Troubled Takeover

There seems to be yet more trouble in the South West according to the following from a reader:-

Dear members

Please read the following joint Union message:

Unions raise concerns over employers DBS assessment requests

Local Branch Officials from Napo/UNISON/GMB have been inundated with requests from members for advice about the recent request issued by KSS CRC/SEETEC. This seeks staff permission to undertake a new DBS assessment and provide authority for further checks to be carried out in relation to wide ranging and comprehensive personal data. These include: 

• Employment history
• Education
• Professional Qualifications
• Membership of professional organisations
• Character and professional references
• Asking staff to confirm that information provided can be subject to further verification
• Providing background information for new criminal and credit record checks
• Association with Credit Agencies or Government organisations
• Authority requests of staff to sign off permissions that include driving records checks and personal financial data.
• Confirmation that staff are content for this sensitive material to be shared across European partners and others organisations

Our concerns

Yet again, the employer has launched a sensitive communication without consultation with the unions. In the absence of a number of reassurances we remain to be convinced that some of these requests do not breach many of our members individual rights to privacy and the right to data security. The Unions have no further information other than the vague assurances in the letter to staff, but given the difficulties that we were alerted to at the time of KSS CRC taking the place of Working Links (where personal files were stacked in boxes in Middlesbrough), this is not a reference that can be relied upon.

The unions have had no consultation with the employer about why they are seeking this information which appears to go above and beyond what is actually necessary. Staff reading the list of intended inquiries and the scope for third party involvement have relayed their shock and disbelief at the level of invasive checking, including the need to produce passports and domestic bills as a form of identification.

We will be urgently raising the issue with the employer and until we receive a satisfactory explanation, we must remind members that they are under no obligation to provide this material afresh as it should already be in your established online data records. If this has been lost between employers then this is a serious issue.

The unions have had no assurances about where and how this information is to be revealed and remain doubtful that this request is compliant with the existing General Data Protection legislation.

The GDPR legislation sets out seven key principles:

• Lawfulness, fairness and transparency.
• Purpose limitation.
• Data minimisation.
• Accuracy.
• Storage limitation.
• Integrity and confidentiality (security)
• Accountability

We also intend to ask the employer to explain why, when relevant record checks last up to 4 years for a standard DBS, they need to conduct this exercise. We will be writing to the employer to record our concerns and we will also be considering the potential for a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office on behalf of the staff affected.

We will also remind the employer of the additional costs involved in this process especially as the employer has claimed that it does not have the resources to improve upon their recently imposed pay award.

The unions will be issuing further information to members at the earliest opportunity.

Meanwhile, and as a self-protection measure, the unions recommend that all members withhold their permission for these checks to be carried out until further clarity has been provided.

Ian Lawrence, General Secretary, Napo
Siobhan Brown/Simon Dunn/Debbie Monksfield, Regional Organisers, UNISON
Helen Coley, Regional Officer, GMB/SCOOP

Let's Go Digital

I have mentioned before that the MoJ has a long-term plan to close all courts and as they continue in their quest to put justice into a virtual world, Penelope Gibbs of Transform Justice voices several concerns:- 

Click here to plead guilty - the latest on online courts

It has gone a bit quiet on the online criminal court front. The Queens' Speech in June announced a Courts Bill which would "enable those charged with some less serious criminal offences to opt to plead guilty, accept a conviction and pay a statutory fixed penalty online which will free up court time for more serious cases". But it is not clear when the Courts Bill will be tabled, or whether, as well as online criminal convictions, it will include previous proposals to introduce online pleas (admissions of guilt or innocence made on a computer/tablet/mobile phone).

But it's worth reviewing what is happening and some recent concerns expressed about digital reform. HMCTS has said it will "digitise the single justice process [where magistrates deal with low level offences on the papers in a closed court] in Lavender Hill for Transport for London fare evasion cases to include TV Licensing and DVLA cases enabling greater numbers of high-volume, low-level offences to be dealt with more efficiently", and they are improving their existing system for making online pleas for traffic offences. And for civil offences HMCTS have launched, or are about to launch online divorce, probate, civil money claims and social security appeals.

One of my greatest concerns is about the democratic accountability of these reforms. Most have not been subject to public consultation, and none to active parliamentary scrutiny. If legislation is necessary, I presume the government have used secondary legislation. HMCTS have made huge efforts to engage people they know or know of - to invite them to events, and set up online forums. But, in the end, this type of consultation is not transparent, and is not open to all. The beauty of public consultation is that anyone can respond. Often public responses are ignored (as in the recent consultation on criminal litigators' fees) but at least the questions are explored, and the analysis of responses published.

MPs and peers may not always be that thorough in scrutinising legislation (eg they missed the criminal courts charge) but, given the opportunity to do so, their scrutiny usually results in vastly improved legislation. The current revolutionary and costly digital court reform programme appears to be by-passing primary legislation altogether. And HMCTS are mostly communicating what they are doing, not asking experts and others whether the reform plan is a good idea. Because there is no parliamentary process, there is little media scrutiny and few outside the world of criminal law know what is going on.

I am not the only one with concerns. Dame Hazel Genn, one of the most admired legal academics in the country, gave a lecture on this subject recently. She mainly focused on civil justice but her concerns are applicable across jurisdictions. I can't do justice to this as yet unpublished lecture (see this storify for more) but would highlight her concerns about the way the digital court programme is being evaluated and researched:

"I am aware that HMCTS have been engaging in ‘user’ testing and that a group of advice organisations have been advising about how best to adapt processes to be accessible. Testing and development has to be a continuous and iterative process involving a wide range of potential claimants and defendants and those who advise. And the objective of testing and evaluation should go beyond usability, and address questions of perceptions of procedural fairness, comprehension of the significance of procedural steps, and substantive outcome".

I would add that it would be good if HMCTS could publish their research methodology, how it is being applied, the contracting process for researchers, and the outcomes of that research.

Dame Hazel also questions how the new digital and virtual processes will affect trust in the system: "the critical factor shaping popular legitimacy of the justice system is an evaluation of the fairness with which the courts exercise their authority. Being seen as fair involves transparency in procedures, conspicuous impartiality and consistency, explanation of rules and decisions, and the promotion of procedures that give parties a voice in the proceedings".

Malcolm Richardson, departing Chair of the Magistrates' Association, voiced similar misgivings this week in relation to online criminal convictions, which would see defendants convicted "without any judicial involvement at all. In our view, this would be a step too far. Our justice system requires verdicts and sentences to be given by an independent, impartial judiciary. How can we build society’s confidence in a justice system they can’t see?"

The senior judiciary, HMCTS and the Ministry of Justice are sincere in their wish to create a better justice system for users. But by prioritising convenience and ease of access, they may be jeopardising some of the fundamental principles of our justice system. I hope they are not, but the lack of democratic accountability and transparency surrounding the project means that it has not been subject to the rigorous challenge any reform programme needs.

NB I have written a summary of progress on online criminal court processes - if I have got anything wrong do let me know.

Penelope Gibbs

--oo00oo--

Online criminal court 

Background
The government is keen to replace postal and physical justice with online justice.  They are creating online justice processes in the civil and criminal spheres.

Already it is possible to both plead guilty and be convicted of a motoring offence online.  If you are convicted of speeding or another minor traffic offence, you are encouraged to go online and, if you plead guilty, to pay the penalty and receive the conviction online.  If you plead not guilty, you go to trial in the magistrates’ court in the normal way.

The abandoned Prisons and Courts bill suggested an expansion of this system to more crimes, to be agreed under secondary legislation.  This proposal was in the Queens speech in June 2017 as part of a new, slimmed down, Courts Bill.

There is no research on the success or otherwise of the existing online criminal court, nor on the single justice procedure in the magistrates’ court.  This procedure means that many non imprisonable offences, where the defendant pleads guilty, are dealt with by a magistrate sitting alone in a closed court.  He/she deals with each case administratively (on the papers) aided by a legal adviser.

What the government is proposing 
The government would like to replace the single justice procedure with a wholly online system for those who plead guilty. “Around half of all cases heard in magistrates’ courts in England and Wales are summary-only, non imprisonable offences where there is no identifiable victim and could potentially be tried under this procedure”.  If primary legislation is passed, the government has committed to getting agreement to particular offences going online via an “affirmative procedure” ie secondary legislation.  The offences which were previously suggested were: failure to produce a ticket for travel on tram/train and fishing with an unlicensed rod and line.

Under the online system, those who are charged with the offence will be offered the opportunity to go online, to see the evidence against them, plead guilty, be convicted and pay a standard penalty.  Those who don’t want to use the online procedure, but still plead guilty, will go through the existing single justice procedure (SJP).  The offences so far proposed are non-recordable offences. These are not entered on the police national computer (so do not appear on a DBS check) - but offenders are subject to the rehabilitation of offenders act, which necessitates declaration of the criminal conviction to employers for a certain period.

How might the new process affect vulnerable people
There is no published research on the vulnerability of those who use the current online court for driving offences so we don’t know whether they find it easy or difficult to participate.  HMCTS is committed to providing assistance to those users who find it hard to use digital services.  They will provide telephone, webchat, face to face and paper help to those who seek it. They will not provide legal advice, but defendants are free to use a lawyer if they wish.

In their response to their consultation the Ministry of Justice gave an example of the help they could offer someone who had received online notice of their prosecution:

“User 2 has received an offence notice. It states he may respond online and refers him to a website to do this. The user owns a tablet but only uses this to communicate with friends and family on Skype. He is anxious about completing the form alone and feels he will make mistakes. He therefore calls the Customer Service Centre and speaks to an advisor. The advisor identifies that the user owns suitable technology so offers to talk him through the online process over the phone. The user is talked through the process online, told how to view all evidence and case papers in the case, and how to enter any pleas or move onto the next stage of the process. The adviser does not give legal advice, advice on the merits of the case or which plea to enter. As with the current position, advice of that nature would be available from a legal professional”.

Concerns remain as to how someone who has a hidden disability, or someone who has English as a second language will cope. Many people may have no knowledge of the criminal justice system before they come to fill in the online form. Yet admission of guilt may involve a considerable final financial penalty.

The potential human rights challenges posed by the online court have been analysed by Sebastian Walker in a recent article. Mr Walker suggests that the online court process may not necessitate personalised legal advice ie a lawyer “but more detail is necessary as to what steps will be taken to ensure that an accused receives sufficient, and effective, legal advice. Will the constituent elements of the individual offence, and any defences, be properly explained to them? And will the long term legal implications of a criminal record? The only information that it was clear from the Prison and Courts Bill an accused will have before they plead is the penalties they will consent to”.

Mr Walker highlights concerns that vulnerable people may not understand the implications of a decision to plead guilty and that the lower penalties offered through using the online system may offer an “improper incentive” to plead guilty.  The Bill suggested that those who went through the online process would be offered an opportunity to have their conviction reviewed. This is welcome given it has previously been difficult to overturn a conviction following a guilty plea.  But as Mr Walker points out “if it becomes a substantial hassle to appeal a conviction or penalty there is a significant chance that for the vulnerable such safeguards will simply not be effective”.  The case of Robert Rowland Illustrates how an educated man of means can end up pleading guilty to a crime they did not commit. Mr Rowland got on his usual bus to discover that he had forgotten his wallet. The bus driver, who recognised him, said he could travel for free.  A few minutes later an inspector got on the bus and accused Mr Rowland of evading his fare. Despite having a good excuse, Mr Rowland was prosecuted for fare evasion, and received instructions by post on how to plead guilty. Mr Rowland thought the easiest and quickest thing to do was to admit guilt by post. It was only when he received a bill for £750 that he realised his mistake and successfully appealed the conviction.  

It is perfectly possible to persuade someone of perpetrating a crime they did not commit. The incentive to plead guilty via the online court will be strong. And even for those who do admit their guilt, the online court will offer limited possibilities for mitigating the sentence.  Defendants will be asked to enter any mitigating circumstances in an online box but, in the absence of legal advice, they may not know what is relevant. 

The future for the online criminal court 
Proposals for expanding online criminal convictions will be tabled as part of the new Courts Bill.  More detail will be available at this point. Meanwhile HMCTS are working on converting from paper to online the forms which people have to fill in if their case is going through the single justice procedure.

Automatic online pleas 
There is no provision currently to plead guilty or not guilty online, or in writing, for most offences. But the government proposed in the Prisons and Courts Bill that defendants would be able to plead online for any offence, at any age from ten upwards.

What was being proposed 
The bill proposed that every person charged should be offered (in reality probably encouraged) to indicate their plea in writing, by which they meant online. No offender can plead until they are formally charged, but the bill suggested that police officers, civilian staff working for the police, the court or a prosecutor should explain to those who are charged that they will be able to indicate their plea online and how to do so. 

The assumption behind the proposal is that the plea hearing in the magistrates’ or crown court is a purely administrative hearing, that people know whether they are guilty or not, and that no debate, discussion or legal advice is usually necessary. 

However research suggests that entering a plea is a complex decision which is, or should be, subject to advocacy in the courtroom. Transform Justice’s research on unrepresented defendants in the criminal courts, suggested that entering a plea was one of times where those without a lawyer were most disadvantaged. Unrepresented defendants did not understand when they had a viable defence and should plead not guilty, but also pleaded guilty when the evidence against them was overwhelming, thus losing credit for an early guilty plea. 

The other risk in putting pleas online is that the ability to challenge the charge is eliminated or delayed. The Leveson report emphasises the problem of people being wrongly charged (either over or under charged) and of the inefficiencies this causes – particularly if a charge is downgraded on the day of trial leading to the defendant pleading guilty. Sir Brian wrote: 

“any failure to charge appropriately has a considerable impact throughout the life of that case... For example, in the first quarter of 2014, 15% of all ‘cracked’ trials in the Crown Court were due to guilty pleas entered to alternative new charges offered by the prosecution for the first time on the day fixed for trial. A further 4% of cracked trials were primarily due to late guilty pleas being entered to new charges, previously being rejected by the prosecution... In such cases, although there will have been room for different decisions to be made prior to the date of trial, the seed for potential waste has been sown from the outset and could have been avoided had the initial charging decision been appropriate”. 

It seems likely that vulnerable defendants may be particularly disadvantaged by online pleas. They may be more liable to influence and pressure to plead guilty whether from police or peers and less able to understand the implications of pleading guilty, particularly in the absence of legal advice. 

Providing the means to, and encouraging, defendants to plead online may lead to more defendants representing themselves (either just at that stage or throughout the process), since the process of “doing it yourself” may appear easy. The criminal justice system is complex and its sanctions are life changing. Particularly for serious offences, defendants should be not be entering a plea unrepresented.  For all offences, vulnerable defendants should be entering their plea without professional legal advice.

Criminal Records  
One of the challenges of any online criminal system for defendants is that the implications of pleading guilty can go way beyond paying a fine or similar. If the offences which go through the online court or single justice procedure are not recorded on the Police National Computer (as seems likely) they will not be revealed in DBS checks, but these offences may need to be declared for months/years after conviction depending on the rehabilitation period. 

All offences recorded on the PNC can potentially come up on DBS checks.  Anyone who wants to apply for a range of jobs from traffic warden to childminder needs to get a DBS check.  So an online plea of guilty is likely to have serious implications for employment prospects. This means that the online plea app needs to explain in quite a lot of detail what a criminal record is and its ramifications.

Conclusion
Online criminal processes offer convenience for defendants. The online criminal court and the digitisation of the single justice procedure offer those who are used to using apps and computers the opportunity to enter information much more quickly and easily.  The government has given assurances that those who do not have access to the web, will be able to use paper or face to face procedures. 

Online pleas will also be convenient for those online. As soon as formally charged, someone will be able to get on their smartphone to say whether they are guilty or not guilty. This will save them going to court for the plea hearing.  Going to court often involves missing work or having to find childcare. So for some, particularly those who are certain whether what they want to plead, online pleas offer great advantages. But for vulnerable people who don’t understand the law, or whether they have a viable defence, there are risks they will guilty when they are not and vice versa.

Penelope Gibbs

--oo00oo--

This current advert gives a flavour of the language and where things are going in this brave new world:-

Band A Head of Data Innovation In The Data Driven Department and Culture Change Directorate (Ref: 14328) Ministry of Justice

Job description Overview
We are looking for an exceptional candidate who cares about making a difference and can apply their previous experience such as business analysis, product management, and consultancy, in order to drive better outcomes for the staff and offenders in the prison and probation system, their families and their communities.

This is a permanent appointment for a Band A in the Data Driven Department and Culture Change Directorate within the Ministry of Justice. The post holder will report to the Deputy Director for Data Driven Department and Culture Change – Prisons and Probation. Petty France, London. Interviews are likely to take place early December 2017.

Background – the Data Driven Department and Culture Change Directorate
We are seeking to recruit an exceptional individual to join the Data Driven Department and Culture Change Directorate. The MoJ is undertaking an exciting shift to be data-driven across all decisions, and at all levels, and this charge calls for a new culture. A special team has been created to move swiftly in this space. Specifically, we are charged with:

• creating a culture in which our people are empowered with the right data and information to make excellent decisions; and 
• putting evidence at the heart of our justice system, using cutting edge tools, techniques, and collaboration to drive excellence. 

We are seeking people to join this initiative who are passionate about making a difference, highly curious, focused on high quality results and timely delivery, finisher-completers, able to work and get along with people from all backgrounds, and unreasonably positive.

About the MoJ
The Ministry of Justice is one of the largest government departments, employing around 76,000 people, with a budget of approximately £7.4 billion. Each year millions of people use our services across the UK, including courts, tribunals and prisons in England and Wales. A functional justice system is at the heart of a functional society and our work spans criminal, civil and family justice, democracy and rights. As of this year, the Ministry of Justice has launched a 10-year vision and strategy, with safety and reform at its heart, and the opportunity to fundamentally re-think the way we improve lives and communities through our work. The MoJ Strategy has 4 pillars: 1) A prison and probation service that reforms offenders; 2) A modern courts and justice system; 3) A Global Britain that promotes the rule of law; and 4) A transformed department.

In short, the Ministry of Justice is undertaking one of the most exciting and entrepreneurial challenges in the world: transforming itself to be a system that delivers meaningful reform for offenders, delivers justice more swiftly and accurately than anywhere else in the world, and utilises data and insight to operate more efficiently and effectively than has ever been possible.

Why work for the Ministry of Justice?

• Purpose – do work that matters; collaborate with people and be at the centre of system-wide transformation; get exposed to the front lines and see what we are doing in action 
• Autonomy – focus on getting things done and achieving goals, and bring your whole self and your talent set to work; experience autonomy over how, when, and where you do your work 
• Mastery – further your skills and develop new ones in an environment that challenges us to be exceptional in specific technical skills, in change programming and project delivery, in stakeholder management, in marketing and communications, and a range of other areas, including those specific to your role; career pathways following work on this innovative team are diverse 
• Learning and innovation – be exposed to and help bring in cutting edge tools, techniques, and ways of working, as well as ideas, collaborators, and technologies from around the world 

Key skills/experiences we are seeking for the role:
The holder of this post will be passionate about making a difference for the staff and people in custody in the prison and probation system. They will be someone who values people highly and makes consistent efforts to understand the views, ideas, processes, systems and frustrations of the people we are supporting. The post holder will harness the best of digital ways of working to bring people together to create new and innovative systems and processes, driven by user need and developed in a highly iterative way. They will not be afraid to try things out early and fail fast.

Specifically, this person will take a lead role in designing, developing, and implementing systems and processes to capture, integrate and distribute information in our prison and probation system. The post holder will bring together data to create the ‘through-line’ needed to understand an individual’s journey in our system and to implement effective and efficient decisions and interventions as a result, toward real-world outcomes.

This person must function as an integrator between business needs and technology solutions and help create sustainable products and services. They must identify data needs and pathways; define systems strategies; develop system requirements; design, prototype, and test technology solutions; and support system implementation. They will need to define data governance, perform data profiling and recommend data cleansing exercises. As relevant, they will need to both help implement and oversee or help coordinate such activities. The post holder will be responsible for putting in place best practices for data quality management; designing database queries, triggers, procedures, functions, and packages for reporting and data analytics; defining business and technical requirements; and quality assurance.

The post holder should be extremely comfortable with data visualisation and interactive dashboards, such as Tableau, Qlikview, and Microsoft products. Moreover, they should be adept at developing tools with the end user at the centre of the process and an instinctive ability to measure success based on user engagement.

This work requires close partnerships and collaboration between analytical, digital, policy and operational colleagues. This person must also be skilled at presenting their vision visually with impact, and excellent at delivering their message verbally, achieving credibility with senior teams right up to the level of the Ministry’s Executive Committee.

The post holder will also understand human decision making, how we can support, anchor and nudge decision makers. They will be highly resilient and will be able to maintain enthusiasm and generate momentum in the face of a shifting landscape and priorities.

The work may include: 

• Creating a shared organisational understanding of the offender data we do/should/could collect, how to manage it and how to utilise it in order to drive improved outcomes 
• Addressing issues where data are not collected digitally, are collected in multiple places, are not collected at all, or do not connect to other data sets
• Identifying concrete financial and resource implications of the way we can and could/should collect and use data, and acting accordingly; drafting lightweight business cases to clearly identify the problem, articulate the solution, and drive action 
• Creating and implementing strategic frameworks to prove value early and implement a test-and-learn model, while working toward a big hairy audacious goal 
• Creating a shared organisational understanding of the key decision makers in the prison and probation system, the decisions they take and the impact of those decisions on our outcomes; leverage that insight to build or advance products and services accordingly 
• Linking data sets to build the full picture of an individual’s journey through our system 
• Delivering a world-class set of products or services that 1) provides basic information to staff at the right time, in the right format and 2) contributes to our big hairy audacious goals of rehabilitating people in our care 
• Leveraging internal and external resources in the most efficient and effective manner to deliver outcomes; building relationships and networks to draw on and maximise knowledge and best practice 
• Understanding what motivates and drives the people in our system to make decisions and ensuring that we are employing the right levers and accountability to get the outcomes we need 
• Managing multi-disciplinary teams to create decision-support tools 

The ideal candidate:

• Thinks and operates like a product manager - loving product development and innovative products 
• Brings a business analysist skillset to bear on the data, problems, systems and processes in prisons and probation 
• Has a strong track record in working with data and data systems, per the above 
• Enjoys and values data and is adept at working with data and with analytical experts 
• Is already highly digitally aware or is willing to get up to speed quickly in understanding the potential of digital ways of working (customer centricity, agile methodology, pretotyping and lean development, automation, etc.) 
• Understands and values very highly the users in our system and works hard to deliver quantified value for them 
• Is goal oriented, with a track record of achieving goals in ambiguous environments 
• Is a self-starter: someone who takes a vision and goals and makes them reality 
• Has a demonstrated track record of managing complex and diverse stakeholder relationships 
• Is able to influence a range of people without direct control or a managerial relationship 
• Is able to quickly become expert in the delivery systems in prisons and probation and to adopt a strategic and innovative approach to continuous improvement in those systems 
• Understands how to motivate diverse teams from different types of organisations and collaborate to achieve shared outcomes 
• Understands the value of evidence and is able to get up to speed quickly on the evidence underpinning the prison and probation delivery environments 

Our team is innovative and fast-moving, while being highly collaborative and focused on supporting others to do their best work. We ask “how” and not “whether.” We focus on outcomes over process, and we get things done. We change our approach as needed if we see a better way through. We look for do-ers, positive thinkers, and team members that people want to work with and be around.

Visits to prison and probation areas 1-2 days, approximately 3 times a month, will be required. More may be required at different points in the year, in line with objectives.

Competencies
We'll assess you against these competencies during the selection process:

Seeing the big picture
Changing and improving
Collaborating and partnering
Achieving commercial outcomes
Delivering at pace

Guest Blog 67

Whitewashing the Probation Service

For the past few years we’ve all been struggling with the changes to the Probation Service. While we’ve been preoccupied there’s been quite a few questionable policies and procedures implemented under the radar in both the NPS and the CRC’s. The strategy that is most insulting to me is the increasing policisation and prisonisation of the Probation Service. I may have just made these words up, so by ‘policisation’ and ‘prisonisation’ I mean the turning of Probation Officers into police and prison officers, or more accurately, turning us into the lackeys of the police and prison services.

I could start with MAPPA and the subservient position probation can at times have at these meetings in comparison to the police and other professionals, particularly at Level 3 meetings. But I have to admit to quite liking MAPPA meetings because probation still has a say and we all know the meetings would be pointless without us. I don’t know why IOM and the police have adopted our ‘Offender Manager’ title. I don’t really mind because I’ve never referred to myself as an ‘Offender Manager’, which is quite a silly title since our ethos is historically grounded in rehabilitation, anti-labelling and generally being quite nice to people on probation to stop them being ‘offenders’. 

We’re under constant pressure to return people to the Court, recall to prison and oppose release based on ‘risk’, but we all know we’re not really an enforcement or risk management agency either. We seem to have put aside encouraging individuals to be honest, and instead we’re using polygraph tests and drug tests to trick and force individuals to disclose information. I even saw an article on the NPS intranet recently introducing the drive to encourage probation staff to monitor each other and ‘snitch’ on 'corrupt' probation colleagues (I’ve since stopped taking home stationery!)

All these things above we’re getting used to, it’s every day stuff, but there are two things that are really beginning to irk me most. The first is ARMS assessments which we’re forced to complete on all on probation offenders convicted of sexual offences. Now I’m a jobsworth so I was amongst the first in my office to complete the mandatory ARMS (Active Risk Assessment) training and have completed one for every relevant individual on my caseload. 

I haven’t done any “required” joint home visits with the police, I can’t bring myself to voluntarily sit in a police car, marked or unmarked, nor am I willing to be part of a police interrogation because I’m a Probation Officer not a police officer. While ARMS may benefit the police ‘public protection units’ who are the only ones that actually read it, it is a pointless exercise for probation staff. I’ve completed my appraisal-linked ARMS quota and I can safely say that ARMS is of no use to us, particularly as I’ve already completed on each relevant individual an induction, OASys risk assessment, home visits and multiple supervision sessions, and more.

The second thing that irks me is Vetting. I understand the need for CRB checks, DBS checks and all that sort of stuff, but this process has taken such an intrusive form with the implementation of Vetting to police standards. For those that haven’t had the privilege yet, according to the long since implemented PI 03/2014, while we were preoccupied, this means;

“Once staff transition to the NPS, they will be subject to the same vetting checks and requirements as other HQ personnel. Where NPS staff apply to move to other NOMS HQ and prison locations they will be subject to a full security vetting check. If NPS staff move to another role within NPS, vetting will only be required if they are subject to a higher level of vetting for the post. This will be a minimum level of Enhanced Check 2, but may be higher dependant on the level of risk and type of work undertaken.”

Now you may be thinking “well I’m not changing role at the moment so I can file this PI in the trash with all the other important NPS instructions”. Well you can’t because our probation directors and unions have allowed Vetting to be forced upon us. Firstly, Vetting now replaces CRB/DBS checks now we’re part of the (un)civil service. Secondly, all ‘offender management’ staff are required to use the police Visor database as a “reasonable management instruction”, and that’s whether to want or need to use it or not. For this privilege we all must be vetted first, and the Vetting itself is a “reasonable management instruction” too.

“ViSOR users are now subject to additional Vetting requirements by the police who as data owners require NOMS staff to undergo Non Police Personnel Vetting (NPPV) at level 2 or 3 depending on access rights.” PI 03/2014.

So there we have it, even though we don’t need Visor and it is not necessary for all probation staff to have access to what is actually a piss-poor database. The probable truth is that we’re being vetted simply because police officers and prison officers are vetted, and the Ministry of Justice probably see it as a way of further sidelining probation and speeding up our extinction. If any of you, like me, have been through this process already you’ll know how intrusive, stressful and worrying it actually is, and that you can fail it. 

The minimum level of Enhanced Check 2 that will being forced upon us includes PNC and local police intelligence checks, checks on other non-conviction databases and Special Branch for applicant, spouse/partner and co-residents (including parents and siblings); military and Professional Standards checks on the applicant if required; Credit Reference checks on the applicant, including history of credit card refusal, debts and CCJ’s. I’ve seen a circular stating this may adversely affect a small number of staff but I think this could affect a significant number of probation staff, some with past criminal records, some with family members or spouses with criminal records, and some with bad credit histories past and present.

So what do the unions say? Not much, well this is Ian Lawrence’s (Napo General Secretary) position on Vetting;

“Unless the reason for failure of vetting is such that a disciplinary case is warranted then no member of staff will lose their employment as a result of vetting failure. Anyone failing the vetting process would be redeployed or have a restricted caseload or other adjustments to allow them to continue to work”.

I’m going to end by saying that the Probation Service used to represent rehabilitation and change. Our wealth was largely in the diversity of our staff group which included people from all walks of life, ranging from rich-gits and Tory-boys sitting next to ex-soldiers, ex-miners and those from beyond the fringes of regular society, including the poor, the underclass, recovered addicts, reformed gang members, and the like. This all now ends because once again our probation bosses have bowed to the will of the Ministry of Justice, this time putting police procedures and prison logic over probation staff and practice. I wonder if Vetting is why the ex-offender mentors and volunteers have disappeared from the NPS?

On a side but related note, the recent David Lammy Review told us that certain groups are more likely to be ‘over-policed’, stopped and searched, prosecuted and therefore have criminal records. He concluded as part of his solution that the inequality should be addressed and even that criminal records should be sealed to help former offenders combat discrimination and find work. 

I watched our Prime Minister vow to end the racism and discrimination that certain groups face in every walk of life, including the CJS and workplace. I am sure the Ministry of Justice will be tasked to get its house in order because of the bias and discrimination in the justice system. While the MoJ and the UK in general is trying to achieve what it couldn’t dating from the MacPherson (Stephen Lawrence) Report and before, the NPS will be simultaneously dismissing probation officers for their circumstances and mistakes of yesteryear.

Sadly, I know many probation staff of all backgrounds that have past criminal histories, criminal family members and financial problems, mainly due to bad life choices, and in some cases stemming from the earlier forms of the discrimination and disadvantage described in the Lammy Review. I couldn’t think of anyone better placed to support those on probation facing similar experiences, and to help balance our unfair justice system, but now that’s only if they are able to get past Vetting. With the Lammy Review in mind, if those adversely affected by Vetting are disproportionately originating from working-class family backgrounds, ethnic minorities or marginalised communities then this could end up being seen as a ‘whitewashing’ of the Probation Service.

Thanks for reading.

Probation Officer
Too many years to retire

Guest Blog 49

Transforming Public Opinion

Successfully reintegrating offenders into society is the goal for Transforming Rehabilitation, but our society demonizes offenders and wants to punish them some more upon release, our attitude is summed up in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. I know of a person whose last employer will not provide them with a reference, despite years of good service, and the offence being unconnected with employment. This is legal and probably typical.

Can we change our attitude? Fifty years ago I was in secondary school, back then homosexuality was “The love that dare not speak its name”, there were 20,000 men in prison, 1,500 of whom were homosexuals expected to change their sexual orientation in an all male environment. In my school anyway, you were encouraged to write something controversial in your essay and support it with evidence. For my art history essay I wrote Michael Angelo was a homosexual supported by lots of evidence from his work. I was threatened with being in serious trouble if I dared to write something like that again. Then homosexuals were barred from teaching, I asked my parents why? “They might interfere with the boys” I was told, “but heterosexuals might interfere with the girls”, “That's different”, “Why?” There was no answer because there is no answer that's logical.

In fifty years we have almost but not quite changed society's attitude to homosexuality. Until recently anthropological studies that revealed that other species engaged in homosexuality were suppressed. Very recently the book “Tango makes three” the story of a couple of homosexual penguins who successfully reared an adopted egg in a New York zoo was banned from libraries as unsuitable for children to read.

Can we change our society's attitude to criminals, my answer is “Yes”, but it will take time. Meanwhile countries that we would think are less enlightened than us are getting ahead. Singapore has its Yellow Ribbon Project. Started by CARE, Community Action for Rehabilitation of Ex-offenders, the project supports its objective of the successful re-integration into the community by making the public aware of the problems faced by ex-offenders. Ninety percent of the population know of it, sixty percent support it, 1,700 employers have signed up not to discriminate against people with convictions.

Turkey has a different approach an employer with more than 50 employees must have one with a criminal record or pay a fine which goes towards vocational training of offenders. Norway treats discrimination against criminal convictions similarly to discrimination against disability. Whilst here a lady who punched a girl in a party as a teen will always have this disclosed under the enhanced DBS check, eighty percent of employers will automatically bar her. A nineteen year old boy who received an up skirt photograph from his seventeen year old girl friend has a conviction for storing an indecent image of a child (strangely it would have been legal if they were married) he will most likely never get a job requiring an enhanced DBS check. If we want to transform rehabilitation, we must start by transforming the public perception of people with criminal records first, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act will follow public opinion.

Rhys Toogood