Management Board Briefing
Key points from the Management Board briefing held on the 26th November 2009
Number of cases on DCR panels
Following the previous meeting, work had been carried out to calculate the cost of reducing the number of cases on a DCR panel from 18 to 15 due to their increasing complexity and size. It was estimated that in the remaining 4 months of the current financial year an additional £17,500 in fees would be required. This was affordable and the budget for 2010/11 had already taken account of the reduced number. It was agreed that the change should take place as soon as practicable.
Future status of the Parole Board
The Parole Boards formal response to the consultation paper was submitted to the MoJ on 18.11.09. It differed slightly from the version circulated to all members and staff on 13.11.09 after the sponsor requested the removal of the sentence relating to the rate of pay for retired judges. The amendment did not make a material difference to the content of the response and in view of the help that the sponsor had provided this was considered to be a sensible redaction.
A workshop on the Boards future held at Cambridge University was very interesting with lots of views expressed. It was clear that some of those present were not fully aware of the Boards role and responsibilities or recent changes to the Parole Board Rules. The MoJ had indicated that 20 organisations and 50 individuals had responded to the consultation exercise and that the closing date was being extended to allow further responses to be submitted. The MoJ intended to publish their conclusions in February 2010.
NAO Report/Public Accounts Committee
Progress on the action plan continued and showed that there had been a 16% increase in the number of 3 member oral hearings in the first 6 months of the current financial year compared with the same period last year. It was also clear that the vast majority of members were doing their fair share of casework with independent members undertaking, on average, 131% of their expected workload.
Judge time, fees and non-judicial chairs of IPP oral hearings
As many of the obstacles to the appointment of judges had been removed, the Chair had written to around 200 serving judges inviting expressions of interest to join the Board. He had received 28 replies so far which was encouraging and all would be interviewed before a decision was made about their suitability. He also intended contacting the retired judges currently serving on the Board to see if they would be prepared to sit on more days and also to seek expressions of interest from judges who had recently retired from the circuit.
In response to a question about whether there should be an upper age limit for judges, the meeting agreed that appointment should be on the basis of meeting the required standard and not on age.
In relation to the proposal for retired judges to be paid £583 to chair oral hearing panels, the meeting agreed that this should be introduced with effect from 4.11.09. The issue of paying non judicial members who chair IPP oral hearings the same rate as retired judges had been raised at the last quarterly review with the sponsor. The response was that a business case was needed and that ultimately Treasury approval would be required.
Advice cases
The meeting considered the proposal that non-judicial members should be permitted to make recommendations relating to advice cases received from the MoJ about licence conditions. This was felt to be a common sense approach and the meeting agreed to the proposals in the paper including the recommendation that ICM members should undertake the task with the caveat that in exceptional circumstances the case could be referred to a Duty Judge.
Indeterminate pre-tariff reviews
The proposal to transfer this work from the Duty Judge to the ICM member was to assist with reducing the backlog and to make the process more streamlined. There would be a cost implication because ICM members were paid £100 per case whereas Duty Judges were paid £946 for 12 cases. The additional cost was in the region of £13,000. This was affordable in the current financial year. 20% of these types of cases went to oral hearing so it could add up to 120 cases to the oral hearings backlog.
Audit and Risk Management Committee membership
A letter had been received from the new chair of the ARMC, which recommended the appointment of an external member. It had previously been decided to await the outcome of the consultation exercise on the Boards future. The meeting agreed that an approach should be made to the MoJ to see if there was a suitable person.
Review Committee procedures
There was no firm policy about contacting former members in high profile cases. In a recent case which attracted national publicity, where a prisoner on life licence had committed a further serious offence, it was decided to inform the panel members who had made the release decision including two who had left the Board. The meeting agreed that in high profile cases, panel members should be informed even if they had retired but this would be decided on a case-be-case basis. It would be for the Review Committee to decide whether a formal policy was necessary.
Listing Prioritisation Framework
The revised framework was aimed at providing more clarity to staff and members as well as prisoners and their representatives. It was now important for cases to be dealt with in accordance with the new framework and the accompanying guidelines in view of the legal challenges that the Board was facing due to delays. The meeting approved the revised policy and recommended that it was issued to members at the earliest opportunity.
Policy developments with stakeholders
A meeting was to be held with DOMS to engage with them about ensuring adequate resources were made available for offender managers to write reports and attend hearings as witnesses when required. Also to make sure that if the Board was able to achieve a substantial increase in the number of cases considered that all stakeholders would be able to cope with the resulting demands on their time and resources.
A three member oral hearing had recently taken place by video link and it was planned to make more use of technology. A Parole Standards Board had been established which was looking at the range of information and quality of reports provided in dossiers. The members included the Board, YJB, NOMS, the police and Department of Health. A pilot evaluation of Offender Manager reports had taken place with only one third found to be adequate and it was clear that further training was required.
Performance statistics
The deferral rate at hearings remained at under 10% but further work was being undertaken to find out why there continued to be delays with the issue of decisions. Improvements to the performance on the GPP targets would not be seen until there were more judges available to hear lifer cases.
Finance and risk management
The forecast under spend would be discussed in detail with colleagues over the next two weeks. Of critical importance was the number of likely new judges that will be appointed so that a predication could be made on the number of panels that can take place. The Board had received indicative budget of £11.3m which was close to what had been requested.
Casework developments
Judicial Reviews
There were challenges to the amended Parole Board Rules as it was argued that removing the right to an oral hearing was not compatible with Article 5(4). There were implications for the Board should the cases be lost and they were being closely watched.
Delay damages cases
It was inevitable that a ruling from the High Court would be necessary to resolve the issue of damages claimed by prisoners who have had their cases delayed. The approach being taken by the Board was that any damages should be modest in accordance with similar ECHR judgments. The case of Pennington was due to be heard in January and the outcome was awaited with interest.
Equality and Diversity
During September staff had received training in equality and diversity and it had been decided to wait for 3 months before assessing its impact on the way staff do their job. The Diversity Champion was writing to the independent members on the Steering Group for their views on what further action they considered necessary particularly in respect of member training and whether a session should be included at the Annual Conference.
Health and Safety
Following a meeting with Corporate Support Ltd, a number of enquiries were made of probation areas that had used the company and the feedback both in relation to service and cost had been very positive. Subject to confirmation that a tendering process was not required, it was agreed that a contract should be negotiated with the company to provide a counselling service that was available for members.
Information Assurance
The CEO had attended a seminar with other accounting officers and audit and risk committee chairs which highlighted the consequences of failing to manage the security of sensitive information in an appropriate manner. The CEO was reviewing what training had taken place and where further training was required. The meeting agreed that Information Assurance should be a standing item on the agenda.
Staff and Member Engagement Survey 2009
The results of the survey had been circulated to all staff and members. There had been a good response and the responses were currently being analysed. An action plan would be produced for consideration by the ET and would be submitted to the Management Board in January 2010.
Report by Victims Champion Sara Payne
The report made only one specific reference to the Parole Board in relation to victims being kept informed about key milestones in the parole process. However, there were a number of recommendations and challenges in the report that could have implications for the Board. Victim participation in oral hearings remained a sensitive area and in a recent judicial review the judge was exercised as to whether it was lawful for a panel to listen to a witness unless there was some relevance to risk.
Meetings with politicians
The Chairman reported that he had met with Liberal Democrat Shadow Secretary of State Chris Huhne MP, Lord Corbett and David Ramsbotham the former Chief Inspector of Prisons to advise them about the consultation paper.
The Parole Board. Working with others to protect the public.