Monday, 24 August 2026

Lessons to be Learned?

It's been some time since we highlighted Rob Allen's reflections, now regularly appearing on the Substack platform:- 

Releasing Tension

Thoughts on the Latest Prison Crisis

When I was seconded to the Criminal Department in the Home Office in the early 1990’s, a paper used to be circulated by the Prison Department each week listing convicts of particular note who were due for release.

In the days before “end to end offender management,” one function of it seemed to be to alert ministers and officials responsible for police and probation about the need to ensure practical arrangements were made in high profile cases. I recall colleagues wrestling with the idea of locating a notorious sex offender on a remote island.

The lists also confronted those making policy with its real world consequences, which were sometimes intended, quite often not. And of course they enabled the preparation of “lines to take” in the unwelcome event of press interest.

So I was surprised that the present day Ministry of Justice were caught so badly unawares about the impending human impacts of the earlier release provisions which became law earlier in the year and are due for implementation this autumn.

During the passage of the Sentencing Bill, officials and ministers will have understandably been focussed on avoiding unsustainable demands on prison places to prevent the apocalyptic vision of a gridlocked justice system which they faced two years ago.

I can see how having rejected David Gauke’s proposal to bring forward the potential release dates for prisoners deemed dangerous by the courts and given extended sentences, an exemption for any offenders on standard determinate sentences from earlier release would have seemed unattractive to the MoJ in terms of its impact on prison numbers.

But surely less unattractive than the huge row and last ditch review which has led to the decision that prisoners convicted of serious sexual offences will now be excluded from the scheme. Given the widespread outcry about the proposed earlier release of two men convicted in the dreadful case of PC Harper, it seems likely those sentenced for manslaughter or particular forms of it will also find themselves staying behind bars until the two thirds point of their sentence has elapsed rather than being released under supervision at the halfway point.

So what are the broader lessons from this fiasco?

First, obviously enough, for a government to use its parliamentary majority to whip and rush through legislation in the teeth of widely held concerns only stores up trouble. When I was in the Home Office, it was only after the implementation of the 1991 Criminal Justice Act that problems came to light. An over rigid system for setting fine levels and unworkable limitations on courts ability to consider previous convictions when sentencing were rapidly repealed. Then as now it was a new Secretary of State who inherited the task of implementing (and then unimplementing) controversial legal provisions.

This time, it is a new Prime Minister who has applied the brakes prior to provisions coming into force. He was not an MP when they were enacted. But had his predecessor and colleagues properly considered a more flexible approach earlier on, this summer’s unseemly mess might have been avoided or mitigated.

Second, while the government could conceivably have stuck to their Sentencing Act guns, the forces ranged against them- bereaved family members, almost the entire police service and most of the media- as well as a 1 million strong petition -have been simply too powerful to withstand.

It’s 20 years since Tony Blair pledged that the legal system must dispense justice to the victim as well as the accused. But it seems to me that a settled and well understood view has never been reached about what that should mean in practice. What is the appropriate level of say which victims of crime should have about sentencing and release decisions in individual cases and policy terms. That’s something that needs to be carefully reviewed along with a much more vigorous promotion of restorative justice.

But as things stand, having parroted in their 2024 manifesto promises of “a justice system that puts victims first” and acknowledged that sentences “often do not make sense either to victims or the wider public”, making the case for the automatic earlier release of serious offenders surely needed much fuller justification than the need for prison space. The case would have been easier to make with the exceptions we have ended up with and potentially a greater involvement of the Parole Board in certain cases.

Third, the failure to make that fuller justification revealed the depressing fact that for most of the public and it seems many in the government, the only purpose of sentencing is punishment, and the only punishment is prison. Never mind the proportions involved, the basic idea that a sentence of imprisonment comprises a period locked up followed by a spell at home under supervision with a liability to be recalled to prison is not widely enough understood. Even less I suspect the admittedly confusing notion of the three phase Progression Model, which requires so little for prisoners to progress along.

Nor is it appreciated that sentence lengths for serious crimes have increased so much in the last 20 years that half the average prison sentence now exceeds two thirds of what was the average in 2006. In their 2024 critique of sentence inflation, the most senior former judges in England and Wales argued that release at the half way point should be restored. It’s disappointing that they and many others have not at least sought to defend the Sentencing Act provisions which do just that.

After the failings of the 1991 Criminal Justice Act, whose aim had been to reduce the use of prison, there followed what one academic described as the biggest volte face in penal history. The revised law paved the way for a sustained rise in prison numbers whose consequences we are to an extent still living with.

One can only hope that the 2026 crisis does not lead to a similar result.

Rob Allen

49 comments:

  1. What strikes me about this is that we seem to have reached the extraordinary position where major sentencing policy was apparently modelled sufficiently to calculate how many prison places it would save, but not sufficiently to anticipate who would actually be walking through the prison gate earlier as a result.

    That isn’t a minor implementation problem. That’s surely one of the first questions you ask when designing the policy.

    And now we’re watching policy being rewritten in response to individual cases, petitions, headlines and political pressure before the original provisions have even properly begun.

    For those of us in probation, that should be deeply concerning because every alteration changes the assumptions on which the rest of the system is being planned.

    How many people will be released? When? For how long will they be supervised? Who will be tagged? Who can be recalled? How many recalls are anticipated? What prison capacity will exist to receive them?

    Those aren’t separate policies. They are one system.

    Yet increasingly it feels as though prisons, sentencing, electronic monitoring and probation are being treated like separate pieces that can be moved around until the numbers fit.

    Perhaps that’s the lesson I take from Rob Allen’s piece. Before announcing another “solution”, somebody needs to follow it all the way through the system and ask: then what happens?

    Not what does the spreadsheet predict. Not what does the press release promise.

    What actually happens next?

    Because probation practitioners spend their working lives asking exactly that question when assessing risk.

    It might be useful if the people designing the criminal justice system occasionally did the same.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But they ("the people designing the criminal justice system") can't do that. They are prevented from doing so by a whole series of factors such as (1) being a civil servant, (2) being instructed by the government of the day, (3) that government being led by unelected policy advisors who have no interest in public services, (4) that government being populated by self-interested egomaniacs, (5) being so far removed from the reality of the criminal justice system by virtue of employment & salary - aka trapped inside the Whitehall/Westminster bubble, (6) enjoying the power of hierarchy, (7) fear of upsetting the Whitehall applecart, (8) personal ambition...

      How can it change? It would be impossible to run a parallel probation service. Its already been proven that a two-tier service doesn't work, i.e. the tr model.

      Probation, Intensive Supervision & Surveillance (can you see what it is yet?) seem to be the three pillars of the current provision:

      * probation = managing the bulk of the caseload with a lite touch
      * intensive supervision = reserved for the 'most serious' (definition required)
      * surveillance = dedicated team managing tags

      In 2000 we very nearly had the Community Rehabilitation & Punishment Service (CRAP)

      Now we've got PISS.

      What's next?

      Delete
  2. To answer one question posed in this article the answer is ZERO. Victims should have no say on sentencing or release conditions. It is up to the courts and probation to identify risk and take appropriate but proportionate actions in their interests.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Huzzah! Yes indeed. As said previously by several others here, the "victim's voice" forms an essential part of the information required to complete the picture for the courts, as is the probation report/risk assessment. But it is the courts' responsibility to make a decision which is "appropriate but proportionate".

      Delete
    2. And VLO s remain at Band 4, surely POs should now be Band 5 as per the not required NSD…..

      Delete
  3. I have posted previously that the victims service should be separated from probation in much the same way as CAFCASS became a separate organisation in the 80s.
    We have competing demands and there is a conflict of interests.
    Probation is about rehabilitation and re-integration. The victim service will have to define its own role, be it information sharing, policy pressuring, media influencing etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh no another big innovator making another tragedy for probation.

      Delete
    2. How is that a tragedy?

      Delete
    3. I agree completely with annon @10:48.
      My primary issue relates to identity and purpose. Is the probation services focus on reducing reoffending by endevavouring to stop those it supervises from offending in totality and so preventing the creation of any further victims? Or is its purpose to protect existing victims that a perpertrator has already made? Public protection or victim protection?
      I accept there can be an overlap.
      But when someone is offered a job or a property somewhere that lays a foundation to stop that person from offending against anyone again, and a victim objects, then whos needs are prioritised?
      As pointed out above, the victims voice is important and should never be neglected, but probation should not be trying to work both sides of the fence.

      'Getafix

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    6. I am @12:09.

      I asked a question! You could of clarified or explained, but you choose to unleash a tirade of intentional abuse and insult.
      I mean this kindly, but I think you may benefit from some form therapy.
      You certainly should not be working with people in your current emotional state.
      I wish you well.

      Delete
    7. I have a strong suspicion one or other deleted contribution is from the same person that triggered my putting comment moderation in place yesterday.

      Delete
    8. The point is any suggestion to part off operational probation staff in roles like vlo is an attack against your own side. There was plenty of explanation but rightly pulled it down as it was obtuse flatly asserting the gross error of what I see as appropriate knowledge. It's an example of shooting your own toes off.

      Delete
    9. Spot on 10:48 A definite conflict of interest that serves no one particularly well. Sensible reforms are to be welcomed. This would be an opportunity for the government to do something for victims with little or no increase in spending

      Delete
  4. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/licence-conditions-policy-framework

    This policy sets out actions for prison and probation staff in the application of the different types of licence conditions where releasing and/or managing individuals on licence.

    ReplyDelete
  5. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a881c2e1e22962c1258cc1d/JiN_Pocketbook_2026-08-21.pdf

    Summary of the latest information presented in Justice in Numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The job is so f**king boring and a waste of time for the most part and the pay is crap!!Hardly got any money left after paying all my bills! Wish they would get rid of it and give us all a redundancy payout!

    ReplyDelete
  7. From the probation Institute website.

    https://clinks.org/community/blog-posts/sentencing-act-2026-next-stage-implementation-and-accompanying-probation

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The following information summarises the package of reforms that will be implemented across the Probation Service through the ongoing implementation of the Sentencing Act and through the Our Future Probation Service (OFPS) programme.
      The Progression Model:

      As many will be aware, the Act introduces a new three-stage structure for eligible people serving Standard Determinate Sentences (SDS):

      Custody
      Supervision in the community
      A final licence stage

      Key elements to note are:

      Eligible people serving a Standard Determinate Sentence will generally be released after one-third of their sentence
      Those serving a Standard Determinate Sentence Plus - covering certain more serious violent and sexual offences - will generally be released after one-half of their sentence.
      Following a ministerial review, people convicted of rape and certain sexual offences against children will be excluded from the revised release arrangements and remain subject to existing statutory release rules. You can find the full list of new excluded offences, here.
      For people already in custody immediately before implementation, eligible release dates will be recalculated

      Releases will be phased between October 2026 and June 2027, with the first two tranches scheduled for 1 October and 13 October 2026.

      Home Detention Curfew (HDC) will cease as a routine policy and there will be no new HDC releases after 2 September 2026.
      What does this mean for supervision?

      Active supervision will take place during the second third of the sentence. It will end during the final third (the licence stage), but breach of licence conditions can still lead to recall. There are also a range of exemptions, meaning that certain groups will remain under active supervision during the final third of their sentence.

      People managed under Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangement (MAPPA).
      Those convicted of Child Sexual Exploitation offences
      People assessed by probation as most likely to reoffend.

      Active supervision will also be retained for those that are ineligible for the Progression Model, once they are released.
      Presumption toward Electronic Monitoring:

      The supervision stage also introduces a presumption of Electronic Monitoring on release for eligible cases, subject to specified exemptions. Monitoring will generally remain in place until the point at which the person would previously have been released (before the Progression Model was implemented).
      New restrictions:

      From October 1, courts, the Parole Board and probation practitioners will be able to use new, restrictive measures:

      Prohibition from driving
      Prohibition from entering drinking establishments
      Prohibition from attending public events

      It is important to note that these restrictions do not need to be directly connected to the original offence.

      Probation will also be able to impose Restriction Zones that will require people to remain within a specific, designated area. Those subject to this condition will be electronically monitored.
      A new Probation Requirement replacing the Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (RAR):

      For new Community Orders and Suspended Sentence Orders, the Probation Requirement will replace the Rehabilitation Activity Requirement from 1 October.

      Courts will no longer set a maximum number of rehabilitation activity days. Instead, probation practitioners will decide the ‘nature, timing and intensity’ of activity throughout the order.
      Early Termination:

      Early Termination was introduced earlier in 2026 and allows Community Orders and Suspended Sentence Orders to be concluded before sentence expiry where sentence objectives have been achieved and continued supervision is no longer considered necessary. Decisions will need to be supported by evidence of progress, informed by risk assessment and professional judgement, and subject to appropriate governance and oversight.
      1/2

      Delete
    2. 2/2

      Changes to probation practice – supervision packages:

      To support the implementation of the Sentencing Act, a new framework that will determine probation’s level of supervision will apply from 1st October 2026. This will apply to people on Community Orders, Suspended Sentence Orders and on licence.

      The level of supervision ‘intensity’ will be aligned explicitly with risk, need, need and likelihood of reoffending, considered to be necessary and proportionate, and supported by evidence-based assessment tools.

      The objective is to target probation’s resources towards those deemed as presenting the highest risk of serious harm and likelihood of reoffending.

      There will be enhanced community management arrangements for certain groups, including those excluded from the Progression Model.
      Custody-to-community transitions will change from September

      Changes to Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) and pre-release arrangements will begin on 1 September 2026. The objective will be to strengthen transition planning between custody and the community, focusing on improving information sharing, reducing duplication and supporting continuity of risk management.

      This will be an interim model ahead of the development of a longer-term custodial sentence management approach.
      The role of, and the impact on, the voluntary sector:

      These reforms are aimed predominantly at the manner in which probation provides supervision. Yet, there are a number of knock-on effects on how voluntary organisations support people in the community, specifically how and when they can engage with the people accessing their services.

      The key areas for the sector to consider as they adapt to these changes are:

      Referral patterns (including earlier referrals) and how this ties in with increased partnership working with probation at a local level
      A renewed focus on information sharing – access to information is critical for voluntary organisations to be able to provide effective support
      Increased demand on services – as a result of the greater number of people being released through the Progression Model
      Navigating additional restrictions – including how to ensure access to services when people are restricted from visiting certain areas; this will, again, required increased partnership working with local probation
      Tailored support – an area in which the sector excels, the new Probation Requirement lends itself to personalised support, tailored to addressing need
      Outcomes over outputs – another area in which the sector excels, the ability for early termination of certain orders emphasises the need to focus on purposeful rehabilitative interventions
      Maintaining support – given the changes to supervision levels and timelines, there will be a need to ensure that any unmet needs are addressed
      Easing the transition from custody to the community – changes to the OMiC model, alongside the implementation of the Progression Model, will lead to increased demand on community support services

      We will continue to provide updates to the sector as these reforms progress, and will be focused on facilitating continued statutory-non-statutory engagement to ensure that the sector is as prepared as possible for the upcoming changes.

      Delete
  8. *This* is the civil service - but maybe this provides something for probation staff to consider?

    https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/exhmrc-employee-awarded-155k-after-shocking-bullying-case

    An employment tribunal has awarded a former HMRC employee £155,000 after managers waged a "sustained campaign" of discrimination against him, falsely accusing him of lying about his depression after he threatened legal action.

    In a reserved judgment, a tribunal led by employment judge Moore described the conduct by HMRC and an individual manager, who was also a respondent, as “one of the most shocking cases of systemic bullying and discrimination this tribunal has experienced”.

    The tribunal heard that Richard Wickham had declared a history of depression following an inmate attack in his previous job as a prison officer during his application for the role of criminal investigator within the HMRC’s Fraud Investigation Service in Cardiff in 2018.

    This background wasn’t shared with Wickham’s line managers until his mental health deteriorated during the pandemic. An occupational health report in April 2021 concluded that his condition “undoubtedly” impacted his performance and recommended reducing his workload in his training assessment period (TAP).

    Following receipt of the occupational health report, Wickham’s line manager, Lee Timmins, discussed work adjustments to help him manage his condition. During that meeting, Wickham also told Timmins that he was on anti-depressant medication and was awaiting an assessment for suspected PTSD.

    But evidence seen by the tribunal showed that Wickham’s managers ignored these adjustments and blamed depression symptoms on underperformance. In June 2021, Wickham was signed off with depression for 30 days.

    The following month, Judith Rockett, who was Wickham’s deciding officer and the second respondent in the proceedings, concluded that he had not met the required standards in his TAP report. The report didn’t mention his mental health or sick leave.

    Wickham was told that he had failed his TAP in a Teams meeting without the right to be accompanied or pre-warning that the outcome would be the termination of his training.

    Meeting notes seen by the tribunal showed Wickham told Rockett about his suicidal feelings and struggles to get out of bed and function every day.

    “The arrangements for the meeting were crass and insensitive and did not consider how such news might impact on someone with the claimant’s disability,” the reserved judgment said. “Nobody checked the claimant was going to be well enough to attend this meeting.”

    The tribunal found that Rockett, Timmins, Barnett and practical training officer Vanessa Barty “colluded” in a “digging the dirt” campaign seeking to undermine and incriminate Wickham after he indicated he might seek legal advice for disability discrimination.

    “The claimant has proven the profound, long lasting and devastating impact on his injury to feelings arising from the discriminatory acts,” the tribunal said in its remedy judgment. “He has lost his relationship and a career he hoped would be life long.”

    And here's the kicker:

    An HMRC spokesperson: “We take our duty of care as an employer very seriously. We are carefully reviewing the tribunal decision and considering its findings so that we can learn lessons and continue to support our employees effectively.”

    *** HMRC didn't confirm if the managers identified in the judgment for their role in the discriminatory conduct are still working at the department ***

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Brennan was appointed Dame Commander of the Order of the Bath in the New Year's Honours list 2013 and retired from the civil service in July 2015, after exactly 40 years.

    She soon became a trustee of the National Theatre and sat on the council of the University of Kent, among other contributions to public life."

    The very same Dame Ursula Brennan in her evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, 12 March 2014:
    “What I am trying to say is that we are not saying, “Here is how we do it now. We are going to do something that adds cost to it.” We are saying, “Here are all the costs now. They are going to lie in different places, and the procedures are going to look different.” So we are not simply saying, “Here is a process, we are adding cost to it.” We are saying, “Here is a process that is going to operate in a different way.”

    "Most notably, perhaps, she was appointed to the Independent Advisory Group for the Windrush Lessons Learned Review where she brought four decades of Whitehall experience to bear on one of the most serious governance failures of recent years."

    Can't wait for the 'lessons learned review' for hmpps etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://youtu.be/7XCQD0gWFew?si=Iv5i6LJQrx3twISP

      Delete
  10. The lessons that need to be learned are don’t do something so stupid as you are about to with OFPS……..and in twelve months time can we have the name of the architect of this, so we know who to blame……

    ReplyDelete
  11. Just heard Danny Shaw say on Talk TV say in 30 years he doesn't recall probation ever going on strike! AI confirms:-

    Probation staff in the UK last went on a major 24-hour strike on March 31, 2014, when members of the National Association of Probation Officers (Napo) walked out over government plans to privatize and outsource large parts of the service.Here are the key details about past strikes and recent developments:The 2014 StrikeThe walkout took place on Monday, March 31, 2014.Workers stopped work for 24 hours in protest against government plans to outsource 70% of probation work to private companies.It was a historic day as probation officers took joint action with solicitors and other legal aid professionals who were protesting legal aid cuts.Prior to this, staff also participated in a similar 24-hour strike in November 2013.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I remember it well. There was also an occasion where staff protested over lunch time. There was small rallies and protests too around the country.
      I mean no offence or disrespect about what I say next, but the fight against TR was in my view pitiful. I attribute that to NAPO and a certain general secretary not willing to bring the fight to the government against privatisation because it would have attracted attention towards their own very personal and particular problems. Probatiin never stood a chance.
      This time is different. Probation holds all the cards. Probatiin have never had more vargining power then they have today. Every policy the goverment have developed is dependent on the probatiin service.
      If probation say they are not playing, then nobody plays.
      It may take more the a 24hr walk out, but it wont be long before the government want to make probation happy again


      'Getafix

      Delete
    2. The first ever one day national strike throughout England and and wales was just after I moved to my present home in Essex in April 1983 - typical probation officers (not so many PSOs then) it was in support of trainee probation officers - I do not recall the detail. We had a national lobby of parliament and hired central Hall Westminster as a base and went over to the House of Commons in groups - I got to speak to then Chelmsford MP who Norman St John Stevas who was surprisingly supportive..

      Delete
    3. Hansard recorded 1911 national Association of Probation Officer members took part on 27th April 1983.

      This is the copy information I got from Microsoft's CoPilot AI programme.

      "Copyable summary of the 1983 Napo strike
      Date: 27 April 1983 (the first national strike of probation officers in the history of the service).
      Organised by: Napo – then called the National Association of Probation Officers.
      Reason for the strike:
      • Government imposed a 25% cut in trainee probation officers’ salaries.
      • Trainees were also denied their normal annual pay increase.
      • Seen by Napo as part of a wider move to downgrade probation training and weaken its social work professional base.
      • The strike was explicitly in support of student/trainee probation officers.
      Events on the day:
      • Napo hired Central Hall Westminster for a national rally.
      • A coordinated lobby of MPs followed.
      • You saw Norman St John Stevas.
      • Colleagues met John Wakeham, then a minister, who invited them to his Whitehall office.
      Scale: Hansard later recorded 1,911 probation officers taking part – roughly one third of the service.
      Press coverage:
      • National press coverage was minimal.
      • No detailed reports appear in searchable archives of The Times, The Guardian, or The Daily Telegraph.
      • Likely coverage only in short industrial relations notices or regional papers, but not in major national newspapers.
      • The only fully verifiable contemporary record is Hansard (5 July 1983) confirming the strike date and numbers.
      • Later Napo publications (e.g., Napo Magazine retrospectives) confirm the 25% trainee salary cut as the cause.
      Summary: The 1983 action was the first national strike by probation officers, triggered by a 25% cut to trainee salaries and a refusal to grant their pay award. It included a major Westminster lobby but received little national press attention."

      Delete
  12. In both of those aforementioned strikes they kept both the courts and APs open which meant that the overall effect was muted……any future industrial action needs to include both areas…..

    ReplyDelete
  13. https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/lawyers-praised-for-securing-ipp-prisoners-release-after-20-years/5127743.article

    ReplyDelete
  14. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2026/aug/24/survivors-violent-crime-criticise-moj-not-explaining-offender-restriction-zones

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Survivors of violent crime and families of victims have criticised the UK government for announcing “world first” plans to introduce restriction zones for serious offenders freed from prison within a few weeks without spelling out how they would work.

      Key campaigners who have championed the idea of the zones, designed to “lock” offenders into specific areas, accused the government of seeking to grab headlines rather than providing the detail that would reassure survivors and families.

      Rhianon Bragg, who has become a leading campaigner on domestic violence after she was stalked and held hostage at gunpoint by her ex-partner, said she was concerned that the announcement had come before a working system was ready.

      She said: “Victims can’t rely on headlines. I can’t imagine how anxious victims whose offenders may be being released are feeling right now. The announcement leaves critical questions unanswered.”

      The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said at the weekend that restriction zones would be introduced in October in England and Wales and would mean serious sexual and violent offenders could be confined to areas of a few miles.

      Offenders would be tagged to keep tabs on their movement and victims would have a say in setting boundaries.

      The MoJ said it was the first measure of its kind in the world and was a “more rigorous” version of “exclusion zones”, which ban offenders from specific locations such as a victim’s home or place of work.

      Bragg said she and fellow campaigners wanted more detail on which offenders would be included, how zones would be implemented, what would happen if an offender left their zone and whether agencies such as the Probation Service and the police had the capacity to manage the system.

      Announcing the scheme, the justice secretary, Alex Norris, said no victim should “fear the shadow of an abuser”.

      Bragg said: “Speaking from my own lived experience, if that is to be achieved then restriction zones need to be the other side of the country from the area the victim is in.”

      Bragg and fellow campaigners wrote to the government before the parliamentary recess asking for a meeting so that specifics could be discussed, but it has not taken place. She said: “We need more transparency. If the system’s not ready, victims will be put at risk.”

      The campaigner Hetti Barkworth-Nanton, whose best friend, Joanna Simpson, was killed by Simpson’s estranged husband, said: “A headline doesn’t help victims one jot. The lack of detail is a huge issue.

      “We have been asking them for two months to meet with us to discuss how they are going to implement it and which offenders are going to be eligible.

      “You’ve got thousands of victims out there today who are utterly terrified at a visceral level of their offenders coming out of prison and they don’t know if their offender is going to be subject to restriction zones or not.

      “It creates more uncertainty for them, more trauma for them. The MoJ needs to hurry up and engage properly with victims.”

      Barkworth-Nanton, who co-founded the Joanna Simpson Foundation, which campaigns on domestic abuse and homicide, agreed the size of the restriction zone was not relevant. “I don’t care whether it’s 2 miles, 5 miles, 10 miles, 15 miles. The important thing is twofold.

      “One is whatever that restriction zone is, probation needs to be confident that they can monitor them. And the second thing is it needs to be far away from the victim. So a 2-mile restriction zone, 5 miles away from the victim’s home is hopeless.”

      Joanna Simpson’s mother, Diana Parkes, a leading campaigner for restriction zones, said: “On the whole I’m happy but we want to hear what the total plan is.”

      Delete
    2. Natalie Queiroz, who was repeatedly stabbed by her partner while she was eight months pregnant and is now a victims’ advocate in the West Midlands, said: “Restriction zones are a really positive solution and all credit goes to all those who campaigned hard for them.

      “However, I’m yet to be convinced of the breadth of their impact in reality. The MoJ have stated that they will be enforced for the most serious violent offenders as well as for serious sexual offenders. Many domestic abuse offenders who still pose a significant risk to their victim will not fall under this definition and hence will not have a restriction zone applied to them.”

      The MoJ said further details would be announced in due course. It said the government would work closely with victims’ groups and other stakeholders as the scheme was rolled out to ensure it was operating as intended.

      Queiroz added: “The effectiveness of restriction zones will rely heavily on them being properly monitored and any breaches being addressed without delay. There needs to be clear commitment to investment into the active monitoring of them.”

      Delete
  15. From former Governor John Podmore on Twitter:-

    "Andy Burnham is showing himself to be sure-footed across a range of issues with the exception of criminal justice. Why he can’t see through the utter tosh he is being fed by the MoJ and HMPPS is beyond me. He is blind to the serial incompetence and intellectual bankruptcy."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because Romeo sits next to him smelling and purring like a cat on his lap FFS.

      Delete
  16. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0030m4p

    Available for 29 days

    Politicians are quick to talk tough on crime, but rarely do they celebrate the good news that crime has been falling for decades.

    Former BBC Home Editor Mark Easton looks at the long-running political rhetoric around crime and, with the help of insiders, discovers how our political leaders have been discussing one thing in private and quite another in public when it comes to reducing offending.

    Former Home Secretary Lord David Blunkett reveals 'to avoid the Achilles heel of being seen to be ultra-liberal and soft' he had to talk tough on punishing criminals,, and less on the work he was doing to reduce crime - a position he says he now regrets.

    The programme also reveals what lies behind the huge 80 per cent fall in property crime since the mid-nineties - given the debate around crime, it is not what you might expect.

    ReplyDelete
  17. There is something deeply revealing about victims themselves now asking exactly the questions probation practitioners have been asking.

    Who will be subject to restriction zones? Who determines the boundaries? How will breaches be monitored? How quickly will somebody respond? And, crucially, do probation and police actually have the capacity to make the system work?

    These aren’t objections to the policy. They are the basic operational questions that should have been answered before announcing a “world first” and telling frightened victims it will keep them safe.

    A restriction zone on a ministerial press release protects nobody.

    A GPS alert protects nobody.

    Protection comes from what happens after the information arrives: somebody understanding its significance, assessing the circumstances, communicating with the victim and other agencies and taking proportionate action quickly enough to matter.

    Once again we seem to be announcing the technological solution before demonstrating that the human system required to operate it exists.

    And perhaps the most uncomfortable aspect is that victims’ groups say they have been asking for months to discuss exactly these questions and have not been heard.

    So now both frontline probation staff and the very victims this policy is supposedly designed to protect are saying the same thing:

    stop giving us headlines and show us how this is actually going to work.

    October is weeks away. “Further details in due course” really isn’t good enough.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think Getafix is right about one thing: probation probably has more leverage now than it has had for years.

    The Government’s entire current strategy depends on probation.

    Earlier release depends on probation.

    Community sentences replacing short custody depend on probation.

    Electronic monitoring, restriction zones, curfews and tighter licence conditions depend on probation.

    Recall decisions depend on probation.

    OFPS depends on probation.

    Public reassurance that people released earlier can be “safely managed in the community” depends on probation.

    So perhaps the question is no longer whether probation staff are angry enough to strike. It is whether the unions are prepared to use the leverage that is sitting right in front of them.

    We have been here before. There was industrial action during TR, but the Government still pushed the reforms through. Whatever view people take of what happened then, the lesson surely has to be that symbolic action is not enough.

    If industrial action happens this time, it needs to have a clear objective and it needs to matter operationally.

    There is little point in a protest that allows the machinery of the system to continue almost unaffected while everybody congratulates themselves for having “made their voice heard”.

    The Government needs probation functioning. That is the bargaining power.

    And this cannot be reduced to “staff want more money”. Pay matters because retention matters, but the dispute is much bigger than that: workload, professional judgement, staffing, experience, safety, OFPS, the removal of workload visibility and the expectation that probation will absorb every consequence of the prison crisis.

    Practitioners have spent years being told that they are essential, valued and the “hidden heroes” of the justice system.

    Fine.

    Then perhaps it is time to discover exactly how essential probation really is.

    Because if the Government genuinely cannot deliver its sentencing reforms, early-release programme and community supervision model without probation, then “without probation none of this can happen” should not just be a slogan in a press release.

    It should be the starting point for negotiations.

    And if ever there were a moment for the unions to stop asking politely, stop “urging”, stop accepting warm words and actually use the collective power of the workforce they represent, surely this is it.

    The Government has built its solution to the prison crisis on the assumption that probation will somehow absorb the consequences.

    Perhaps probation should finally stop making that assumption safe for them.

    ReplyDelete
  19. A pivotal moment approaches…..probation stands at the Thermopylae pass……..we are needed to make this whole system work…..if we fail, in our message, our credibility as a union falls and we accept whatever conditions are thrown at us……if however we stand firm and say No…..we cannot do this, it is not safe for public, practitioner and reputational damage of the CJS…….unless of course this is the culmination of the managed decline and heralds the end of probation as we know it…….

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://insidetime.org/newsround/probation-in-london-suffers-systemic-weaknesses-with-one-in-three-staff-posts-vacant/


      https://insidetime.org/newsround/trent-house-ap-requires-improvement-due-to-staff-shortages/

      'Getafix

      Delete
  20. Not on topic but nothing screams wellbeing like pictures of some cats entitled 'unofficial wellbeing team' on the London all staff call. It's disgustingly disrespectful.

    ReplyDelete
  21. hmpps responses to hmip recommendations:

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a882c6e8346e5bc7c6db260/London_Probation_region_public_protection_action_plan_-_Aug_2026.pdf

    Develop practitioners'
    confidence and skills in
    the use of professional
    curiosity and challenging
    conversations to identify,
    analyse, assess, plan, and
    respond to indicators of
    risk effectively

    Ensure Senior Probation
    Officers have sufficient
    capacity and resources to
    undertake effective
    management oversight of
    casework.

    Improve the quality and
    prioritisation of information
    requests submitted to the
    Metropolitan Police
    Service and strengthen
    local quality assurance
    arrangements to ensure
    that practitioners seek,
    escalate and effectively
    use police information to
    inform risk assessments,
    sentence management
    and public protection
    activity.

    Improve the referral,
    recording and
    management of MAPPA
    cases by strengthening
    practitioner understanding
    of MAPPA and lines of
    accountability

    In short, do the job you're being paid to do ffs!

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a8bf9fddba67049905daa07/North_East_Probation_Region_DiPP_action_plan_-_August_2026.pdf

    Ensure that probation
    practitioners are
    supported in developing
    the confidence and ability
    to manage complex
    caseloads alongside
    competing demands.

    Ensure that probation
    practitioners are
    supported in developing
    the confidence and ability
    to engage effectively with
    external partner agencies.

    Again, why aren't you doing what you're supposed to be doing & what you funded to do?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd suggest its because the targets are all pointless ones around timeliness, ISP 15 days, Part B 28 days, initial appt from court 5 days, etc, etc...the Heads, Deps, SPOs don't really give a crap about whether staff are happy, confident, curious, well trained etc as none of these are measured in any meaningful sense.

      Delete
  22. inside alpha romeo's head?

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ppm-briefing-note-relevant-documentation

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rtl-briefing-note-relevant-documentation

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/implementing-integrated-assurance-for-major-projects

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/assurance-for-agile-delivery-of-digital-services

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-for-civil-servants-how-to-move-jobs-between-departments-and-agencies
    __________________________________________________________

    https://www.gov.uk/algorithmic-transparency-records

    "Find algorithmic transparency records from UK public sector organisations with information on algorithmic tools used in decision making. These are completed in accordance with the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard."

    THE FOLLOWING PAGES NEED TO BE LOOKED AT AS THEY DIRECTLY AFFECT hmpps/Probation staff:

    https://www.gov.uk/algorithmic-transparency-records/moj-ndelius-contact-log-semantic-search

    https://www.gov.uk/algorithmic-transparency-records/moj-splink-master-record

    https://www.gov.uk/algorithmic-transparency-records/moj-data-first-splink

    https://www.gov.uk/algorithmic-transparency-records/hmpps-key-work-quality-assurance-automation

    https://www.gov.uk/algorithmic-transparency-records/hmpps-violence-in-prisons-estimator

    https://www.gov.uk/algorithmic-transparency-records/the-probation-service-effective-proposal-framework

    ReplyDelete
  23. 20:53 is 100% spot on with their analysis of the current situation

    ReplyDelete
  24. Reply to 20:10
    “why aren't you doing what you're supposed to be doing & what you funded to do?”

    Your question needs to be much better targeted -aim where the responsibility actually lies.
    Ask the government. Good luck in getting an answer that does not attach to £700 million for tagging and recruitment of Pquips on to an mis -sold promise of what the job will be. No surprise the attrition rate of recruits is appalling.
    Ask the question of the MOJ and the individuals who held the most senior roles in the last 5 years.
    Ask the question of the utterly self serving civil service that regurgitates bureaucracy like it is going to save the world. It just chokes the system into a state of despair.
    Ask HMPpS leaders why they treat Probation like a knackered old football.
    Ask Probation Leaders who seemingly demonstrate no semblance of professional curiosity at all and are nodding dogs to those above them.
    Ask the monitoring company if they can actually fulfill their contracts and how much of the £700 million they will get.
    Don’t ask the Chief Probation Officer anything at all - fruitless exercise.
    Actually just write to your MP and see if they know anything about the situation and care enough to really look at what has been going on. An AI letter will be winging its way to you from their office.
    Welcome to the world of Probation 2026.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Imagine if a probation area was so short of staff it had to 'borrow' staff from another area & put them up in a hotel for 4 nights every week. Surely that wouldn't be possible after so many new staff have been 'onboarded'?

    ReplyDelete
  26. 1,935 qualified probation officers short.

    Not according to Napo. Not according to disgruntled practitioners on a blog. According to HMPPS’s own workforce statistics published last week.

    At 30 June there were 5,445 FTE probation officers against HMPPS’s own requirement of 7,380. That’s barely 74% of the qualified PO workforce the organisation itself says it needs.

    And despite all the announcements about recruitment, the number of Band 4 probation officers actually fell — by 109 FTE in just three months.

    Yes, there are more than 2,000 people undertaking PQiP training. Good. We desperately need them. But trainees are not 1,935 experienced qualified probation officers, and repeatedly announcing how many people have been “onboarded” doesn’t magically make them so.

    Meanwhile probation is about to absorb sentencing reform, earlier releases, OFPS, expanded electronic monitoring, restriction zones and an entirely new supervision model.

    So perhaps the next time £700 million and “1,300 new probation officers” are produced as the answer to concerns about capacity, somebody could ask one very simple question:

    How can recruitment be fixing the staffing crisis when HMPPS’s own figures show probation is still 1,935 qualified POs short and the number of qualified POs is actually falling?

    And if areas really are having to send practitioners across the country and put them in hotels four nights a week to plug gaps, let’s have those figures published too.

    Stop giving us recruitment announcements.

    Show us the workforce against the workforce you actually need.

    ReplyDelete