Policy and guidance
Following a judicial review last year it had been decided that all juveniles should be interviewed to ensure that they were given the opportunity to make representations. However, following an enquiry made under the Freedom of Information Act, it was clear that this was not happening. It was therefore proposed that a clear policy should be established and members informed. The meeting agreed to the policy outlined in Paper MB 90-07 that parole can be awarded on the papers but if the panel believed that parole was to be refused, the case should be referred for oral hearing. Members should also ensure that such prisoners understood their rights of legal representation. Members were to be informed and the Members Handbook updated at the earliest opportunity.
The Board had always argued the case for the inclusion of two probation reports in the parole dossier; one from the seconded probation officer in the prison and the other from the home probation officer who would supervise the offender in the community. It was now clear that with the impending implementation of Phase III of the Offender Manager Model that this would no longer be guaranteed. It was felt strongly that the Board should not accept the position as it would result in a reduction in the quality of risk assessment received in parole dossiers as there was no guarantee that the offender supervisor would be adequately qualified. The Board had been informed previously that nothing would be taken away under the OM Model. However, if Phase III was implemented, seconded probation officers would be withdrawn and there was some evidence that this was already happening. It was agreed to: 1. write to Helen Edwards expressing the Boards concerns, 2. inform members about what was happening and 3. introduce a system for monitoring the quality of reports received following the implementation of Phase III.
The progress that had been made in rolling out regional panels was seen as encouraging. However, there were still problems relating to IT and much depended on the confidence of the member in being able to cope with IT problems when they arose and this could impact on the quality of the decision making. It was agreed that the proposed review should take place and should include consideration of expanding the number of places where regional panels take place and identifying savings made. It was also decided that the proposed plan for the panel on 9.11.07 at Grenadier House to test the notification macro should proceed.
It was explained that the Standing Committee would be like a Rules Committee and was seen as an important way of ensuring consistency in the way policy and procedures were interpreted and implemented. This included the Parole Board Rules and Secretary of State Directions as well as guidance to members on matters such as deferrals. It was agreed that the Committee should be created and that it should report direct to the Management Board. It was recommended that the Committee should be overseen by the Vice-Chairman and that another judicial member should be involved. It was considered appropriate that non-judicial members who chair oral hearings should also be included.
A proposal by the IT Strategy Committee that all e-mails between members and the Board should be on a secure network from 1.1.08 was discussed. It was appreciated that confidential information should not be compromised. However, some members did not find CJSM satisfactory. It was noted from previous papers that there had been an agreement to produce a tutorial package for members but this did not appear to have been done although it was accepted that guidance had appeared in the Board Sheet. It was agreed to work towards a cut-off date but this should not be confirmed until the tutorial package was available and members not using CJSM or other secure e-mail were contacted to establish the reason to see if a solution could be identified.
It was noted that ICM was gathering momentum and good progress had been made in training members. There had also been meetings with staff who had been very positive despite having to cope with two different systems at the same time. Concern was, however, expressed that over 400 cases were due to be considered in March 2007.
It was reported that a draft of the new Parole Board Rules had now been received from the MoJ. When implemented the Rules would provide flexibility in the number and category of members on panels. The Rules would also make it clear that prisoners could not insist on an oral hearing. It was not known when the new Rules would be introduced. A number of errors had been found in the draft and comments would be passed back to the MoJ.
It was noted that a sub group of the Taskforce had met on 25.10.07 to discuss how to assess levels of dangerousness and would report on progress in due course.
In relation to the Christine Stewart review, the Board had raised the issue of the need for a joined up look at the parole process involving all the agencies rather than just reviewing the Parole Boards work. Since then nothing had been heard. However, with the introduction of ICM, letters were now being sent to prisons if dossiers were not received by the due date. The monthly report on the receipt of dossiers was also being sent to NOMS for both public and private sector prisons.
It was reported that there had been a sudden and unexpected downturn in the number of DCR and paper recall cases which had resulted in the need to cancel some panels. The Public Protection Unit had given an assurance that there was no backlog although they were in the process of recruiting more staff to deal with further reviews. The PPU suggested that it was a seasonal trend and that it would pick up towards the festive season. It was also pointed out that the postal strike had caused delays. New national probation standards had recently been introduced but it was thought unlikely that they would have had such an immediate affect. It was agreed that further investigation of the reasons for the downturn were necessary and more accurate projections about workload so that members could be kept informed.
It was noted that some members were more likely to defer cases more than their colleagues and that there was some correlation between cases deferred on the day and the relevant experience of the caseworker. Nevertheless the meeting welcomed the downward trend in the number of oral hearings deferred on the day and that the deferral rate for DCR cases was within target.
It was reported that there was a surplus of £31k in September. For the half year to date the surplus was £311k before cost of capital. Income drawn down for the 6 months to September was £3,750k which was £125k below budget. Expenditure was £436k below budget. The cash balance at the end of September was £1.3m and £.6m after netting off grant-in-aid received in advance. It was important for the Board to reduce its draw down of grant-in-aid to avoid an excessive bank balance at the year end. It was pointed out that although there was an under spend at present, ICM had identified over 450 cases that could be scheduled for oral hearing in January and this needed to be taken into account.
In relation to the draft budget for 2008/9, a bid for £9.6M was proposed. The budget bid included a reduced number of cases on DCR panels from 24 to 18 together revised governance fees based on £400 a meeting. A review of fees was also taking place. The budget included a new management structure, a full time Chairman and a Non-Executive Director plus hard charging for IT. This would mean starting the new financial year with £640k of new costs together with 230k for the Quality Unit posts which were vacant in the current year. It was important for the Board to reach a satisfactory settlement for 2008/09 in order to move forward. However, a number of imponderables made it difficult to accurately forecast future expenditure. This included caseload projections which could change dramatically in the light of both legislation and judicial reviews. For example, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill could result in only 40% of recall cases being referred to the Board with some non-dangerous prisoners being subject to executive recall for 28 days only. Nevertheless the budget paper was seen as a good first effort and it was agreed that the bid should now be put to the sponsor unit.
In the cases of Walker and James, Mr Justice Collins ordered their release as the prison authorities had been unable to provide the courses and programmes necessary for them to demonstrate that they were no longer dangerous. However, he stayed the order pending an appeal by the Secretary of State. There was concern that in the light of the judgment some members were deferring cases where prisoners had not had the opportunity to go on courses rather than making a decision based on risk. A difficulty was that the stay was only in respect of Walker and James. It was agreed that advice should be sought from Treasury Solicitors so that members can be given informed advice.
Another area of concern was the record number of JRs relating to delays in the oral hearing process. The Post-Panel team were doing their best to respond to them within the required time scales.
A paper on member projections had been produced on the basis of the information that was current which highlighted the need to recruit more judges and clinicians. It was accepted that changes to the law and other issues would influence the final projections. It was pointed out that several experienced members were due to leave the Board next year and it was recommended that where possible, extensions to their term of appointment should be sought. It was felt that there was a need for a revised assessment of the overall number of members needed in view of the impending changes as little value could be seen in recruiting more members than were needed. This was supported particularly in view of the volatility of the workload and the Anderson proposals for more full-time members. It was agreed to review the position when more information was known.
It was reported that a Health and Safety Committee had been set up with staff and union representation.
The meeting noted the paper and the progress that was being made towards re-accreditation.
Grenadier House, 99-105 Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 2DX
Telephone 0845 251 2220
