Select Committee on Home Affairs First Report


APPENDIX 8

Memorandum by the Association of Chief Officers of Probation

MANAGING DANGEROUS PEOPLE WITH SEVERE PERSONALITY DISORDERS

  The Association of Chief Officers of Probation consists of all chief probation officers, deputy and assistant chief probation officers and other senior managers of probation services in the United Kingdom.

The Association exists to:

    —  develop good practice and effective responses to crime, and to ensure the protection of children's welfare in cases of family separation;

    —  consult and negotiate with government departments on behalf of local probation services;

    —  establish and maintain links with other organisations and bodies working in criminal justice and family court welfare;

    —  encourage co-operative and collaborative endeavours between services in order to improve service delivery and achieve value for money; and

    —  promote equal opportunities.

IN SUMMARY

  (a)  The Association welcomes the fact that the Government is seeking to address a gap in provision which has become increasingly apparent to Probation Services in their work with offenders at high risk of committing further serious offences.

  (b)  The powers implied by the proposals represent a serious and substantial intrusion into the freedom of the individual and must therefore be restricted to those for whom no other, less intrusive, management is appropriate.

  (c)  The group to whom such sanctions may apply will need to be clearly defined using the best available assessment processes.

  (d)  It is felt that an imprisonable criminal charge (whether substantive or breach of a Sex Offender Order) should be the trigger which may start the assessment process.

  (e)  On balance it is felt that a court-based route will better safeguard the rights of the individual than a tribunal route.

  (f)  The regime in any establishment holding individuals detained under the proposals must provide a range of treatment in its broadest sense in order to maximise opportunities for individuals to learn and develop towards their eventual safe release.

  (g)  The review process must be robust.

  (h)  Release should be conditional and should be supervised by a community based service such as the Probation Service.

  (i)  The current state of knowledge and expertise in relation to DSPD is impressive, but is developing all the time. An investment in continuing research and evaluation will be essential so that practice can be updated regularly and based on the best available evidence. Preventative measures should be available at earlier stages so that individuals do not progress into the DSPD category.

1.  BACKGROUND

  1.1  Probation Services have a statutory responsibility to supervise offenders subject to a community sentence or on release from custody. Whilst the vast majority of offenders under supervision do not pose a serious risk of harm to the public, a small minority are assessed as potentially dangerous and likely to commit serious violent or sexual crime. Even within this group, many can be managed in the community using the combined resources of Probation, Police, Housing, Health, Social Services and the voluntary sector.Multi-agency risk management or public protection panels have been established at local level across England and Wales in order to co-ordinate the case management of high risk individuals and thus protect the public.

  1.2  As this work has developed, it has become apparent that there is a small number of particularly difficult cases where no adequate plan to protect the public can be established under existing legislation. Typically, an individual in this category will have a history of violent or sexual convictions and will have served substantial prison sentences. There has often been referral for psychiatric assessment which has identifiedanti-social or dis-social personality disorder, but which has concluded that the individual does not fall within the terms of the Mental Health Act, and no treatment is offered. These individuals are not granted early release from prison because the Parole Board assesses their risk as too high to allow release. Nevertheless, because they typically serve determinate sentences, they have to be released on the due date even when every assessment concurs that there is a high risk of further serious violent or sexual crime. Local agencies are then faced with trying to secure appropriate accommodation, oversight and monitoring systems in order to prevent future crime and further victims. Such offenders are rarely welcomed anywhere, may be hostile and unco-operative, and may be impossible to place safely, leading to less than satisfactory arrangements which are of concern to all involved. If the media focusses on one of these individuals then difficulties are often exacerbated due to the "notoriety factor".

  1.3  The Association therefore welcomes the fact that the Government is seeking to address this issue and has accorded it policy time.

2.  THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM

  2.1  As yet there is no commonly agreed definition of the catchment group for these proposals. It will be a pre-requisite that both the definition of "dangerousness" and of "severe personality disorder" is as clear as possible, and applied consistently. A common and robust assessment process, based on the best available research in these areas will be required.

  2.2  Probation Services, working with the Police and others, use a variety of assessment tools to establish the level of "risk of harm" which an offender poses. In relation to sex offenders, the Thornton scale is now widely used in prisons, by the Police and Probation Services. In relation to violent offenders there is less consistency. Nevertheless, each Probation Service will hold a central register of cases assessed as being of high risk.

  2.3  Probation Services rely on diagnosis by psychiatrists and psychologists to confirm severe personality disorder (SPD). There may well be undiagnosed individuals within the caseload of the Probation Service and also those diagnosed with SPD where treatment is not available.

  2.4  Those with the dual assessment of "dangerousness" and "SPD" are not currently quantified by the Probation Service. The numbers involved will depend on the tightness of the criteria applied. The Association views with caution any calculation of possible numbers falling within the DSPD category until definitions and criteria are established and used consistently across all settings. Further work is urgently required on this.

3.  THE CIVIL LIBERTIES IMPLICATIONS

  3.1  The proposals involve the possible indeterminate detention (subject to review) of those assessed as falling within the category of DSPD. Clearly such restriction of liberty should only be imposed where no other less restrictive option is appropriate. Indeterminate detention is currently available within the Criminal Justice system via a life sentence (mandatory or discretionary). In principle, the Association supports the use of indeterminate reviewable detention in particular DSPD cases provided that robust, authoritative and credible processes are developed at all stages of proceedings.

  3.2  The Association believes that the commission of an imprisonable criminal offence should be the "trigger" which may activate assessment for the DSPD order. The Association cannot see how an individual's detention for assessment could be achieved if no criminal offence has been alleged and if there are no grounds for "sectioning" under the Mental Health Act. By adopting this stance the Association recognises that, as at present, some DSPD individuals currently in prisons, hospitals and the community will not commit an offence and will not therefore be able to be assessed for a DSPD order. During a transitional phase, this may well prove frustrating and unhelpful. However, there would be unacceptable intrusions into civil liberties for a power to be created to compulsorily detain for assessment someone who has not committed an imprisonable offence, notwithstanding that the agencies involved are unanimous in assessing the level of dangerousness as high. In relation to sex offenders who may fall into the DSPD category, existing legislation allows for the making of a "Sex Offender Order", the individually tailored conditions of which are necessary to protect the public. Breach of these conditions does constitute a criminal offence and could therefore be used to trigger a DSPD assessment. The Association is aware of discussions about extending the remit of Sex Offender Orders to include violent offenders and will examine the usefulness of such a suggestion within the framework of the Government's proposals. At this stage, though, the Association does not believe that it is right or proper to detain an individual for assessment unless there is a current criminal charge against them.

  3.3  It is anticipated that local public protection committees/risk management panels could be used for the early identification of individuals who may be assessed as DSPD. Such inter-agency meetings are already established and are currently overseeing the highest risk offenders in (or about to return to) the community. If such a mechanism is used for "first sift" of the DSPD group, then the Association strongly believes that the constitution and modus operandi of local panels will need to be subject to regulation and oversight at national level. At present panels operate according to locally agreed protocols. There is considerable variation across the country in both membership and practice. Best practice should be identified and national standards produced in order to ensure effectiveness and consistency. The Association would welcome the opportunity of working with the Home Office on this.

  3.4  The Association believes that a court rather than tribunal based route to the making of a DSPD order is probably preferable. Although there are dangers in proceedings being public (not least to the individual, whose safety may be compromised) this must be balanced against the need for openness and transparency.

  3.5  Where an individual is detained for assessment, then there must be suitably qualified and experienced staff to undertake the assessment and a consistent methodology which commands confidence. The Association is concerned that the current state of knowledge/expertise in this field, while impressive, is not infallible. There will be the potential for "false positives", where someone is subsequently detained as a DSPD when they are not in that category. There will therefore need to be mechanisms for challenging the assessments made when an individual returns to court and prior to an order being made. The Association feels that the adjudication of such cases will require a level of expertise such that cases should be heard in the Crown Court and decided upon by a senior judge.

  3.6  Where indeterminate reviewable detention is ordered then the Association believes that the regime of the establishment to which DSPD individuals are sent must combine security and control with a therapeutic environment which provides opportunities for the individual to learn and develop as a responsible person. The issue of "treatability" has provoked debate in medical circles. The Association would wish to see "treatment" in a wider context than the specifically medical. Cognitive behavioural approaches may be helpful as well as social skills development etc. The aim of the regime should be to provide all available opportunities to reduce the risk posed by the individual while holding him in secure conditions.

  3.7  Finally, regular and comprehensive reviews must occur in order to ensure that individuals are not detained for longer than is necessary. Following release, the Association anticipates that there will need to be some form of conditional licence (possibly similar to a life licence) both to monitor the progress of the individual as they re-enter society and to aid their rehabilitation. The Association believes that the Probation Service is well placed to take responsibility for individuals released under licence from a DSPD order.

November 1999


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 2000
Prepared 14 March 2000