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.......
I think the adversarial nature of the Parole Board serves it poorly. Being questioned on your evidence is likely to make people defensive, and that doesn't make for good risk assessment. Nearly every time I've been to a hearing there's been new information brought up on the day - sometimes minor but sometimes whole new reports! As a minimum the home PO should be given the same dossier as the panel, and I would welcome the suggestion made by one of the commenters to make the PO part of the panel - perhaps not with voting powers, but with an improved status. The lawyers would never have that, though.
ReplyDeleteI think it has to be adversarial, just like the rest of our legal system therefore I can't see how probation could be part of the Panel. I agree we should have a complete dossier and all information disclosed. I feel it was a mistake scrapping the Independent Report from a Board member for reasons of cost and should reinstate this.
DeleteI'm not sure it necessarily has to follow that the Parole Board is adversarial, just because our criminal system has been for centuries? After all, we have problem-solving courts, and probation work isn't adversarial (most of the time!) - can't the Parole Board bridge the gap? An adversarial system is about proving one thing is right and another is wrong - a risk assessment needs to accept that several things can be right or wrong, at different times, and in different circumstances.
DeleteDespite being assigned to the CRC, I have my first Oral Hearing in 3 weeks. I was feeling a bit apprehensive but now I'm quite frankly, terrified. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI agree. . . Surely there must be some good experiences out there!!!?! I've got my first one in March. . . Prior to reading this I was actually looking forward to it despite colleagues sharing horror stories. Now it's going to be harder going with an open mind.. . Then again at least I won't be going in Wearing rose tinted glasses!
ReplyDeleteGo in prepared and knowing what you want to happen and why. You are invariably the expert on the case. Honestly, Oral Hearings can be some of your best professional experiences, but you can't bluff. Hope it goes well and good luck!
DeleteMy experiences echo all that has been said, both good and bad, about parole hearings and I too have noticed how they have become more adversarial in recent years. Overall I enjoy them, even tho' they are really demanding, especially when (usually) long distance travel is factored in. Just a couple of things - the MoJ did really good training to our area some years back on Oral Hearings - delivered by a Sec of States Rep. It became my blueprint for how I prepare and conduct myself at hearings - worth checking out, Also, dossiers ARE available - you should have a designated IT bod in your area who has access to PPUD. With the prisoners name and date of birth they can download the whole dossier for you.
DeleteDeb
Thanks Deb. I really wish that info about the dossiers was more widely publicised!
DeleteTwo ways to get the dossier - (i) PPUD or (ii) phone the relevant caseworker at PPCS and/or the caseworker at the Parole Board who will e-mail it to you. Problem with both methods is that it then takes ages to read the thing with the creaky probation IT taking ages to load each page.
DeleteNow 'sifted' into NPS and I am feeling rather odd, as I think I should be happy, but not too sure if I will be cracking open the bubbly. I hope to keep my caseload, many of whom I have worked with for years and was truly disturbed by the idea of them having to be moved around...for their sake, not the service. There is still a massive open space, I know not what will be going on in there, so the bubbly is back in the fridge, well under the stairs as it only comes out once a decade. I did want to comment on the Oral Hearing discussion, but felt out on a limb, as I share some of those experiences expressed, but have, perhaps by luck not been scared for life or stunned into inactivity, as a result. Speaking from a very personal position, I tend to take the view that with the exception of the prisoner, mine is the most important opinion in the room, as it is informed by the information I have, and it cover all bases; 'holistic' if you like. If the Panel accept my reasoning, then all good. I cannot be held accountable for information I don't have and/or the opinion of others, i.e the paid for 'independent' Psychology Report. We are called to account in a number of ways, and the whole 'public protection' badge has created even more arenas for this to happen. Only last week I was at Family Court, as Children's Services have sought a care and release for adoption order for a child of one of my clients, and he was challenging the decision. For 1.5 hours, in the dock, my assessment of risk was examined by multiple legal folk, acting for Local Authority, for father, for mother, for Guardians and so on....off point, but the clients legal representative made a serious error of judgement to base his argument on the fact that RM2000 is an assessment tool based on static factors, as he very quickly found the intricacies of RM2000 and Professor Thornton's empirical evidence somewhat daunting.
ReplyDeleteOral Hearings - It is what it is and I will continue to represent the interests of society and clients in a considered way and if I am wounded by the Parole Board or a over zealous solicitor, it's just another day at the office.
Oops, I was obviously writing my contribution as the last 2 posts went on.....I can tell you, that I have perhaps attended 25-30 oral hearing and with only one exception, I have found them to be intellectually stimulating and open forums for debate. I have not had the experience of PB's rubbishing my assessment, opinion or professionalism and in the main, the PB has agreed with me. It may be perverse, but I enjoy them, and put it this way, I would rather go to a challenging Oral Hearing, than a run of the mill Mappa. For those embarking on this exercise for the first time, prepare and be clear about what you want from it...you won't go far wrong!
ReplyDeleteI have had one or two truly awful experiences, though they were a number of years ago and I think there has been an improvement in the professionalism of the Parole Board's attitude towards probation staff and our work. One that springs to mind was being grilled, by the psychologist member of the panel, about the conclusions of the report written not by me, but by another psychologist! What was even worse was that the report's author was sat behind me as he'd been called as a witness as well! All that said, there was a positive outcome from the hearing, in that the prisoner himself, with whom I'd had a poor relationship for some time, later wrote to me to say he respected the way I'd stood up for myself under pressure. We got on a lot better after that.
ReplyDeleteI would echo 30 years in's comments about preparing and being clear about what you want - and I hope those about to go for the first time will at least look back on it as a worthwhile experience, however nerve-wracking it may be at the time!
If you cannot back up your assessment with reasoned argument, is it a credible assessment? The rest is just game-playing.
ReplyDeleteI work in a prison and undertake in-depth one-to-one work and this can be over many weeks on a variety of topics; usually ones that the Parole Board comes up with. Work on feminism and sex worker as victims and Mindfulness for example. Often I do the work but rarely am I questioned about it, Risk dominates as it should. For me the worst type of hearing is when they use the sentencing remarks, at worst this can be a re-trial with me in the dock. Usually this happens when their is an element of denial.
ReplyDeleteWhilst I accept that some may have had uncomfortable experiences at oral hearings, I am in support of the parole board.
ReplyDeleteEveryone attending is 'cross examined', but it is the probation officer who is responsible for providing the bulk of the information, therefore attracting perhaps the bulk of the questioning.
The parole board have a difficult task. They have to decide on wheather or not to release a person who may or may not go on to commit a SFO.
They may not only have to justify their decision to release someone at a later date, but also justify the process taken to evidence why they made that decision.
Some interesting points have however been touched on.
I do feel that as a significant aspect of a probation officers duty, and a duty that may carry significant impact for society, then some form of training should be provided. As JB notes, its just another aspect of the job that landed on the desk one day and everyone was expected to get on with it. I think thats neither fair or right.
I also feel that for probation officers, oral hearings will soon become a far more uncomfortable experience then they are now. As a civil servent, or an 'agent of the state', probations possition at oral hearings will not be viewed as impartial and based on informed risk, but will be seen as a possition representing the state. This will certainly be argued by any solicitor or barrister representing the client. It maybe that the panal also may take this view, but in any case will have to focus questioning to determine whether or not you are representing the state.
I feel that this new possition is fraught with complications, dangers for the probation officer and many legal challanges against the state.
An axample of what I mean is this.
Applicant applies for release. The state oppose. Parole board decide to release anyway. Within 12months applicant is recalled by probation not for further offences but because their behaviour is seen to be showing signs of risk. Applicants legal team claims its backdoor justice and its the states way of getting around the parole boards decision.
I think its a shite situation.
And just what do you do as a civil servent when the state does oppose release? Will the MoJ demand that you oppose release too?
I feel this is an unseen casualty of TR but one thats going to require considerable attention.
Exactly! Can't help feeling it's one of those bits of the TR omnishambles that hasn't been thought through very well - actually that list is getting rather long......
DeleteOff topic and out of the uk. But maybe not for much longer! Is justice and rehabilitation the new gold rush?
ReplyDeleteI find this article quite amazing.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/01/29/state-launches-performance-based-funding-keep-teens-out-jail/CJACWX1IBi6aKJssegjxjK/story.html
Goldman Sachs, the New-York based investment firm known for managing the money of sovereign nations and millionaires, is betting on Roca, a Chelsea nonprofit that tries to keep young men out of jail.
ReplyDeleteGoldman Sachs and five local and national foundations are investing $18 million as part of an experiment in financing social services known as “social impact” bonds or “pay for success.” If Roca meets its goals in reducing recidivism — that is the rate in which released offenders return to jail — the state will pay back these investors, plus a modest return.
If the nonprofit fails, the investors will lose nearly all their money.
“This is a change in the way government does business for the better,” said Glen Shor, state secretary of Administration and Finance. “This project can be viewed as a laboratory. We are testing and evaluating the types of interventions to prove their worth, quantify their impact, and determine whether . . . this would make a meaningful impact on other young people.”
Pioneered in the United Kingdom, social impact bonds are viewed by officials as a way to finance social services during a period of tight budgets and get results. Like stocks, bonds, and other ventures, they offer a return in exchange for the risks taken by investors. The return comes from the savings governments realize from, say, avoiding the costs of keeping someone in prison.
Other states are experimenting with social impact bonds, but Massachusetts officials say the seven-year deal with Roca, which will try to help 1,000 young men, is the largest pay-for-success effort yet launched in the country. Governor Deval Patrick will announce the project Wednesday.
Goldman Sachs, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, New Profit, the Boston Foundation, the Kresge Foundation, and Living Cities will fund the program through loans and grants. The investor money is not entirely at risk: their principal could be lost, but some will earn interest no matter the program’s success.Goldman Sachs, for example, will earn an annual 5 percent on its $9 million contribution regardless of the outcome; Michigan-based Kresge Foundation and Living Cities, which is headquartered in New York City, will earn 2 percent interest on their loans of $1.5 million each.
Goldman Sachs has been investing its own capital in projects that have a social impact for more than a decade. But last year it launched a social impact fund, which is expected to reach $250 million by the time it closes in the fall, geared specifically to fund programs for bring affordable housing, health and educational services, and economic growth to disadvantaged neighborhoods.
“This is an opportunity to really leverage private capital,” said Andrea Phillips, Goldman’s vice president of the urban investment group. Increasingly, clients want to do good with the money they are investing, and the Roca project offers an opportunity “have an impact on the young men of Boston,” she said.
Roca has been working with troubled teens in the Boston and Springfield areas for 25 years. This money will allow the organization to expand its services to reach many more young men, who are more likely than women to be incarcerated, said Molly Baldwin, the founder and chief executive of the nonprofit.
The nonprofit will work with a third-party evaluator, which will measure Roca’s interventions against a control group of troubled teens not receiving the services to determine whether the program has an impact. If Roca is successful, it could make it easier for the organization to get sustained funding, she said.
“This is an extraordinary opportunity on a lot of levels,” Baldwin said.
Roca provides a four-year program for its participants, initially giving them counseling and classes to help them change their behavior and avoid violence. The organization also teaches reading and math and offers vocational training to help them get a job in trades such as culinary arts and painting.
DeleteRoca’s approach worked with Ralph Bonano, 20, from Chelsea, who was assigned to the program after being placed on probation for unarmed robbery. Bonano said he initially avoided Roca, but the counselors hounded him, coming to his hangouts and trying to talk to him. After more than a year, Bonano said he relented and attended the sessions and the job training program.
Bonano said he now has a job on an assembly line at a plant that makes military equipment and is working to earn the equivalent of a high school diploma.
“It’s helped me stay out of jail,” Bonano said. “Not only does it give other kids an opportunity to change and to be treated as a normal person, not just a criminal.”
The state is also exploring using a similar financing model to address homelessness and basic adult education.
Maybe william hills could invest too and give odds on individua clients being successful or not. I'm sure there must be profit there somewhere.
DeleteThats what it's all about now isn't it?
Roca sounds like the bastard child of a religious cult and an arms manufacturing recruitment agency - serco?
DeleteSocial impact bonds may have been "pioneered" in the UK, but try finding out whether the pilot at HMP Peterborough actually worked...
DeleteRe Parole Board, my experience has been a deterioration over recent years As a very experienced officer I always thought of them as a challenging part of my job and prepared with diligence to justify my assessments. Always my client is at the heart of what I do and I try to see them in advance to explain my position. However, there IS a difference between panels chaired by judges and those by lay members. Judges are more respectful of probation and in my experience will not allow solicitors or panel members to overstep the mark with probation. However, lay member chairs ( or single member panels) are where the problems arise. Discussing with colleagues prompted by the previous comments, in a high risk team, showed total agreement with this. We all had an experience in the last 12 months that we classified as abusive or close to this. One colleague spoke of a chair instructing her not to continue with her point by saying "you may not speak further, am I making myself clear", another was not allowed a meal break, another gave evidence for 3 hours without a break and one, perhaps the best PO I know said he never wants to attend another hearing. So really folks, something is seriously wrong.
ReplyDeleteThanks for that it certainly sounds as if the situation is deteriorating. I wonder if it's certain parts of the country? I've experienced both types of Chair, most recently the lay person who couldn't have been more kind and considerate to everyone, prisoner included.
DeleteThey'll just move the goalposts and make it worse all round, just like the TR Omnishite. PI 99/2015 - NPS probation staff briefings for CRC probation staff at Parole Board Oral Hearings. Where a prisoner is granted an oral hearing no NPS employee may represent the case for risk if the prisoner and/or his/her legal representative raises an objection. The forms OH 011 to
ReplyDeleteOH 211 inclusive will need to be completed and submitted to the relevant CRC, where the case will be allocated to a qualified Probation Officer (see PI 1011/2014) employed by the CRC. After consideration of the application the CRC PO will, if they choose to accept the mission, apply for the Parole Board dossier and arrange to see the prisoner. The CRC PO will then be autonomous and independent of the NPS position and free to attend the Parole Board Oral Hearing. Any costs associated with this process will be borne by the NPS except where the CRC is criticised for its performance by the Parole Board. In such eventuality the CRC will be penalised under Clause 34/222/6657/2014 of the Contract (hereafter called "the Contract")...
Blimey! I didn't know that and I bet a lot of CRC-destined staff didn't either! Thanks.
DeleteI didn't think CRC had to have officers with any qualifications or have I misunderstood?
Deleteerm, perhaps folk need to consider where the tongue might have been in relation to the cheek regarding the post of anon 17:38 - PI's dated 2015?? It had me giggling though.
DeleteDude, looks like I've got a future writing NOMS policy documents.
DeleteSorry for any confusion or consternation caused by my 17:38 post.
You're too good, Anon 17:38.
DeleteI love the idea of being able to choose whether I accept the mission or not.
In 2014, a crack commando unit was sent to work in resettlement prisons by a kangaroo court for a crime (of not having enough high risk cases) they didn't commit. These officers promptly escaped from a maximum-security omnishambles to the London Underground. Today, still clearly not wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem... if no one else can help... and if you can find them... maybe you can hire... The CRC Team.
Way too good - for a while there with all the doom and gloom I thought we'd said goodbye to humour.........
DeleteI have to thank Michael Crichton (reading The Andromeda Strain scared me half to death as a 12 year old) for this one:
Delete“It's better to die laughing than to live each moment in fear.”
Now please excuse me because I've got to get back to writing more policy documents...
NPSPI 36/2016 - Further Wishes of Cee Gray Ling, Our Supreme Leader. Giving morning greetings to the Supreme Leader before work.
All workers will stand to face the official portrait of the Supreme Leader and give thanks for his presence and his being. All workers will bow humbly. No comment or sound of any kind will be tolerated. Our Supreme Leader has eyes and ears everywhere. Traitors of the Supreme Leader's wishes will be dealt with severely.
When given the Supreme Leader's permission, workers will solemnly say NOMS prayer Number Three then jubilantly sing the NPS work song "Risk is Life". After thirty seconds of respectful silence workers may then log on to OASys, nDelius and EPIC.
Because of transgressions by known activists Lotus Notes will only be available between 12:00 hours and 14:00 hours. Workers will do well to remember what happened to On Probation Brown. There are still spaces available in Traitor's Field which the Supreme Leader would like to see put to good use.
That is all. Please prepare for NPSPI 37/2016.
"Workers will do well to remember what happened to On Probation Brown." Wise words indeed by our Supreme Leader....:)
DeleteOral Hearings used to be a really interesting experience which I enjoyed. they are now the worst part of my job. Recently, a female parole board member refused to allow me to use the toilets in the block where the hearing was held saying they were reserved for the panel's use and asked the male prison officer to take me to another area to use the loo. Honestly you couldn't make it up. I felt demeaned. I would love to know the demographic data on parole board panel members.
ReplyDeleteGo to parole board page at .gov and the panel members are identified with a short pen picture in the PB report linked to that page.
DeleteHow extraordinary! At my last hearing all the men shared the same urinals - sorry too much information - but obviously conversation was guarded lol.
DeleteThis is an investment con. Goldman Sachs is given free money from the American Federal Reserve ( Money printing) they use this money to lend to the government over a set period, five or ten or two years. At the end of the period they get all the money they loaned to the government plus percentages at stages through the life of the Bond. And with the Social Impact Bond they are given extra money if they can " Prove" they have reduced offending. This is such a con.
ReplyDeleteRemember the banks including Goldman Sachs crashed the world economy by inventing derivatives which were supposed to end all Risk in the finance industry. They knew the derivatives were junk and about to fail as the housing market crashed; so the sold them to customers knowing they were going to lose big time. For this they have had to pay billions in fines but in reality it was loose change for them
The Probation Service is about to be caught up in the corrupt world of banking and finance. The bankers and politicians are so close now, they go to the same parties, their children go to the same schools. They are an elite we are not part of it and we are about to suffer whilst they rake it in. Look Blair was at Davos last week. This suck big time can I suggest you watch the "Keiser Report" on RT to understand the way this works
Ralph Bonano................ he's a character.....relented after " more than a year" and attended sessions, just as well he's not living here, 2 or 3 missed appointments and he'd be back in Court for breach. That almost trumps the 'parking meters' suggestion to monitor those on tags! It's a mad, mad, mad mad world'!
ReplyDeleteI work in a team of seconded POs working with lifers and IPPs in an open prison. In my team we have had a range of good and bad hearings, with no obvious pattern of judicial chairs making for polite panels. I agree with previous posts though, there is never any justification for a hostile approach to probation as professional witnesses. In my experience this happens when the panel arrive with a view on the case that doesn't match yours, and then try to wear you down. Not objective.
ReplyDeleteI have to say that I enjoy oral hearings......the best challenge and testing of our practice. My manager only cares about performance management! And if the Parole Board ever give me a hard time, so be it. But I have only ever found them objective and wanting to explore genuine issues. I do agree though, that the adversarial nature does sometimes get in the way of a better analysis and discussion.
ReplyDeleteIf the solicitor is getting all adversarial on your ass then its highly likely theyll fall into the courtroom trap of asking you leading questions. So when they say "do you agree that...?" "do you concede that...?" just shut them down by replying "no" and not expanding on it at all. It drives them absolutely crazy and allows you to stick to your "script" and get your own point accross without them tieing you up in knots.
ReplyDeleteI am Anon@08.13. Thanks for all your contributions, especially the positive ones. This is what I have learned from you:
ReplyDeleteKnow the case
Be confident in your decision
Get the dossier (I had already! Great case admin <3)
Ignore things you cannot control
Try to enjoy it (I'm actually a little bit excited)
Remember you are the expert
Do a bit of role play with colleagues who have done it before
Give loads of time to get there in an unfamiliar hire care in winter
Wear a tena lady
Take a flask of coffee
If it all fails call the CRC team
Make sure there's gin in when you get home
Consider taking the next day off to deal with all of the above.
Just not sure the prison is going to be comfortable with the flask of coffee....Good luck though and let us know how it went.
DeleteCheers,
Jim
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/local/airelocal/10972202.Dad_wins_right_to_see_report_into_rape_of_his_son__10__by_killer_Stephen_Ayre/
ReplyDeleteA father’s wait of almost eight years to see a full report about the brutal murderer who raped his ten-year-old son is finally over.
ReplyDeleteThe man, with the help of MP Philip Davies, has been pushing since 2006 to see the full outcome of the probation service investigation, which looked at how convicted killer Stephen Ayre was able to go on to attack the boy ten months after he was released from prison.
Ayre was let out of jail in 2005 – 20 years into a 25-year sentence for the murder of Irene Hudson, 25, in Shipley in 1984.
Serious Further Offence Reviews (SFO) are carried out when offenders go on to commit another serious crime, but not routinely shown to families.
In 2008 a summary of the report was released, but the boy’s father wanted to see the whole report.
Now Mr Davies’ lobbying has led Justice Secretary Chris Grayling to agree that the family can see the full SFO.
The father, who cannot be named to protect his son’s identity, yesterday said he hoped seeing it would bring some peace.
“I was surprised that they’re allowing me to see it. I didn’t expect it to happen,” he said, adding that he has often asked himself what he hopes to gain from reading it.
“I really don’t know, maybe some closure finally. There’s got to be an end to it and I suppose this is the end.
“There comes a point that you’ve got to accept that something terrible has happened and no matter how much you wish it hadn’t, it did. For your own sanity you’ve got to accept it.”
The man is also hoping to see an internal review into the decision to release Ayre on life sentence in 2005 at the same time.
Mr Grayling’s decision was explained in a letter to Mr Davies.
The Justice Secretary referred to requirements introduced in 2013 for probation trusts to produce a victim summary report, based on SFOs.
He said the Government believed that “the victims of serious further offences committed by offenders under statutory supervision should have the right to know how those offenders were managed by the criminal justice agencies – including where those agencies might have failed to do what reasonably might have been expected of them.”
The father will not receive a copy of the report, but will travel to London to read it – perhaps with his son, who is now 18.
“It’s a difficult thing to be in because one part of you wants to completely forget it and the other part needs answers. It’s very difficult to decide which is the better thing to do,” he said.
“Eventually you need to close this horrible box through. I’ve asked myself if I need to read this, but I think it’s something I’ve got to do.”
Ayre, of Bingley Road, Shipley, was sent back to prison in April 2006 for the abduction and rape of the boy, with a whole life tariff.
In 2012, he appealed against the sentence, leading to the tariff dropping to ten years – a decision which caused huge upset to his victim’s dad.
Mr Grayling’s letter said: “I am disappointed that the original whole-life tariff was set aside and am sorry that this caused the family distress.”
The father said: “It doesn’t change what happened and in two years this man’s going to be allowed to apply for parole “I was assured that life’s what it would be.”