Napo's summaries of concerns regarding the secretary of state's parole board changes.
Essentially, the intervention by the Minister followed the Government’s ‘Root and Branch Review of the Parole System’ published in March 2022. Here is the important extract: “98. For the future, we are developing a model in which there will be one Secretary of State view presented to the Panel. There are two parties to parole proceedings – the Secretary of State and the prisoner. The Secretary of State’s view would reflect the assessments made by probation officers and psychologists and present one view on whether the prisoner is safe to be released.”
Napo and the other recognised trade unions were first advised on these changes to the parole process, including the so-called ‘Secretary of State’s Single View’, by the employer in June last year. We formally responded in writing to the details as we understood them at that time on 14/07/2022; Napo made it very clear that we did not consider this as a reasonable or meaningful consultation period.
The relevant Statutory Instrument on these changes to the parole process was made on 28/06/2022. We have noted to HMPPS senior management that in three months their position has moved from this vague aspiration to a fundamental change that was to have come into force just several weeks later.
Paragraph 80 of the same ‘Root and Branch Review of the Parole System’ also defined the cases they intended would be ‘in scope’ – “We intend to define this top tier cohort of parole-eligible offenders by reference to specified offences. Offenders in scope will be those who have committed offences in the following categories: Murder, Rape, Causing or Allowing the death of a child, and Terrorist or Terrorist connected offences”.
Subsequent formal consultation documents, as well as guidance documents available makes no mention of these specified offences. Instead, the current position is that a significantly wider criteria for potential inclusion is involved – in effect all prisoners eligible to have their release, or re-release considered by the Parole Board. This confers a huge element of discretionary power onto the Secretary of State (including through the Public Protection Group of HMPPS) which was not a part of the earlier ‘Root and Branch Review’. In Napo’s view this greatly undermines the credibility of this process given an element has been so comprehensively overturned within a three-month period.
It is apparent that only a tiny proportion of cases under this model will have a recommendation provided to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State. In thousands of instances every year no recommendation of any sort will be made to the Parole Board, with experienced, trusted experts such as Probation staff being actively prohibited from doing so by the Secretary of State. Napo’s contention, made repeatedly to HMPPS senior managers in subsequent meetings, is that these changes significantly increase the risk to the public, and will damage their confidence in the criminal justice system.
We will also be saying that there are two important scenarios that occur on hundreds of occasions each year where this will be the case:
- Where Probation workers argue in reports and as Oral Hearing witnesses against a person’s release as they believe it is necessary for the protection of the public that the person should be confined, and/or that the Risk Management Plan they have developed – no matter if it is as robust and comprehensive as it possibly can be – is simply not able to manage the risks posed by the person.
- Where, rather than have a person released from prison at Sentence Expiry Date under no form of supervision, a Probation worker who believes the risks posed can be managed proposes a very short period of licence at the end of a sentence to monitor a person’s behaviour in the community and support their longer-term resettlement (reducing the risk of the person reoffending and causing serious harm to others).
Napo believes that the Secretary of State prohibiting Probation staff from clearly and openly making an evidenced argument of their professional opinion brings with it the significant likelihood of adverse consequences for the wider community, criminal justice system, victims of offences and prisoners. We believe clearly foreseeable consequences of this development include a greater likelihood that adverse outcomes will result from this prohibition. This includes inappropriate progression or it’s denial, leading to prison overcrowding, an increase in absconds from ‘open conditions’, higher numbers of recalls to custody as well as reoffending (including the commission of more Serious Further Offences by those subject to statutory supervision). In addition to creating more victims this will also damage the confidence which the public have in the criminal justice system as well as increasing both public expenditure and the workload of various workers and agencies involved.
We are also significantly concerned over the potential impact of this change on the potential adverse impact on the progression and release of Black, Asian and other Minority Ethnic prisoners. We have previously asked HMPPS to share both what plans it has to monitor this issue (and report back to all stakeholders involved) as well as for the production of any Equality Impact Assessment completed in relation to this change but we have yet to a receive any response.
It remains the case that – months after these changes were introduced – HMPPS/Probation Service Policy Frameworks relating to other relevant practice issues, for instance on the wider parole process and the recall/re-release of prisoners, have yet to be updated and issued to Probation staff following these changes to the parole process and the issuing of various guidance documents.
We have been made aware of multiple occasions, across England and Wales, where staff have been instructed to follow an outdated version of the guidance or provided with an incorrect interpretation of these documents. While centrally issued guidance continues to be so significantly flawed Probation staff are placed, through no fault of their own, in the impossible position in attempting to provide their professional opinion on a prisoner’s levels of risk and its management to the Parole Board. While online briefing events were provided by HMPPS/Probation Service staff in the days prior to and following the introduction of these changes this has not been repeated as guidance has been updated. In any event it appears the full implications were only becoming apparent to HMPPS as these events were being delivered given the significant numbers of unanswered questions members reported having after their attendance. One example of this was that for a time it was unclear what the legal position was regarding Probation staff commenting on the possible Executive Re-Release of prisoners by the Secretary of State.