Streamlining Parole Together Consultation
November 2013
The Prison Reform Trust works to create a fair and decent prison system. We do
this by looking at how a prison is working, giving information to prisoners, staff and
people outside and by asking the government and officials to make changes. We
welcome the work the Parole Board is doing to make the process clearer and fairer
and the chance to response to this consultation. Alongside our media, research and
policy work, we have an advice and information service that deals with over 5,000
queries from prisoners a year. We do not give legal advice or represent at parole
hearings and therefore we have not given detailed answers to the consultation
questions. However, we answer general queries on the parole process to people in
prison, and monitor the impact of any potential changes and we therefore wanted to
take the opportunity to raise some concerns.
We recognise the work that the Parole Board has already done in trying to
streamline the process, survey prisoners’ views and engage with stakeholders. We
are very much aware of the pressures on the Parole Board, the current changes to
legal aid and the resource pressures on the prison and probation services which all
present challenges for timely parole reviews. We welcome the improved joint
working systems between the Parole Board and PPCS. However, within these
systems it is important that the Parole Board is able to retain independence.
Information for prisoners
The prisoners’ survey that the Parole Board carried out through Inside Time echoed
many of the concerns and complaints that we receive about the parole process. We
hear regularly about the frustrations of delays, finding the process confusing,
unrealistic or unobtainable recommendations, challenges to information on file and
not understanding the decision. It is important that prisoners understand what is
expected of them. We frequently talk to prisoners who are confused about the
process and without the information they need. We are also contacted by many
prisoners who are unaware of what will be considered within the parole decision and
do not understand how their risk will be assessed or the importance of a good
resettlement plan.
We believe that most, but not all, prisoners instruct solicitors for parole. The
challenges on legal aid and on prison law solicitors are numerous and increasing
and we know the Parole Board is aware of these. The reality though is that in future
solicitors may have even less time to explain the process to their clients. We believe
that there is sometimes an expectation from solicitors that offender managers and
prison offices will do this and that prison staff expect solicitors to do this.
We support the findings from the recent joint inspectorate thematic on the
resettlement of life sentenced prisoners. Sometimes, staff assumed that lifers
knew the system because they had already been through parole. Just over half of
the lifers interviewed who were still in prison said that no one in prison has
explained the parole process for them. Others said that they got their
information from other prisoners. Another said he had learnt about parole from
the television programme ‘Lock them up or let them out’! The reality is that there is
not adequate information for many people going through parole, despite the efforts of
many professionals involved in the process. We know that the Parole Board is
looking at ways of supporting prisoners who struggle to understand the process and
we welcome these developments. However, much more needs to be done if
prisoners are going to be able to engage and understand in a meaningful way. We
would urge the Parole Board to produce all information- including letters- for people
in prison in easy read. Alongside information on the process itself there is an urgent
need for information that explains the different factors that the Parole Board will
assess risk and release on, as many prisoners are unaware of this. This would be in
keeping with the Ministry of Justice’s recent stated commitment to easy read
http://www.learningdisabilitytoday.co.uk/call_for_easy_read_to_be_used_more_to_s
upport_for_offenders_with_learning_disabilities_23622320573.aspxp
Expert reports
While we understand that expert reports can add important information, we are
concerned that requests from the Parole Board may lead to extended delays. We
would ask that boards considering requesting expert reports take advice on whether
they are likely to be funded and the possible time scale.
Pre-tariff stage
We are aware that it is likely that legal aid will be unavailable for this work in the near
future. We would therefore ask that easy read guidance and additional support,
where possible be available for people in prison.
Referral stage
We note the suggestion of early deferral of the parole review where a prisoner is
undertaking or about to undertake an offending behaviour course, or expecting a
move to open prisons. Although this would be sensible in many situations we have
concerns for the following reasons. Prisoners do not always start offending
behaviour courses as expected, as waiting lists can be reprioritised. Also, there are
delays in moves to open conditions for determinate sentenced prisoners. If a move
may not happen for many months, we are concerned about further delays to parole.
In addition, as offending behaviour courses are being cut and the open estate is at
99% capacity we do not expect this situation to change soon. In our experience
knowing that a Parole Board hearing is looming sometimes acts as a prompt to
motivate the prison to get someone a move or onto a course.
We are also concerned about consistency with the guidance in PSI 41/2012. This
explains that if an intervention cannot realistically be delivered before the end of the
sentence, then other options must be considered. In situations where interventions
are not available or not suitable, then alternative activities that meet the needs of the
prisoner and target the risk should be found. The relevant legal cases and the new
guidance in PSI 41/2012 make clear that sentence plans must be realistic and
highlight the importance not only of appropriate interventions being available, but
also the need to target activities appropriately and not solely rely on accredited
programmes where these are unavailable or even unsuitable for an individual. We
are concerned that deferrals take the impetus away from offender managers who
might otherwise be more proactive in finding other interventions for people
approaching parole, in line with the PSI.
The clear message in PSI 41/2012 is that the evidence shows that the factors which
can reduce risk are much broader, and practical, than offending behaviour courses
alone. Now, offender managers have to take a balanced approach in which the
contribution of accredited programmes is only one part, while others, such as
housing or work skills, can be more influential. Therefore as social needs are just as
important in reducing risk, this needs to be further acknowledged in the parole
process and in the revision of Parole Board decision-making. This change in
emphasis also needs to be recognised by the Parole Board so that all agencies
involved are working to the same criteria.
We believe that a deferral would only take place with the prisoners’ consent,
(this is not stated in the consultation document), which makes it essential that
prisoners do understand the process and consequences of their decisions.
Video conferencing
We understand that the move to video conferencing is inevitable and believe that it
can bring benefits and disadvantages in specific circumstances.
We understand that community based offender managers are the people most likely
to be unable to attend a parole hearing. We are concerned that Parole Board
members may not be in a position to assess the relationship between a prisoner and
the community manager, and therefore the community manager’s ability to support
and supervise them on release via video link. We know that the Parole Board is
aware of the circumstances where video links are not appropriate for prisoners.
In light of the legal aid cuts, we support the increased use of video links for lawyers.
We would also argue that more use of rotl for prisoners already assessed as suitable
for rotl should be used for them to attend legal appointments and parole hearings,
avoiding some of the expense of holding parole hearings in prisons.