My thanks and sympathy go out to the colleague for taking the time and effort to pen the following and send it in at 1 this morning. It justly deserves a post in its own right:-
A day in the life … I’ve read all the comments and I can’t say I’m surprised. I’ve been in probation a while and it’s the same everywhere. I have a few colleagues that work in fairly decent offices elsewhere but for most it’s an ordeal. It doesn’t matter if were NPS or CRC because it’s bad everywhere. In my office the teams are divided because of the workload and pressure. Managers want to play friends when it’s convenient for them, SPO’s are not trustworthy and Senior managers are avoided.
I’ve long become a robot to the work, everything is on autopilot for this monotonous job I once was proud of. It’s not hard to listen to the complaints of others and it’s the same, soul destroying work because of high caseloads, low pay, limited career options and a bullish management blame culture. If lucky, a probation office will have one decent manager, usually silenced by the other bullies into being totally useless.
Like most, 9am is my arrival at work. I don’t need to be in at 9am but managers like to watch what time we arrive. To prove we’re working they want us to keep a timesheet, write a start time in the register on arrival, update movements on team calendars, log into MS Teams and attend daily meetings. A colleague who sits near is bullied to get in before 9am every day, apparently it’s required by an imaginary policy for to be ready at their desk before business hours start. There’s another colleague a manager visibly exits their office daily to check if they’re at their desk by 9:30am. Only a matter of time before a clock in machine appears by the front door. I’d prefer it as they wouldn’t be able to wriggle out of overtime pay any longer.
Daily around 10am - 11am there’s usually a meeting, briefing or training of some sort. They’re arranged by managers and staff haven’t been consulted on timings. There’s so many meetings I’ve given up trying to keep track. Everything’s titled mandatory and non-attendance is met by barrages of emails from SPO’s, Senior Managers, Business Managers, Diary Managers. Attendance isn’t much better as after introductions, instructions and group reprimands you wonder what the point was, and I’ve recently stopped hearing instructions from those on the same pay band or below. The band 5s object to scrutiny or complaints, and always want the last word so I shut off before it even starts. I’m usually preoccupied dipping in and out for the cases I have reporting from 9:30am onwards. The rest of the time responding to emails, recording case records and completing pieces of work.
11am - 4pm was a steady stream of cases reporting and all the work that goes along with it. At some point I remember to eat lunch and if lucky get to take a walk. Today a colleague and I spent our 15 minute lunch break speculating what idiot decided to call them People on Probation and us Probation Practitioners, because I am sick and tired of hearing the words “PoP’s” and “PP’s”. It was that or discuss our caseloads which are year in year out in the red, diaries full and every day in the office busy. We all work from home when we can but managers are constantly threatening to reduce and remove this. They’re nowhere to be seen themselves, and when in the office they’re tucked away in their offices bombarding us with email instructions, requests and threats to PPs about PiPs and PoPs. We even get follow ups from their managers repeating the same hogwash as if we couldn’t read first time around.
Today I felt dismayed because every time I went into a case record I saw reams of manager instructions that have never been discussed. Sometimes the exact opposite of what was discussed was recorded, or what I’d already said I cannot do. We’re all being set up like this, pressured to do home visits, attend external meetings, training, epf, eqip, drug testing, lifer panels, quality assurance, audits, team events, monitor performance targets, there’s just not enough time in the day. I do not care about performance targets or why a piece of work was completed in 16 days instead of 15.
I put all this aside and about 5pm I managed to fit in a quick home visit on my way home on a case who struggles to go out. I’m not bothering about the others on their stupid list sent out to name and shame us. I saw about 15 cases today, not including the random cases turning up at reception because managers are incompetent at allocating cases or covering staff absence. Tomorrow I’ll have another 15 and again bombarded by managers and reception to see unplanned cases. If these so called managers just kept to ordering office supplies, signing off leave and being there when we need them it’s be a much better place.
I’ve got MAPPA later in the week which is pointless at best, and two Oral Hearings for cases that won’t be released. That’s three days gone out of four remaining days of the week, and I’ve somehow got to fit in a parole report, a recall review report and two full Oasys risk assessments. I will compete them, but they’ll be factual and short so some numpty manager with less probation experience than my lanyard will want to have a chat about “quality”. The response from me is always the same, ‘too much work, too little time and stop penalising us for YOUR failures in staffing and recruitment because nobody will ever be able to do quality work unless caseloads are capped at 25 cases’.
Through the day every colleague I spoke to is sick of probation, bullied by managers and actively seeking a way out. From SPO to Director, these people are responsible for causing misery in the lives of staff, many which have now lost interest in their careers as a result. The pay is bad, the conditions are worse, and everyone seems to be returning from or about to go on long term sick due to stress, mental breakdowns and other work induced health problems. Two temps left last week after less than a month, both said they would not be returning to probation.
It’s now gone 12am and I could switch on the laptop to finish up for today and start preparing for tomorrow’s 9am eta. This is how many colleagues get by, working late into the evening or getting up at the crack of dawn to switch on. I don’t because I refuse to compromise my commitments outside of work, I’d rather raise my pirates flag and face the wrath of the bully beef managers. I’m no rebel, I understand that even a machine has to rest, and if I’m going to worry about anything it’ll be bills, debts and all the other problems life brings.
Showing posts with label Oral Hearing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oral Hearing. Show all posts
Tuesday, 22 February 2022
Wednesday, 4 December 2019
A Bankrupt System and Philosophy
As always, thanks go to contributors:-
I think once upon a time, the client walking into the probation office, whether they liked going or not, recognised that they may get some benefit or opportunity from it. The person you went to see had some capacity to assist and offer some support with a range of social issues. Your PO was not seen as the enemy.
That's not true today. The PO can offer little assistance or support, and the client walking into the office is fully aware of the PO's authority to impose sanction or recall to custody. Your PO might not be the enemy, but they do represent a perceived danger or risk to the clients continued freedom. I think that's a very fundamental difference with the operational model of probation, and a very damaging one.
Today's relationship between client and PO is based on fear. Both parties are fearful of what the other might do and of what consequences may unfold from their actions. That's a very unhealthy relationship, making the client far less likely to disclose any issues or problems that may result in an adverse reaction from the PO, and the PO never really gets a complete picture of what's going on in the clients world outside the office. It's corrosive to both parties, and advances very little.
Outsourcing the rehabilitation programmes offenders are ultimately required to attend to private enterprise does nothing to enhance the relationship between client and PO. In fact it could be damaging. The one size fits all approach that the private sector brings, to my mind anyway, is just a waste of time and money, it's jumping through hoops and profit oriented process.
--oo00oo--
TR2 will be a disaster because TR1 was a disaster and all this does is fart about with the goal posts for a bankrupt philosophy, and a bankrupt system. Today spent preparing for an oral hearing. So depressing. I cannot recommend release, but the alternative will be couched in terms of the rehabilitative work that will be done in custody, but IT WON'T.
I think once upon a time, the client walking into the probation office, whether they liked going or not, recognised that they may get some benefit or opportunity from it. The person you went to see had some capacity to assist and offer some support with a range of social issues. Your PO was not seen as the enemy.
That's not true today. The PO can offer little assistance or support, and the client walking into the office is fully aware of the PO's authority to impose sanction or recall to custody. Your PO might not be the enemy, but they do represent a perceived danger or risk to the clients continued freedom. I think that's a very fundamental difference with the operational model of probation, and a very damaging one.
Today's relationship between client and PO is based on fear. Both parties are fearful of what the other might do and of what consequences may unfold from their actions. That's a very unhealthy relationship, making the client far less likely to disclose any issues or problems that may result in an adverse reaction from the PO, and the PO never really gets a complete picture of what's going on in the clients world outside the office. It's corrosive to both parties, and advances very little.
Outsourcing the rehabilitation programmes offenders are ultimately required to attend to private enterprise does nothing to enhance the relationship between client and PO. In fact it could be damaging. The one size fits all approach that the private sector brings, to my mind anyway, is just a waste of time and money, it's jumping through hoops and profit oriented process.
--oo00oo--
TR2 will be a disaster because TR1 was a disaster and all this does is fart about with the goal posts for a bankrupt philosophy, and a bankrupt system. Today spent preparing for an oral hearing. So depressing. I cannot recommend release, but the alternative will be couched in terms of the rehabilitative work that will be done in custody, but IT WON'T.
I have worked with this man for years. He needs individual, proper attention and services offering him grief and trauma counselling, alcohol detox and rebuilding. My heart breaks for him, his children, his victims past and future. But all we have is his recycling through a defunct system and my managers signing off with comments that he cannot be safely managed in the community, thus abdicating any responsibility for managing him in the community, and spitting him out sans support after every sentence.
Wednesday, 26 July 2017
The Parole Board At 50
A couple of weeks ago Russell Webster published a guest blog by Martin Jones, Chief Executive of the Parole Board for England and Wales and it covered a lot of important ground:-
The parole board faces up to new challenges
Striving to improve
2017-18 represents the fiftieth anniversary of the creation of the Parole Board. Those fifty years has seen fundamental changes and many improvements in the way our system works, it has also brought enormous new challenges.
Deciding whether it is necessary to keep someone in prison to protect the public is a vital, often difficult, and sometimes unpopular, decision. We need our independent members to show good judgement, to assess, based on all the evidence, whether somebody serving a prison sentence can be safely managed in the community.
The Board has published a strategy: Parole Board Strategy 2016-2020 setting out our plans for ensuring the Board meets our important duties. Our number one priority at present has been to tackle the unacceptable delays to hearings. Delays have a corrosive impact and can cause a loss of hope.
The rise of oral hearings
Whilst fifty years ago, the Parole Board rarely, if ever, saw the person whose liberty they were deciding, in 2016-17 the Parole Board held a historic high of 7,377 hearings. This high, is partly a consequence of increased numbers of people being eligible for a parole review (including the continuing legacy of the discontinued IPP sentence) but most recently the result of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Osborn, which obliged the Board to hold more hearings to ensure fairness. We now hold nearly five times the number of hearings we held a decade ago. Our hard work has now brought down the backlog by 40% over the last two years, bringing down delays; but there remains more to do.
IPPs
The Board’s strategy also commits us to making progress on IPPs. Whilst our role is to look at risk to the public, and I believe there are a small number IPPs who remain a genuine danger to the public; I share the concern of many commentators about the fact that there are still 3,528 IPPs in prison. I fear that for some imprisonment itself and their despair; is not helping. Whilst historically there was justifiable concern about the failure of IPPs to make progress, in recent years the numbers of IPPs progressed has risen significantly as a result of progress in custody and greater confidence. In 2016-17 the Board ordered the release of over 900 IPP prisoners (including the re-release of recalled IPPs); this is 20% more than in the preceding year and I expect us to make further significant progress this year. Despite the progress made, I can understand why IPPs are perceived as creating potential injustice, and believe there is a compelling case to changing the licence arrangements, which have the potential to compound the difficulties seen over the last twelve years.
Recalls a growing challenge
Whilst the Board strives to keep up with growing demand, it is striking to note the range of cases now coming to the Board. When created our primary purpose was to provide to ministers on the release of those serving a life sentence following the abolition of the death penalty. Today we spend significant time dealing with recall prisoners; whose numbers have increased astonishingly over the last twenty years. On average, we receive around one thousand recall cases a month and many of those cases are going to an oral hearing. Whilst it is quite right that prisoners have the right to challenge the lawfulness of their recall, I believe that more could be done to encourage probation officers to exercise their professional judgement to keep people in the community, and fully support efforts being made by Sonia Crozier as head of the National Probation Service to find alternatives to recall and increase confidence.
We are also working with our members to ensure we have a robust, evidence based approach to risk. The recent decision to stop SOTP programmes is salutary. Parole decisions cannot be takes through tick box approaches. Treatment and programmes are not panaceas. Risk can reduce through age; maturity; insight into offending; and a reduction in opportunities to offend. Whatever has happened in the past; the Board is encouraging its members to look at all of the evidence available and to be open and reflective about our decision making. Risk can never be entirely eliminated, but good decisions will identify the risks and how they might be managed in the community. But this needs imagination from all involved. Looking to the future; I am certain that the Parole Board has the opportunity to utilise technology such as alcohol monitoring to better manage offenders in the community; and we are already making use of GPS tracking devices on a small scale.
Whilst the Board strives to keep up with growing demand, it is striking to note the range of cases now coming to the Board. When created our primary purpose was to provide to ministers on the release of those serving a life sentence following the abolition of the death penalty. Today we spend significant time dealing with recall prisoners; whose numbers have increased astonishingly over the last twenty years. On average, we receive around one thousand recall cases a month and many of those cases are going to an oral hearing. Whilst it is quite right that prisoners have the right to challenge the lawfulness of their recall, I believe that more could be done to encourage probation officers to exercise their professional judgement to keep people in the community, and fully support efforts being made by Sonia Crozier as head of the National Probation Service to find alternatives to recall and increase confidence.
We are also working with our members to ensure we have a robust, evidence based approach to risk. The recent decision to stop SOTP programmes is salutary. Parole decisions cannot be takes through tick box approaches. Treatment and programmes are not panaceas. Risk can reduce through age; maturity; insight into offending; and a reduction in opportunities to offend. Whatever has happened in the past; the Board is encouraging its members to look at all of the evidence available and to be open and reflective about our decision making. Risk can never be entirely eliminated, but good decisions will identify the risks and how they might be managed in the community. But this needs imagination from all involved. Looking to the future; I am certain that the Parole Board has the opportunity to utilise technology such as alcohol monitoring to better manage offenders in the community; and we are already making use of GPS tracking devices on a small scale.
Balances the rights of prisoners and victims
Finally – our system is not just about processes; it is about people.
Whilst we strive to do the very best we can, there are no crystal balls. If we measured our success only by the number of serious offences committed by those released by the Parole Board the overwhelming majority of our release decisions are sound. However, whilst deeply regrettable, there have always been a tiny number of cases where those released by the Parole Board commit serious offences. We take each such tragic case extremely seriously, as the public would expect. A serious offence can be a hammer blow to the member who makes the decision. We always seek to learn lessons; but we cannot allow these rare cases detract from the fact that most of those in our prisons should have a second chance.
The Board remains committed to making fair and independent decisions, as swiftly as possible, with care, humanity and courage. I know from speaking to victims, prisoners and their respective families how important our decisions are. Losing a member of your family through violent crime, or through imprisonment, is always devastating and the consequences of that loss has an impact down the generations. That is why we must do our very best to make the best decisions we can.
Finally – our system is not just about processes; it is about people.
Whilst we strive to do the very best we can, there are no crystal balls. If we measured our success only by the number of serious offences committed by those released by the Parole Board the overwhelming majority of our release decisions are sound. However, whilst deeply regrettable, there have always been a tiny number of cases where those released by the Parole Board commit serious offences. We take each such tragic case extremely seriously, as the public would expect. A serious offence can be a hammer blow to the member who makes the decision. We always seek to learn lessons; but we cannot allow these rare cases detract from the fact that most of those in our prisons should have a second chance.
The Board remains committed to making fair and independent decisions, as swiftly as possible, with care, humanity and courage. I know from speaking to victims, prisoners and their respective families how important our decisions are. Losing a member of your family through violent crime, or through imprisonment, is always devastating and the consequences of that loss has an impact down the generations. That is why we must do our very best to make the best decisions we can.
Friday, 3 March 2017
Parole Board Going Digital
This doesn't seem to have got much attention:-
The National Audit Office has today published the findings from its investigation into the Parole Board (The Board). The Board is responsible for deciding whether prisoners can be safely released from prison and advising on movement between closed and open prisons across England and Wales. The NAO examined the Board in 2008 and made a number of recommendations to improve efficiency, in particular to address a backlog of outstanding cases. A Supreme Court ruling in 2013 (The Osborn ruling) broadened the circumstances in which the law requires the Board to hold an oral hearing. This led to an increase demand for oral hearings by the Board. The number of outstanding parole cases increased sharply, leading to increased delays and additional costs.
The key findings of the investigation are as follows:
- The Osborn ruling in October 2013 had an immediate impact on the demand for oral hearings conducted by the Board. There were 6,872 oral hearings conducted by the Board in 2014-15, an increase of 48% in comparison to 4,628 in 2012-13. Hearings increased to a high of 7,148 in 2015-16.
- The number of outstanding cases increased by more than 140% following the Osborn ruling. The Board had a backlog of cases for several years, but the number of outstanding cases increased by 143% from October 2013 to a peak of 3,163 in January 2015. Of the 2,117 oral cases outstanding in September 2016, 13% were more than a year past their target date for a hearing. A further 16% were more than six months past their target date.
- The Board’s ability to reduce the number of outstanding cases is limited by the number of cases it is able to list in any month. For example, the Board listed 701 cases for oral hearings in September 2016, while the queue of cases waiting for a hearing date was 1,257. Once listed, 34% oral hearings were deferred, and more than half of these (21%) were deferred or adjourned on the day of the hearing.
- The increase in demand for oral hearings has meant that older and more complex cases have been less likely to be heard. In 2015-16, 64% of cases were provided with an oral hearing date within 90 days of being ready to list, against a 90% target. The oldest of the outstanding cases in September 2016 had an original target date in 2009, with another 404 cases having target dates in 2015 or earlier.
- At December 2016, 3,081 prisoners on indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for public protection (IPPs) were in prison beyond their tariff expiry date. IPP prisoners make up around half of the cases waiting more than 90 days for a hearing. Of the 3,683 IPP prisoners still in custody in December 2016, 84% (3,081) were beyond their tariff expiry date. Of these, 48% had been in prison five or more years beyond their tariff and 11% were eight years or more beyond their tariff. In July 2016, the Board announced its intention to reduce the number of IPP prisoners in prison to 1,500 by 2020.
- The Board has paid £1.1 million in compensation claims to prisoners since 2011-12 as a result of delayed hearings, with £554,000 paid out in 2015-16. The backlog means some prisoners may have spent longer in prison than needed. Spending on member fees increased by 43% from £4.7 million in 2010-11 to £6.7 million in 2015-16.
- In October 2015, the Board set a target to reduce outstanding cases to 1,200 by April 2017, but this level of outstanding cases does not reflect efficiencies it has made since 2013. In June 2016, the Board moved the date to achieve this target to the end of 2017, and has so far not set out what it expects the level of outstanding cases to be after this.
- Under its new chair and chief executive, the Board launched a strategy to tackle the backlog in September 2016. The strategy includes aims to prioritise the safe release of IPP prisoners and to improve workflow by listing as many cases as possible and reducing unnecessary deferrals and adjournments.
- In 2016, the Ministry of Justice, on behalf of the Board, launched a major member recruitment exercise for the first time in four years. The Ministry did not recruit new members between 2012 and 2016, and member numbers fell 23% between 2010-11 (284) and 2015-16 (218). In 2016 it recruited 104 members, around half starting in 2016-17 and the remainder in 2017-18.
--oo00oo--
I must admit I haven't read the whole report, but this seems to be significant, along with oral hearings being conducted via video links:-
The Board is working to improve the way it uses performance information and is piloting digital working. In 2016, it began trialling the use of tablet devices to enable members to read and download dossiers, receive updates to cases and record the outcome of hearings electronically. By January 2017, 50% of members were holding paperless parole reviews.
Wednesday, 29 January 2014
Oral Hearings
You never quite know where discussion on this blog will take you and I was genuinely surprised by the comments about the Parole Board and particularly Oral Hearings the other day. They were triggered by an 'exclusive' in the Independent on Sunday about the system being in crisis:-
There will even more parole board delays as there will be less PO availability for parole reports and oral hearings following privatisation.
***********************
I have stopped bothering to ask to take part in hearings via video link after the last three failed. Two were switched to phone conferences, and the third went ahead without my evidence (to be fair, in that case it was a straightforward decision). Now I just book the transport and claim it back later. Yes it's time consuming, but I think the results are better. But I agree entirely with Anon at 18:54 - let's just sit back and wait for even more delays caused by Grayling's TR, as his false economies in one part of the system cause more expense somewhere else.
*********************
I've been attending oral hearings since 2005 and have come to realise that the current system of 'cross examination' is significantly flawed and on some occasions thoroughly unnecessary-far better to have offender managers sitting on the panel and actively involved in the decision making process than be asked to justify why an offender committed an offence x number of years ago....how many times in the absence of relevant cogent questions being asked have you found yourself having to respond to an irrelevant series of questions??
******************
And being grilled to death by an over zealous solicitor (in some cases). Got more of this shit to look forward to in the NPS but grateful of having more job security than if I was in CRC.
*******************
The behaviour of the Parole Board towards Probation Officers has deteriorated to the point where it is almost professionally abusive. I am a veteran of oral hearings and cannot believe how we are treated. Six hour hearings without a break ( yes honestly). God help you if you oppose release! Yes that is sometimes our role and you can tell immediately what the PB has already decided because they try to break you down rather than actually listen to your evidence. If anyone wants to know what respect there is for probation, just attend an Oral Hearing because in my experience there is NONE.
*****************
Over the last 5 years or so my previous high regard for the Parole Board's integrity and decision making has plummeted to contempt. It is supposed to be inquisitorial, but ends up very adversarial and without a balance as the SoS rarely sends a rep.
They seem to give POs a hard time to show they're being fair to the client, there is no enquiry into behaviour if there hasn't actually been a conviction or adjudication, on the contrary, the event is determined not to have happened.
They give disproportionate weight to the evidence of whoever agrees with their preconceptions. Apologies to any OS reading this, but "over the three weeks I've known him he's been polite" is not an assessment of risk.
I know a number of colleagues who have been traumatised by their treatment by the Board and blame themselves for not getting across the real risks posed by some individuals whose releases have been ordered.
I gave evidence of a threat to life made in an interview where an independent witness was present. The Board decided my account could not be trusted and adjourned for a further hearing so that person could be called to corroborate. They did so, but the client's explanation that we both misheard was believed and release ordered.
I don't know if it's political pressure to get prison numbers down or the notion that to prove your independence you must make daft decisions, but the Parole board is pretty messed up.
***********************
This is one of the reasons that I chose CRC. I find cervical smears less excruciating than attending oral hearings. After travelling down south (a few hours on train) on numerous occasions for these hearings I have had solicitors grill me over my risk assessments, the same way a CPS Barrister would interrogate someone who is on trial for murder. Whilst the prisoner hardly gets asked about their behaviour. If I had to attend these hearings more often than I currently do, I think I would be reaching for Prozac.
********************
Agree with above,my regret at being selected NPS is that I will still have to deal with the Parole Board. Impartial yes respectful of probation no. I so agree that they try to prove their independence by metaphorically beating up on the probation officer. I have actually been ridiculed for my professional assessment in front of a client I am then expected to work with on licence. They have no understanding that probation officers can not make the prison deliver sentence planning targets. Also, prisons are coping with increasing waiting lists for Sex Offender Treatment Programmes by issuing Non Selection Reports ( in essence removing wait listed prisoners who have already been assessed as needing/suitable for SOTP because prison resources can not deliver it!). It makes a total nonsense of the whole process but it is the Offender Manager who is left to explain this to the Parole Board.. Yes Mr X needs this so he can safely be released but no, he can't have it.
************************
The worst part of my job is dealing with the Parole Board.
***********************
Please don't stereotype OSs. Yes a lot of prisons have shifted prison officers into the jobs without retraining hence the 'he keeps his cell tidy, you should release him' type of assessment. Equally a lot of us are still seconded POs or other experienced staff who do carry out a full and thorough risk assessment. Having shared all the negative experiences of the parole board described above (and as I attend oral hearings most weeks, you can imagine this gets quite harrowing! ) OSs and OMs would be better off cooperating rather than forming negative judgements of each other's competence.
************************
Yes its tough, but we have (as Probation staff) yet again been let down and fed to the lions with oral hearings by having no appropriate training. Yes, its tough, but with suitably developed skills we could manage these hearings much more successfully. Most boards are chaired by judges with barristers across the table, so it becomes a game on their terms. We're simply not geared up for such high level adversarial exchanges. We're not trained for it, we're not practised at it - its how many if our clients and their victims must feel in court. I find it exhilarating, but tiring - and made more complex by the lack of support or preparation time.
****************************
We obviously all have very different experiences according to the vagaries of our caseloads and the makeup of Parole Board panels, but the theme of these comments is outside my experience and that of a colleague I spoke to recently. I can only ever recall being treated with the utmost courtesy at Oral Hearings with complete respect for ones professionalism.
It's never occurred to me that the home PO was anything other than the expert on the case and therefore able to speak authoritatively to the Panel. Of course there are times when as an expert witness you have to undergo cross-examination, but I've never felt any particular difficulty simply because I've always felt on top of the case through extensive knowledge.
However, it's correct to say that PO's don't ever seem to have had any specific training in how to deal with Oral Hearings and like much court work, we've just been expected to pick it up as we've gone along. I must confess that I've never undertaken a video hearing and to be perfectly honest I think it's an awful idea and not at all conducive to a fair judicial process or careful examination of dreadful offences in my view.
What I think has possibly changed for the worst, and in order to make the process so painful for colleagues, is the advent of OASys, and I'm interested to see the subject didn't get a mention, together with the transience of many staff nowadays. My suspicion is that colleagues are being put in invidious situations by having to attend Hearings in the absence of in-depth knowledge of the case or prisoner
I've written about the Parole Board and Oral Hearings on several occasions, most recently last May when I made the following observation regarding OASys and the Panel's attitude towards it:-
England and Wales’s parole system is on the brink of a crisis that will result in reformed prisoners being detained months after they should have been released, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.
Staff cuts together with a groundbreaking Supreme Court ruling about the way parole hearings are conducted are causing expensive delays. As a result, lawyers are warning, the Parole Board is close to being overwhelmed. The problem has been compounded after video equipment used to conduct parole hearings repeatedly failed.
A ruling in October that prisoners were entitled to face-to-face hearings means the Parole Board must now conduct thousands more oral rather than paper-based hearings, exposing its lack of manpower after cutting staff last year.
Claire Bassett, the Parole Board’s chief executive, has told MPs the ruling has “huge” implications which she forecasts will lead to the number of oral hearings increasing from about 4,500 a year to 12,000 to 14,000. The oral hearings are considered to be fairer than cheaper paper-based applications for parole – which the board was previously able to insist upon in the vast majority of cases – as the inmate can appeal his or her case in person.
This comes at a time of cost-cutting in which Parole Board staff numbers have been reduced by nearly one in five. Many of those staff supported 232 Parole Board members who are paid per hearing and include psychiatrists and psychologists. To cope with the sudden surge of oral hearings, many are now taking place by video link from the Parole Board’s Grenadier House headquarters in London to prisons around the country. But reliability issues have dogged the system.The surprising bit for me were the comments this generated:-
There will even more parole board delays as there will be less PO availability for parole reports and oral hearings following privatisation.
***********************
I have stopped bothering to ask to take part in hearings via video link after the last three failed. Two were switched to phone conferences, and the third went ahead without my evidence (to be fair, in that case it was a straightforward decision). Now I just book the transport and claim it back later. Yes it's time consuming, but I think the results are better. But I agree entirely with Anon at 18:54 - let's just sit back and wait for even more delays caused by Grayling's TR, as his false economies in one part of the system cause more expense somewhere else.
*********************
I've been attending oral hearings since 2005 and have come to realise that the current system of 'cross examination' is significantly flawed and on some occasions thoroughly unnecessary-far better to have offender managers sitting on the panel and actively involved in the decision making process than be asked to justify why an offender committed an offence x number of years ago....how many times in the absence of relevant cogent questions being asked have you found yourself having to respond to an irrelevant series of questions??
******************
And being grilled to death by an over zealous solicitor (in some cases). Got more of this shit to look forward to in the NPS but grateful of having more job security than if I was in CRC.
*******************
The behaviour of the Parole Board towards Probation Officers has deteriorated to the point where it is almost professionally abusive. I am a veteran of oral hearings and cannot believe how we are treated. Six hour hearings without a break ( yes honestly). God help you if you oppose release! Yes that is sometimes our role and you can tell immediately what the PB has already decided because they try to break you down rather than actually listen to your evidence. If anyone wants to know what respect there is for probation, just attend an Oral Hearing because in my experience there is NONE.
*****************
Over the last 5 years or so my previous high regard for the Parole Board's integrity and decision making has plummeted to contempt. It is supposed to be inquisitorial, but ends up very adversarial and without a balance as the SoS rarely sends a rep.
They seem to give POs a hard time to show they're being fair to the client, there is no enquiry into behaviour if there hasn't actually been a conviction or adjudication, on the contrary, the event is determined not to have happened.
They give disproportionate weight to the evidence of whoever agrees with their preconceptions. Apologies to any OS reading this, but "over the three weeks I've known him he's been polite" is not an assessment of risk.
I know a number of colleagues who have been traumatised by their treatment by the Board and blame themselves for not getting across the real risks posed by some individuals whose releases have been ordered.
I gave evidence of a threat to life made in an interview where an independent witness was present. The Board decided my account could not be trusted and adjourned for a further hearing so that person could be called to corroborate. They did so, but the client's explanation that we both misheard was believed and release ordered.
I don't know if it's political pressure to get prison numbers down or the notion that to prove your independence you must make daft decisions, but the Parole board is pretty messed up.
***********************
This is one of the reasons that I chose CRC. I find cervical smears less excruciating than attending oral hearings. After travelling down south (a few hours on train) on numerous occasions for these hearings I have had solicitors grill me over my risk assessments, the same way a CPS Barrister would interrogate someone who is on trial for murder. Whilst the prisoner hardly gets asked about their behaviour. If I had to attend these hearings more often than I currently do, I think I would be reaching for Prozac.
********************
Agree with above,my regret at being selected NPS is that I will still have to deal with the Parole Board. Impartial yes respectful of probation no. I so agree that they try to prove their independence by metaphorically beating up on the probation officer. I have actually been ridiculed for my professional assessment in front of a client I am then expected to work with on licence. They have no understanding that probation officers can not make the prison deliver sentence planning targets. Also, prisons are coping with increasing waiting lists for Sex Offender Treatment Programmes by issuing Non Selection Reports ( in essence removing wait listed prisoners who have already been assessed as needing/suitable for SOTP because prison resources can not deliver it!). It makes a total nonsense of the whole process but it is the Offender Manager who is left to explain this to the Parole Board.. Yes Mr X needs this so he can safely be released but no, he can't have it.
************************
The worst part of my job is dealing with the Parole Board.
***********************
Please don't stereotype OSs. Yes a lot of prisons have shifted prison officers into the jobs without retraining hence the 'he keeps his cell tidy, you should release him' type of assessment. Equally a lot of us are still seconded POs or other experienced staff who do carry out a full and thorough risk assessment. Having shared all the negative experiences of the parole board described above (and as I attend oral hearings most weeks, you can imagine this gets quite harrowing! ) OSs and OMs would be better off cooperating rather than forming negative judgements of each other's competence.
************************
Yes its tough, but we have (as Probation staff) yet again been let down and fed to the lions with oral hearings by having no appropriate training. Yes, its tough, but with suitably developed skills we could manage these hearings much more successfully. Most boards are chaired by judges with barristers across the table, so it becomes a game on their terms. We're simply not geared up for such high level adversarial exchanges. We're not trained for it, we're not practised at it - its how many if our clients and their victims must feel in court. I find it exhilarating, but tiring - and made more complex by the lack of support or preparation time.
****************************
We obviously all have very different experiences according to the vagaries of our caseloads and the makeup of Parole Board panels, but the theme of these comments is outside my experience and that of a colleague I spoke to recently. I can only ever recall being treated with the utmost courtesy at Oral Hearings with complete respect for ones professionalism.
It's never occurred to me that the home PO was anything other than the expert on the case and therefore able to speak authoritatively to the Panel. Of course there are times when as an expert witness you have to undergo cross-examination, but I've never felt any particular difficulty simply because I've always felt on top of the case through extensive knowledge.
However, it's correct to say that PO's don't ever seem to have had any specific training in how to deal with Oral Hearings and like much court work, we've just been expected to pick it up as we've gone along. I must confess that I've never undertaken a video hearing and to be perfectly honest I think it's an awful idea and not at all conducive to a fair judicial process or careful examination of dreadful offences in my view.
What I think has possibly changed for the worst, and in order to make the process so painful for colleagues, is the advent of OASys, and I'm interested to see the subject didn't get a mention, together with the transience of many staff nowadays. My suspicion is that colleagues are being put in invidious situations by having to attend Hearings in the absence of in-depth knowledge of the case or prisoner
I've written about the Parole Board and Oral Hearings on several occasions, most recently last May when I made the following observation regarding OASys and the Panel's attitude towards it:-
Now I can't end this discourse without mention of OASys. Each panel member will be extremely familiar with this assessment method since its introduction and has the benefit of a full print-out in front of them. What struck me was that at the end of each expert's evidence, the file was metaphorically pushed aside and each person asked a series of blunt questions "Now what do you think the risk is of a) absconding b) harm to staff c) reoffending d) harm to the public? " In turn each was asked a supplementary "Do you have any doubts?"
I put it to you. What exactly is the purpose of OASys? Because I don't know.I'm pretty sure there is currently an enquiry into the future of the Parole Board and I must say it strikes me as a bit strange to be moving towards a situation where it will be NPS civil servants who will be in the hot seat and being regularly cross-examined by hostile solicitors and barristers and trying to justify all that OASys crap. I've never quite understood the Secretary of State's Representative either as they never seem to turn up.......
Friday, 1 April 2011
How Others See Us
According to their website, the Johnson Partnership describes itself "As the largest criminal firm in England and Wales, we cover the entire country and have lawyers specialising in every area of criminal law practice". They go on to say they "have teams of criminal defence solicitors in Nottingham, Derby, Mansfield and Chesterfield". Not quite the geographic spread I was expecting for a practice that covers the 'entire country' but then they seem to be an outfit that takes some pride in handling various aspects of Prison Law and especially Recall.
What particularly caught my attention and brought me up with a start is their view of the modern-day Probation Service
"The changing role of the Probation Service has meant that many prisoners released on Parole are faced with Probation Officers who feel more like the worst kind of Police Officer. More people than ever are being recalled to Prison for alleged breaches of licence. As some of the periods of recall are for no more than 4 weeks, it is hard for Prisoners to overturn a misguided decision for their recall to Prison.
At The Johnson Partnership our Prison Law team have successfully appealed a number of decisions to recall Prisoners on licence, either because there has in fact been no breach of licence conditions, or because a more appropriate course of action should have been taken by the Probation Service".
Trying to drum up business is fair enough, but surely it's going a bit too far to say that "many prisoners released on Parole are faced with Probation Officers who feel more like the worst kind of Police Officer".
Whilst rooting around on their website I was interested to read about their success in 'Cutting Parole Board red tape". They explain that
"Jessica Rogers, who joined The Johnson Partnership in March 2010, has had the unprecedented accolade of having an article published in “Inside Time”, the national newspaper for prisoners. Jessica has been successful in short circuiting the customary process for moving IPP prisoners to open prison conditions. By making representations directly to the Ministry of Justice, rather than pursuing the usual cumbersome Parole Board process, she has met with speedy and spectacular success".
For all those colleagues who have IPP cases on their caseload, the short piece is worth reading in full, especially as it concludes with the astounding statement that
"By actively pursuing the Ministry of Justice route, Jess has been able to achieve the best results in the shortest possible time. The expensive, lengthy, frustrating bureaucratic Parole Board process could become a thing of the past for model prisoners with positive future plans".
Blimey!
What particularly caught my attention and brought me up with a start is their view of the modern-day Probation Service
"The changing role of the Probation Service has meant that many prisoners released on Parole are faced with Probation Officers who feel more like the worst kind of Police Officer. More people than ever are being recalled to Prison for alleged breaches of licence. As some of the periods of recall are for no more than 4 weeks, it is hard for Prisoners to overturn a misguided decision for their recall to Prison.
At The Johnson Partnership our Prison Law team have successfully appealed a number of decisions to recall Prisoners on licence, either because there has in fact been no breach of licence conditions, or because a more appropriate course of action should have been taken by the Probation Service".
Trying to drum up business is fair enough, but surely it's going a bit too far to say that "many prisoners released on Parole are faced with Probation Officers who feel more like the worst kind of Police Officer".
Whilst rooting around on their website I was interested to read about their success in 'Cutting Parole Board red tape". They explain that
"Jessica Rogers, who joined The Johnson Partnership in March 2010, has had the unprecedented accolade of having an article published in “Inside Time”, the national newspaper for prisoners. Jessica has been successful in short circuiting the customary process for moving IPP prisoners to open prison conditions. By making representations directly to the Ministry of Justice, rather than pursuing the usual cumbersome Parole Board process, she has met with speedy and spectacular success".
For all those colleagues who have IPP cases on their caseload, the short piece is worth reading in full, especially as it concludes with the astounding statement that
"By actively pursuing the Ministry of Justice route, Jess has been able to achieve the best results in the shortest possible time. The expensive, lengthy, frustrating bureaucratic Parole Board process could become a thing of the past for model prisoners with positive future plans".
Blimey!
Saturday, 27 November 2010
Prison Visits
By the very nature of the work, probation officers find themselves visting prisons on a regular basis. Personally I've always enjoyed this aspect of the job, that is as long as you can carve out enough time and escape the tyranny of the damn computer. There are basically three types of visit. Half a day for a local remand prison for a PSR, and while you're there you might as well see a couple of other prisoners who might be on remand for new offences say, or someone sentenced but on medical hold or pending a court appearance.
A full day would mean up at the crack of dawn and typically a two hour drive to some distant prison, desperately trying to remember the way as they're always in the middle of no where, poorly signposted and you visit so infrequently you always forget the route. It could well be a Sentence Planning meeting and the only chance to see a prisoner from one year to the next. Life isn't all work and no play and afterwards I always treat myself to a nice pub lunch chosen from the Good Beer Guide and if there's time a quick visit to some local historical landmark.
Finally there's the overnight stay with a very long drive each way and the opportunity to take in a couple, or even three prisons if you plan it carefully. These opportunities are getting more rare as management try and reduce the expenses bill, but what sort of service do these prisoners get so far from their home patch. Of course HM Prison Service is not known for it's ability to co-operate with many agencies, let alone it's supposed close allies in the probation service. I well remember undertaking a long journey with overnight stay to visit a prisoner at HMP Winchester, only to be told by the gate staff at 9.30 in the morning that 'he's on that coach heading back up your way'. They think that sort of thing is very funny of course and always cite 'security' for not being able to inform you, even though they know full well you are due to visit.
There are many different types of prison ranging from the Maximum Secure Cat 'A' establishments, to a Local Remand, 'Cat' B Training, to 'Cat' C and 'Cat' D Open Prisons. There's Womens Prisons, Young Offender Institutions and the Special Hospitals. An enormous variety, each unique in operation, culture, layout, design and most amusing to me, booking in procedures. I've never known any two prisons have the same system and routine. You can get photographed, scanned, finger-imprinted, dog-sniffed, rubbed down, inked, tagged and issued with slips, cards, tokens, forms, passes, badges and any combination of each.
I believe prison visits are extremely important and are always appreciated by inmates. It signals that you've taken some trouble, got off your backside and that you care about them and their situation. It must be very dispiriting for a prisoner when it's say a sentence planning meeting and you're not there. I know audio links are available, but what message does that send the person? I would never dream of missing a really important meeting, say a Parole Board Oral Hearing and in my experience they will re-schedule in order to accommodate with your diary.
Whatever management might say about video links or even audio links, how on earth can you discuss sensitive issues over a TV link? Indeed how can you build or maintain a relationship with a prisoner in this way? It is self-evident that you can't of course and the bean counters must be reminded that visits remain a vital part of the job. But it's getting increasingly difficult with petty rules about maximum distances before having to use a hire car. Personally, I just can't stand the hassle and just claim the maximum allowed by personal vehicle and stand the rest myself.
A full day would mean up at the crack of dawn and typically a two hour drive to some distant prison, desperately trying to remember the way as they're always in the middle of no where, poorly signposted and you visit so infrequently you always forget the route. It could well be a Sentence Planning meeting and the only chance to see a prisoner from one year to the next. Life isn't all work and no play and afterwards I always treat myself to a nice pub lunch chosen from the Good Beer Guide and if there's time a quick visit to some local historical landmark.
Finally there's the overnight stay with a very long drive each way and the opportunity to take in a couple, or even three prisons if you plan it carefully. These opportunities are getting more rare as management try and reduce the expenses bill, but what sort of service do these prisoners get so far from their home patch. Of course HM Prison Service is not known for it's ability to co-operate with many agencies, let alone it's supposed close allies in the probation service. I well remember undertaking a long journey with overnight stay to visit a prisoner at HMP Winchester, only to be told by the gate staff at 9.30 in the morning that 'he's on that coach heading back up your way'. They think that sort of thing is very funny of course and always cite 'security' for not being able to inform you, even though they know full well you are due to visit.
There are many different types of prison ranging from the Maximum Secure Cat 'A' establishments, to a Local Remand, 'Cat' B Training, to 'Cat' C and 'Cat' D Open Prisons. There's Womens Prisons, Young Offender Institutions and the Special Hospitals. An enormous variety, each unique in operation, culture, layout, design and most amusing to me, booking in procedures. I've never known any two prisons have the same system and routine. You can get photographed, scanned, finger-imprinted, dog-sniffed, rubbed down, inked, tagged and issued with slips, cards, tokens, forms, passes, badges and any combination of each.
I believe prison visits are extremely important and are always appreciated by inmates. It signals that you've taken some trouble, got off your backside and that you care about them and their situation. It must be very dispiriting for a prisoner when it's say a sentence planning meeting and you're not there. I know audio links are available, but what message does that send the person? I would never dream of missing a really important meeting, say a Parole Board Oral Hearing and in my experience they will re-schedule in order to accommodate with your diary.
Whatever management might say about video links or even audio links, how on earth can you discuss sensitive issues over a TV link? Indeed how can you build or maintain a relationship with a prisoner in this way? It is self-evident that you can't of course and the bean counters must be reminded that visits remain a vital part of the job. But it's getting increasingly difficult with petty rules about maximum distances before having to use a hire car. Personally, I just can't stand the hassle and just claim the maximum allowed by personal vehicle and stand the rest myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)