All in the Editing?

Ok, so I've been encouraged to watch episode 2 of the new BBC 2 series Parole. "Can Leopards Change Their Spots" screens tonight at 9pm, but I've watched it already. I knew it would irritate, just like series one, but it's my duty I guess, and I've been remiss in ignoring the new series.  

Tonight's episode covers just two cases, a woman serving a life term for murder with a 13 year tariff from memory, and a prolific burglar serving the dreaded IPP x 2 and well over his 9 year tariff. Interestingly, the woman's Oral Hearing was in person at the prison and with a full 3 person panel. The guy's was down the line on video link, also with a full panel, but my strong antipathy towards this cash-saving practice is no secret to regular readers. It's no way to treat people in such life-changing situations in my view. 

Now we all know Oral Hearings are quasi-judicial processes and often lengthy, certainly 2/3 hours minimum and as such pose a serious problem for any TV producer and especially if you use lots of specially recorded sessions with each prisoner as well. I mention this because we have no idea what ended up on the cutting room floor and if it might help explain the lack of probation input.

Ok, the guy had a Community Offender Manager and she states her involvement had been over 10 months and included lots of video calls. This is the moment to state video is not conducive to building a sound professional relationship in my view, but prison visits are not allowed for cash saving reasons. 

We did not hear the officer advocating strongly on the guy's behalf, or speak at length regarding the many worrying issues along the way during sentence, including screwing up in open conditions by absconding and going on a burgling spree that earned him 5 years on top of the IPP. We never heard mention of him attending any programmes during his sentence. 

In essence, I think he was poorly served, especially by his brief and left me pondering on how much better informed the Board could have been under the old system of long involvement by a community PO who could have spoken more authoritatively. I also suspect such an arrangement might well have prevented the guy going AWOL from open with the distorted thinking 'I decided I'd done my time after my tariff'.

I feel really sad for this guy as of course he perfectly represents the gross miscarriage of justice all IPP's find themselves in and the suicide rate is utterly heart-breaking. His absconsion rules out another period in open, so for him it's going to be very tough indeed to demonstrate taking the risk of release any time soon.

There was no mention of any community probation involvement with the female lifer, so we are all left pondering on that. Did anyone from the community write a report? We assume the Prison Offender Manager did, but again we didn't hear any great advocacy or evidence-based professional judgement. To err on the side of fairness, I guess we must presume this all fell foul of editing, but one has to wonder how many Prison Offender Managers had been involved in this woman's case over the years. 

On a positive note, we heard of her period of over 4 years in a Therapeutic Unit and I'm sure this may have helped address the many issues she had from her troubled early life and adolescence. It's one reason why Probation Officers had to be qualified social workers of course. I can't remember why she wasn't in open conditions (drug taking?), but I think I was surprised at the decision to release. Ok it's to a Probation Hostel and I very much hope she does well there and can avoid drugs, alcohol and negative influences. It'll be tough though and she will need a lot of support from the field probation team. But we all know risks must be taken and we all have a duty to offer as much support as possible.

Will I watch the whole series? I suppose I'd better, but I know it will only annoy me as to how downgraded the whole probation input has become and we must hope the new government honours its election promise of a 'Review'. We must thank the BBC for persisting over 5 years to gain permission to cover this topic. I just wish it put probation in a better light though....                         

A Reminder How OASys Did For Probation

Thanks yet again to ace researcher and contributor 'Getafix, here is a long but incredibly well-researched article on theConversation.com website into risk assessment and particularly the dreaded OASys so hated by many probation staff. In many people's eyes, including mine,  OASys has been the single most significant factor in probation's demise as a useful endeavour, hence here is the complete article:-   

A ‘black box’ AI system has been influencing criminal justice decisions for over two decades – it’s time to open it up

Justice systems around the world are using artificial intelligence (AI) to assess people with criminal convictions. These AI technologies rely on machine learning algorithms and their key purpose is to predict the risk of reoffending. They influence decisions made by the courts and prisons and by parole and probation officers.

This kind of tech has been an intrinsic part of the UK justice system since 2001. That was the year a risk assessment tool, known as Oasys (Offender Assessment System), was introduced and began taking over certain tasks from probation officers. Yet in over two decades, scientists outside the government have not been permitted access to the data behind Oasys to independently analyse its workings and assess its accuracy – for example, whether the decisions it influences lead to fewer offences or reconvictions.

Lack of transparency affects AI systems generally. Their complex decision-making processes can evolve into a black box – too obscure to unravel without advanced technical knowledge.
Proponents believe that AI algorithms are more objective scientific tools because they are standardised and this helps to reduce human bias in assessments and decision making. This, supporters claim, makes them useful for public protection.

But critics say that a lack of access to the data, as well as other crucial information required for independent evaluation, raises serious questions of accountability and transparency. It also calls into question what kinds of biases exist in a system that uses data from criminal justice institutions, like the police, which research has repeatedly shown is skewed against ethnic minorities.

However, according to the Ministry of Justice, external evaluation poses data protection implications because it would require access to personal data, including protected characteristics such as race, ethnicity and gender (it is against the law to discriminate against someone because of a protected characteristic).

Oasys introduced

When Oasys was introduced in the UK in 2001 it brought with it sweeping changes to how courts and probation services assessed people convicted of crimes. It meant that algorithms would begin having a huge influence in deciding just how much of a “risk” people involved in the justice system posed to society. These people include those convicted of a crime and awaiting punishment, prisoners and parole applicants.

Before Oasys, a probation officer would interview a defendant to try to get to the bottom of their offending and assess whether they were sorry, regretful or potentially dangerous. But post 2001 this traditional client-based casework approach was cut back and the onus was increasingly put on algorithmic predictions.

These machine learning predictions inform a host of decisions, such as: granting bail, outcomes of immigration cases, the kinds of sentences people face (community-based, custodial or suspended), prison security classifications and assignments to rehabilitation programmes. They also help decide the conditions on how people convicted of crimes are supervised in the community and whether or not they can be released early from prison.

Some attempts at more rigorous risk assessments predate Oasys. The Parole Board in England and Wales deployed a re-conviction prediction score in 1976 which estimated the probability of a reconviction within a fixed period of two years on release from prison. Then, in the mid-1980s, a staff member with the Cambridgeshire Probation Service developed a rather simple risk prediction scale to provide more objectivity and consistency about predicting whether probation was an appropriate alternative to a custodial sentence. Both these methods were rather crude in terms of using only a handful of predictors and deploying rather informal statistical methods.

Harnessing computer power

Around this time, Home Office officials noticed the increased interest in the UK and the US authorities for developing predictive algorithms that could harness the efficiencies computers offered. These algorithms would support human opinions with scientific evidence about what factors were predictive of reoffending. The idea was to use scarce resources more effectively while protecting the public from people categorised as being at high risk of reoffending and causing serious harm.

The Home Office commissioned its first statistical predictive tool, which was deployed in 1996 across probation offices in England and Wales. This initial risk tool was called the Offender Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS). The OGRS is an actuarial tool in that it uses statistical methods to assess information about a person’s past (such as criminal history) to predict the risk of any type of reoffending.

The OGRS is still in use today after several revisions. And this simple algorithm has become incorporated into Oasys which has grown to incorporate additional machine learning algorithms. These have developed over time, predicting different types of reoffending. Reoffending is measured as reconviction within two years of release.

Oasys itself is based on the “what works” approach to risk assessment. Supporters of this method say it relies upon “objective evidence” of what is effective in reducing reoffending. “What works” introduced some basic principles of risk assessment and rehabilitation and it gained currency with governments around the world in the 1990s.

Risk factors can include “criminogenic needs” – these are factors in an offender’s life that are directly related to recidivism. Examples include, safe housing, job skills and mental health. The “what works” approach is based on several principles, one of which involves matching appropriate rehabilitation programmes to a person’s criminogenic needs. So, a person convicted of a sex crime, with a history of alcohol abuse, might be given a sentence plan that includes a sex offender treatment programme and drug treatment. This is meant to reduce their likelihood of reoffending. Following Home Office pilot studies between 1999 and 2001, Oasys was rolled out nationally and His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) have used the technology widely ever since.

What the algos do – scoring ‘risk’

The Offender Group Reconviction Scale and variations of Oasys are frequently modified and some information about how they work is publicly available. The available information suggests that Oasys is calibrated to predict risk. The algorithms consume the data probation officers obtain during interviews and information in self-assessment questionnaires completed by the person in question. That data is then used to score a set of risk factors (criminogenic needs). According to the designers, scientific studies indicate that these needs are linked to risks of reoffending.

The risk factors include static (unchangeable) things such as criminal history and age. But they also comprise dynamic (changeable) factors. In Oasys, dynamic factors include: accommodation, employability, relationships, lifestyle, drugs misuse, alcohol misuse, thinking and behaviour, and attitudes. Different weights are assigned to different risk factors as some factors are said to have greater or lesser predictive ability.

So what type of data is obtained from the person being risk assessed? Oasys has 12 sections. Two sections concern criminal history and the current offence. The other ten address areas related to needs and risk. Probation officers use discretion in scoring many of the dynamic risk factors.

The person becomes a set of numbers

The probation officer may, for example, judge whether the person has “suitable accommodation”, which could require considering such things as safety, difficulties with neighbours, available amenities and whether the space is overcrowded. The officer will determine whether the person has a drinking problem or if impulsivity is an issue. These judgments can increase the person’s “risk profile”. In other words, a probation officer may consider dynamic risk factors like having no fixed address and having a history of drug abuse, and say that the person poses a higher risk of reoffending.

The algorithms assess the probation officers’ entries and produce numeric risk scores: the person becomes a set of numbers. These numbers are then recombined and placed into low-, medium-, high-, and very high-risk categories. The system may also associate the category with a percentage indicating the proportion of people who reoffended in the past.

However, there is simply no specific guidance on how to translate any of the risk of reoffending scores into actual sentencing decisions. Probation officers conduct the assessments and they form part of the pre-sentence report (PSR) they present to the court along with a recommended intervention. But it is left to the court to determine a sentence, in line with the provisions of the Sentencing Council.

There is no dataset available to us that directly links Oasys predictions to the decisions they are meant to inform. Hence, we cannot know what decision-makers are doing with these scores in practice. The situation is muddier considering that multiple risk tools put out results in different ratings (as in high, medium, or low) for the same individual. That’s because the algorithms are predicting different offence types (general, violent, contact sexual and indecent images). So a person can collect several different ratings. It could be the person is labelled high risk of any reoffending, medium risk of violent offending, and low risk of both sexual offending types. What is a judge to do with these seemingly disparate pieces of data? Probation officers provide some recommendations but the decision is ultimately left to the judge.

Impact on workloads and risk aversion

Another issue is that probation officers have been known to struggle with completing Oasys assessments considering the significant amount of time it takes for each person. In 2006, researchers spoke to 180 probation officers and asked them about their views on Oasys. One probation officer called it “the worst tax form you’ve ever seen”. In a different study, another probation officer said Oasys was an arduous and time-intensive “box-ticking exercise”.

What can also happen is that risk-aversion becomes entrenched in the system due to the fear of getting it wrong. The backlash can be swift and severe if a person assessed as low risk commits a serious offence - there have been many high-profile media scandals that prove this. In a report for the Prison Reform Trust, one long-term prisoner commented:

They repeatedly go on about ‘risk’ but I realised many years ago that this has nothing to do with risk … it’s all about accountability, they want someone to blame should it all go wrong.

The fear of being blamed is not an idle one. A probation officer was reportedly sacked in 2022 for gross misconduct for rating Damien Bendall as medium risk rather than high risk after a conviction for arson. Bendall was released with a suspended sentence. Within three months, he murdered his pregnant partner and three children. Jordan McSweeney, another convicted murderer, was released from prison in 2022 with an assessment of medium risk. Three days later, he raped and brutally killed a young woman walking home alone. A review of the case determined that he had been incorrectly assessed and should instead have been labelled high risk. But unlike in the Bendall case where an individual probation officer was apparently blamed, the chief inspector of probation, Justin Russell, explained:

Probation staff involved were … experiencing unmanageable workloads made worse by high staff vacancy rates – something we have increasingly seen in our local inspections of services. Prison and probation services didn’t communicate effectively about McSweeney’s risks, leaving the Probation Service with an incomplete picture of someone who was likely to reoffend.

‘Bias in, bias out’

Despite its widespread use there has been no independent audit examining the kind of data Oasys relies on to come to its decisions. And that could be a problem - particularly for people from minority ethnic backgrounds. That’s because Oasys, directly and indirectly, incorporates socio-demographic data into its tools.

AI systems, like Oasys, rely on arrest data as proxies for crime when they could in some cases be proxies for racially biased law enforcement (and there are plenty of examples in the UK and around the world of that). Predicting risks of reoffending on the basis of such data raises serious ethical questions. This is because racially biased policing can permeate the data, ultimately biasing predictions and creating the proverbial “bias in, bias out” problem.

In this way, criminal history records open up avenues for labelling and punishing people according to protected characteristics, like race, giving rise to racially biased outcomes. This could mean, for example, a higher percentage of minorities rated in the higher risk groups than non-minorities.

Another source of bias could stem from the way officers “rate” ethnic minorities when answering Oasys-led questions. Probation officers may assess minority ethnic people differently on questions such as, whether they have a temper control problem, are impulsive, hold pro-criminal attitudes, or recognise the impact of their offending on others. Unconscious biases could be at play here resulting from cultural differences in how various ethnic groups perceive these issues. For instance, people from one cultural background may “see” another person with a bad temper whereas that would be seen as acceptable emotional behaviour in another cultural background. Read more: How can black people feel safe and have confidence in policing?

In its review of AI in the justice system in 2022, the justice and home affairs committee of the House of Lords noted that there are “concerns about the dangers of human bias contained in the original data being reflected, and further embedded, in decisions made by algorithms”. And it’s not just the UK where such issues have arisen. The problem of racial bias in justice systems has been noted in various countries where risk assessment algorithms similar to Oasys are deployed.

In the US, the Compas and Pattern algorithms are used widely, and the Level of Service family of tools have been taken up in Australia and Canada. The Compas system, for instance, is an AI algorithm used by US judges to make decisions on granting bail and sentencing. An investigation claimed that the system generated “false positives” for black people and “false negatives” for white people. In other words, it suggested that black people would reoffend when, in reality, they did not and suggested that white people would not reoffend when they actually did. But the developer of the system has challenged these claims. Read more: AI: why installing 'robot judges' in courtrooms is a really bad idea

Studies suggest that such outcomes stem from racially biased decision making embedded in the data which the developers select to represent the risk factors that will determine the algorithm’s predictions. Criminal history data, such as police arrest records, is one example.

Other socio-economic data that developers select to represent risk factors may also be problematic. People will score as being higher risk if they do not have suitable accommodation or are unemployed. In other words, if you are poor or disadvantaged the system is stacked against you. People are also classed as “high risk” for personal circumstances which are sometimes beyond their control. Risk factors include “not having a good relationship with a partner” and “undergoing psychiatric treatment”.

Meanwhile, a report issued by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation in 2021 alludes to the problem of conscious and unconscious biases which can enter the process via probation officers’ assessments, thereby infecting the outcomes. More transparency could be useful for tracking when and how probation officer discretion has potentially tainted the final assessment, which could have resulted in people being incarcerated unnecessarily or being allocated inappropriate treatment programmes. This could result in flawed risk predictions.

For example, the report states:

It is impossible to be free from bias. How we think about the world and consider risk is intrinsically tied up with our emotions, values and tolerance (or otherwise) of risk challenges.

Social engineering?

Miklos Orban, visiting professor at the University of Surrey School of Law, recently engaged with the Ministry of Justice seeking information on Oasys. One of us (Melissa) spoke with Orban about this and he expressed concerns that the system might be a form of social engineering. He said that governmental officials were eliciting personal and sensitive information from defendants who may think they are making these disclosures to get help or sympathy. But the officers may instead use them for another purpose, such as labelling them with a drinking or drugs problem and then requiring them to go on a suitable treatment programme. He said:

As a convict, you know very little of how risk assessment tools work, and I have my doubts as to how well judges and parole officers understand statistical models like Oasys. And that’s my number one concern.

Not much is known about the accuracy of Oasys in relation to gender and ethnicity either. One available study (though a bit dated as it looked at a sample from 2007) shows the non-violent and violent predictive tools are less accurate with women and minority ethnic people. Meanwhile, Justice, a legal reform organisation, recently cited a lack of research on the accuracy of these tools for women and trans prisoners.

In terms of racial bias, an HM Inspectorate of Prisons’ audit found that an Oasys assessment had not been completed or reviewed in the prior year for almost 20% of black and minority ethnic prisoners. This is a serious issue because further evaluation can help ensure that minority ethnic people are receiving similar treatment or being assigned to helpful programming. It can avoid probation officers simply assuming the risk status of minority ethnic people is unchangeable and thus reduce their chances of early release since Oasys assessments are required to ascertain whether interventions have reduced risks of reoffending.

Researchers with the Inspectorate of Probation encouraged designers of Oasys to expand the ways it can incorporate a person’s personal experiences with discrimination and how it may impact their relationship with the criminal justice system. But, so far, and to the best of our knowledge, this has not been done.

Algorithms affect real people

Oasys results follow a person’s path through the criminal justice system and could influence key decisions from sentencing to parole eligibility. Such serious decisions have huge consequences on peoples’ lives. Yet officials can decline to disclose Oasys results to the defendant in question if they are thought to contain “sensitive information”. They can ask and be shown their completed assessment, but they are not guaranteed to see it.

Even if they are given their scores, defendants and their lawyers face significant hurdles in understanding and challenging their assessments. There is no legal obligation to publish information about the system, although the Ministry of Justice has commendably made certain information public. Still, even if more data were released, defence lawyers may not have the scientific skills to examine the assessments with a sufficiently critical eye.

Some prisoners describe additional challenges. They complain that their risk scores do not reflect how they see themselves. Others believe that their scores contain errors. While some also feel that Oasys mislabels them. In another report compiled by the PRT, one prisoner stated: “Oasys is who I was, not who I am now.” And a man serving a life sentence described the repeated risk assessment when he spoke to a researcher at the University of Birmingham:

I have likened it to a small snowball running downhill. Each turn it picks up more and more snow (inaccurate entries) until eventually you are left with this massive snowball which bears no semblance to the original small ball of snow. In other words, I no longer exist. I have become a construct of their imagination. It is the ultimate act of dehumanisation.

Not all judicial officers are impressed either. When asked about using a risk assessment tool that the state required, a judge in the US said: “Frankly, I pay very little attention to the worksheets. Attorneys argue about them, but I really just look at the guidelines. I also don’t go to psychics.”

There have been relatively few legal challenges to any of the risk assessment algorithms in use across the world. But one case stands as an outlier. In 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the case of Ewert v Canada that it was unlawful for the prison system to use a predictive algorithm (not Oasys) on Indigenous inmates.

Ewert was an Indigenous Canadian serving time in prison for murder and attempted murder. He challenged the prison system’s use of an AI tool to assess his risk of recidivism. The problem was the lack of evidence that the particular tool was sufficiently accurate when applied to the Indigenous population in Canada. In other words, the tool had never been tested on Indigenous Canadians.

The court understood that there might be risk-relevant differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples as to why they commit crimes. But since the algorithms had not been tested on Indigenous people, its accuracy for that population was not known. Therefore, using the tools to assess their risks violated the legal requirement that information about an offender must be accurate before it can be used for decision making. The court also noted that the over-representation of Indigenous people in the Canadian justice system was in part attributable to discriminatory policies.

Individual vs group risk

The feeling that the scores produced by risk assessment algorithms such as Oasys may not be properly personalised or contextualised finds merit when considering how predictive algorithms in general work. They assess people and produce risk scores and this has a longer history in business. The lending industry uses algorithms to assess the creditworthiness of customers. Insurance companies deploy algorithms to generate quotes for car insurance. The insurance algorithms often use driving records, age and gender to determine the likelihood of claiming against the policy.

But an all too common and mistaken assumption is that algorithms can provide a prediction about the specific person. On the contrary, publicly available information shows that the algorithms rely upon statistical groups. What does this mean? As we said earlier, they compare the circumstances and attributes of the person being risk assessed with risk factors and scores associated with criminal justice populations – or groups.

For example, what if “John” is placed in the medium-risk category, which is associated with a reoffending likelihood of 30%? This does not mean there is a 30% chance that John will reoffend. Instead, it means that about 30% of those assigned medium risk are forecasted to reoffend based on the observation that 30% of the medium risk had in the past been reconvicted.

This number cannot be directly assigned to any individual within that medium-risk group. John may, individually, have a 1% chance of reoffending. The scales are not individualised in this way and so John, himself, cannot be assigned specifically with a number. The reason for this is that the predictive factors are not causal in nature. They are correlated, meaning there may be some relationship between the factors and reoffending. Oasys uses male gender as one of the predictive factors of reoffending. But being male does not cause reoffending. The relationship as perceived by Oasys merely suggests that males are more likely to commit crimes than females.

There are important consequences to this. The individual can thereby be seen as being punished, not for what he or she is personally predicted to do. They face imprisonment because of what others – who share a similar risk score – have done. This is why more transparency of predictive algorithms is needed.

But even if we know what the inputs are, the weighting system is often obscure as well. And developers are frequently changing the algorithms for a host of reasons. The purposes may be valid. It could be that predictors of reoffending change over time in connection with societal shifts. Or it could be that new scientific knowledge suggests a modification is necessary.

Nevertheless, we have been unable to discover much about how well the Oasys system, or its components, performs. The Ministry of Justice has, to our knowledge, only released retroactive results. Those statistics cannot inform on the predictive performance of the tool for predictions made today, or for how accurate they are when we relook at the offenders in two years. Frequent retrospective results are needed to provide up to date information on the performance of algorithms.

Independent evaluation

To the best of our knowledge (and to the knowledge of other experts in the field), Oasys has not been independently evaluated. There is a clear need for more information on the effectiveness and accuracy of these tools and their impact on gender, race, disability and other protected characteristics. Without these sources it is not possible to fully understand the prospects and challenges of the system.

We acknowledge that the lack of transparency surrounding Oasys is a common, though not universal, denominator that unites these types of algorithms deployed by justice systems and other sectors across the world. A court case in the state of Wisconsin that challenged the use of a risk assessment tool that the developer claimed was confidential succeeded only to a point.

The defendant, convicted of charges related to a drive-by shooting, claimed that it was unfair to use a tool which used a private algorithm because it prevented him from challenging its scientific credentials. The US court ruled that the government did not have to reveal the underlying algorithm. However, it required authorities to issue warnings when the tool was used.

These warnings included:

• the fact that failure to disclose meant it was not possible to tell how scores were determined
• the algorithms were group-based assessments incapable of individualised predictions
• there could be biases toward minority ethnic people
• the tool had not been tested for use in the state of Wisconsin.

Opening up the black box

Problems such as AI bias and lack of transparency are not peculiar to Oasys. They affect many other data-driven technologies deployed by public sector agencies. In response, UK government agencies, such as the Central Digital and Data Office and the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation (CDEI) have recognised the need for ethical approaches to algorithm design and implementation and have introduced remedial strategies. A recent example is the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard Hub which offers public sector organisations the opportunity to provide information about their algorithms.

A relatively recent report published by the CDEI also discussed bias-limitation measures, such as reducing the significance of things like arrest history as they have been show to be negative proxies for race. A post-prediction remedy in the CDEI report requires practitioners to lower the risk classification allocated to people belonging to a group known to be consistently vulnerable to higher risk AI scores than others.

More generally, researchers and civil society organisations have proposed pre and-post implementation audits to test, detect and resolve AI problems of the kind associated with Oasys. The need for appropriate regulation of AI systems including those deployed for risk assessment has also been recognised by key regulatory bodies in the UK and around the world, such as Ofcom, the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Competition and Markets Authority.

When we put these issues to the MOJ, it said the system had been subject to external review, but it was not specific on the data. It said it has been making data available externally through the Data First programme and that the next dataset to be shared with the programme will be “based on” the Oasys database and released “within 12 months”.

An MOJ spokesperson added: “The Oasys system has been subject to external review and scrutiny by the appropriate bodies. For obvious reasons, granting external access to sensitive offender information is a complex process, which is why we’ve set up Data First which allows accredited researchers to access our information in an ethical and responsible way.”

In the end, we recognise that algorithmic systems are here to stay and we acknowledge the ongoing efforts to reduce problems with accuracy and bias. Better access to, and input from, external experts to evaluate these systems and put forward solutions would be a useful step towards making them fairer. The justice system is vast and complex and technology is needed to manage it. But it is important to remember that there are people behind the numbers.

--oo00oo--

The article generated some interesting responses:-

Not an AI in 2001. The article goes on to refer to an algorithm which is likely correct. An AI is not an algorithm. I’d imagine the one being used by Oasys probably started out like something used by actuaries to calculate risk, the two fields look like there considerable overlap. Also the calculations done to calculate a credit score. I doubt it’s an AI even now..

Nitpicky stuff out of the way, it does illustrate the problems with black box systems and peoples reactions to them. First you can’t easily work out why the results are what they are. Secondly people tend to blindly accept the output even when it clearly diverges from reality, remember when people just followed satnav systems into fields or rivers? Generative systems are already fairly opaque, but it’s going to get worse.

*****
“I have likened it to a small snowball running downhill. Each turn it picks up more and more snow (inaccurate entries) until eventually you are left with this massive snowball which bears no semblance to the original small ball of snow. In other words, I no longer exist. I have become a construct of their imagination. It is the ultimate act of de-humanisation”. The person quoted is maybe not aware just how accurate they are. It used to be my practice to share what their files said with the person I was assessing for a DV or a Sex Offenders group. In every single instance the range of inaccuracies was enormous, from those with insignificant impact to those with monumental impact. Clearly, just like Chinese whispers, the initial mistake is made, repeated by the second worker with another couple added in and so on and so on. 

With AI taking over so much and humans more and more cut out of the equation in gaining information based on relationship (and hopefully a highly skilled interviewer aware of their own inherent biases) God knows where all this might end up. Whilst outcomes for this AI system have not been analysed outcomes for the What Works Approach (imported here into Western Australia) and for Sex Offender Treatment programs have both been analysed and found to be significantly flawed with positive outcomes seriously over-estimated. We still use these patently flawed systems in Western Australia. 

When I was first employed by the (in)Justice system I was one of about 15 Senior Programmes Officers delivering these awful programs with 1 worker only focusing on prisoners education and job seeking stuff. It needed to be the other way around. And any money saved on the fairly useless work we were doing (and I was a very highly skilled and experienced practitioner) would have been better spent on dentists, tattoo removals, and secure accommodation post release. What would AI make of that I wonder?

*****
I have no doubt that OASys has many flaws and would benefit from rigorous academic assessment of its accuracy and biases, but it remains a risk assessment tool and is not AI. Now, if a computer was tasked with analysing videos of defendants in court and generating assessments based on their behaviour, that would be dangerous reliance on AI. On the other hand, analysing OASys outcomes and suggesting improvements in the algorithm would be, if properly managed and evaluated, a positive use of AI.

Optimistic For Change

We've featured the Prison Reform Trust quite a bit recently and their brilliant work in holding the dreadful former Justice Secretary Dominic Raab to account, but I hadn't realised they have a new Director. I think the following from InsideTime indicates that the good work is likely to continue and it's particularly interesting to hear the reasoning given for 'jumping ship' from a dream HMPPS post - if only Probation could break free.....   

‘Holder of hope’!

New Director of PRT puts optimism and hope at the centre of her new role – ‘lived experience’ invaluable

In 2017, HMP Liverpool was the subject of one of the most critical inspection reports in years by the HM Inspectorate of Prisons, which found there was an “abject failure” to provide suitable conditions. Described as one of the worst prisons in Europe, the prison, better known as Walton, was found to be ridden with litter, dirt, rats and cockroaches – and had huge problems with violence and drugs. Conditions were so poor, foreign judges feared it would be inhumane to send suspects back to the UK if there was a risk they would be held at HMP Liverpool.

Pia Sinha came to prominence as the troubleshooter who, along with a dedicated team, turned the prison around within three years to such an extent that the then Prisons Inspector Peter Clarke said the “squalor and filth” had gone and there was now a “culture of care” with a “real change in the quality of leadership”. She spent twenty-three years in the prison service before ‘jumping ship’ and joining one of the most prominent prison reform organisations as Director of the Prison Reform Trust. Describing her new role as, “Truly an honour and a privilege” Pia Sinha said, “Prison reform is in my DNA.”

Shock

Sinha had actually been the deputy governor of HMP Liverpool four years earlier. She says that then it was, “Alright, as far as local Victorian prisons go. There was a good governor and the two of us were able to do some good things and we’d had a fairly decent inspection. But to go back a mere four years later and to see how badly it had deteriorated was an absolute shock. I remember on my first day I thought … I’m just going to grip the rail and go around and have a look – what I saw actually brought me to tears. But I suppose when you are trying to fix places that are terrible you have to have some kind of emotional connection with them and I felt really emotionally connected with that prison. The odd thing was that once I started to make things better, it wasn’t that hard. It was bloody hard work but it wasn’t that hard because everyone wanted to do the same.”

Name clearing

How did she motivate her team? “What I did early on was have a full and frank conversation with the team that existed and to say look, this is going to be bloody hard work you know. So for the people that were already there, who had sort of presided over its decline – they were people who were really tired, fed up, negative – and I asked them, ‘Do you have the heart for this?’ Some of them said, ‘You know what, no, I don’t.’ The people that weren’t up for it, for legitimate reasons, we found them something else to do. And the ones that sat opposite me, saying, ‘Pia, I want to be part of this – I want to clear my name and make it better’, they worked so hard. Then I got some new people in – that combination was just magical.”

Ship jumping

Sinha worked for the prison service for twenty-three years, joining as a higher psychologist at HMP/YOI Holloway in 1999 – then worked as a senior psychologist at Wandsworth before taking up the post of head of safer prisons. Following that, she became head of reducing re-offending at Wormwood Scrubs. She then took up her first deputy governor role at Send, and subsequently at Downview and Liverpool. She took up her last post as Director of Women in November 2021, taking responsibility for the 10 public sector women’s prisons and oversight of the two private prisons. So why did she jump ship?

“I’ve done quite a lot of reflecting. I’d have to take it back to how the story unfolded. Eighteen months ago, when I got the role of Director of Women in prison post, I felt delighted; I felt it was my dream job. It was a rare privilege. But having gone on to become director of women I found that as a senior civil servant I was getting further and further removed from the front line and it felt that the proportion of the work I was doing was much more about managing upwards and trying to influence in a really awkward complicated non-direct way. And I was feeling frustrations. I also felt that the directorate was not adequately resourced for the complexity of the job. I think that within the women’s directorate there is so much risk, especially around the high levels of self-harm, suicide, pregnant women coming in, women with mental health issues. If things went wrong, and they did, they got immediately escalated to the press, immediately escalated to ministers – and it just felt like a really high risk part of the system. I didn’t think I could change things at the pace I wanted to.”

Excellent team

Does she think she can change things now heading up the PRT? “Well, I feel more optimistic about change. That wasn’t what led me to think ‘I’ll apply for this job’. I think part of this job, as a leader, is to maintain optimism about change and hope – and be the holder of hope.” So how does she plan to influence those in power to make the necessary changes? “I think that’s just one part of what PRT does,” she says, “Its one part of what they do very well. And I think you have to give Peter (Peter Dawson, former Director who retired), enormous credit for the steadfast way he did this. PRT’s reputation is the money in the bank. This reputation allows for us to have a really strong lobbying voice in the system. I think that work should and has to continue. We have excellent people in the team who really know their stuff. But something I’m intrigued about is to ask how do we harvest all of this amazing information that we are getting when we have got a very strong network of lived experience voice? It’s better than I’ve ever known it to be. We also have incredible research going on. I want to use the intel and the information that we are getting and directly be able to look at how we can generalise all of that towards the front line.”

Reacting to the resignation of former Justice Secretary Dominic Raab over bullying claims Sinha said: “The vital and complex work of the Ministry of Justice has been undermined by Dominic Raab’s reckless meddling and his inability to interact professionally with his senior officials. A new Justice Secretary is an opportunity for a reset on Dominic Raab’s damaging changes to the parole system. Changes to open conditions transfers have undermined the progression of prisoners and effective arrangements for public protection. A single view procedure forbidding state appointed officials – including forensic psychologists and prison and probation staff – from making recommendations for release or transfer to the Parole Board have been ruled unlawful by the High Court. The Victims and Prisoners Bill currently before Parliament undermines the independence and expertise of the Parole Board and raises wider constitutional concerns regarding judicial independence and U.K. compliance with human rights obligations. His successor should urgently review the Bill and Raab’s other changes to the parole system as a result and adopt a more measured approach.”

Erwin James

Latest From Napo 235

Here we have selected highlights from yesterday's Napo mailout to members:- 

Unions to appeal outcome of Enforcement Officer (Trials) Job Evaluation

The job evaluation process for the above role has been fraught with difficulty and delay over a number of years where it has not been possible to reach agreement with the employer as to the appropriate pay band for this work.

Disappointingly, a recent job evaluation exercise has determined that the role has been scored within the range for Band 3. This is despite the fact that in many areas of the service contested breaches were previously undertaken at Band 4. As you would expect, the trade unions are seriously unhappy with the outcome for a number of reasons. These will be included in a formal appeal under the agreed Probation Joint Negotiating Council procedures where we will be using the feedback received from our members and also referencing the considerable anger that has been relayed to us as we seek to overturn this retrograde decision. You can read the full submission that was made by Napo here.

Meanwhile, the unions initial advice to members asked to engage in breach work is that you insist on receiving the appropriate training before undertaking this work and that you make that clear in writing to your line manager.

Further news will follow on this issue as soon as it becomes available.

Details of Proposed Change: 

As a result of a commitment to re-review the Enforcement Officer (Trials) Job Description, a new Job Evaluation Scheme (JES) process was commenced in early 2022. Four focus groups were held with Enforcement Officers, with support from Enforcement Managers, and Union Representatives to update the Job Description Questionnaire (JDQ) prepared during the equivalent E3 process. Although the process was lengthy, all involved approached the work positively and constructively. The JDQ and JD were shared with Enforcement Officers and the final versions are reflective of feedback received from staff. 

We recognise that there is currently mixed practice across the country in the prosecution of contested breaches. This revised Job Description captures our ambition for wider implementation of an existing national strategy to pursue the in-house delivery of contested breach Trials in all Magistrates Courts, with the exception of those cases deemed to be ‘highly complex and contentious’. The definition of complex cases is being developed by the National Enforcement Group and will be subject to staff and union consultation in January and February 2023. 

The in-house prosecution of the majority of cases will realise some cost savings as it will reduce the requirement to commission external counsel. The strategy will also support a better quality of prosecution, which will be delivered by practitioners with expertise in the enforcement of community disposals and sound understanding of the of the nuances of sentence delivery. 

This will result in a better quality service to the judiciary in all breach cases, building our reputation with our in-Court stakeholders. In practice, we should see breach proceedings resolved more quickly on average (and in line with the desired disposal), avoiding unnecessary adjournments for Trial. In-house responsibility for Trial prosecution will create natural accountability in the overall enforcement process, promoting appropriate negotiation with the Defence to arrive at an acceptable plea and thus avoiding unnecessary Trials. Where the specific facts of a case make a Trial unavoidable, staff will have the knowledge and experience of contested breach work to inform case management discussions with the Defence and the Court to reduce the number of live Witnesses, saving time on disclosure and Witness attendance at Court, allowing the Trial to be heard as soon as possible after the denial. 

To support this strategy, in March 2022, the first contested breach training sessions were delivered following work to create the package by the Design Faculty, Learning Services and the National Enforcement Group in 2021. Target learners for this package are PSOs and those staff subject to the Enforcement Officer (Trials) JD. This strategy relies on individual regions being responsible for ensuring appropriate roll out of this learning to their staff. Work is ongoing to ensure this product delivers the best value and impact for learners. 

We would welcome comments from Trade Union partners before we submit the job description to a JES panel. We are keen to avoid pre-judging any panel result, as such we invite comments at this point on the job description specifically rather than discussion of the implementation of any resulting band. We do however recognise the complexity any change in banding would cause given the mix of job descriptions being used for colleagues carrying out an enforcement role (PSO and EO Trails both at PB3). We would like to offer assurance therefore that we would work closely with you on any implementation should a change in banding be indicated, including any required modification to our strategy to in-house delivery of contested breach Trials.

Response to Proposed Change: 

Within the detail of proposed change is an outline and expectation that there will be less Trials due to the change in PSO leading the prosecution of contested breaches – however no outline on how this is to be achieved, other than to state good negotiation. It was clear in the meeting held on 15/02/23, that any re-banding of grade from this would result in a review of the practicality of delivery of contested breaches through EO. This clearly does not consider the prefixed position of those currently employed with the EO job description. It also does not consider those currently employed (vast majority) under the remit of the PSO job description. We requested in the meeting of the 15/02/23 that these figures would be provided, this was actioned to of happened by COP 20/02/23. No information has been facilitated in this regard to date – therefore the ethos of consultation and agreed actions has not met the minimum threshold for appropriate engagement and consultation cannot be fully achieved as this information has to date not been forthcoming. 

We have outlined throughout any form of engagement that our interaction with members thus far has resulted in an overwhelming outcome that the training is insufficient, especially as the face to face sessions are facilitated virtually and does not give any real form of experiential learning. 

The job description suggested clearly outlines that the EO will not undertake the necessary training/ learning and experience of the PSO training route/ or as previously employed EO, had previous legal training for their roles – this is considered to be a situation , whereby there is a potential that staff with little experience/ understanding of the Legal frameworks, of the PS will be in Court, alone without the adequate knowledge in what could be quite challenging situations without adequate training/ experience or knowledge of the PS – this could result in reputational damage and undermining of the personnel involved in these scenarios, especially without what the members feel is adequate training and experiences. 

We are aware that where the ‘trials’ have been undertaken in some regions, this was on an optional basis for staff and the staff who were not confident in the training facilitated do not .undertake contested breaches. We are concerned that there are valuable members of staff with many years of experience within the Court Officer role, who will become further disenfranchised by the expectation to deliver contested breaches and have outlined within our discussions that they are likely to leave, rather than be put in an embarrassing situation in the Court, where they have previously felt respected and valued by the Courts. 

In light of the more recent HMIP SFOs (2023) and the information facilitated at Court – we are of the understanding that the EO will be expected to address any new information within the contested breach and effectively risk manage the situation within the court at that time on the day – this includes Bail applications, we question whose responsibility is it to undertake the safeguarding and Domestic abuse checks at that time and make active decisions about suitability of any bail application. This would effectively mean that this is risk managing and prosecuting at the same time – this is a conflict of interest. Due to the recent HMIP SFOs – this is an imperative responsibility which would be expected to ensure that risk is effectively managed at every juncture. 

We have added post it notes to the JD, with questions still left outstanding. Please could they be responded to. It is disappointing that the employer through a narrowed viewpoint cost savings exercise is further jeopardising retention figures, especially with Band 3 workers – who are the largest exiting cohort of staff, this is alongside the potential reputational damage that could result due to what staff describe as inadequate and inappropriately delivered training, that does not imbue confidence in delivering this work in the Court arena.

--oo00oo--

The latest news on Programmes

On Tuesday Napo held an all programmes members briefing to update on both the Target Operating Model (TOM) and the Next Generation of Programmes (NG). It was clear that there is a lot of anger amongst members affected as well as amongst the wider membership. This was echoed on Wednesday when the employer held the Job Description Questionnaire (JDQ) Workshop. Members very articulately made their feelings known about a number of issues not least the way the whole process has been managed from the outset. Members feel utterly devalued and angry by these proposals.

The JDQ workshop did eventually go ahead. There is still a lot of work needed and as such representatives at that workshop have been given until the Close of Play on 21st April to get their submissions in. The biggest issue appears to be the employers refusal to acknowledge current aspects of the role such as consultation, learning and development. The employer has written to staff informing them that this aspect of their work is not part of the job and should not be carried out, further angering members.
Key areas of disagreement

Napo, alongside our sister unions, Unison and GMB, are in disagreement with the employer on their proposals in a number of key areas.

Horizon: The future of the work of the regional sex offender units, the proposal to disband them and the future role of those currently carrying out this work is a red line for Napo. We have made, and continue to make, very strong representations that disbanding this critical specialist work poses a risk of harm to the public and completely de-values the work of the staff.

All three unions believe that this is vital public protection work that supports people not only on the programme but also sentence management staff, Court advice and training of new staff.

The TOM proposal will see this work being carried out by all programmes staff irrelevant of previous experience and will very little training in this complex work. If the Job Evaluation for the new Job Description comes out at a Band 3, this will mean that staff will be expected to carry out work that would previously have been paid at Band 4.

No career progression: Despite one of the key drivers for the Tom being career progression, the proposed model does the exact opposite and will leave programmes staff unable to work in other areas of the business as they will have a specific job description for programmes and limited Treatment/Programme Manager roles to progress to.

The Unions have proposed a two grade model that will allow staff to progress through the different programmes as they develop the competencies and experience. Starting as a new starter with core competencies, moving on to general offender behaviour programmes before being able to develop their learning and progressing on to BBR and Horizon. These two latter programmes should, in our view be Band 4 to reflect the complexity and risk management needs of the groups and individuals.

Training: As stated the proposal offers limited and inadequate training for programmes staff. Under the TOM, new starters to the service could be delivering BBR and Horizon in just 7 months of service. In light of the recent SFO reviews and the complexities in this area of work, Napo do not believe that this is sufficient to protect staff or the public.
Next Generation

Napo is slightly more positive about the NG proposals having now attended a number of design workshops and presentations. Those leading on this project are very experienced in the development and delivery of programmes and have engaged well with unions. Most notably it has now been confirmed that any future programmes will not delivered to a mixed cohort of clients as was originally suggested. There are a series of design workshops planned over April and May that Napo will be attending to look at specific cohorts of offence types and how the programme can focus on the needs and participants.
Next Steps

Napo will be scheduling more briefings going forward and we are currently speaking with Unison and GMB with a view of holding joint meetings.

The three unions have written to Amy Rees asking for an urgent meeting on the future of programmes and will raise all of our concerns with them directly.

--oo00oo--

Parole Board intervention by SoSfJ latest news as Dominic Raab resigns

The announcement that the Secretary of State for Justice has resigned today means another change in this pivotal Government position and we wait to see who will be appointed.

Meanwhile, members will be aware that the outcome of the most recent Court hearing regarding the changes to the parole system imposed by the just-departed Secretary of State for Justice was that the guidance and training issued to staff from July to October 2022 was found to be unlawful. The Court is awaiting further evidence, to submitted by the parties by mid-May, to determine whether to initiate contempt proceedings against any person(s) – for instance, the then Secretary of State or senior figures in HMPPS – and/or whether to give further directions.

HMPPS have responded by issuing further guidance and holding several online briefing events on their latest instructions in recent weeks. Significant questions of professional practice and the impact of these latest changes on member’s workload remain and we will continue to take forward with HMPPS. These include, but are not limited to, the additional workload resulting from further reports staff may be expected to provide the Parole Board with, the change from previously providing a recommendation to the current “professional opinion” and that this should now only be given if the member of staff feels able to do so.

On a separate issue, Napo is also concerned regarding an aspect of the press coverage of two ‘public’ Oral Hearings that have taken place so far, in terms of the use of selective quotes taken from the evidence offered by workers to the Parole Board. We will continue to take make clear our belief that such selective quoting fails to consider not only the wider context but also the fuller evidence provided by the worker involved.

Feedback from Napo members has been vital in raising issues and concerns relating to the parole changes with HMPPS since we were made aware of these changes last summer. As ever, we would be grateful if members could continue to keep us updated with their experiences of the parole system as this new guidance issued becomes part of our practice in the coming weeks and months.

Latest From Napo 233

Here we have the second part of the bumper Napo mailout to members this week:-

Victims and Prisoners Bill

It’s difficult to believe that a Secretary of State for Justice could have less of a basic grasp of the criminal justice system than Liz Truss but the current incumbent seems determined to prove us wrong.

The latest proposals in the Victims and Prisoners Bill are the usual offerings of bluster, ignorance, headline-grabbing and distraction from Ministers fresh from a humiliating and entirely foreseeable defeat at the High Court in relation to the so-called Secretary of State’s Single View as regards the parole process.

The Government’s reported commitment that “victims’ voices will be cemented at the heart of the justice system” ring hollow given the Secretary of State and his political party have fought to ensure that statues have greater protection under the criminal justice system than some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. The lengthy list of failures of this Government and its predecessors from 2010 in relation to the victims of crime is the obvious consequence of their assaults on the criminal justice system, be it through the starvation of public services under ‘austerity’ or the repeated – and fascistic – comments by Ministers that question the legitimacy of the Courts and members of the legal profession. While the Secretary of State claims to want “to ensure dangerous offenders face the strictest scrutiny” it remains the case that he and others have presided over the wholesale devastation of large parts of the criminal justice system in their thirteen long years in power.

In relation to the parole process the bill is to include the following measures:-

• Enshrining a new release test for the Parole Board into law, leaving no room for confusion over whether public safety should be the only priority when making release decisions

The evidence, from their botched interference in the parole process last year, suggests the only confused person as regards the ‘release test’ is the Secretary of State for Justice. Unfortunately they’re also the person with the power to inflict further havoc through their ignorance on others in the criminal justice system.

• Creating a new tier of the most serious offenders including murderers, rapists and terrorists and giving the Justice Secretary the power to veto the release of those offenders in the interest of public safety. It will also be available in cases where the Parole Board cannot confidently decide the release test has been met.

While a more detailed examination of the provisions of the Bill is ongoing it’s apparent that this represents a further attempt by the Secretary of State for Justice to engage in a power grab and undermine a fundamental power of the Parole Board, similar to what we saw by their behaviour last year. Given what we know of their intentions it’s apparent this is a means to increase their own control over a part of the criminal justice system while trying to generate favourable headlines in the right-wing media, especially given the likelihood of a further legal challenge to these provisions through the domestic Courts or the European Court of Human Rights.

There is current evidence of the chaos the Secretary of State has created with their political interference in relation to the overcrowding of prisons, contributed to by the refusal of the Secretary of State to accept the vast majority of Parole Board recommendations for progression to ‘open conditions’. If they receive powers to veto release it’s clear, from their past behaviour, that they will use this enthusiastically and in doing so increase the prison population.

• Making it a legal requirement for ex-police officers and detectives to sit on parole panels for these ‘top-tier’ cases. Their first-hand experience of managing serious offenders and the risk they pose will help place an even greater focus on public protection in parole hearings.

With respect to those Police Officers who have a role in managing individuals in the community subject to MAPPA, it’s an ongoing grievous insult to Probation staff to suggest that we do not have the greatest level of expertise, training and experience to “manage serious offenders and the risk they pose”.

Members will be aware from significant media coverage, especially in recent months, of the extent of serious misconduct – including the commission of sexual and physical abuse of vulnerable members of the public – by a minority of Police Officers in England and Wales. The Secretary of State must provide assurances to the public that any ex-Police Officer who is a Parole Board member – including those currently appointed – are subject to the most stringent vetting possible, involving an examination of any prior allegations of such misconduct during their time as a serving Police Officer, to properly assess that they are entirely suitable to fulfil this crucial role.

In the coming weeks and months Napo will work with those in the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group, as well as other campaigning organisations, to inform the Parliamentary debates on this Bill and make clear our opposition to the plans of the Secretary of Justice in this regard. We will keep you updated with this work as it progresses.

Election Campaigning

Yet more depressing news as a disgraced government facing almost certain electoral defeat at the forthcoming general election continues to throw everything at stoking public ire and fear. This is not going to be good for the cause of rehabilitation or ultimately the protection of the public of course. This from the BBC website:-  

Ministers can veto prisoners' parole in Victims and Prisoners Bill

Ministers will be able to block the release of some prisoners and stop others getting married under new plans to overhaul the parole system. The idea is among measures in its Victims and Prisoners Bill, which is aimed at giving greater rights to victims of crime in England and Wales. 

Ministers promise to make it easier for crime victims to get justice. But critics fear efforts to improve life for victims will be lost in a bill which also combines parole reform. Some victims of crime, especially of rape and sexual assault, feel that the criminal justice system has let them down as investigations are slow, and information scarce. Many do not make it to court. Those that do face further delays. Now the government is promising new legislation to allow victims to be kept informed, and also to challenge decisions.

The plan for a ministers' veto on some parole decisions follows the releases of double child-killer Colin Pitchfork, who was recalled to prison within months of being released, and black cab rapist John Worboys, which the government says have shaken public confidence in the system. It will mean ministers can veto recommendations to release criminals including murderers, rapists and terrorists, the government said. Bids for freedom could be blocked on multiple occasions up until the end of a sentence.

Justice Secretary Dominic Raab told MPs that public protection would be the "exclusive focus" of the Parole Board decision-making process under the reforms. The changes are in an effort to "stop a balancing exercise taking into account prisoners' rights", the Ministry of Justice said.

Mr Raab said: "Our reforms will improve the experience for victims from the first meeting with a police officer to the support they get in court. and we will refocus the parole system on its overriding duty to protect the public from violent and sexual criminals." 

He acknowledged that the Parole Board did not like the changes, but he said he wanted to take the parole process in "a different direction" with the emphasis on public safety. Those serving whole-life orders will be banned from marrying behind bars. These plans also follow an attempt by serial killer Levi Bellfield to marry in prison, and reportedly making a bid for legal aid to challenge the decision to block his marriage.

The 54-year-old is serving two whole-life orders for killing 13-year-old Milly Dowler, Marsha McDonnell and Amelie Delagrange, as well as the attempted murder of Kate Sheedy.

The bill will also:

• give ministers the powers to demand more inspections of the police, probation and prosecutors if they aren't acting in the interest of victims
• simplify the process for victims making formal complaints
• boost the role of the victims' commissioner by requiring criminal justice agencies to publicly respond to their recommendations and set out the rationale for accepting or rejecting them
• explicitly designate children born as a result of rape as victims in their own right, making clear that they are entitled to access support services and information on their case
• create a new Independent Public Advocate which will work in the aftermath of major disasters like Hillsborough, the Manchester Arena bombing and the Grenfell Tower fire.

Labour said it had been eight years since the Conservatives first promised this bill, "and now they've had to combine it with parole reform". "Yet again, the Tories overpromise and underdeliver," said Labour's shadow victims minister Anna McMorrin. "Victims are now waiting years for a trial because of record court backlogs, with criminals getting off scot-free at a record rate. Rape victims are suffering on average for three years as they wait to hear their case in court."

Diana Fawcett, chief executive at Victim Support, said the charity welcomed many of the measures in the Bill "which will make a real and meaningful difference to the experience of victims". "But we are seriously worried that expanding its scope to include prisoners will be a distraction and delay it even further." 

The End Violence Against Women Coalition (EVAW) said women and girls' confidence in justice agencies was at an all-time low because of their "persistent failures towards victims and survivors of rape, sexual violence and domestic abuse", and said it was concerned the Bill "will not transform victims' experiences without significant changes". It said there was a "glaring absence of funding" in the bill and said it was concerned it was "creeping away from its intended aim of improving victims' experiences".

Director Andrea Simon said: "Recovery is an essential part of justice, and we need to ensure every survivor who needs help can access specialist support that is tailored to their needs" - but said we were a "long way from that being a reality".

A Parole Board spokesman said: "Public protection has always been, and will always be, at the heart of Parole Board decision-making, which is based on the evidence and the law. We are committed to working with the ministry and Parliament to ensure this important legislation receives the consideration that it richly deserves."

--oo00oo--

The MoJ Press Release:-

Victims placed at heart of justice system under radical shakeup

Victims’ experiences to be transformed through new Victims and Prisoners Bill.

Victims’ voices will be cemented at the heart of the justice system following an overhaul of legislation which will put the principles of the Victims’ Code on a statutory footing and toughen the parole system.

The Victims and Prisoners Bill introduced today (29 March 2023) will fundamentally transform victims’ experience of the criminal justice system. Legislation will enshrine the principles of the Victims’ Code in law, give ministers powers to direct the inspection of justice agencies that are failing victims, and create better oversight of those agencies.

The parole system will also be overhauled allowing ministers to block the release of the most dangerous offenders including murderers, rapists, and terrorists - putting public protection back as the overriding focus of the parole process. The bill will also legislate for a new release test for the Parole Board making it clear that public safety is the only priority when making release decisions – to stop a balancing exercise taking into account prisoners’ rights.

The new legislation will also stop prisoners serving whole-life orders from marrying or forming a civil partnership in prison. This will deny these criminals the important life events they stole from their victims while ensuring their horrific crimes are treated with the seriousness they deserve.

Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, Dominic Raab MP, said:

Our reforms will improve the experience for victims from the first meeting with a police officer to the support they get in court. and we will refocus the parole system on its overriding duty to protect the public from violent and sexual criminals.

The Victims and Prisoners Bill will put the principles of the Victims’ Code on a statutory footing meaning that where appropriate victims will have a right to:

• Challenge decisions which directly impact them, for example getting the CPS or police to review why their case has been dropped in the most serious cases like rape and domestic abuse
• Receive information to help them understand the criminal justice process, such as on claiming compensation, how their case is progressing and its outcome
• Access vital support services such as Independent Sexual Violence and Independent Domestic Abuse Advisors
• Have the opportunity to make their views heard, for example being able to ask to read out their Victim Personal Statements in court

When victims are failed, the changes announced today will give ministers the power to get the criminal justice inspectorates to jointly inspect prisons, police forces, courts the CPS and probation to drive improvements in how they support victims. The process for victims making formal complaints will also be simplified by removing the requirement for them to go through their local MP before speaking to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

The bill also bolsters the role of the Victims’ Commissioner by requiring criminal justice agencies to publicly respond to their recommendations and set out the rationale for accepting or rejecting them

Children born as a result of rape will also be explicitly designated as victims in their own right making clear that they are entitled to access support services and information on their case.

Justice Minister, Edward Argar MP, said:

We want victims going through the justice system to feel listened to, supported, informed, and to be treated fairly, properly, and with dignity.

Taken together, these measures will mean victims always know the level of help they should receive and always have somewhere to turn.

The government’s overhaul of the parole system follows high-profile parole decisions in cases like John Worboys and Colin Pitchfork that have shaken public confidence in the system.

The bill includes measures to ensure dangerous offenders face the strictest scrutiny including:

• Enshrining a new release test for the Parole Board into law, leaving no room for confusion over whether public safety should be the only priority when making release decisions
• Creating a new tier of the most serious offenders including murderers, rapists and terrorists and giving the Justice Secretary the power to veto the release of those offenders in the interest of public safety. It will also be available in cases where the Parole Board cannot confidently decide the release test has been met.
• Making it a legal requirement for ex-police officers and detectives to sit on parole panels for these ‘top-tier’ cases. Their first-hand experience of managing serious offenders and the risk they pose will help place an even greater focus on public protection in parole hearings.

Justice Minister, Damian Hinds MP, said:

It is vital the public has confidence that murderers, rapists and terrorists will be kept behind bars for as long as is necessary to keep the public safe.

Our new laws mean Ministers can block the release of the most dangerous offenders and will ensure public safety is always the primary factor in parole decisions.

The bill will also create a new Independent Public Advocate (IPA) which will work on behalf of families and provide dedicated support in the aftermath of major disasters like Hillsborough, the Manchester Arena bombing and the Grenfell Tower fire.

The government will continue to engage with the victims of these disasters, the bereaved families and Parliamentarians to make sure that the IPA works to deliver accountability and ensure nothing stops justice happening again.

The bill builds on the wider government work to improve support for victims and ensure offenders pay back to society. Last year the Victim Surcharge, a financial penalty given to offenders on conviction which goes directly towards support crucial victim services such as rape support centres, was increased by 20% – providing an additional £20 million a year by 2025.

At the same time the government has committed to more than quadrupling funding for victim support services by 2025 compared to 2010, increasing the number of Independent Sexual and Domestic Violence Advisors (ISVA and IDVA) by 43% over the next 3 years taking the total to over 1,000.

The full list of measures included in the Victims and Prisoner Bill:

Victims’ measures

• Enshrines the overarching principles of the Victims’ Code in primary legislation – to ensure the criminal justice system consistently delivers the entitlements in the Victims’ Code
• Place a duty on criminal justice bodies and non-territorial police forces to take reasonable steps to promote awareness of the Victims’ Code. Supporting guidance will underpin this and provide recommendations on how bodies may fulfil this duty
• Give ministers the power to jointly direct HM Inspectorate of Prisons, HM Inspectorate of CPS (HMCPSI) and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Service (HMICFRS, but only insofar as it relates to policing), and HM Inspectorate of Probation to inspect on victims’ issues to provide greater oversight and transparency over how victims are treated; and place a requirement on these inspectorates to consult the Victims’ Commissioner when planning their joint and individual inspections
• Introduce a statutory duty on Police and Crime Commissioners, health and local authorities in England to work together when commissioning support services for victims of sexual violence, domestic abuse and serious violence
• Introduce statutory guidance on Independent Sexual Violence Advisors (ISVAs) and Independent Domestic Violence Advisors (IDVAs) setting out minimum expectations and best practice, to increase awareness and consistency of these roles
• Place a duty on criminal justice bodies and non-territorial police forces to review their compliance with the Victims’ Code and collect compliance data which is intended to include information from victims on how they are supported
• Give PCCs a greater role in overseeing local compliance monitoring of the Victims’ Code with the Victims’ Commissioner retaining national oversight
• Improving accountability of criminal justice agencies by introducing a requirement for them to respond to recommendations in reports published by the Victims’ Commissioner, including a requirement to explain why they are accepting or rejecting a recommendation
• Make it easier for victims to make complaints to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) by removing the need to go through an MP, where their complaint relates to their experiences as a victim of crime. The PHSO can handle complaints against public bodies including the Crown Prosecution Service, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) and His Majesty’s Prison Service but excludes judges, magistrates and the police
• Creating a new Independent Public Advocate (IPA) which will provide dedicated support and work on behalf of families in the aftermath of major disasters like Hillsborough, the Manchester Arena bombing and the Grenfell Tower fire

Prisoner marriage measure

The new legislation will also stop prisoners serving whole-life orders from marrying or forming a civil partnership in prison

Parole Board measures

• Enshrining in law the expectation that the Parole Board will take a more precautionary approach. The wording in legislation will leave no room for interpretation and make clear that the only priority is whether a prisoner is safe to release
• Greater ministerial scrutiny on the release of the most dangerous offenders, (murderers, rapists, terrorists or those who have caused or allowed the death of a child), including a new power to block their release in the interests of public safety
• Changing the law to increase the proportion of Parole Board members from policing backgrounds, and ensure they sit on hearings for the most dangerous offenders

Measures already introduced to reform the parole process

• Tightening rules around open prison moves so all indeterminate sentence offenders – those who have committed the most serious crimes, including murder and rape – face much stricter criteria to move from close to open prison 
• Allowing victims, the public and media to request a parole hearing be held in public, so they can attend hearings and better understand how decisions over whether to release prisoners are made. The first public parole hearing took place in December last year
• Launching a period of testing in the South-West of England allowing victims to attend parole hearings as an observer, ahead of a national rollout, which will put victims front and centre of the process. Currently, victims are limited to a statement shared with the Board explaining how the crime impacted on their life
• Launching a campaign to at least double the number of Parole Board members from law enforcement backgrounds