenders with multiple problems are more ‘at risk’ (May, 1999)." - based upon the us & them principle of a criminal class who have no choice.
Apologies - should have credited 'risk guru' Hazel Kempshall for the psychobabble at 10:18
DeleteI attended an OH today, recall case on an allegation which was NFA'd, positive behaviour in custody since. Trouble is the case had moved into 'reset', so what was the point of me? I provided a couple of additional licence conditions in the Part C and usual blather about risk etc. But I kept being asked what I'd be doing with him, how would I help reduce his risks, motivate him etc. This is despite me explaining throughout the Part C he would have an initial appointment and be wished all the best. That unless 'something' occurred and I actually found out about it I wasn't expected to engage him again. The panel had clearly heard of reset but still had trouble, as do I, of figuring out who on earth thought it was a good idea....
ReplyDeleteI thought the reset shouldn’t apply to recalls?
ReplyDeletehttps://insidetime.org/mailbag/stop-the-recalls-2/
DeleteI’ve just checked and can see recall isn’t an exception to reset rules. Unbelievable!
DeleteIf case is still subject to licence then recall can be considered under the remit of ‘reactive management’.
Deletesalary will increase each year up to £56,593 within seven years
ReplyDeleteThat’s a PC wage in London shows our rubbish our pay is now
So probation staff think progression to a £56,000 annual salary is "rubbish"?
ReplyDeleteDon't be deliberately obtuse then. Probations salaries cap well below the 56k shift pattern pay and allowances on rates. Salaries staff get a lot lot less and so you are clear our rates in comparison are rubbish.
DeleteFuture kit for hmpps?
ReplyDelete"Two college students have used Meta’s smart glasses to build a tool that quickly identifies any stranger walking by and brings up that person’s sensitive information, including their home address and contact information, according to a demonstration video posted to Instagram. And while the creators say they have no plans to release the code for their project, the demo gives us a peek at humanity’s very likely future—a future that used to be confined to dystopian sci-fi movies... The two people behind the project, AnhPhu Nguyen and Caine Ardayfio, are students working on computer science at Harvard"
All in the editing????
ReplyDeletehttps://www.aol.co.uk/broadcaster-pulls-boris-johnson-interview-174903886.html
"Sky News political editor Beth Rigby said she has pulled out of an interview with former prime minister Boris Johnson at the Cheltenham Literature Festival after being told she could not make a recording or transcript of the talk.
It comes after an interview with the BBC was dropped earlier in the week after presenter Laura Kuenssberg mistakenly sent him her briefing notes."
Hard to know who to trust isn't it?
Britain’s first IPP prisoner to make a public bid for freedom from an abolished indefinite jail term is “lost” and fears he will never be freed after a devastating parole refusal.
ReplyDeleteNicholas Bidar was left broken and “humiliated” when a Parole Board panel refused to recommend his release or move to open conditions earlier this year.
The 36-year-old was handed a controversial imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentence with an eight-year minimum tariff for a string of robberies and using a gun to resist arrest aged 20 in 2008.
But 16 years later he is still being held in a maximum-security Category A prison with no release date. To raise awareness of his plight, he applied to be the first IPP prisoner to have his parole hearing held in public after new laws came into force to increase transparency around parole decisions.
Ahead of the landmark hearing in March, Mr Bidar told The Independent how the reality of his uncertain sentence has impacted him, adding: “Every day feels like torture. I struggle daily to get through the day.”
He insisted his status as a high-risk Category A prisoner had left him a “political prisoner” after a 2021 parole review had recommended him for progression to open conditions, but this was blocked by the secretary of state for justice who refused to downgrade him.
In their latest refusal, the Parole Board admitted his Category A status was “interfering” with his progress in prison and urgently called for this to be reviewed. But six months later, no such review has taken place.
Now his family says he has completely lost the person he was and he is losing hope of ever being freed from maximum security HMP Long Lartin in Worcestershire.
Delete“He has taken a massive step back,” a family spokesperson told The Independent, adding there has been “no progress” regarding his categorisation. “He’s gone from a state of thinking I am going to be home at some point and now he says he’s never coming home. It’s not happening. That’s his mindset – no one is going to help.
“He called us the other day, we had a prison video call. He just said what is the point in my waking up anymore. It’s so difficult to hear that. He committed his crime and deserved to go to prison for it because it was wrong.
“It’s so difficult when he’s seeing people walk out of the door. Some of these people have committed sexual crimes or potentially murdered someone and he’s there for a crime he committed when he was 20.”
IPP jail terms were introduced under New Labour in 2005 and saw offenders given a minimum tariff but no maximum. They were scrapped in 2012 amid human rights concerns, but not for those already detained.
Of 2,734 remaining IPP prisoners with no release date, more than 700 have served more than 10 years longer than their minimum tariff.
The government is facing growing pressure to resentence them after at least 90 inmates have taken their own lives under the jail term, which has been branded “psychological torture” by the UN.
Mr Bidar acknowledged his offending was serious – including further assaults committed in prison and a period in which he escaped custody – admitting “I did wrong”. But he insisted he had completed his sentence plan and told the parole board members: “I’m not that person anymore.”
His family fears without hope of being released he will only decline in prison. They also backed a private members bill tabled last month for all outstanding IPP prisoners to be resentenced. “If he stays in until he’s 40 or 45 things are not going to get better,” they added. “He’s not going to learn any more lessons. “He’s just going to deteriorate. Keeping him in now doesn’t achieve anything. It’s causing IPP prisoners like him mental health problems.”
The family said conditions inside the maximum-security prison were squalid – with Mr Bidar spending 23 hours a day in a cell with only a bucket to use as a toilet. A recent water contamination issue left him vomiting into the same bucket for weeks, they added.
“What he did was a long time ago,” they said. “He was a young, stupid kid. But he just made the wrong choice and I just think he needs one chance.”
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “It is right that IPP sentences were abolished. We are significantly shortening licence periods for some rehabilitated offenders and supporting those still serving these sentences. “Decisions about prisoner categorisation are regularly reviewed and the Prison Service conducts thorough risk assessments to determine the appropriate security category for each prisoner, based on the risk of escape, harm to the public, and the security and control of the prison.”