Victims and Prisoners Bill

 

Written evidence on the Victim’s and Prisoner’s Bill submitted by Napo: Trade Union for Probation and Family Court Staff (VPB05)  

Part 1: Victims of Crime

It is a source of concern to Napo, and others, that legislative provisions relating to both victims and prisoners have been so thoughtlessly combined in this Bill. This is sure to reinforce the perspective of many victims that, in combination with other Government decisions such as in relation to the role of Victim’s Commissioner, their place in the justice system has once again been diminished and underappreciated by Ministers.

Napo represents Victim Liaison Officers (VLO’s), who have played a crucial statutory role in ensuring that victims are at the heart of the Probation Service for almost two decades. We welcome the addition of the Victims’ Code in primary legislation as it would demonstrate the work that probation, along with other agencies, do to keep victims central to the justice system. However, despite the vital role that VLO’s play in representing and informing victims of process in relation to the progress of individuals through a sentence, they have been downgraded in terms of pay for the last 4 years. Whilst a job evaluation is currently underway to review this, it has played a significant part in VLO staff feeling undervalued and, Napo would argue, has sent out the wrong signals to the public and victims. We hope this Bill goes some way to restore these issues and that their importance is recognised by the Probation Service and Minister. In addition, we echo the concerns of other parties, such as the previous Victim’s Commissioner, that these proposals are inadequate in scope and ambition and represent a significant missed opportunity.

Part 2: Victims of Major Incidents

Major incidents are extremely traumatic for victims. They can also cause vicarious trauma to those that work with them. Whilst we welcome the proposal to have a dedicated advocate for victims of such incidents, this must be supported appropriate and effective training to protect all of those involved. Napo also questions whether the proposed role will be both sufficiently independent of the Government – especially given the poorly defined ability of a Secretary of state to terminate these appointments – and have the necessary powers to obtain evidence from the public bodies concerned, especially where ‘national security’ considerations may be cited as a reason for the non-production of evidence.

Part 3: Prisoners

Napo have serious concerns about various provisions in this part of the Bill, not least due to the parole changes that were introduced last summer only for several provisions to be recently overturned in the aftermath of the High Court judgement in the case of Bailey v Secretary of State. The consequences of these changes continue to be felt in the prison and probation systems and have created turmoil and uncertainty for all involved, in addition to increasing the risk to public safety. In addition to the existence of a considerable backlog of cases to be dealt with by the Parole Board the evidence indicates the previous Secretary of State has directly contributed to the current huge pressures on the capacity of the prison system, specifically the ‘closed male estate’. Over the past year there has been an unprecedented shift in the numbers of indeterminate sentenced prisoners progressing to open prisons following a parole review. In just over a year, and in the absence of any apparent significant development other what appears to be an unannounced political decision, the Secretary of State has shifted from accepting the recommendation of the Parole Board to transfer such prisoners in over 80% of the cases considered to the most recent data indicating over 90% of these ‘progressive’ recommendations of the Parole Board were rejected by the Secretary of State.

It appears there is a developing consensus that more needs to be done to address the injustice of IPP’s. As Napo has publicly stated previously in evidence to the Justice Select Committee, it is apparent that this sentence has a significant impact on the mental health of those serving IPPs, which in turn leaves them less able to properly demonstrate they no longer pose a level of risk, resulting in their continued incarceration. This is compounded by the long-standing failures of successive Governments to properly fund effective rehabilitation interventions in custody as required in their sentence plans, then further exacerbated by periods where prisons are near, at or over capacity. Napo are concerned that some of the proposals in this Bill will have a further detrimental impact on the thousands of individuals currently serving IPP sentences, for instance in relation to the over-complicated and prescriptive proposals to overhaul the so-called ‘release test’. We remain wholly unconvinced as to the need for this approach, while noting they may well have the presumably unintended effect of leaving the decisions of the Parole Board open to a wider range of legal challenges. It seems reasonable to presume this will in turn damage public confidence in this body while simultaneously increasing the financial cost to the taxpayer.

As discussed previously, we have witnessed the negative impact – on individuals, the prison estate and the wider community – of a Secretary of State blocking the progression of hundreds of prisoners to open conditions, despite these individuals having been properly risk assessed by the Parole Board as part of an effective and transparent parole process. Given this recent experience Napo is gravely concerned by the proposals to empower a Secretary of State to veto Parole Board decisions to release those convicted of certain offences. The current system provides for expert witnesses with knowledge of the prisoner and relevant information to give written and oral evidence to the Parole Board, which can be questioned and challenged, for this body to make an informed decision. The parole system as it currently stands has a range of checks and balances that ensures, in the vast majority of cases, the production of a reasoned outcome by accountable, experienced and trained individuals. Astonishingly – especially given the apparent intentions underpinning Part 1 of this Bill – it also creates the repulsive situation where certain victims are deliberately treated as more worthy of the involvement of the Secretary of State than others who may have suffered greater harm, trauma or loss but seen the person or people responsible sentenced for an offence under which these powers do not apply.

The Government are unable to produce evidence to support a view that the changes they propose will in any way produce a more effective approach. Given this Napo’s view is that these proposals are wholly politically motivated, representing a blatant effort to enable the current and future Secretary of State to gain media attention by publicly intervening in certain high-profile cases. We believe it is likely that the overt political interference in decisions such as these will see legal challenges, though we note this may well have factored into the decision making of the political figures involved, with a plan to use these Court cases to engage in performative displays of outrage in the media and Parliament.

The Bill proposes mandating individuals with law enforcement experience to Parole Board Panels but fails to provide remotely sufficient detail on which agencies this could apply to (or indeed whether this experience had been accrued in the United Kingdom), despite the public comments of Government Ministers to suggest this related specifically to former Police Officers. On this latter point is important to note that the Police are not considered the lead agency for the risk assessment, supervision and management of individuals serving sentences in the community, which remains the primary responsibility of Probation staff.

Working on the assumption that it is the intention of the Government to effectively flood the Parole Board with former Police Officers we would note the existence of hundreds of cases of misconduct in relation to such individuals in England and Wales each year, in addition to the low rate of sanctioning that results. Napo would also reflect on the widely reported existence of problems – some of which exist systemically within these organisations – of misogyny, racism and corruption within Police Forces and the loss of confidence of various sections of the community in relation to these bodies and their Officers. Therefore, what guarantees can the Secretary of State give the public that this proposal to dramatically increase the number of former Police Officers to the Parole Board will not include people who hold misogynistic or racist beliefs, or about whom well-founded corruption concerns may have existed (especially as we understand that the vetting function is carried out by the Police themselves and may therefore be subject to biases)?

The proposal to enable a Secretary of State to remove of the Chair or Vice Chair of the Parole Board on such ill-defined grounds raises significant concerns for Napo. The Parole Board is, rightly, an independent body that makes critical public protection decisions. The threat of being removed will clearly have an impact on that independence. Rather than increasing public confidence, as stated in the Bill, Napo is concerned the most likely consequence will be that the level of political interference will only further undermine the parole process and leave both prisoners, professionals, victims and the wider public with ever diminishing levels of confidence. Napo strongly believes the Parole Board must retain its independence and accountability, and that this attempt at ministerial manipulation must be defended by Parliament. The work of the Parole Board cannot be allowed to be vulnerable to political agendas and must be seen to avoid making ‘knee jerk’ decisions in response to media pressure.

Napo believe plans to remove the right of ‘whole life’ prisoners to marry is worrying and sets a potentially dangerous precedent. It seeks to extend the purpose of such a custodial sentence well beyond those associated with the permanent deprivation of liberty and into a sphere of human rights not previously seen outside of authoritarian regimes, both in history and elsewhere in the world currently. While such cases are thankfully few – and while it is entirely accepted that those prisoners involved have been found to have committed the most heinous of offences – the principle at stake here should not be sacrificed. There seems little motivation for this outside of a sense of a political figure wishing to be seen to be taking some form of retribution against these individuals, is clearly vindictive and obviously contradicts efforts at rehabilitation or reformation. Again, it remains possible, if not highly likely, that if this proposal becomes law it will be the subject of swift legal challenge.

9 June 2023.