UNCLASSIFIED
GENERIC PAROLE PROCESS (GPP) amended to incorporate Electronic Working
This instruction applies to :-
Reference :-
NOMS Agency staff (Headquarters)
Prison
Probation Trusts
PSI 36/2012
PI 18/2012
Issue Date
Effective Date
Expiry Date
Implementation Date
03 December 2012 (amended)
3 December 2012
Issued on the authority of
For action by
NOMS Agency Board
Governors/Directors of Contracted Prisons/Area Managers/
NOMS Agency Staff (Headquarters)/Probation Trusts
All Prison Offender Management Staff / NOMS Agency Staff
(Headquarters) / Probation Trusts
For Policy issues:
ppcs.policy@noms.gsi.gov.uk
For information
Contact
Associated documents
26 November 2016
PSO 4700 Indeterminate Sentence Manual
PSO 9050 Functional Mailboxes
PSI 22/2009 Indeterminate Sentence Manual
PSI 29/2010 Indeterminate Sentence Manual amendments
PSI 36/2010 New chapter 4 for PSO 4700 – indeterminate
sentences
PSI 61/2010 Handling of sensitive information provided by
Criminal Justice Agencies
PSI71/2011 Parole Hub Pilot
Replaces the following documents which are hereby cancelledPSO 6010 “Generic Parole Process”, PSI 33/2009 “Pre-Tariff Sift Reviews for Indeterminate
Sentence Prisoners”, PSI 09/2008 ‘Offender Management Functional Mailboxes’, and PI 02/2012
“Parole Processes”
Audit/monitoring :
Governors and Directors of Contracted Prisons must ensure that any staff who input into the
Generic Parole Process are familiar with this PSI and the mandatory requirements it contains.
The Public Protection Casework Section at NOMS HQ will monitor and report on cases.
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 1
CONTENTS
Section
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Annex A
Annex B
Annex C
Annex D
Annex E
Annex F
Annex G
Annex H
Annex I
Annex J
Annex K
Annex L
Annex M
Annex N
Annex O
Annex P
Annex Q
Annex R
Annex S
Annex T
Annex U
Subject
Executive Summary
Introduction
Generic Parole Process Timetable – an
overview
Pre Tariff Sift Reviews for Indeterminate
Sentenced Prisoners
Consideration of exceptional transfer to
open conditions by the Secretary of State
without referral to the Parole Board
Moving to open conditions following on from
a Parole Board recommendation
Adverse developments, warning letters,
advice cases and re-referrals
Referral and Deferral of cases
Transfer of Prisoners during review
Mental Health Cases
Quality of Parole Reports
The Challenge Process for Generic Parole
Process performance data
Creation and deletion of PPUD accounts
PPUD naming conventions
The Criminal Justice Secure eMail (CJSM)
Accounts
GPP Timeline – PPCS, Prisons, Probation
and PPUD
Directions to the Parole Board under
Section 32(6) of the Criminal Justice Act
1991 - Issued August 2004 (Guidance
only)
Notification of Sentence Planning Review
Meeting and pre-tariff sift
Outcome of pre-tariff sift review
Outcome of consideration of exceptional
pre-tariff review
Executive decision request for application
for transfer to open conditions under the
‘exceptional’ circumstances criteria
Transfers to open conditions for adult male
indeterminate sentence prisoners
Process for consideration of open
conditions
SPR D template
SPR E template
SPR F template
SPR G template
SPR H template
SPR J template
SPR L template
PAROM 1 template
PAROM 1+ addendum template
PAROM 1 Evaluation Tool
SPR L Evaluation Tool
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
Applies to
NOMS Agency staff
(Headquarters), Prison, Probation
Trusts
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
1.
PAGE 2
Executive Summary
This PSI replaces PSO 6010 ‘Generic Parole Process’, PSI 33/2009 ‘Pre-Tariff Sift Reviews
for Indeterminate Sentence Prisoners’ and PSI 09/2008 ‘Offender Management Functional
Mailboxes’. It sets out the Generic Parole Process (GPP) for pre and post tariff indeterminate
sentence prisoners (ISPs) incorporating the changes to procedure that have arisen from: (i)
the introduction of a “pre-tariff sift” to consider whether a pre-tariff ISP should be referred to
the Parole Board; (ii) Secretary of State consideration whether to transfer ISPs to open
conditions without seeking a Parole Board recommendation; and (iii) the rollout of electronic
caseworking (e-working), including the use of functional mailboxes.
It also updates processes and expectations with regard to the parole dossier and completion
and quality of reports, to bring it in line with changes in offender management practice. All
ISPs will have an Offender Supervisor. For ISPs this should be what was formerly known as a
Prison Service Designated Staff Member (PSDSM). As the roles have been aligned, the ISPspecific SPR K form is no longer in use and all its criteria are replicated in the SPR L form
which is to be used in all parole cases from this point.
Background
1.1.
This PSI sets out the Generic Parole Process (GPP) for all ISPs following the introduction of
electronic caseworking (e-working) on 20 August 2012. It incorporates processes arising from
the “pre-tariff sift”, which was introduced in 2009, and the process by which Public Protection
Casework Section (PPCS) to consider on behalf of the Secretary of State whether to transfer
an ISP to open conditions without seeking the advice of the Parole Board. It requires
establishments to ensure that actions identified are undertaken in the prescribed timescales
set out in the process.
Desired outcomes
1.2.
A parole process for indeterminate prisoners that is easily understood by those it affects, and
the ability to identify clearly where weaknesses are within the parole process in order that
they can be corrected.
A parole process which ensures that prisoners’ reviews are conducted speedily and
efficiently, and which eliminates nugatory work provides all participants with clear timescales
for their part of the process.
A parole dossier which provides a coherent assessment of the offender and which is
comprised of good quality reports produced by authors with a good understanding of the
case.
To limit the potential for delays within the parole process for indeterminate prisoners, in order
to ensure that prisoners are not detained any longer than is necessary to protect the public.
To introduce e-working, which will move the GPP to a paperless system of working, thereby
increasing the efficiency of the process, improving the security of personal data, and
facilitating better communications between all the agencies involved in the process.
Application
1.3.
This instruction provides updated guidance on the process to be followed in parole reviews
for indeterminate sentenced prisoners, including the processes to be followed to ensure a
timely review and the requirement to produce a coherent assessment of risk based upon
good quality reports.
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 3
Mandatory Actions
1.4.
All staff involved in parole reviews for ISPs must be fully acquainted with this PSI and the
mandatory instructions listed. In particular, staff must be aware of:







the GPP timetable and the deadline for submitting a completed dossier to the Parole
Board;
the mandatory reports to be included in the dossier and the issues to be addressed in
each report
how to use the Public Protection Unit Database (PPUD) in order to complete their
mandatory tasks within the GPP;
the arrangements for handling Parole Board directions;
the arrangements for undertaking an ISP pre-tariff sift; and
the roles and responsibilities of PPCS and Parole Board Case Managers;
the requirement on report writers to provide the Parole Board with a coherent
assessment of risk based up a range of high quality reports.
Governors must ensure that systems are in place to underpin the GPP, particularly in terms of
communication with report writers, the Parole Board and the Public Protection Casework
Section.
Nominated staff must input key points of the GPP onto PPUD having first been trained by
PPCS on how to use PPUD.
Resource Implications
1.5.
There are no new cost implications arising from this PSI / PI provided reports can be provided
to establishments in electronic form. If they cannot, it may be necessary in some
establishments to provide additional scanning facilities. We expect savings to be made in
terms of staff time (for the collation and pagination of the complete dossier), postage and
printing costs.
(signed)
Digby Griffith
Director of National Operational Services, NOMS
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 4
2.
Introduction
2.1.
Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides all ISPs with the right to have
their continued detention reviewed by an independent body or court (in the UK this role falls to
the Parole Board) once they have served the punitive element of their sentence – in the UK
this is referred to as the minimum term or “tariff”. The first review must take place no later than
the expiry of the tariff and at least every two years thereafter.
2.2.
PPCS must notify the prisoner, prison and the offender manager of the date the tariff will
expire, as well as the date of all subsequent reviews. The review date in these cases reflects
the date the case will be referred to the Parole Board for consideration at a provisional oral
hearing. The complete dossier must be disclosed to the prisoner 18 weeks before the month
in which the review is due to be considered by the Parole Board.
2.3.
Where an ISP has a minimum term of over three years, the first Parole Board review may take
place in advance of tariff expiry, albeit to consider suitability for open conditions only. This is a
non-statutory review and a pre-tariff ISP can only have their case referred to the Parole Board
if the Governor is satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of the Board making a positive
recommendation for transfer to open conditions. The Governor must ensure that the Sentence
Planning Review Meeting (SPRM) prior to the commencement of an ISP’s pre-tariff review
considers whether to recommend that a case be referred to the Parole Board for
consideration of the prisoner’s transfer to open conditions. The arrangements for this process
are set out in section 4 below.
Generic Parole Process (GPP)
2.4.
The GPP is the parole process for pre-tariff and post-tariff ISPs. The performance of all
agencies involved in the process is monitored centrally. There is a Parole Monitoring Board
(PMB) on which the NOMS Director of National Operational Services sits, together with the
Chief Executive of the Parole Board. The NOMS Performance Hub records performance data
for both probation performance (submission of PAROM1s) and prison performance
(submission to the Parole Board of complete ISP parole dossiers) and displays data at a
regional and national level broken down into monthly, quarterly and annual data. The PMB
monitors performance against the delivery of timely parole reviews. This includes monitoring
the performance of establishments against targets for completion of dossiers. The key
performance indicators include:






the timeliness of mandatory reports from HMPS and Probation
the disclosure of dossiers to the Parole Board by HMPS
the provision of core dossiers by PPCS Case Managers
the compliance on the part of NOMS with Parole Board directions
the setting of the date for the Parole Board’s oral hearing and consideration of Parole
Board recommendations for transfer to open conditions;
the receipt of Parole Board decisions and the timely issuing of ISP licences.
2.5.
The GPP covers all parts of NOMS involved in the delivery of the parole process for
indeterminate sentenced prisoners. Senior managers within the NOMS agency are
responsible for supporting the GPP and driving forward its delivery and performance
indicators.
2.6.
PPUD is the database that underpins and supports the GPP. All agencies involved in the
GPP, ie PPCS, establishments, probation trusts and the Parole Board, have access to PPUD.
2.7.
As from 20 August 2012, the date e-working was rolled out to trusts and establishments, the
GPP became a paperless process. All actions were recorded onto PPUD and dossiers,
reports and information were collated, paginated and transferred electronically.
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 5
2.8.
Parole dossiers provided to the Parole Board by establishments must contain all the
mandatory reports before they are sent. Under e-working, the dossiers will be stored and
collated on PPUD and the Parole Board is automatically notified, via e-mail, of the dossier
being completed and available on PPUD. Although previously the Parole Board would reject
dossiers that were assessed as incomplete, under e-working it will no longer be possible to
submit a dossier that does not contain all of the mandatory documents.
2.9.
PPCS has overall responsibility for administering the GPP and the reporting of prison and
probation performance against indicators, using data recorded on PPUD. Therefore, Case
Administrators who are involved with the GPP must have access to PPUD and must input
data into the relevant fields, in a timely manner for performance monitoring purposes.
Governors must ensure that nominated staff input the appropriate data into PPUD so that
accurate management information can be produced for monitoring performance indicators,
the end-to-end targets and to allow all agencies involved in the parole process to track
progress of individual cases.
2.10.
The Parole Board also has access to PPUD and has similar data inputting responsibilities.
2.11.
Where there are disputes within NOMS regarding data entries the PPCS Quality Assurance
Team will resolve them and their decision will be final.
2.12.
For the purposes of this PSI “Governors” applies to “Directors” in private prisons.
2.13.
Governors may delegate any requirement under this PSI to suitable grades within their
establishment as long as that person has the necessary knowledge and skills to perform that
requirement.
2.14.
All Offender Management Units (OMUs) must maintain a team functional mailbox (for
example: omu.establishment@hmps.gsi.gov.uk) in order to ensure that communication is not
disrupted due to the absence of a single member of staff. Each pre-release team in PPCS
must also maintain a team functional mailbox. PPCS Case Managers and HMPS Case
Administrators must ensure that any communications relating to the GPP are copied to the
team functional mailboxes.
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
3.
Generic Parole Process (GPP) Timetable – an overview
3.1.
The GPP timescale and process is divided into 3 parts:



PAGE 6
Part 1: 26 week period starting at week 26 and leading up to Week 0, which is the 1st
day of the calendar month period in which the Parole Board hears the case. The dossier
compilation and disclosure and Parole Board directions are completed during this stage.
Part 2: the calendar month during which the Parole Board hears the case. The Parole
Board may list the case at anytime during that month.
Part 3: follows on from the oral hearing, and requires that the Parole Board provide the
decision and supporting reasons within 2 weeks of the oral hearing date. After the
decision has been issued PPCS must consider any Parole Board recommendation for
transfer to open conditions in cases where the Secretary of State has invited the Parole
Board to consider such a transfer, and/or set a new further review date if the Parole
Board does not direct release.
3.2.
Particular care is needed in cases where tariff expiry is occurring to ensure that the oral
hearing is held sufficiently early to allow release at tariff expiry.
3.3.
Establishments are involved in all stages of the process and must ensure that all key actions
relevant to their involvement are fully completed within the prescribed timescales.
3.4.
The GPP sets out the key milestones that are required to be achieved at various stages
through the process. The role of PPCS Case Managers is to oversee the process and to
ensure the timely progression of all cases in order to enable the Parole Board review to be
completed on target. Case Administrators in establishments, or those responsible for the
parole process, must complete all their required tasks and input data onto PPUD for the areas
that their establishment is responsible for. See Annex C.
3.5.
The process set out below highlights the key milestones and required action by relevant
parties in the process.
Part 1
Week
Wk 26
CASE ADMINISTRATION
Actions
Responsibility
PPUD informs PPCS/PB/Prison to commence review
PB issues notification of target hearing period (Post-Tariff
only) and letter to prisoner
Prison request all relevant reports including the PAROM 1
PPCS commence core Dossier
PPCS
Wk 22
Deadline - PPCS send core dossier to prison
PPCS
Wk 21
Deadline for receipt of core dossier
Deadline for prisoner response to PB, including name of legal
representative and Offender Manager
Prison
PB
Prison, Probation
PPCS
Prison
Relevant reports received including the PAROM1 etc from
Probation
Prison compiles and PPUD paginates dossier
Prison discloses dossier to prisoner + reps/disclosure form
Deadline - Prison uploads dossier to PPUD
Prison, Probation
Prison
Prison
Prison
Wk 17
PB assesses the compiled dossier to ensure it is complete
PB
Wk 14
Deadline - Prisoner to submit representations - personal/legal
PB instigates an initial review on the papers. This review is
Prison
PB
Wk 18
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 7
undertaken by a single member (referred to as the ICM
review)
Wk 13
ICM member issues directions if necessary
PB
Wk 12
PB issues negative decision/recommendation or Directions for
Oral hearing (If negative decision issued, a post tariff
prisoner has 28 days to accept or challenge decision not to
release)
PB
Wk 10
Prison confirms all PB Directions complied with
PPCS confirms all PB Directions complied with
PB lists case for oral hearing
Prison
PPCS
PB
Wk 08
PB issue oral hearing exact date notification
PB
PB identifies panel members
PB confirms hearing date to all parties
Deadline for any challenge to negative decision issued at
week 12 to be forwarded to PB by prison/legal
representative
PB
PB
Prison
Wk 06
PB copies dossier to members
Panel Panel chair issues further Directions (if required) and rules on
applications for non-disclosure, victim and witness attendance
PB
Wk 04
Prison confirms all outstanding Directions complied with
PPCS confirms all outstanding Directions complied with
PB issues Timetable for oral hearing to all parties
Prison
PPCS
PB
Wk 0
End of part 1
CALENDAR MONTH FOR LISTING ORAL HEARING (THIS
WILL ALWAYS BE THE 1st OF THE MONTH)
PB Oral Hearing taking place during this calendar month
POST ORAL HEARING
Deadline for receipt of PB decision (2 weeks following oral
hearing)
PB
Part 2
Part 3
Process end
date
Release at tariff expiry (or after)/ Consideration of transfer to
open conditions/setting new review date
PB
PB
PPCS
Week 26 - Commencement of parole process
3.6.
PPCS and establishments must ensure the prompt commencement of the process in order to
enable the review process to be completed on time, and so the whole system targets can be
met. PPCS, Prisons, and Probation should refer to the flow chart GPP timeline illustrated in
Annex C when a review is about to commence.
3.7.
On week 26 PPUD informs PPCS/establishments to commence review by identifying the
beginning of the review via a ‘to do’ list, which contains a list of all PPUD milestones which are
due in the near future. Case Administrators must ensure that they are aware of review
commencement and must request relevant reports. Once reports have been requested, the
date should be entered at milestone 02. The target date for completion of the reports is 8
Weeks from commencement of review. Prison staff must upload all reports to PPUD as soon
as they are received, using the appropriate naming conventions, which are set out in Annex
A), This is particularly important for the Sentence Plan Review (SPR) reports which, unless
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 8
there are circumstances which make this impossible, should be submitted earlier than the
PPUD target date, ideally no later than week 16. This is to enable the author of the PAROM
1 to draw from all other sources when completing their report, so as to provide as full and
accurate an assessment as possible. The list of relevant reports must be agreed with the
Offender Manager (OM) for IPPs or the Offender Supervisor (OS) for Lifers following the SPR
meeting and should take account of any directions made by the previous Parole Board panel.
The Parole Board will also issue a notification of review commencement in cases of tariffexpired ISPs at week 26, and will update PPCS milestone 03 once this is done. At the same
time, the nominated PPCS Case Manager commences the core dossier preparation.
3.8.
The OM and OS must be alert to cases where psychological and psychiatric input may be
necessary. Reports must be commissioned from psychologists and or psychiatrists at the
earliest opportunity. If a previous Panel has directed that a particular assessment be carried
out or a report completed prior to the next hearing this must be included. If in the
psychologist’s/psychiatrist’s expert view the assessment/report is unnecessary this must be
challenged through the PPCS Case Manager at the earliest opportunity in the parole process
so that the challenge can be brought to the attention of the ICM Member for consideration.
Prison Case Administrators must ensure that any Parole Board or Secretary of State decision
letter directing or recommending psychological or psychiatric input is copied to the relevant
prison department on receipt. The PPCS Case Manager must also refer such letters to the
Prison Service Regional Psychologist.
Week 21 - Core dossier disclosure
3.9.
This is the target date for receipt by establishments of the core dossier, which is completed by
the PPCS Case Manager. PPCS Case Managers must ensure that each individual report is
uploaded to PPUD, either as single document or as part of any bulk scanned document, so
that the dossier can be assembled electronically on screen. Once the core dossier is
completed, PPUD will automatically notify the holding establishment so that the process of
compiling the full dossier can begin. The notification will be in the form of an e-mail, generated
by PPUD, which will go to the relevant functional mailboxes and individuals associated with
the case. PPUD milestone 39 will be auto-filled with the actual date the e-mail alert is sent,
see Annex C – GPP – timeline for PPUD.
3.10.
This core dossier must contain, where available:

an Index Sheet

the note formally referring the case to the Parole Board for consideration

the pro-forma case summary (other than in IPP cases where the prisoner has spent less
than 8 years in custody) containing the basic details of the case including:

the period of time the prisoner has served in custody

his or her current location

the dates of remand

sentence and length of tariff

brief details of the Index Offence

offence related papers. These must include (where they exist):

the summary of offence prepared by PPCS (including reference to
sources relied upon)

transcript of the trial judge’s sentencing remarks

the pre and post trial sentence reports prepared by qualified probation
staff

a current list of previous convictions as recorded on the Police National Computer
(i.e. within the last 12 months but more recent if convictions within the last 12 months)
and
any other relevant papers such as psychiatric or psychological reports prepared for
trial and/or sentencing, information on any appeals lodged and Trial Judge’s report
to Home Secretary (for ISPs sentence before 18.12.03).

PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 9

a record of adjudications either since remand in custody or since the most recent
previous Parole Board review extracted from P-NOMIS including:

establishment

offence

date of hearing

result (proven or dismissed) and punishment.

a summary of reports of progress in prison including Therapeutic Community and
Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder (DSPD) Unit reports
reports from any offending behaviour courses completed in custody
previous Parole Board decision and the Secretary of State’s letter stating the next
review if a subsequent review


If some documents e.g. judge’s sentencing remarks cannot be provided, this must be clearly
indicated in the dossier by PPCS so that ICM assessors and panel chairs do not make
unnecessary directions. Dossier logs should include such information. Where a mandatory
document cannot be located, the PPCS Case Manager of Case Administration Officer must
insert a note in the dossier stating that the document could not be provided or is not available
and explaining the reasons why.
3.11.
It is also the deadline for the prison to forward the prisoner’s reply form indicating how s/he
wishes to proceed with their review. They can request for the case to:


proceed to oral hearing
be considered case on papers
A prisoner cannot decide to opt out of the process. At the same time, they should also advise
details of their legal representative and OM in the space provided on the form.
Week 18 - Disclosure of completed dossier
3.12.
This is the deadline for receipt of all reports by Case Administrators who must upload the
individual component parts of a dossier to PPUD. Establishments must add the reports set out
below in respect of all ISP cases which are mandatory for establishments to obtain before
disclosing to the Parole Board:




3.13.
PAROM 1 - Offender Manager’s overview report (see Annex R)
SPR L – Offender Supervisor’s report (see Annex Q)
SPR D - Relevant Key Worker’s reports (see Annex K)
The full OASys report reviewed within the last 12 months of the target month for the
review hearing and countersigned by OASys supervisor
The following reports may also be included in the parole dossier, depending on the
requirements in each case. The reports may be requested by the OM (for IPPs), OS (for
Lifers), Parole Board or PPCS:





SPR E – psychologist report (see Annex L)
SPR F – healthcare report (see Annex M)
SPR G – psychiatrist report (see Annex N)
SPR H – security report (see Annex O)
SPR J – offender’s comments (see Annex P)
3.14.
Further guidance on what must be included in mandatory reports can be found in Chapter 10
of this Instruction.
3.15.
Before it is issued, Governors (or delegated authority) should sign off the dossier to confirm
that all reports have been completed to the required standards. The PAROM1 and SPR L
should each be countersigned by a line manager to confirm that each report is of good quality.
The dossier must include contributions from a range of staff as effective risk assessment is
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 10
based on a multi-disciplinary approach drawing on evidence from a range of sources. This is
a key consideration for the OM and OS in determining which reports should be included in a
parole dossier. Please note that a ‘wet ink’ signature from the Governor is not required; a
typed and dated electronic sign off is sufficient.
3.16.
Case Administrators must then compile the full dossier by using a “drag and drop” facility on
PPUD, inserting individual documents into the core dossier that has already been created on
PPUD by PPCS staff respectively. PPUD functionality will automatically paginate the dossier
and generate the front sheet. Once this has been done an e-mail will be generated from the
PPUD system to go to the relevant functional mailboxes and individuals associated with the
case notifying them that the full dossier is available. Appropriate PPUD milestones will be
auto-filled with the actual date the e-mail alert is sent. A hard copy of the full dossier will need
to be printed out by Establishment staff to give to the prisoner. At PPCS we support any local
agreements made between prisons and probation that will enable the PAROM1 and the
dossier to be completed before the target date. This is now the definitive document for timings
for report writing, as well as those reflected in the GPP, and must be adhered to.
3.17.
All documents must be sent electronically. Where this cannot be done, whoever receives the
documents in hard copy must ensure they are scanned in individually and uploaded to PPUD.
When scanning in maps (e.g. to depict exclusion zones) Case Managers and Case
Administrators must ensure that the scanner is set at an appropriate resolution level to ensure
this can be easily read. The recommended settings for standard documents are 300dpi in
PDF format. For this reason, such maps may need to be scanned separately from any
documents they may be contained within as the scanner resolution settings may need to be
different.
3.18.
When compiling a dossier, additional documents or addendum reports must be put at the
back of the dossier and not directly behind the report to which they relate.
3.19.
If a prisoner’s legal representative requests a dossier on behalf of their client, this must be
sent electronically by the establishment, provided the legal representative has a CJSM
account. PPUD has the facility to allow dossiers to be “chunked” to enable larger documents
to be e-mailed. If the solicitor does not have a CJSM account, they must be advised to apply
for one (see Annex B). In the interim, they can apply to the HMPS Case Administrator to
provide a hard copy, which must be issued within one week of the request being made.
3.20.
Governors must ensure that Prisoners have ready access to their parole dossier as frequently
as the facilities and resources of the prison allow. In deciding how prisoners have access to
their dossiers, the OMU Manager (or equivalent) should bear in mind the possible effect on
the prisoner and the establishment should the contents of the dossier become widely known.
Particular care should be taken in those cases where there are vivid accounts of the offence,
the cases are notorious, or those relating to sexual offences. Establishments may consider it
more prudent to allow the prisoner access to the dossier only at times when the prisoner is
locked in his or her cell, for example at lunchtime or overnight.
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 11
Week 14 - Administration of completed dossiers and Parole Board Directions
3.21.
This is the deadline for receipt of prisoner representations. As soon as the establishment
receives the prisoner’s representations they must be scanned if necessary, and uploaded to
PPUD for incorporation into the dossier. If representations are being submitted on the
prisoner’s behalf by their legal representative it should be encouraged that these be submitted
electronically.
3.22.
The Parole Board Intensive Case Management process (ICM) is designed to support Parole
Board members in their deliberations, especially in the cases of those sexual of violent
offenders that pose particular difficulties for risk assessment.
3.23.
When the dossier has been received by the Board, at week 14 the case will be referred to a
single Member (the ICM Member) for consideration on the papers. The ICM Member will do
one of the following:

decide that the case is ready for hearing and, once any witness availability has been
ascertained, ask that a date be secured for the hearing.

decide the case is not quite ready and issue Directions for additional or missing
information, as well as identifying potential witnesses that may be required. Once the
Directions have been complied with a date can then be secured for the hearing.

advise that the case is not ready and Directions will be issued, however in view of the
amount of work still required it is unlikely that the original target date will be met. In
these instances the ICM member will defer the case for a set period of time.

make a negative decision based on the papers. The negative decision is issued to the
prisoner and other parties.
Week 12 - Parole Board issues the result of the ICM Member paper review and, if
appropriate, refers the case for an oral hearing
3.24.
The Parole Board Secretariat will issue the results of the ICM member consideration. Where
the ICM Member has made a negative decision ‘on the papers’ (decision to remain in custody
or not to release) this will be issued by the Parole Board Secretariat to the Case Administrator
and PPCS Case Manager, and copied to the team functional mailbox of the holding
establishment and the PPCS team. The Case Administrator must take immediate steps to
ensure that the decision is served on the prisoner. The prisoner has 28 days to challenge the
decision if they do not agree with it. If the consideration “on the papers” does not result in a
negative decision, the case will be referred to an oral hearing, see Annex C.
3.25.
If a case is referred to an oral hearing, directions may be issued by the Parole Board at this
stage. These too will be sent to the staff members and mailboxes as above. These Directions
are divided into two sections. Section 1 Directions (e.g. commissioning fresh reports etc)
must be complied with before a case can be allocated an exact date for the hearing. Section
2 Directions (e.g. addendum reports and updates) must be complied with at least 4 weeks
before the exact hearing date. Directions should clearly specify the information or question
pertaining to assessment of risk which the Parole Board panel will need in order to make a
decision. The PPCS Case Manager will request that the Offender Management Unit within the
establishment to identify who is the appropriate (i.e. qualified) person to provide information
requested and to ensure that the information or report is submitted within the agreed
timescale. Directions should provide reasonable timeframes to allow NOMS staff to provide
the necessary information.
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 12
3.26.
Once the Parole Board paper decision or the ICM directions have been received the PPCS
Case Manager and HMPS Case Administrators must update PPUD milestones 70 and 71
respectively.
3.27.
PPCS Case Managers are responsible for overseeing the compliance with Parole Board
directions. They will liaise with Case Administrators and the relevant probation staff to ensure
that directions issued by the Parole Board are complied with in the timescales set. Case
Administrators must work with the PPCS Case Managers to ensure that directions are
complied with.
3.28.
Case Administrators must alert report writers who are directed by the Parole Board to attend
an oral hearing to give evidence as a witness. The witness should be advised to notify the
Case Administrator of their non-availability during the target month for the hearing. The Case
Administrator must advise the Parole Board Secretariat and the PPCS Case Manager of any
non-availability. A witness may only attend if so directed by the Parole Board. In any case
where a witness refuses to attend the PPCS Case Manager must be advised immediately. It
may be necessary to obtain a witness summons. Where a witness summons is required; the
obtaining of such will be undertaken by the Secretary of State Representative. The
expectation is that where a member of NOMS staff is directed to give evidence at a Parole
Board hearing, they will always comply.
3.29.
Only when Section 1 directions have been complied with will cases be listed for hearing by the
Parole Board. The deadlines for compliance with directions will often be short but PPCS Case
Managers and Governors must endeavour to comply with directions within the timescales that
are set. Where a Parole Board direction issued by the Parole Board cannot be delivered
within the required timescale or where the information is either not available or would incur
disproportionate cost, the Governor must alert the PPCS Case Manager who will consider
whether to appeal or seek a variation of the direction/s under the Parole Board Rules. Once
all section 1 directions have been complied with, the PPCS Case Manager must update
PPUD milestone 70a.
3.30.
PPCS Team Managers/Secretary of State representatives are responsible for submitting all
applications to either vary or rescind Parole Board directions when they have been signed off
by the Head/Deputy Head of Casework. HMPS Case Administrators must not send
applications directly to the Parole Board, but instead liaise with PPCS.
3.31.
PPCS Case Managers in conjunction with Secretary of State representatives are responsible
for submitting applications to the Parole Board, where appropriate, to have information
withheld from the prisoner. HMPS Case Administrators must not send applications directly to
the Parole Board, but instead liaise with PPCS.
Week 10 - Completion of directions
3.32.
This is the target date for completion of any Section 1 directions required prior to the case
being listed for an oral hearing. The Parole Board will only refer the case to be listed for an
oral hearing if all Section 1 directions are complied with.
Week 8 - Notification of oral hearing date from Parole Board
3.33.
The Parole Board Secretariat notifies PPCS, the establishment, prisoner and legal
representative of the oral hearing date. Establishments must allocate suitable
accommodation, as well as organise the escorting of visitors, prisoners and other
arrangements relevant to the oral hearing. Further information on the requirements of
establishments for oral hearings can be obtained from the Parole Board Case Managers
allocated to establishments. The Parole Board and NOMS have been piloting a parole hub
since January 2012. This hub is intended to increase the Parole Board’s hearing capacity,
thereby enabling the timely hearing of cases by feeding larger groups of cases through a
single hearing location through the use of video conferencing technology (VCT). Both the
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 13
prisoner and the witnesses give their evidence by VCT, thus saving time and expenses
associated with running hearings. The hub is located in Grenadier House in London and is
linked to satellite prisons. The satellites are HMP Garth, HMP Channings Wood, HMP
Shepton Mallett, HMP Dartmoor and HMP Leyhill, although other satellites will be added
throughout the course of the pilot. Details of the pilot are contained in PSI 71/2011.
3.34.
Case Administrators must notify any witnesses directed by the Board of the arrangements for
the proposed oral hearing.
3.35.
In cases where a negative decision has been issued by the Parole Board and the prisoner
appeals that decision; the case will revert back to Week 12 for the purposes of the parole
process. If no challenge is made to the Parole Board decision, then the notification of the
Parole Board will be confirmed.
Week 6 - Panel Chair Directions
3.36.
Once a Parole Board hearing date has been set and a panel appointed, the dossier is copied
to panel members by the Parole Board secretariat. The chair of the panel may issue further
directions (such as updates or addendum reports and calling additional witnesses). Witnesses
warned to attend at the ICM stage will be confirmed or stood down by the Chair. Again the
PPCS Case Manager will liaise with the Case Administrator to ensure that the directions are
complied with and any changes are fully communicated to those affected.
3.37.
Where a person wishes to attend an oral hearing as an observer, an application should be
made, through the PPCS Case Manager to the Parole Board in writing who can agree to any
such request, subject to the prisoner’s agreement.
3.38.
The attendance of witnesses at an oral hearing is a matter for the Parole Board to determine
and each party to the hearing must apply in writing to the Parole Board (copied to the other
party) for leave to call witnesses. In many cases the Parole Board will have already identified
relevant witnesses, usually at the ICM stage, details of which will be placed on PPUD by the
Parole Board Secretariat.
Week 4 - Timetable for oral hearing
3.39.
Section 2 ICM Directions must have been complied with by this stage and PPCS Case
Managers should complete milestone 70b on PPUD.
3.40.
The Parole Board issues the timetable for oral hearing to the PPCS, establishment, prisoner,
and prisoners’ legal representative (if known). This will be issued electronically to the relevant
staff members at PPCS and the holding establishment, as well as the team functional
mailboxes.
3.41.
Where establishments have been notified of oral hearing listing times that are unrealistic the
Parole Board Secretariat must be notified immediately and asked to amend the timetable
accordingly. Many establishments are able to cater for oral hearings continuing during lock up
periods and these should continue where appropriate and agreed by Governors.
Week 0 – Start of calendar month listing period and oral hearing
3.42.
This is the 1st day of the calendar month listing period in which the oral hearing is to be held.
3.43.
The Secretary of State no longer routinely provides a view and is therefore no longer
represented at oral hearings as a matter of course. Establishments must not provide a
representative of the Secretary of State, unless previously agreed by managers at PPCS.
Any representation of the Secretary of State will be carried out by a PPCS representative and
only where PPCS senior managers have agreed that representation is required in order to
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 14
facilitate the progress of the review. However, relevant staff from establishments may still be
called to an oral hearing to give evidence as a witness.
3.44.
Where a PPCS representative is required to attend the PPCS Case Manager will alert the
prison and the Parole Board in advance of the hearing where a representative plans to attend.
Receipt of Parole Board decision (2 Weeks from date of oral hearing)
3.45.
This is the deadline for receipt of the Parole Board decision following the oral hearing. This
should be issued electronically to the relevant staff members at PPCS and the holding
establishment, and the team functional mailboxes. PPUD milestones 86 and 87 should be
updated for PPCS and the prison respectively. Release preparation is commenced by PPCS
Case Managers if release is directed.
3.46.
PPCS Team Managers must commence consideration of Parole Board recommendations that
the prisoner be transferred to open conditions (where appropriate). The decision whether to
accept or reject such a recommendation must be completed within 28 days of the decision
being issued.
Parole process end date
3.47.
This is the review process end date. The prisoner must be released on or after tariff expiry, if
directed by the Parole Board. A release direction can only be made if the Parole Board is
satisfied the risk of serious harm the offender poses to the public is acceptable. This means
ISPs can remain in prison after they have served the punitive period of imprisonment (the
tariff) on public protection grounds.
Setting the date for the next Review
3.48.
Where no direction for release is made, PPCS Case Managers must set the next review date
and create the new review on PPUD. Once the letter informing the prisoner of the date of their
next review is issued, the PPCS Case Manager must update PPUD milestone 114 - see
Annex C .
3.49.
PPCS Case Manager must ensure a prisoner is referred to the Parole Board before the expiry
of his tariff so that if the Parole Board wishes to direct release it can do so, either on the expiry
or as soon as practical after the expiry of the tariff period.
3.50.
The maximum period that can elapse between post-tariff reviews is 2 years. All decisions on
the timing of the next hearing must be based on the individual circumstances of the particular
case. In reaching their decision on the timing of the next review, PPCS Case Managers must
take into account what risks have been identified by the Parole Board, as well as the positive
steps taken by the prisoner. Where there are further interventions to be undertaken or where
the prisoner has been assessed as presenting a significant and continuing risk of serious
harm to the public, a longer period between reviews may be reasonable. Where there is
evidence that a process of change is underway and further improvement is anticipated in the
short term, a long period between reviews may be found to be unreasonable. Where PPCS
are setting short periods before the next review, PPCS Case Managers should be satisfied
that there is sufficient time to enable the completion of interventions or that it allows sufficient
time in open conditions to test the prisoner and his areas of risk(s).
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
3.51.
PAGE 15
PPCS Case Managers, they will need to discuss cases with the OM and/or the OS to seek
their views. This may be particularly appropriate in cases where there are complex
management issues. PPCS Case Managers must:





Check outstanding and ongoing interventions identified within reports that were placed
before the Parole Board in dossier and as recommended by the Board in its decision.
Consider those interventions which have been completed or other positive aspects of
behaviour that may have been included within the dossier or commented upon by the
Parole Board.
Establish the length of the relevant interventions, including the time required to produce
post programme reports in consultation with HMPS (Treatment Managers/Programme
Managers).
Establish with HMPS and OMs the nature of the interventions highlighted by reports,
Parole Board decision including any view that the Board expresses in relation to any
testing period (e.g. anger management, violence, thinking skills, sexual offending).
Minute the case fully on PPUD regarding any discussions had or advice given.
3.52.
The PPCS Case Manager must always provide reasons to the prisoner to explain how the
decision was reached and why the interval is justified.
4.
Pre Tariff Sift Reviews for Indeterminate Sentenced Prisoners
4.1.
Pre-tariff ISPs are eligible to have their cases referred to the Parole Board to consider their
suitability for transfer to open conditions up to three years before the expiry of their tariff. In
order to target Parole Board and NOMS resources effectively, the Secretary of State refers
only those pre-tariff cases to the Parole Board where there is a reasonable prospect of the
Board making a positive recommendation.
4.2.
The Offender Management Model Phase III (OM3) provides for regular SPRMs during which
notes are taken for sentence planning purposes. The SPRM prior to the commencement of an
ISP’s pre-tariff review must consider whether to recommend that a case be referred to the
Parole Board for consideration of the prisoner’s transfer to open conditions. The SPRM is not
required to consider whether a prisoner should be transferred to open conditions. Instead, it
must assess whether there is evidence in support of such a move such that a panel of the
Parole Board might reasonably conclude that the prisoner could be safely transferred.
4.3.
The key action points for establishments are:





4.4.
Holding an SPRM prior to the scheduled commencement of the parole process (week
26).
Completing SPRM notes as outlined in OM3.
Ensuring that the SPRM notes contain sufficient detail for PPCS Case Managers to
produce reasons for non-referral of the prisoner’s case to the Parole Board and the
contact details of the author of the notes so that the PPCS Case Manager can contact
them for additional information or clarification if required.
Consideration by Governors as to whether the prisoner’s case warrants, exceptionally, a
further review prior to tariff expiry with a view to considering whether to refer the case to
the Parole Board.
HMPS Case Administrators being aware of pre-tariff cases by using PPUD and making
data entries.
Any recommendation made by the Governor must be based on sound risk assessment
principles and underpinned by a multi-disciplinary approach to the SPRM. Governors may
delegate any requirement under this process to suitable grades within their establishment as
long as that person has the necessary knowledge and skills to perform that requirement. In
practice, most establishments should use the OMU Manager to monitor this process and to
countersign the SPRM decision.
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
4.5.
PAGE 16
In IPP cases, the OM will continue to chair the SPRM whenever possible, as per OM3.
Governors must ensure that their nominated representative attends those meetings and are
responsible for the production of the SPRM notes and their forwarding to PPCS Case
Managers. For Lifer cases, the SPRM will usually be chaired by the prisoner’s OS.
Key principles of sift considerations
4.6.
It is not a requirement of the SPRM that all contributors share the same view regarding
whether there is evidence to support the prisoner’s case being referred to the Parole Board.
Those attending the meeting and those submitting written reports should consider whether
there is evidence of progress on the part of the prisoner to suggest that if the case was
referred to the Parole Board, there would be a reasonable prospect that the prisoner may
receive a positive recommendation in support of a transfer to open conditions.
4.7.
The pre-tariff SPRM at which the sift review will be conducted must be 2 months before the
parole review process would have otherwise commenced, which is the target date for
completion of PPUD milestone 02. If the SPRM is not held within a sufficient period of time
before the commencement of the review, it may not be possible to complete the sift.
4.8.
Guidance for the SPRM and their notes are provided within OM3 but, for easy reference, the
following areas should be considered, by the SPRM in making their recommendation to
PPCS:







Static risks identified in the case
Current OASys Risk of Serious Harm assessment
Risk of abscond
Interventions undertaken or ongoing, including accredited programmes and completion
dates where applicable
Progress against objectives in the sentence plan and offender’s engagement with this
progress
Custodial behaviour
Outstanding treatment needs
Security information available
4.9.
The SPRM must also be aware of the Directions of the Secretary of State issued to the Parole
Board under Section 32(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. When considering the prisoner’s
case it is not necessary for the SPRM to be prescriptive in relation to testing the prisoner’s
case against those Directions. A copy of the Secretary of State’s Directions can be found at
Annex D.
4.10.
Prisoners must have access to the SPRM as per the OM3 guidance.
Cases Presumed Unsuitable for referral to the Parole Board
4.11.
There are some cases where the prisoner will be presumed as not meeting the criteria for
referral to the Parole Board, unless there are exceptional circumstances that lead the SPRM
to conclude that a referral should be made.
4.12.
The following factors will normally lead to a presumption that the prisoner does not meet the
criteria to be referred to the Parole Board for a pre-tariff review, however each case must be
considered on its individual merits:
category A status

OASys assessment of high/very high risk of harm

escape or attempted escape in last 2 years

previous abscond or attempted abscond from Escorted Absence or open conditions
in last 2 years

a proven adjudication for serious violence within last 12 months
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
4.13.
PAGE 17
Where such factors have been identified, the SPRM must record them in their SPRM notes
stating that the prisoner has been deemed unsuitable for referral. Where such factors do exist
but the SPRM considers that there are exceptional circumstances leading them to conclude
that the prisoner’s case should be referred, the notes must set out clearly what the
circumstances are which have led to this exceptional recommendation.
The pre-tariff sift process
4.14.
Report writers need not complete a full report for the SPRM. However, under the OM3
guidance, if those reports fall at the 3-years stage for ISPs where full reports are required for
the purposes of sentence planning; these must continue to be provided. This is explained
below:-
Type
of Date to be held
Meeting
Reports required
Outcome
SPRM Sift
Minimum 2 months
prior
to
parole
commencement
date
(Week26)
Formal
report
not
required if not a 3 year
review. However, key
report writers unable to
attend the SPRM sift
meeting must submit a
brief report addressing
the issue of transfer to
open conditions
SPRM Sift at
3 Year Stage
As above
Full SPR reports if
coincides with 3 year
review
(i) Decision by Governor on whether to
refer prisoner’s case to Parole Board for
consideration of transfer to
open
conditions
(ii) Decision by Governor to recommend
an exceptional pre-tariff review
(iii) Confirmation by Governor that
prisoner is automatically excluded from
a pre-tariff review
(iv) Recommendation from Governor on
whether the case, despite negative
aspects, should be referred for a pretariff review
As above
4.15.
Case Administrators must alert report writers that a pre-tariff sift is to take place as part of the
SPRM at least 4 months prior to commencement of the parole process. The Case
Administrator must use PPUD to establish the commencement of the parole process and to
identify those cases where a pre-tariff sift is required. The Case Administrator must mark the
relevant field on their ‘to do’ list on PPUD to confirm that they have requested reports at the 4
month stage.
4.16.
Prisoners must be notified that an SPRM is to take place during which the consideration of
submitting the prisoner’s case to a pre-tariff parole review by the Parole Board will be
discussed. . Reports which are to be considered at the SPRM should be provided to the
prisoner beforehand to enable them to submit representations using Annex E.
4.17.
All report writers should be invited to the SPRM and, if it is not possible for them to attend,
they must provide a written contribution. The Offender Manager must be invited to all SPRM’s.
Case Administrators may find it expedient to set the SPRM date at the time of requesting
reports.
4.18.
The SPRM attendees should be as specified within the OM3 guidance. The SPRM should, as
part of its deliberations, consider whether there is evidence to suggest that if the Secretary of
State referred the case to the Parole Board for a pre-tariff review, there is a reasonable
prospect that the Board would make a positive recommendation in support of transfer to open
conditions. If the meeting concludes there is a case for consideration by the Parole Board, this
should be stated in the SPRM notes and the meeting should continue under the guidance
contained within OM3. It is not necessary to provide specific reasons to support this decision
by the SPRM.
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 18
4.19.
If the SPRM’s preliminary conclusion is that there is no reasonable prospect that the Parole
Board would make a recommendation for transfer to open conditions, the reasons for this
should be clearly covered within the SPRM notes. Similarly, the SPRM notes should clearly
indicate those cases where the prisoner is presumed unsuitable. In presumed unsuitable
cases, the reasons simply need to set out the criteria under which the presumption was made.
The meeting should then continue as per the guidance within the OM3.
4.20.
The record of the SPRM must be forwarded to the PPCS Case Manager within 7 days of the
meeting. The Case Manager will then decide whether the case should be sifted out, and must
notify the prisoner of the decision in writing within 14 days of receiving the SPRM record.
PPUD milestone 01a should be updated with the date the SPRM record was received and
either milestone 01b or 01c should be updated to record the decision. If the prisoner’s case is
not to be referred to the Parole Board, then the status of the review should be changed to
‘Cancelled – Pre Tariff Sift’ on PPUD by the PPCS Case Manager. The prisoner must also be
notified of the outcome of the SPRM meeting using Annex F.
“Exceptional Progress” pre-tariff reference
4.21.
Where a prisoner is considered to have made exceptional progress since their last SPRM or
since their pre-tariff reference, the SPRM may conclude that it is appropriate to re-consider
whether to recommend referral of the case to the Parole Board for an “exceptional progress”
pre-tariff reference prior to tariff expiry. Examples of exceptional progress may include cases
where the prisoner has, subsequent to the last review, completed key risk reduction work, the
results of which indicate significant progress and a reduction in risk.
4.22.
The decision to re-consider whether to recommend referral is for the SPRM. If it is decided
that the case should be re-considered, the reasons why the prisoner is believed to have made
exceptional progress must be recorded in the SPRM notes.
4.23.
Having taken the decision to re-consider, the SPRM must consider whether to recommend an
“exceptional progress” pre-tariff reference. The criteria to be applied are the same as for any
other pre-tariff review, namely: there is evidence of sufficient progress on the part of the
prisoner to suggest that if the case was referred to the Parole Board, there would be a
reasonable prospect that the prisoner may receive a positive recommendation in support of a
transfer to open conditions. Again, reasons for the SPRM recommendation, whether to
recommend such a reference or not as the case may be, must be recorded in the SPRM
notes.
4.24.
The recommendation must be referred to the PPCS Case Manager, who will consider whether
the criteria for a pre-tariff review have been met. If the case-manager concludes the criteria
are met, they will refer the case to the Parole Board for an “exceptional progress” pre-tariff
reference. The prisoner will be notified of any decision by PPCS using Annex G, which will
also confirm the reference commencement date. PPCS Case Managers must update PPUD
as necessary following the decision.
4.25.
PPCS Case Managers are available to offer advice to Governors in respect of the setting of
exceptional pre-tariff reference, or the feasibility of one being completed a sufficient time prior
to tariff expiry.
Appeals
4.26.
Prisoners may use the complaints procedure to challenge the decision not to refer their case
to the Parole Board for a pre-tariff review. Governors should ensure that the person
considering the appeal was not part of the SPRM considering the prisoners’ case, and that
they have sufficient understanding of ISP management to undertake the appeal.
5.
Consideration of exceptional transfer to open conditions by the Secretary of State
without referral to the Parole Board
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 19
5.1.
The Secretary of State is required to consider transfer to open conditions in cases where an
ISP can demonstrate exceptional progress without reference to the Parole Board.
5.2.
This process will apply to all ISPs where the case has been referred to the Parole Board, the
parole process has commenced and there is a complete dossier of reports.
5.3.
The criteria for exceptional progress are:



The prisoner’s parole dossier must contain evidence that the prisoner has made
significant progress in addressing all identified risk factors; and
There must be a consensus amongst report writers that the prisoner is suitable and safe
to be transferred to open conditions; and
There are no areas of concerns identified by report writers which would clearly benefit
from further exploration by an oral hearing of the Parole Board; and
The prisoner has demonstrated in his/her representations that there are clear benefits to
being transferred to open conditions immediately rather than following the established
process (for example, because it would maintain the momentum of his/her recent
progress, or would allow sufficient time for the prisoner to be fully tested in open
conditions prior to the expiry of tariff).
It must be noted that all cases must be considered on their individual merits, although usually
the prisoner will meet all the criteria to be regarded as exceptional. The Head of Offender
Management and Public Protection Group (OMPPG) will make the final decision whether to
transfer to open conditions without reference to the Parole Board.
5.4.
The application can be made either by the prisoner or through their legal representatives, and
should be sent directly to PPCS. Upon receipt of initial application the Team Manager must
check to see that the prisoner’s parole process has commenced under the GPP and that
reports are available on which to assess the case. Where the review has not yet commenced
or where there is no complete dossier of reports, a letter must be forwarded to the prisoner
and his/her legal representative by the appropriate PPCS Team Manager within 7 days. The
letter must be uploaded to PPUD along with the initial application, and milestones 56a and
56b must be completed.
5.5.
Where an application is received and all reports are available, the PPCS Team Manager must
complete milestone 56a and assess the application to see whether it addresses the criteria as
defined in paragraph 5.3. Except where a dossier has been received fairly recently, PPCS
Team Managers must also check with the prison that the current dossier is up-to-date in
respect of reports. The PPCS Team Manager should complete the proforma at Annex H,
ensuring that the conclusion explains why it is accepted or rejected that exceptional
circumstances exist.
5.6.
If the PPCS Team Manager considers that the criteria for agreeing a transfer to open
conditions without reference to the Parole Board are not met, they must submit the pro-forma
to the Head/Deputy Head of Casework for consideration within 14 days and also complete
PPUD milestone 56c with the date of submission. The Head/Deputy Head of Casework will
consider the case and if they agree it should be rejected will complete the proforma with the
reasons within 14 days. PPUD milestone 56d must be updated with the date the application
was rejected. The prisoner and/or the legal representative must be provided with reasons
within 7 days. PPUD milestone 56g must be completed with the date the letter is issued.
5.7.
If the PPCS Team Manager is of the view that the criteria have been met and that the prisoner
is suitable for transfer to open conditions without consulting the Parole Board the case must
be passed to the Head/Deputy Head of Casework for approval, and PPUD milestone 56c
should be updated. If the Head/Deputy Head of Casework decides to reject the case at this
stage, they should complete the Annex with reasons within 14 days and complete PPUD
milestone 56e with the date of rejection and return to the PPCS Team Manager.
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 20
5.8.
If the Head/Deputy Head of Casework agrees that the case meets the criteria milestone 56e
should be completed and the case should passed within 14 days to The Head of OMPPG for
final approval, Where the case is agreed/rejected by the Head of Group, they will complete
the proforma with reasons and inform the Head/Deputy Head of Casework who will forward to
the PPCS Team Manager to complete milestones 56f or 56g depending on whether the case
has been accepted or rejected by the Head of Group. The PPCS Team Manager will then
arrange for letters to be sent to the prisoner and/or legal representative informing them of the
decision within 7 days.
5.9.
If the case has been accepted, the PPCS Team Manager must ensure the Parole Board is
notified immediately. In pre-tariff cases the Parole Board will inform the prisoner that the
review is now closed. The PPCS Team Manager must set the next review in line with normal
procedures and update PPUD with the new review date. In on or post-tariff cases, the Parole
Board will continue to review the case but only in terms of suitability for release. When the
Parole Board has concluded the review, the PPCS Case Manager must set the next review in
line with normal procedures and update PPUD with the new review date. The PPCS Case
Manager must change the previous review status on PPUD to ‘open agreed – Awaiting TX’
and add milestone 90a to set a target date to check when the transfer to open conditions has
taken place.
5.10.
Once the holding establishment has received confirmation that the move has been agreed, a
transfer must be arranged in the same way as following an accepted recommendation from
the Parole Board for such a move (see Annex I for adult male ISPs and section 6).
6.
Moving to open conditions following on from a Parole Board recommendation
6.1.
ISPs will normally only be transferred from closed to open conditions when: OMPPG officials
decide, on behalf of the Secretary of State, that the prisoner has made exceptional progress
sufficient to justify transfer to open conditions without seeking the advice of the Parole Board
(see Chapter 5); or (ii) a positive Parole Board recommendation has been accepted by the
respective PPCS Team Manager on behalf of the Secretary of State.
6.2.
In those cases where the Parole Board has made a positive recommendation, the process is
as follows:



6.3.
The Parole Board, having considered the prisoner’s dossier containing all relevant
reports, makes a recommendation for transfer to open conditions.
The respective PPCS Team Manager considers the Parole Board’s recommendation
and decides (on behalf of the Secretary of State) whether to accept or reject that
recommendation, taking into account the Secretary of State’s Directions to the Parole
Board (see Annex D) and the guidance to PPCS Team Managers at Annex J. The Team
Manager must ensure that all of the papers considered by the panel when reaching its
decision, including any reports submitted on the day of the hearing and any postprogramme reports are considered.
The OMU Manager (or equivalent) must then arrange for the prisoner to be informed of
the Parole Board’s recommendation, reasons, including their advice on outstanding risk
areas and to also inform them of the Secretary of State’s decision for accepting or
rejecting the Parole Board recommendation.
Where the Parole Board has recommended a transfer to open conditions and this has been
agreed by PPCS, a letter setting a suitable date for the next Parole Board review of the case
giving the full reasons for this decision must be sent to the prisoner. Each case must be
considered on its own individual merits and fully justified, although the maximum period that
can elapse between the Parole Board’s considerations of a tariff-expired case is two years. In
pre-tariff cases, the next review should be set for the tariff expiry date. The Team Manager
must update PPUD with the new review date. Once the letter informing the prisoner of the
date for the next review is issued, the Team Manager must update PPUD milestone 90,
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 21
change the previous review status on PPUD to ‘open agreed – Awaiting TX’ and add
milestone 90a to set a target date to check when the transfer to open conditions has taken
place.
6.4.
The Offender Management and Assessment Section (OAMS) within OMPPG and Population
Management Section (PMS) will arrange for the transfer of adult male ISPs (see annex I). For
all other ISPs, Governors must e-mail the approval to PMS, using the appropriate inter-prison
escort booking form. PMS will then arrange the transfer.
6.5.
If the Team Manager is considering rejecting a recommendation to transfer a prisoner to open
conditions, the case should be discussed with the Head/Deputy of Casework immediately and
advice sought from legal advisors. A case can only be rejected with the approval of the Head
of OMPPG. The parameters for rejecting a Parole Board recommendation for transfer to open
conditions are very limited. The criteria for rejection are:

the panel’s decision is inaccurate

the panel have acted irrationally, for example by recommending transfer to open
conditions when most of the reports and especially the offender manager’s report and
psychologist report favour retention in closed conditions.
6.6.
For ISPs who are not recommended for open conditions, any requirement for the allocation
and arrangements for the transfer of prisoners in the closed prison estate e.g. high Security,
Category B and Category C, remains a matter for the holding establishments.
7.
Adverse developments, warning letters, advice cases and re-referrals
7.1.
An adverse development is linked to an Indeterminate Sentenced Prisoner’s (ISP) behaviour
which suggests an increase in risk and casts doubt on their suitability for open conditions.
Some examples of adverse developments are as follows:












Escape from closed conditions
Abscond from open conditions
Failure on ROTL
Failure of a Mandatory/Voluntary Drug Test
Security information comes to light e.g. using and supplying drugs/mobile phones,
bullying and intimidating other prisoners
General behaviour (e.g. behaving aggressively)
Failure of a breath test on return from ROTL
Breach of conditions whilst on ROTL – late return, seen entering licensed premises
Brewing illegal alcohol (hooch)
Found in possession of an unauthorised item, mobile phone, mobile phone charger,
debit card, sim card etc.
Arrested for assault
Arrested for other offences
7.2.
When an adverse development has occurred, HMPS staff must inform PPCS who will record
the details on PPUD. Where there has been an adverse development and the ISP has been
temporarily returned to closed conditions, HMPS staff must submit a LISP 4 form to the
relevant PPCS Case Manager as soon as possible. In cases where a LISP 4 has been
completed the PPCS Case Manager must open a new ‘failure in open conditions’ record on
PPUD.
7.3.
When details of the adverse developments are received by PPCS and where there are
concerns that an ISP is not suitable for a return to open conditions, he/she must be provided
with the details so that representations can be made. A time period of 28 days must be given
to submit representations.
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
7.4.
PAGE 22
On receipt of the prisoner’s representations or confirmation that the prisoner does not intend
to submit representations, PPCS must consider the history of the case, the adverse
developments/temporary removal from open conditions, any representations submitted and
whether to:



issue a warning letter to the ISP;
Refer new information to the Parole Board for consideration in the context of an ongoing
Parole Board review;
refer a case to the Parole Board for its advice about the prisoner’s continued suitability
for open conditions;
Warning letters
7.5.
It is not always necessary to refer the case to the Parole Board for advice. A warning letter
may be issued by PPCS in cases where there are concerns about an ISP’s behaviour but the
level of risk presented has not substantially increased to warrant more serious action.
Warning letters can be issued if an ISP is:



7.6.
awaiting transfer to open conditions;
detained in open conditions; or
has been temporarily transferred from open to closed conditions
A warning letter should always be considered before a case is referred to the Parole Board for
advice. If the adverse development does not affect risk and is not a major development, a
warning letter will usually be sufficient. However, a warning letter must not be used where it is
considered that the ISP’s risk has increased and there is a causal link to the index offence.
Any cases where a warning letter is being recommended rather than a referral to the Parole
Board for advice must be agreed by the Head or Deputy Head of Casework.
Advice cases
7.7.
Cases can be referred to the Parole Board for advice by PPCS where:


the Secretary of State has agreed a transfer to open conditions and the ISP is waiting for
the transfer to open conditions to take place but an adverse development has occurred
and a warning letter is not considered appropriate; or
the ISP has transferred to open conditions but due to an adverse development has now
been returned to closed conditions and a warning letter is not considered appropriate.
7.8.
In a few cases, the ISP may remain in open conditions whilst the Parole Board is asked for
advice on their continued suitability for open conditions, but usually they will have been
temporarily removed to closed conditions. The referral for advice is made under Section 239
(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 using the pro-forma found in the new core dossier
guidance.
7.9.
In cases where there is an ongoing GPP review or one is about to start, the Parole Board may
decide to combine it with the advice case. This is a decision for the Parole Board and each
case will be considered on their merits. The GPP and the advice case review will usually be
considering separate issues. The advice case would consider the adverse developments,
whereas the GPP review is the regular review of their detention in custody.
Re-referrals
7.10.
A case may be re-referred to the Parole Board if there has been a change in circumstances
before the Secretary of State can act on the decision (usually within a month of the decision
having been taken). This could be where an adverse development may have taken place. A
re-referral can only be made by the Secretary of State and the Parole Board will not take any
action until a formal re-referral has been received. There is no standard pro-forma for re-
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 23
referrals and no particular section of the Act. The re-referral will usually take the format of an
email to the relevant Parole Board Case Manager providing the reasons for referral and
attaching any new information.
7.11.
Re-referrals should be made using the original dossier. It may be necessary to provide
addendum reports/further paperwork depending on the reason for the re-referral. A new
dossier should not be complied
8.
Referral and Deferral of cases
8.1.
PPCS refer cases to the Parole Board before tariff expiry in sufficient time to allow the
prisoner to be released upon tariff expiry (the review end date), and/or to seek advice about
transfer to open conditions. If the prisoner is not released on life/IPP licence as a result of the
tariff expiry review, PPCS must set the date on which the next review will conclude. The
maximum period that can elapse between the Parole Board’s consideration of post tariff cases
is two years. All decisions on the timing of subsequent reviews are undertaken by PPCS Case
Managers on the basis of the individual circumstances and needs of each particular case.
8.2.
Prior to referral of a case to the Parole Board, any requests from a prisoner or legal
representative for a deferral of the review should be made to the PPCS Case Manager,
setting out the reasons and the length of time being sought. PPCS on behalf of the Secretary
of state will consider the request and decide whether to agree or reject it, informing the prison
and prisoner accordingly.
8.3.
Following referral of a case to the Parole Board, the listing of the case is a matter for the
Parole Board. Any requests on behalf of the Secretary of State for a deferral of the review
should be exceptional, such as to allow the completion of an offending behavior course which
the prisoner has already commenced at start of the review process. Where an establishment
believes that a deferral is necessary they must approach the PPCS Case Manager, by email,
setting out the reasons and the length of time being sought. The PPCS Case Manager will
decide whether the request should be made to the Parole Board. Any deferral request must
then be considered and either agreed or rejected by the Parole Board. The Board’s decision is
final. This is not a decision for the Secretary of State.
8.4.
The review date is calculated on the basis of time spent in custody. If a prisoner escapes,
then the date of his or her review will normally be put back by the period the prisoner was
unlawfully at large. Governors must report any such incident to PPCS as soon as it occurs.
Where the prisoner is returned to custody following abscond the next review date will be set
by PPCS, and each case will be considered on its own individual merits.
8.5.
Prisoners cannot opt out of their review process and it should continue with or without the
prisoners’ involvement. However, prisoners may request deferrals of their hearings for
reasons that are compatible with the need to have an effective review. Again, such requests
must be considered by the Parole Board, who will determine whether to accept or reject.
Again, the Parole Board’s decision is final.
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 24
9.
Transfer of Prisoners during review
9.1.
The parole process is considerably disrupted if a prisoner is transferred during the course of a
review. While it is accepted that there are exceptional compassionate, security or discipline
reasons for such a move, prisoners whose applications for parole are underway should not
normally be transferred before their parole dossier has been completed. Only in exceptional
circumstances may prisoners be transferred. This may be appropriate, for example, where it
is necessary to transfer the prisoner to complete offending behaviour work, as identified
through the sentence planning process, or where a prisoner is awaiting transfer to an open
prison. Prisoners should not be delayed in their progress to open conditions and may be
transferred during the course of a review providing the guidance at annex I is followed;
transfer should not take place prior to an agreed hearing date that is due to take place within
8 weeks of the proposed transfer date unless the receiving establishment can accommodate
arrangements for the prisoner to attend the hearing. Prisons must also still comply with the
process as laid out below at 8.2 and 8.3. In cases where this has been necessary Governors
must inform the Parole Board and PPCS of the reasons for the move.
9.2.
In order to minimise the disruption caused by such transfers, a process must be in place with
both the receiving and sending establishment to manage the transfer of prisoners during the
parole process or within 3 months of its starting. Co-operation is essential. Where a transfer is
necessary, the sending establishment must take responsibility for completing parole reports
on the prisoner as it will normally have greater knowledge of the prisoner. The sending
establishment’s PPCS Case Manager will also retain responsibility the compilation of the core
dossier and for the case until the complete dossier is disclosed. On the Review screen, PPUD
must be updated to show that the sending establishment remains as the Dossier Producing
Establishment. Exceptionally, there may be cases where the receiving establishment is better
placed to complete the reports. Only in cases where both the sending and receiving
establishment are in agreement will the receiving establishment complete the reports (and in
such cases, responsibility for the case will be transferred to the PPCS Case Manager who is
responsible for the receiving establishment). This must be clearly annotated on PPUD. If such
an agreement cannot be obtained then the sending establishment must complete the reports.
Receiving establishments must ensure that they have procedures in place for checking on
parole progress before decisions are taken to accept a prisoner on transfer who is in the midst
of or within three months of the commencement of a parole review.
9.3.
It is even more critical that a transfer of any prisoner after the exact date of the hearing has
been published by the Parole Board should be avoided if at all possible as this has significant
impact on all parties and may lead to a considerable delay in the hearing for that prisoner.
Where transfer is unavoidable, the Governor must ensure that both the Parole Board and
PPCS are alerted immediately.
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 25
10.
Mental Health Cases
10.1.
Prisoners may be transferred under sections 47/49 of the Mental Health Act 1983, either for
assessment or as a long term transfer, for as long as that prisoner is assessed as requiring it
by qualified medical practitioners. Whilst time spent in a hospital counts towards the sentence
for tariff purposes, in the event that a prisoner is transferred to hospital during any part of the
parole review process, that review will be suspended until the remission of the prisoner to
prison. The status of the review on PPUD should be changed to ‘Deferred – Sectioned’.
Governors must inform the Parole Board and the relevant PPCS Case Manager of any
transfer of a prisoner to the mental health estate, and when a prisoner returns to HMPS
custody ensuring that reasons for transfer and return are provided.
10.2.
When the PPCS Case Manager is informed that the prisoner has returned to HMPS custody
in this manner, he or she must check whether the prisoner would have been entitled to a
Parole Board review during this time had they not been detained under the Mental Health Act.
If this is the case then the PPCS Case Manager must contact the prison to agree a date for
the next review (usually a minimum of 6 months to allow appropriate reports to be prepared
for the GPP). A new review should then be created on PPUD to reflect this.
11.
Quality of Parole Reports
11.1.
The need to produce timely reports must not reduce the quality of risk assessments as the
Parole Board must have complete, accurate, up-to date impartial assessments generated by
staff qualified in risk assessment and risk management to allow them to perform their statutory
function effectively. Good quality assessments are essential to ensure that safe decisions can
be made and to avoid prisoners being detained in custody for additional periods of time whilst
further evidence is sought.
11.2.
In order to ensure that decisions about risk can be made, formal risk assessments included in
the dossier must be completed by appropriately trained and experienced staff. Other staff
preparing reports, e.g. CARATs workers should have a reasonable understanding of the
parole process, tests which the Parole Board apply when making decisions/recommendations
and basic principles of risk assessment and how their evidence contributes to the parole
process. Available training includes:
 Introduction to Risk Assessment and Management (IRAM), which is recommended for
any member of staff working with risk and risk assessments;
 Offender Supervisor Foundation (OSF – replaces MISaR) and is necessary for the OS;
working with Indeterminate Sentence Prisoners (WWISP), beneficial for key workers
and any other staff working with ISPs; and
 the Report Writing Course which is recommended for any staff who are expected to
write reports for the sentence planning or Parole processes.
Preparing for parole review
11.3.
Sentence planning meetings are held throughout a prisoner’s sentence to review the progress
made against sentence plan objectives, and to review the offender’s assessment. When the
prisoner is approaching the Parole Board review stage, the OM and OS must ensure that
arrangements are in place to:




request a full set of SPR reports from relevant parties;
hold the parole review meeting;
write the PAROM 1 overview report, or the relevant addendum template if appropriate,
following the sentence planning parole review meeting; and
ensure a Victim Personal Statement is available where the victim wishes to complete
one.
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
11.4.
PAGE 26
With the publication of the service specification ‘Manage the Custodial Sentence: Pre and
Post Release’, it is mandatory that an OS is assigned to all cases. In the case of ISPs, the OS
will oversee the preparations for parole, including the coordination of report preparation and
the sentence plan review meeting. The home probation officer will still produce the PAROM 1.
Reports required
11.5.
For all parole dossiers, the following reports are mandatory (templates of all reports below are
available at Annexes K to S):

PAROM1 - Offender Manager’s report completed by a qualified probation officer, or
PAROM1+ addendum report where appropriate

SPR L - Offender Supervisor’s report

SPR D - Relevant Key Worker’s reports to include reports from the following staff,
where they are actively working with the offender to reduce any risks: CARAT worker,
interventions and activity supervisors, offending behaviour
programmes staff,
therapeutic community, DSPD staff, personal officer or wing staff, chaplaincy staff
11.6.
The following reports will also be prepared if directed by the Parole Board or there has been
any ongoing contact with the prisoner by staff from these units and the OM and OS are of the
opinion that these reports will contribute to the overall assessment of the risk the offender
poses:





11.7.
SPR E – psychologist report
SPR F – healthcare
SPR G – psychiatrist
SPR H – security
SPR J – offender
Reports from psychologists are only usually required in cases where there has been
substantive psychological input or significant personality issues. Psychiatric reports are only
usually required where there are mental health issues on which to report. These may be
directed by the Parole Board at the directions stage (week 14).
The probation OM and Case Administrator must work closely with the prison offender
management unit on all ISPs, as the offender manager has to receive the reports in time to
consider them before the sentence planning parole review meeting. Following the detailed
discussions at that meeting the offender manager will prepare a PAROM 1.
The Offender Manager’s report (PAROM 1)
11.8.
The Parole Board relies heavily on the contents of the parole dossier in making its decision.
As the report which the offender manager completes, the PAROM1 becomes the key
document in that dossier. In writing this the OM will draw on a variety of sources, and the SPR
reports, to present a comprehensive view of relevant information about the offender, victim
information, risk and risk management through out the sentence.
11.9.
The request for and receipt of Victim Personal Statements is the responsibility of the OM’s
Probation Trust. As a result, Offender Managers must liaise with Victim Liaison Officers to
ensure all victims have the opportunity to submit a statement and that it is included in
documentation submitted to the Parole Board.
11.10. When an OM completes a PAROM 1 for a case in which s/he has not previously been
involved, s/he may not have access to sufficient information to complete section 9 –
Behaviour in Prison - in any detail. In such circumstances the OS report (SPR L) becomes
particularly important
11.11. The Offender Manager’s overview report to the Parole Board (PAROM 1) must contain:
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED














PAGE 27
the author’s role and qualifications/expertise
knowledge of the prisoner including how the report writer knows the prisoner
the sources used to compile the report, including implications if no independent account
of the offences has been obtained
an analysis of the index offence, including the offender's attitude and motivation at the
time, and subsequently
an analysis of any previous offending history, including patterns of offending and the
risks of serious harm and of re-offending at the time of the offence
any relevant victim information, including subsequent contact by the probation service
with the victim
confirmation of request for and status of the Victim Personal Statement
Relevant information about the personal circumstances of the offender
details of interventions undertaken and progress made against sentence plan objectives
during the prison sentence to address the risk of harm and of re-offending, and an
analysis of their impact on the level of risk
details of the offender’s behaviour in prison, including any changes in his/her motivation
and compliance during the sentence and adjudications and drug test results, including
an assessment of the impact on the overall level of risk
a current risk assessment, including a summary of different staff views, drawing on the
other reports from the parole dossier, and the evidence from assessment tools which
have been used such as OASys, Risk Matrix 2000 or SARA. This should distinguish
between the assessed likelihood of reoffending, and the risk of serious harm to the
offender
a re-settlement and sentence plan which must include an assessment of the risks the
offender poses if released now and the key relapse indicators
a risk management plan to address any risks the offender poses if released now. It
should include any MAPPA involvement and relevant multi-agency planning undertaken
or to be undertaken
a clear proposal as to suitability for open conditions or release on licence; or the work
that needs to be undertaken before such moves could be considered.
Addendum PAROM 1+ template
11.12. The purpose of the Addendum PAROM 1+ is to provide a structure for Offender Managers to
build on their original reports, where one has previously been completed, rather than have to
repeat material covered in the earlier report. The report for the first Parole hearing must
always be on the full PAROM1 template. Thereafter, the addendum PAROM1+ should only be
used in specific situations:



if the OM is the author of the original PAROM, they can complete the addendum report.
if the OM is not the author of the original PAROM but endorse the risk assessments in
that report, the addendum report can be completed.
however, if the OM is not able to endorse the risk assessments in that report, the full
PAROM1 should be completed
Offender Supervisor’s report: SPR L
11.13. The purpose of the SPR L is to enable the OS, who works closely with the prisoner, to provide
an assessment of the offender’s risk, drawing on their attitudes and behaviour in prison,
noting any patterns or association with previous offending, and identifying compliance with
and report on progress against risk levels the sentence plan.
11.14. As it is now mandatory for an OS to be assigned to each case, who will receive the relevant
training to fulfil their role, the expectation is that this replaces the need for a PSDSM and the
associated report (SPR K). However, where an OS is new to the role, or has not previously
worked with ISPs, there may be a need to work jointly with another staff member with greater
experience, in order to prepare the SPR L report
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 28
11.15. The Offender Supervisor’s report should contain:













knowledge of the prisoner including how the report writer knows the prisoner
qualifications and experience of the report writer
an account of the index offence, including the offender's attitude and motivation
an analysis of any previous offending history, including patterns of offending and the
risks of serious harm and of re-offending at the time of the offence
any relevant victim information, including subsequent contact by the probation service
with the victim
relevant information about the personal circumstances of the offender
details of the offender’s engagement with the sentence plan and progress against
objectives in the plan,
details of interventions undertaken or planned to address both the risk of harm and of reoffending, and an analysis of their impact
an analysis of the offender’s behaviour in prison, including patterns of behaviour,
changes in motivation or compliance, any adjudications and drug test results, and the
impact of these on the overall risk posed by the offender
where the report is being provided for an SPR meeting, an account of links the offender
has to the community, including family relationships, and level of contact maintained
during the sentence. (Where this is being completed for a parole review, the OM will
cover this in his/her report.)
an assessment of whether the offender has demonstrated a reduction in the risk of
serious harm s/he poses to the public
an overall assessment of the prisoner’s current risk to the public, including evidence
from assessment tools which have been used such as OASys, Risk Matrix 2000 or
SARA and previous sections of the report. This should distinguish between the
assessed likelihood of reoffending, and the risk of serious harm the offender poses
recommendations in relation to further actions or interventions required to reduce the
level of risk the offender poses, including proposals for transfer or recategorisation if
appropriate. NB This is only required for non-parole reviews.
11.16. All reports prepared for a Parole Board review must be e-mailed to the person who requested
the report, rather than posted or faxed in hard copy, so that they can be uploaded to PPUD.
Any report that cannot be sent electronically must be scanned by the holding establishment so
that it can be uploaded.
Other reports and information
11.17. Where other reports are required, staff completing these should ensure they use the relevant
template provided at annexes K to P and provide an assessment which draws on the
offender’s most recent OASys and Risk of Serious Harm assessments...
11.18. In some cases, it may be that the Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel (MAPPP) plans
should inform parole decisions. Where this information is not immediately available via the
PAROM1 report, an executive summary of the MAPPP meeting relating to the prisoner must
be included in the dossier following consultation with the information owner.
Quality assurance and countersigning
11.19. All SPR reports, in particular the OM report (PAROM 1) and OS report (SPR L) are to be
reviewed by a line manager who should ensure that the report follows the guidance, and
addresses all the areas outlined in the templates provided at Annexes R and Q respectively
before they are submitted. For both the PAROM 1 and SPR L, once they are satisfied with the
quality of the report, each manager should countersign the relevant report before it is
submitted.
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 29
12.
The Challenge Process for Generic Parole Process performance data
12.1.
The GPP is subject to centrally monitored performance indicators and PPCS issue data on
the production of completed dossiers by establishments on a monthly basis. Governors must
put measures into place to ensure that these performance indicators are met. If there is
information that prison staff believe to be inaccurate, or if there is a reasonable excuse for a
late dossier, this data can be contested via the Challenge Process.
12.2.
If staff in establishments believe that the raw data is not accurate this should be raised by
sending an e-mail to the Quality Assurance Team at sppu4ps@noms.gsi.gov.uk. Full reasons
for the challenge should be given and the challenge form attached to the raw data must be
used.
12.3.
If a challenge is accepted the late dossier will be removed from the performance figures for
that establishment and the establishment’s recorded dossier performance will be adjusted to
reflect this.
12.4.
If a challenge is rejected and the establishment is not satisfied with the decision, the challenge
can be escalated to an appropriate manager within PPCS. The notification of the rejection will
provide contact details for the relevant manager. The timetable for the issuing of the raw data
and the challenge process is set out in the notification covering the issuing of the raw data.
13.
Creation and deletion of PPUD accounts
13.1.
Staff in establishments wishing to obtain a PPUD login account must first complete the GPP
and PPUD training course. Staff should consult Phoenix for details of course dates and how to
book a place. Once the course is completed the new user will be assigned an account by
PPCS. It should be noted that each account is user specific and under no circumstances
should members of staff log in with an account that is not their own.
13.2.
As each active user account has an associated cost, it is important that redundant accounts
are closed down if a member of staff leaves the service or is transferred to a post where they
no longer need access to PPUD. In these situations the line manager of the member of staff
must contact the PPCS Quality Assurance Team in order to inform them that a user should be
removed. If guidance is required staff should contact the Parole Helpdesk at
sppu4ps@noms.gsi.gov.uk.
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PPUD naming conventions in chronological order
PAGE 30
Annex A
203 - Initial documents (put under “Personal”)
LISP1
Acknowledgement letter
Change in Tariff/Review & Covering letter
CoA Orders
Covering letter to OMU
First review notification
Sentencing remarks
204 – CSD Documents (put under “Personal”)
E-mail chasing CSD
LISP2 MARAP
Media reports
MG5
Miscellaneous CSD
Police Protocol
Post-sentence report
Pre-cons
Pre-sentence report
Pre-trial medical report
Prosecution case summary
Victim’s charter information
Warrant
205 - HMP Tariff Reviews (put under “Personal”)
Covering letter to LIMIT
Full dossier
High Court recommendation
Invitation letter
Reply slip
Representations
Request Representations
Request TARs
Sift Proforma
Skeleton dossier
SofS decision – prisoner
SofS decision – solicitor
SofS decision – VLO
Victim Impact Statement
206 – LIMIT (put under “Personal”)
Decision - full judgment
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 31
Decision – Order
Explanation note to prisoner
New applications
207 – Reviews (put under “Current Review”)
Advance Review - prisoner
Advance Review Request
Agree to deferral - prisoner
Change in review date following escape - prisoner
Changes re advancing 1st review
Deferral request to PB - prisoner
Dossier disclosure letter and acknowledgement of receipt
Full Dossier
Guittard - application
Guittard - decision
ICM directions
Knockback notification - prisoner
OH Notification - exact date
OH timetable
Open acceptance - prisoner
Open recommendation proforma
Open rejection - prisoner
Open rejection submission to Minister
Panel Chair Directions
PB Appeal Notification - accepted
PB Appeal Notification - refused
PB Decision - knockback or release
PB Decision - recommend transfer to open
PPA referral proforma
Pre tariff Sift - application
Pre tariff Sift - decision
Prisoner's Reps
Refuse deferral - prisoner
Request to defer review
Review Request - OMU
Secretary of State's Non Proforma
Secretary of State's View
Skeleton Dossier
208 – Release (put under “Releases”)
IPP Licence
Life Licence
Release Details – ACO
Release Details – Prison
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 32
Release letter to NIS
Release Proforma minute
Release Statistics Sheet
209 - Failure In Open/Adverse Developments (put under “Failure in Open Conditions”)
Adverse developments following release direction - prisoner
Advice Case Dossier
Cancellation/reimposition - proforma
Covering Letter for written warning
Developments affecting release date - prisoner
LISP4
Notification to NIS
Notification to prisoner - continued suitability for open
Notification to prisoner - removal from open
PB advice - remain in closed
PB advice- return to open
Referral note to PB - cancellation or reimposition of licence conditions
Remain suitable for open - prisoner
Request for cancellation/reimposition - Probation report
Temp Removal from open - prisoner
Variation Order - cancellation
Variation Order - reimposition
Warning Letter
Warning Letter - community
210 – Supervision (put under “Post Release”)
Letter to ACO - agree to cancel
Letter to ACO - considering cancellation request
Letter to ACO - PB agree to cancel
Letter to ACO - PB decision on termination of IPP licence
Letter to ACO - refusal to cancel
Letter to ACO - reimposition
Notification to NIS - death of a licensee
Termination of IPP licence - PB referral note
Termination Order
211 – Correspondence (put under “Current Review”)
Consent form - 3rd party disclosure
DPA photocopies - Branston Covering letter
General Correspondence
Legal Correspondence
Letter Before Action
MP's/Minister's Correspondence
Response to Director General cases
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 33
Response to MP's/Minister's correspondence
Responses to Treat Official letters
Treat Official
212 - Judicial Reviews (put under “Current Review”)
AoS
Consent Order
Summary of Grounds - draft
Summary of Grounds - final
Witness Statement
213 - Compassionate Release (put under “Current Review”)
Compassionate release - Governor's request
Compassionate Release proforma
Compassionate Release submission
Referral note to PB
214 – Mental Health (put under “Current Review”)
Dossier disclosure letter to RMO following previous knockback
Dossier disclosure letter to RMO following tribunal
Dossier disclosure to PB
Dossier Template
Notification of decision against release
Release direction notification – RMO
Report Request – OM letter
Review - on tariff/expired
215 - FNPs/Restricted Transfers (put under “Current Review”)
Change of review details - prisoner
Dossier disclosure letter
Letter to Cross border Transfer Section providing details of tariff & PB review process
Letter to Holding prison explaining review process & requesting reports for PB review
Letter to PB - immigration status
Letter to prisoner received in England & Wales on inward unrestricted transfer
Referral of case to Cross Border Transfer Section to consider change in transfer status
UKBA proforma
Chronology of immigration history
216 - Post Release Recall (put under “Recalls(PPU)”)
Recall Documents
Revocation Order - Emergency Recall
Revocation Order - Standard Recall
Reps pack (incl Reasons)
Non-disclosure information
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 34
Representations
Annex H
Recall Notification to Probation/Prison
RTC Notification to Probation/Prison
PB Decision - No Recommendation
Release
PB Decision - Release
S of S Decisions
Rescind of Recall
Other
218 - HDC (put under “Recalls(PPU)”)
Acknowledge/Read/Delivery confirmations (E-mails)
Annex E
Annex H
Compensation claim
Dossier front Cover for 1st Review
HDC 11- Licence amendment
HDC(7) - Instal instructions
Hearing Date Notification Letter
Letter Before Action
Monitoring Contractor -All Events log
Monitoring Contractor Breach report
OASys Report
Oral review Notification to Prison/Prisoner
Other Reports (from Offender Manager, Clearsprings, Police)
PB decision
PB decision Letter
Police Charge Sheet
Pre-Sentence reports
Previous Convictions
Proforma Referral - Croydon
PUHDC(6)
PUHDC(7)
PUHDC(8)
PUHDC(9)
Reasons
Recall Advice Cover including Revocation Order
Release Licence
Representations (Prisoner, Legal Rep, Other)
Request other information
Rescind Notice
Section 254 Appeal Pack
Section 39 Appeal Pack
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 35
SPPU-RPT Appeal Decision
SPPU-RPT Consideration
SPPU-RPT File minute
SPPU-RPT Investigation reports (EM, Equip Invest report)
Team Record Sheet
Tsol Referral Letter
219 – Annual Review Post Recall (put under “Review”)
Compensation claim
Disclosable Victim Statement
Dossier –for OH
Dossier –prison copy
Hearing Date
Hearing Date Notification Letter
ICM Directions
Letter Before Action
Non-disclosable Documents
Notification of Oral Hearing
Notification of Oral Hearing Letter
Notification of review commencement
Other Reports/Documents Receipt
Other Reports/Documents Request
Panel Chair Directions
Panel Chair/ICM Directions Letter
Parole Board decision Letter
PB decision
Team Record Sheet
Tsol Referral Letter
Witness Attendees
220 - Licence Variations –Determinate (put under “Post Release”)
Decision letter
Dossier
Front Cover sheet
Licence
PB Decision
Release licence Issue Letter
Team Record Sheet
Variation request
220 - Licence Variation – Indeterminate (put under “Post Release”)
Decision letter
Dossier
Front Cover sheet
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 36
Licence
PB Decision
Release licence Issue Letter
Team Record Sheet
Variation request
221 – Resettlement Abroad – Determinate (put under “Post Release”)
Decision letter
Request to resettle
Team Record Sheet
222 - Electronic Monitoring as Licence Conditions (put under “Review”)
Cover sheet to PB
EM 1 Form
Issue Decision to Prison/Probation/Monitoring Co
MAPPA Minutes/Parole Report
PB Decision
Pre-Sentence Report
Previous Convictions
Request
Team Record Sheet
Variation Requests
223 – ERS Breach Notification (put under “Unusual Events”)
Breach report
ERS Breach Notification
Team Record Sheet
UKBA Documents
224 - Lifer Representations (put under “Review”)
Adjudications
Court Documents
Issue Dossier Letter
Issue Dossier Letter to Prison
Lifer Recall Reasons
Notice of Return to Custody
Proforma to casework team
Recall Dossier
Representations
Team Record Sheet
225 – Non disclosure (put under “Review”)
Compensation claim
Consideration proforma
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 37
Decision letter
Letter Before Action
Non Disclosure Document
Non-Disclosure Application
Submit Application
Team Record Sheet
Tsol Referral Letter
226 – Post Release Reviews – Annual Review (put under “Review”)
Compensation claim
Disclosable Victim Statement
Dossier
Hearing Date
Hearing Date Notification Letter
ICM Directions
Letter Before Action
Non-disclosable Documents
Notification of Oral Hearing
Notification of Oral Hearing Letter
Other Reports/Documents Receipt
Other Reports/Documents Request
Panel Chair Directions
Panel Chair/ICM Directions Letter
Parole Board decision Letter
PB Decision
Team Record Sheet
Tsol Referral Letter
Witness Attendees
226 - Post Release Reviews - Oral following Recall (put under “Review”)
Compensation claim
Disclosable Victim Statement
Dossier
Hearing Date
Hearing Date Notification Letter
ICM Directions
Letter Before Action
Non-disclosable Documents
Notification of Oral Hearing
Notification of Oral Hearing Letter
Other Reports/Documents Receipt
Other Reports/Documents Request
Panel Chair Directions
Panel Chair/ICM Directions Letter
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 38
PB Decision
PB Decision Letter
Team Record Sheet
Tsol Referral Letter
Witness Attendees
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 39
Annex B
The Criminal Justice Secure eMail (CJSM) Accounts
CJSM Background
The CJSM service is an important part of the process of joining up the Criminal Justice System (CJS)
in England and Wales. It allows people working in the Criminal Justice System and those working to
prevent crime, including public, private and voluntary organisations, to send emails containing
information up to an equivalent of ‘Restricted’ (i.e. sensitive data), in a secure way. This has made it
possible for key groups of people to send emails securely to each other.
CJSM uses a dedicated server to securely transmit emails between connected Criminal Justice
practitioners. Once connected, practitioners can use CJSM to send secure emails to each other and
to Criminal Justice Organisations.
Criminal Justice Organisations already have a secure email, as they are connected to secure
Government networks. However, the CJSM service will enable other people and organisations
involved in the Criminal Justice process, such as defence solicitors, YOTs, barristers, local authorities
and victims and witness groups to send and receive secure emails as well.
PPCS Case Managers and Prison staff
PPCS Case Managers and prison staff must only email GPP related material to a law firm / Solicitor
via a CJSM account.
A CJSM domain is usually abc.def@Lawfirm.com.cjsm.net
PPCS Case Managers and prison staff must not send any material to a non CJSM email account,
and if they are requested to do so, they must direct the law firm / solicitor to the www.cjsm.net
website and encourage solicitors to sign up and obtain a CJSM account.
Under strict rules from the Office for Criminal Justice Reform (OCJR) all law firms / solicitors are
required to be sponsored by a government body in order for them to obtain a CJSM email account.
If law firms / solicitors request for PPCS Case Managers to sponsor them, PPCS Case Managers will
need to ensure to the CJSM application process that:

The law firm / solicitor is known to Case Managers and are regularly communicated with (not
necessarily by email but phone and letter as well).

The law firm / solicitor resides at the address they have supplied (i.e. post mail is sent to their
supplied address).

Their email address has a secure domain i.e. xxxx.xxxx@noms.gsi.gov.uk
The above checks will be made by CJSM if the law firm / solicitors details need verifying.
There is no cost to sponsor firms, however ultimately, the final decision in sponsoring a law firm /
solicitor rests with PPCS Heads of Casework.
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 40
Annex C
Generic Parole Process – timeline for PPCS
Week
26
PPUD informs PPCS/PB/Prison to commence
review. HMPS request required reports
Measured targets
(associated actions are
highlighted in blue)
Glossary of abbreviations &
terms
PB issues review notification to prisoner
PPCS
22
PPCS notifies prison via email that core
dossier is available on PPUD
21
HMPS receive core dossier
HMPS
90% core dossiers to be
received by week 21
Prisoner deadline for responding to PB review
notification
PB
OH
ICM
Public Protection
Casework Section
Her Majesty’s Prison
Service (establishment
Case Administrator in
this context)
Parole Board
Oral Hearing
Intensive Case
Management
All parties = PPCS, HMPS, PB,
Prisoner and their representative
18
17
Probation must submit required reports
including PAROM1 to HMPS to enable HMPS
to complete dossier
80% PAROM1 to be
received by week 18
HMPS completes and notifies all parties that
the dossier is ready via email.
Note: The Governor or a delegated
authority must sign off the dossier.
80% of dossiers to be
disclosed by week 18
PB assesses dossier and returns to HMPS if
incomplete
No more than 5% of
dossiers rejected
HMPS return completed
dossier to PB
16
14
Rejected dossiers
Prisoner deadline to submit representations
PB refers dossier to ICM
Negative decision
12
PB considers pre/post tariff cases on papers &
issues either negative decision OR refers to
OH and issues ICM directions
10
HMPS & PPCS comply with all ICM directions
85% of ICM directions
actioned by week 10
PB lists case for OH
90% of OH dates set by
week 10 where directions
are complete
Pre- and Post-Tariff
cases where negative
decision is issued
Deadline for prisoner to
challenge negative decision
8
PB confirms exact OH date and details to all
parties. HMPS must arrange suitable witness
arrangements, accommodation, escorting of
visitors and any other arrangements relevant to
the hearing.
6
PB passes dossier to member & issues panel
chair directions if appropriate
4
PPCS & HMPS comply with all outstanding
directions. PB issues Timetable to all parties
0
PB hold OH and determine result
80% cases determined by
week 0
-2
PB issues decision to all parties
95% of decisions to be issued within 2 weeks of actual OH date
-4
PPCS Process PB decisions
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP (AMENDED)
PB issues OH timetable to all parties
PB hold OH and determine result
Week 0 starts on day one of a calendar
month within which the hearing must be held
Tariff Expiry Date / Review (end) Date
UNCLASSIFIED
80% cases determined by
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
Week 0 starts on day one of a
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 45
Generic Parole Process - timeline for Prisons
Week
HMPS request required reports
26
PB issues review notification to prisoner
Measured targets
(associated actions are
highlighted in blue)
`
Glossary of abbreviations &
terms
PPCS
HMPS
21
HMPS receive core dossier
90% core dossiers to be
received by week 21
PB
OH
ICM
Prisoner deadline for responding to PB
review notification
18
HMPS receive required reports including
PAROM1
80% PAROM1 to be
received by week 18
HMPS completes and notifies all parties that
the dossier is ready via email.
Note: The Governor or a delegated
authority must sign off the dossier.
80% of dossiers to be
disclosed by week 18
Public Protection
Casework Section
Her Majesty’s Prison
Service (establishment
Case Administrator in
this context)
Parole Board
Oral Hearing
Intensive Case
Management
All parties = PPCS, HMPS, PB,
Prisoner and their representative
Rejected dossiers
17
PB assesses dossier and returns to HMPS if
incomplete
No more than 5% of
dossiers rejected
HMPS return completed
dossier to PB
16
14
Prisoner deadline to submit representations
12
PB considers pre/post tariff cases on papers
& issues either negative decision OR refers
to OH and issues ICM directions
10
HMPS & PPCS comply with all ICM
directions
8
PB confirms exact OH date and details to all
parties. HMPS must arrange suitable
witness arrangements, accommodation,
escorting of visitors and any other
arrangements relevant to the hearing.
4
HMPS & PPCS comply with all outstanding
directions if applicable
Negative decision
Pre- and Post-Tariff
cases where negative
decision is issued
85% of ICM directions
actioned by week 10
Deadline for prisoner to
challenge negative decision
PB issues OH timetable to all parties
Week 0 starts on day one of a
calendar month within which
the hearing must be held
0
PB hold OH and determine result
80% cases determined by
week 0
-2
PB issues decision to all parties
95% of decisions to be issued within 2 weeks of actual OH date
-4
PPCS Process PB decisions
PSI 36/20123 - PI 18/2012 GPP(AMENDED)
Tariff Expiry Date / Review (end) Date
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 46
Generic Parole Process – timeline for Probation
Week
26
Measured targets
Probation receive request of required
reports from HMPS
(associated actions are
highlighted in blue)
Glossary of abbreviations &
terms
PPCS
HMPS
18
10
Probation must submit required reports
including PAROM1 to HMPS to enable
HMPS to complete dossier
80% PAROM1 to be
received by week 18
PB
OH
ICM
Public Protection
Casework Section
Her Majesty’s Prison
Service (establishment
Case Administrator in
this context)
Parole Board
Oral Hearing
Intensive Case
Management
All parties = PPCS, HMPS, PB,
Prisoner and their representative
Probation must submit addendum reports
required to HMPS from ICM directions if
applicable
PB lists case for OH
12
PB considers pre/post tariff cases on papers
& issues either negative decision OR refers
to OH and issues ICM directions
8
PB confirms exact OH date and details to all
parties. HMPS must arrange suitable
witness arrangements, accommodation,
escorting of visitors and any other
arrangements relevant to the hearing
4
Negative decision
Pre- and Post-Tariff
cases where negative
decision is issued
Deadline for prisoner to
challenge negative decision
Probation to submit any addendum reports
required from Panel chair directions if
applicable
PB issues OH timetable to all parties
0
PB hold OH and determine result
-2
PB issues decision
PPCS Process PB decision
-4
PSI 36/20123 - PI 18/2012 GPP(AMENDED)
Week 0 starts on day one of a
calendar month within which
the hearing must be held
95% of decisions to be issued within 2 weeks of actual OH date
Tariff Expiry Date / Review (end) Date
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 47
Generic Parole Process – timeline for PPUD
Week
Action required
PPUD Milestone number
Responsibility
Week
PPUD informs PPCS/PB/Prison to commence
review . HMPS request required reports
PPCS update 01
HMPS update 02
PPCS and HMPS
PB issues review notification to prisoner
PB update 03
PB
22
PPCS notifies prison via email that core dossier is
available on PPUD
38 and 39
PPCS-Milestone auto completed
21
HMPS receive core dossier
40
Prisoner deadline for responding to PB review
notification
36
26
18
once core dossier is sent to prison
HMPS-Milestone auto completed
once core dossier is sent to prison
HMPS
Probation must submit required reports including
PAROM1 to HMPS to enable HMPS to complete
dossier
51a
Probation
HMPS completes and notifies all parties that the
dossier is ready via email.
Note: The Governor or a delegated authority
must sign off the dossier.
56
HMPS-Milestone auto completed
once full dossier is issued
17
PB assesses dossier and returns to HMPS if
incomplete
58
PB
16
HMPS return completed dossier to PB
61
HMPS
14
Prisoner deadline to submit representations
57a
PB
PB refers dossier to ICM
57b
PB
12
PB considers pre/post tariff cases on papers &
issues either negative decision OR refers to OH
and issues ICM directions
70
PPCS
10
HMPS & PPCS comply w ith all ICM directions
70a
PPCS
PB lists case for OH
73
PB
73B
PB
8
PB confirms exact OH date and details to all
parties. HMPS must arrange suitable w itness
arrangements, accommodation, escorting of
visitors and any other arrangements relevant to
6
PB passes dossier to member & issues panel
chair directions if appropriate
73C
PB
4
PPCS & HMPS comply w ith all outstanding
directions. PB issues Timetable to all parties
PPCS update 70b and 81
HMPS update 79 and 82
PPCS and HMPS
0
PB hold OH and determine result
85
PB
-2
PB issues decision to all parties
PPCS update 86 HMPS update 87
PPCS and HMPS
-4
PPCS Process PB decisions
113 and 114 OR 89 and 90
PPCS
PSI 36/20123 - PI 18/2012 GPP(AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 48
Annex D
Directions to the Parole Board under Section 32(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 - Issued
August 2004
Transfer of life sentence prisoners to open conditions
Introduction
1. In most (but not all) indeterminate sentenced prisoner (ISP) cases, a phased release from closed
to open prison is necessary in order to test the prisoner’s readiness for release into the community. It
allows the testing of areas of concern in conditions that more closely resemble those that the prisoner
will encounter in the community often after having spent many years in closed prisons. ISP’s have
the opportunity to take resettlement leave from open prisons and, more generally, open conditions
require them to take more responsibility for their actions.
2. The main facilities, interventions, and resources for addressing and reducing core risk factors exist
principally in the closed ISP estate. In this context, the focus in open conditions is to test the efficacy
of such core risk reduction work and to address, where possible, any residual aspects of risk.
3. A move to open conditions should be based on a balanced assessment of risk and benefits.
However, the Parole Boards emphasis should be on the risk reduction aspect and, in particular, on
the need for the ISP to have made significant progress in changing his/her attitudes and tackling
behavioural problems in closed conditions, without which a move to open conditions will not generally
be considered.
Directions
4. Before recommending the transfer of a ISP to open conditions, the Parole Board must consider:

all information before it, including any written or oral evidence obtained by the Board;
each case on its individual merits without discrimination on any grounds.
5. The Parole Board must take the following main factors into account when evaluating the risks of
transfer against the benefits:a) the extent to which the ISP has made sufficient progress during sentence in addressing and
reducing risk to a level consistent with protecting the public from harm, in circumstances where the
ISP in open conditions would be in the community, unsupervised, under licensed temporary release ;
b) the extent to which the ISP is likely to comply with the conditions of any such form of temporary
release;
c) the extent to which the ISP is considered trustworthy enough not to abscond;
d) the extent to which the ISP is likely to derive benefit from being able to address areas of concern
and to be tested in a more realistic environment, such as to suggest that a transfer to open conditions
is worthwhile at that stage.
6. In assessing risk in such matters, the Parole Board shall consider the following information, where
relevant and where available, before recommending the ISPs transfer to open conditions, recognising
that the weight and relevance attached to particular information may vary according to the
circumstances of each case:a) the ISP’s background, including the nature, circumstances and pattern of any previous offending;
PSI 36/20123 - PI 18/2012 GPP(AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 49
b) the nature and circumstances of the index offence and the reasons for it, including any information
provided in relation to its impact on the victim or victim’s family;
c) the trial judges sentencing comments or report to the Secretary of State, and any probation,
medical, or other relevant reports or material prepared for the court;
d) whether the ISP has made positive and successful efforts to address the attitudes and behavioural
problems which led to the commission of the index offence;
e) the nature of any offences against prison discipline committed by the ISP;
f) the ISP’s attitude and behaviour to other prisoners and staff;
g) the category of security in which the ISP is held and any reasons or reports provided by the Prison
Service for such categorisation, particularly in relation to those ISPs held in Category A conditions of
security;
h) the ISPs awareness of the impact of the index offence, particularly in relation to the victim or
victim’s family, and the extent of any demonstrable insight into his/her attitudes and behavioural
problems and whether he/she has taken steps to reduce risk through the achievement of life
sentence plan targets;
i) any medical, psychiatric or psychological considerations (particularly if there is a history of mental
instability);
j) the ISP’s response when placed in positions of trust, including any outside activities and any
escorted absences from closed prisons;
k) any indication of predicted risk as determined by a validated actuarial risk predictor model or any
other structured assessment of the ISP’s risk and treatment needs.
7. Before recommending transfer to open conditions, the Parole Board shall also consider the ISPs
relationship with the Probation Service (in particular the supervising probation officer), and other
outside support such as family and friends
PSI 36/20123 - PI 18/2012 GPP(AMENDED)
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 50
Annex E
Notification of Sentence Planning Review Meeting and pre-tariff sift
PRISONER REPRESENTATIONS
Name of prisoner:
Date:
Date of Sentence Planning Review Meeting:
There is a Sentence Planning Review Meeting scheduled for [insert date] during which consideration
will be given to whether your case should be considered by the Parole Board at the pre-tariff review
under the Generic Parole Process scheduled to begin [inset date].
The meeting will consider the factors in your case and make recommendations based on whether
there is a reasonable prospect that the Parole Board would recommend your transfer to open
conditions.
You will be present during the SPRM that will consider your transfer to open conditions, and you are
invited to submit representations on your case to set out why you consider that your case should go
forward to a pre-tariff review consideration by the Parole Board.
The establishment can make the following recommendations in your case:1. That your case proceeds to a pre-tariff review by the Parole Board
2. That your case does not proceed to a pre-tariff review by the Parole Board
3. That the specific factors of your case do not warrant a pre-tariff review, but that an exceptional
pre-tariff review is considered by Public Protection Casework Section. However, this is a
recommendation, and the final decision rests with the Public Protection Casework Section.
This is your opportunity to submit representations on the form below, which must be submitted to the
Case Administration Officer by [insert date].
OMU Manager
HMP [insert establishment]
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 51
Name
Prison number
Reasons supporting your transfer to open conditions;
Signed
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012
Date
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 52
Annex F
National Offender Management Service
Public Protection Casework Section
2nd Floor
Grenadier House
99-105 Horseferry Road
London
SW1P 2DD
[add name]
[establishment]
[add address]
Telephone 03000 474[xxx]
Fax [000 0000 0000]
Email [add email name]
[add date]
[Add Name]
[Add Job title]
Your ref:[add ref]
File ref: [add ref]
OUTCOME OF PRE-TARIFF SIFT REVIEW
At your recent Sentence Planning Review Meeting consideration was given to whether your case
should be referred to the Parole Board for a pre-tariff reference.
The Secretary of State has now received the Governor’s recommendation in respect of the pre-tariff
reference and for the following reasons has decided that your case should not be referred to the
Parole Board before the expiry of your tariff:
PPCS Case Managers should provide the following:



A brief outline of the Governor’s concerns, both positive and negative, and any salient points
that is referred to in their decision
Any period of monitoring requirements and reasons for the duration of monitoring and/or
behavioural targets
Any other factors that have influenced the decision not to refer the prisoner’s case to the
Parole Board
Any other relevant comments
Therefore, your first parole review process will be undertaken upon the expiry of your tariff in [insert
date]. Your parole review will commence in [insert month of GPP], and the month for your oral
hearing by the Parole Board is [insert month] at tariff expiry.
You will be notified by the Parole Board nearer the time about the exact date of that hearing.
Case Manager’s name
Team
cc:
Offender Management Unit, HMP [enter name of establishment] – with enclosure
[Name of Supervising Probation Officer, enter Area] Probation Area – with enclosure
Caseworker – Parole Board
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 53
Annex G
[add name]
[establishment]
[add address]
National Offender Management Service
Public Protection Casework Section
2nd Floor
Grenadier House
99-105 Horseferry Road
London
SW1P 2DD
Telephone 03000 474[xxx]
Fax [000 0000 0000]
Email [add email name]
[add date]
[Add Name]
[Add Job title]
Your ref:[add ref]
File ref: [add ref]
OUTCOME OF CONSIDERATION OF EXCEPTIONAL PRE-TARIFF REVIEW
At your recent Sentence Planning Review Meeting consideration was given to whether your case
should have an exceptional pre-tariff reference to the Parole Board.
The Secretary of State has now received the Governor’s recommendation in respect of the pre-tariff
reference and the Governor has recommended to PPCS that your case should have an exceptional
pre-tariff reference that should occur [insert timescale] after the date your original pre-tariff review
was scheduled for.
[The Secretary of State has now considered the Governor’s recommendation, and agrees with this
recommendation.] (Delete if not appropriate)
[The Secretary of State has now considered the Governor’s recommendation, but does not agree to
the recommendation for the following reasons:] (Delete if not appropriate)
List reasons – [e.g. insufficient time to complete review, need to transfer, waiting list for courses, post
course reports not taken into account, need for assessment and/or parole process length not taken
into account] (Delete if not appropriate)
You will be notified by the Parole Board nearer the time about the exact date of your review.
Case Manager’s name
Team
cc:
Offender Management Unit, HMP [enter name of establishment] – with enclosure
[Name of Supervising Probation Officer, enter Area] Probation Area – with enclosure
Caseworker – Parole Board
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 54
Annex H
EXECUTIVE DECISION REQUEST
FOR APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER TO OPEN CONDITIONS
UNDER THE ‘EXCEPTIONAL’ CIRCUMSTANCES CRITERIA
Part A
Name of ISP:
Sentence details and offence:
Date of sentence:
Tariff:
Pre
Post
Noteworthy:
Yes
No
FNP:
Yes
No
Tariff Length:
Tariff Expiry Date:
Projected date of next Parole Board hearing:
Criteria for Accepting Application (all four criteria must be sufficiently explained):
a) The prisoner’s parole dossier must contain evidence that the prisoner has made
significant progress in addressing all identified risk factors:
b) There must be consensus amongst report writers that the prisoner is suitable and
safe to be transferred to open conditions:
c) There are no areas of concern identified by report writers which would clearly
benefit from further exploration by an oral hearing of the Parole Board:
d) The prisoner has demonstrated in his representations that there are clear benefits
to being transferred to open conditions immediately rather than following the
established process (for example, because it would maintain the momentum of his
recent progress or would allow sufficient time for the prisoner to be fully tested in
open conditions prior to the expiry of tariff:
Recommendation:
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 55
Media handling Issues:
Submitted by:
Date:
Recommendation endorsed:
Part B
Authorised by:
Date:
Decision taken:
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 56
Annex I
Transfers to open conditions for adult male indeterminate sentence prisoners
In 2011, NOMS identified that some ISPs were experiencing delays in achieving a transfer into the
open estate following Secretary of State (SofS) approval. As of 6 October 2011, transfers into the
open estate for those ISPs who have received SofS approval are managed centrally by the
Directorate of National Operational Services; Offender Management and Public Protection Group
(OMPPG) are responsible for producing the prioritised lists of prisoners and Population Management
Section (PMS) arrange the transfers.
While NOMS aims to transfer prisoners to open conditions as soon as possible, it is extremely
important, given the numbers involved, that transfers are managed safely with appropriate
consideration for the needs of the prisoner and at a pace that is manageable for individual
establishments.
Where the parole process has begun, the expectation is that transfers will be made during the course
of the process unless the transfer is to be made within an eight week window of the next parole
hearing date. In those circumstances, subject to the Parole Board's decision and unless the open
establishment can facilitate the prisoner’s attendance at the hearing, a transfer will be arranged for as
soon as practicable following the outcome of the hearing.
Prioritisation criteria
Post tariff - prisoners whose tariff has expired are prioritised in line with the date of the SofS approval.
Priority is therefore given on the basis of length of time since approval for transfer was given.
Pre-tariff - prisoners whose tariff has not yet expired are prioritised according to proximity to tariff
expiry date; the closer to tariff expiry a prisoners is the higher will be the priority to transfer them.
Allocation
It will not necessarily be possible to take into account prisoners’ preferences for allocation to specific
open establishments in this process as this will create further delays. Prisoners will be offered the
opportunity to transfer to open establishments where there is a space and will be expected to take it.
PMS consult Offender Management Units as part of this process to ensure that transfers are not
made to wholly inappropriate locations. If there are insurmountable reasons why a prisoner cannot be
transferred to a specific establishment, these will be taken into consideration by PMS during the
allocation process.
The position of victims subject to the Victim Contact Scheme (VCS) will be taken into account before
deciding the prison to which the prisoner will be transferred. Where it is proposed to transfer the
prisoner to an open prison in the vicinity of the victim’s home, the OM will be consulted and their
views taken into account.
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012(AMENDED)
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 57
Annex J
PROCESS FOR CONSIDERING OPEN RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Initial consideration of all Parole Board open recommendations should follow the new
open pro-forma. Start with reading the Parole Board recommendation and then just the
conclusions and risk reduction sections of the main report writers as identified on the proforma. To help you consider whether a decision has factual inaccuracies or is inconsistent
with the evidence, you should use the following criteria as an initial guide:
Inconsistency with the evidence
 Where most (e.g. 2 out of 3 reports or 3 out of 5 reports)* of the available evidence
contained in the key reports points towards open conditions then the case should
be accepted. The new pro-forma should be completed.

Where most* of the available evidence contained in the reports points towards
closed conditions then these case will require further scrutiny using the existing
open recommendation pro-forma as it is likely that the case should be rejected.

Where there is a conflict between report writers with some recommending closed
and some open, provided these conflicts have been addressed by the Parole Board
then the case should be accepted. Account should be taken of any oral evidence
that address the conflicts. Where the conflicting views have not been addressed
then the case will require further scrutiny as it is likely that the case should be
rejected.
Factual error
 Where the Parole Board has clearly made a material error the case should be rereferred back to the Parole Board rather than submitting it for rejection. For
example, where the Board have recommended open on the basis that a particular
course is available in open conditions and in fact it is only available in closed
conditions,
The new pro-forma will be used for the majority of cases. Where it is considered that further
scrutiny is required then step 3 should be followed. Team Leaders will continue to have an
element of discretion and they will need to apply careful judgment and discretion on a case
by case basis.
Where the team manager is minded to accept the Parole Board recommendation and the
case is not a noteworthy Heads of Casework will no longer be required to agree such
cases, they can be signed off by the Team Leaders. Where the Team Leader is
recommending rejection the case should continue to be referred to the Head of
Casework.
2
Where the Parole Board have recommended the transfer of a Category A
prisoner to open conditions, before a decision is taken, the Team Leader should
prepare a short summary/chronology of the case setting out the report writers
recommendations and any changes of view made in oral evidence. The summary and
the Parole Board recommendation must then be referred up to the relevant Head of
Casework who will escalate it to the Head of OMPPG via the Head of PPCS. Such
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012(AMENDED)
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 58
cases are so unusual that the Head of OMPPG must discuss the case with the Director
of High Security before a decision is taken.
3.
The existing open recommendation pro-forma should be used for Foreign National
Prisoners, Noteworthy Cases and cases that require further scrutiny. Having completed this
pro-forma and carried out a more in depth analysis of the case the conclusion may still be to
accept the recommendation. These cases should always be submitted to the Head of
Casework for consideration.
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012(AMENDED)
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 59
Annex K
Sentence Planning and Review Report By Key Worker
SPR D
H M P/Y O I:
Sentence Planning and
Review Report Date:
Forename/s:
Family Name:
Prison Number:
Security Category:
Report Template
You must familiarise yourself with the offender’s offence, offending history and
Sentence Plan objectives before completing this report. Consult with the
Offender Supervisor if necessary.
The Sentence Planning and Review Report provides information and/or
evidence to the Offender Manager via the Offender Supervisor. The report must
focus on the offender’s progress against his/her Sentence Plan, with particular
emphasis on the offender’s risk of serious harm to the public and his/her risk of
re-offending. Risk of re-offending relates to the likelihood of the prisoner
committing any offence once released into the community. Serious harm is
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP(AMENDED) PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
ISSUE DATE 27/11/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 60
defined as:
An event that is life-threatening and/or traumatic, and from which recovery,
whether physical or psychological, can be expected to be difficult or impossible.
Risk must be assessed on the basis that the offender is to be released into the
community immediately. In other words, the fact that the prisoner is in custody
should not be a factor in determining risk. The relative levels of risk are
described in Chapter 8 of the OASys Manual.
1. Knowledge of the prisoner
2. Sentence plan
3. Response to the sentence plan
4. Behaviour in prison
5. Other information
6. Current risk to the public
7. Sentence plan recommendations
Report Writers Name:
Signature:
Date:
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP(AMENDED) PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
ISSUE DATE 27/11/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 61
Countersign Name and Role:
Signature:
Date:
Office Base Address:
Contact Telephone Number:
Extension:
Email address:
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP(AMENDED) PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
ISSUE DATE 27/11/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 62
Annex L
Sentence Planning and Review Report By Psychologist
SPR E
H M P/Y O I:
Sentence Planning and
Review Report Date:
Forename/s:
Family Name:
Prison Number:
Security Category:
Report Template
The areas below outline the main issues to be covered by a psychologist’s
report.
You must familiarise yourself with the offender’s offence, offending history and
Sentence Plan objectives before completing this report. Consult with the
Offender Supervisor if necessary.
The Sentence Planning and Review Report provides information and/or
evidence to the Offender Manager via the Offender Supervisor. The report must
focus on the offender’s progress against his/her Sentence Plan, with particular
emphasis on the offender’s risk of serious harm to the public and his/her risk of
re-offending. Risk of re-offending relates to the likelihood of the prisoner
committing any offence once released into the community. Serious harm is
defined as:
An event that is life-threatening and/or traumatic, and from which recovery,
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP(AMENDED) PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
ISSUE DATE 27/11/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 63
whether physical or psychological, can be expected to be difficult or impossible.
Risk must be assessed on the basis that the offender is to be released into the
community immediately. In other words, the fact that the prisoner is in custody
should not be a factor in determining risk. The relative levels of risk are
described in Chapter 8 of the OASys Manual.
1.
Knowledge of the prisoner
2.
Attitude to index offence
3.
Insight into identified risk factors
4.
Behaviour in prison
5.
Sentence plan
6.
Reduction in risk
7.
Additional information
Report Writers Name:
Signature:
Date:
Countersign Name and Role:
Signature:
Date:
Office Base Address:
Contact Telephone Number:
Extension:
Email address:
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP(AMENDED) PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
ISSUE DATE 27/11/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 64
Annex M
Sentence Planning and Review Report By Healthcare
SPR F
H M P/Y O I:
Sentence Planning and
Review Report Date:
Forename/s:
Family Name:
Prison Number:
Security Category:
Information disclosed within this report must be within the limits of
patient confidentiality. It may be completed by a member of healthcare
staff, but must be countersigned by a Senior Medical Officer
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP(AMENDED) PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
ISSUE DATE 27/11/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 65
Report Template
You must familiarise yourself with the offender’s offence, offending history and
Sentence Plan objectives before completing this report. Consult with the
Offender Supervisor if necessary.
The Sentence Planning and Review Report provides information and/or
evidence to the Offender Manager via the Offender Supervisor. This report
must relate the offender’s physical and/or mental health to his/her ability to
progress against the Sentence Plan, with particular emphasis on the offender’s
risk of serious harm to the public and his/her risk of
re-offending. Risk of re-
offending relates to the likelihood of the prisoner committing any offence once
released into the community. Serious harm is defined as:
An event that is life-threatening and/or traumatic, and from which recovery,
whether physical or psychological, can be expected to be difficult or impossible.
Risk must be assessed on the basis that the offender is to be released into the community
immediately. In other words, the fact that the prisoner is in custody should not be a factor in
determining risk. The relative levels of risk are described in Chapter 8 of the OASys Manual.
Knowledge of the prisoner
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
1.
Allocation
2.
External appointments
3.
Self-harm
4.
Attitudes and behaviour
5.
Risk to the public
6.
Reduction in risk
7.
Additional information
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 66
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 67
Report Writers Name:
Signature:
Date:
Countersign Name and Role:
Signature:
Date:
Office Base Address:
Contact Telephone Number:
Extension:
Email address:
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 68
Annex N
Sentence Planning and Review Report By
Psychiatrist
SPR G
H M P/Y O I:
Sentence Planning and
Review Report Date:
Forename/s:
Family Name:
Prison Number:
Security Category:
1.
Knowledge of the prisoner
2.
Diagnosis
3.
Placement
4.
External appointments
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
5.
Risk to the public
6.
Release and resettlement
7.
Additional information
PAGE 69
Report Writers Name:
Signature:
Date:
Office Base Address:
Email address:
Contact Telephone Number:
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
Extension:
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 70
Annex O
Sentence Planning and Review Report By
Security
SPR H
H M P/Y O I:
Sentence Planning and
Review Report Date:
Forename/s:
Family Name:
Prison Number:
Security Category:
This report is disclosed to the offender unless there is an application:
 For a Governor’s decision under PSO 6000
 For a non-disclosure under Parole Board Rule 6
For the above applications to made there must be evidence that non-disclosure
is necessary in order to:
 Ensure national security
 Prevent disorder or crime
 Safeguard the health and welfare of the prisoner or others, including
victim
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 71
Report Template
1.
Security information
2.
Allocation
3.
Additional information
Report Writers Name:
Signature:
Date:
Countersign Name and Role:
Signature:
Date:
Office Base Address:
Email address:
Contact Telephone Number:
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
Extension:
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 72
Annex P
Sentence Planning and Review Report: Offender’s
Comments
SPR J
H M P/Y O I:
Sentence Planning and
Review Report Date:
Prison Number:
Name:
Note: wherever possible you should limit your comments to this form. Additional
papers may cause delays in reviewing your reports.
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 73
Reports
Have you seen your Sentence Plan? Have you seen all the Review
Reports? Do you have any comments about what has been written to
you?
Self-Assessment
What progress do you feel you have made through your sentence to
date? What further work do you still feel you need to do?
Additional Information
Do you want to make any further comments?
Name:
Signature:
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 74
Annex Q
SENTENCE PLANNING AND REVIEW REPORT BY
SPR L
OFFENDER SUPERVISOR FOR
ALL INDETERMINATE SENTENCE PRISONERS
HMP/YOI
Sentence Planning and Review Report Date
Forename/s
Family name
Prison number
Security category
DOB
REPORT TEMPLATE
You must familiarise yourself with the offender’s offence, offending history and
Sentence Plan objectives as well as any other reports or relevant information before
completing this report. You should consult with the Offender Manager.
The Sentence Planning and Review (SPR) Report provides information by the Offender
Supervisor to the SPR meeting. The report must focus on the offender’s progress against
his/her sentence plan, with particular emphasis on the offender’s risk of serious harm to the
public and his/her risk of re-offending. Risk of re-offending relates to the likelihood of the
prisoner committing any offence once released into the community. Serious harm is defined
as:
An event that is life-threatening and/or traumatic, and from which recovery, whether
physical or psychological, can be expected to be difficult or impossible.
Risk must be assessed as if the offender were to be released into the community
immediately. In other words, the fact that the prisoner is in custody should not be a factor in
determining risk. The relative levels of risk are described in Chapter 8 of the OASys Manual.
NOTE: IF THIS REPORT IS FOR A PRE-PAROLE SPR MEETING, THE OFFENDER
MANAGER WILL ALSO PREPARE A PAROLE REPORT USING TEMPLATE PAROM 1.
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 75
The report should be set out in the following way using ALL of the headings below
1. Knowledge of the prisoner
2. Qualifications and experience of report writer
3. Attitude to index offence
4. Analysis of previous offending
5. Sentence Plan and Response
6. Behaviour in prison
7. Community links (for a pre-parole SPR meeting, these areas will be covered by
the OM)
8. Reduction in risk
9. Victim information
10. Additional Information
11. Assessment of the prisoner’s current risk to the public
12. Recommendations
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
Report Writer’s Name
Signature
PAGE 76
Date
Role:
Office/Base address
Email address
Contact telephone number
Ext
COUNTERSIGNER: The countersigner should be satisfied that the report author has
sufficient knowledge of the prisoner and appropriate skills/experience in risk
assessment. The countersigner is endorsing the content and quality of the report to
enable the Parole Board to make a risk based decision.
Countersigner
Signature
Name
Role
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP
Date
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 77
Annex R
Parole Assessment Report Offender Manager (PAROM 1)
HMP/YOI
Forename/s
Prison Number
Sentence
Date/s of previous PAROM 1
Report Date
Family Name
Prison Category
1. SOURCES
2. RISK SCORES
Static Risk Scores:
OGRS score: Time of Sentence
OGRS score: Now
Risk Matrix: Time of Sentence
Risk Matrix: Now
OASys Scores:
OASys Risk of Reoffending: Time of Sentence
OASys Risk of reoffending: Now
OASys Risk of Serious Harm level: Time of
Sentence
OASys Risk of Serious Harm level: Now
SPRP score:
Any other known risk score (including Offender Violence Predictor [OVP]):
3. KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRISONER
4. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE OF REPORT WRITER
5. INDEX OFFENCE
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 78
6. PREVIOUS OFFENDING HISTORY
7. ANALYSIS OF RISK OF SERIOUS HARM AND REOFFENDING AT THE TIME OF SENTENCE
.
8. VICTIM INFORMATION
Victim issues: Checklist
1. As part of designing the Risk Management Plan you
must contact the VLO. On what date did you do this?
2. Have you informed the VLO of the hearing date? On
what date did you do this?
3. Are the victims engaged in the victim contact
scheme?
4. Do victims wish to submit a Victim Personal
Statement?
9. RELEVANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE OFFENDER
10. INTERVENTIONS TO REDUCE RISKS
11. BEHAVIOUR IN PRISON
12. CURRENT RISK ASSESSMENT
13. RESETTLEMENT & SUPERVISION PLAN
14. RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN
15. RECOMMENDATION
16. SIGNATURE AND DATE
Name
Countersignature
Probation Trust
Office address
Email address
Contact telephone number
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP
Signature
Role
Date
Date
Extension
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 79
Annex S
Addendum Parole Assessment Report
Offender Manager
PAROM 1+
HMP/YOI:
Forename/s:
Family Name:
PAROM 1 Report date:
Date today:
Prison Number:
Security Category:
Sentence:
Date of Previous Parole Review:
Please note: If any there is any information included that have non disclosure issues attached to
them, please refer to PI 20/2010 for guidance and advice as to how to proceed. Then this information
must be provided under a separate cover and marked “NOT FOR DISCLOSURE TO THE
OFFENDER”.
To be completed only if criteria in guidance notes apply
1. EITHER
I confirm risk scores have not altered since the previous PAROM 1
Report [dated
]
OR indicate how any relevant risk score has changed since the PAROM1 report:
Static Risk Scores
OGRS3 risk of reconviction now
% in 1 year L/M/H
% in 2 years L/M/H
Risk Matrix (RM2000) now
sex L/M/H; violence L/M/H; combined L/M/H
OASys Scores
OVP risk of reconviction now
% in 1 year L/M/H
% in 2 years L/M/H
OGP risk of reconviction now
% in 1 year L/M/H
% in 2 years L/M/H
OASys risk of serious harm now
L/M/H to children
L/M/H to the public
L/M/H to a known adult
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 80
Any other available risk scores
Please indicate as applicable:
EITHER
I confirm I am the author of the previous PAROM 1 Report [dated
]
OR
I am not the author of the previous PAROM 1 [dated
assessments and other key information contained in that report.
] but I confirm that I endorse risk
2. What is your response to the request in the directions or decision letter? Show sources of information used for
this Addendum report, including detail of whom you have spoken to or liaised with, where applicable
3. What changes to the case have arisen since the original PAROM1 was prepared?
What impact does this information have on the current risk management plan?
OR mark box to indicate that no significant changes in the case have occurred.
I confirm there have been no significant changes, including in relation to Victim issues/Victim
Impact Statement since the last review.
4.
Victim issues:
1. As part of designing the Risk Management Plan you must contact the VLO. ON what date did
you do this?
2. Have you informed the VLO of the hearing date? On what date did you do this?
3. Are the victims engaged in the victim contact scheme? Y/N
4. Do victims wish to submit a Victim Personal Statement? Y/N
This information will be disclosed to the offender so if there is sensitive
information please think about how to present this.
5. Are there diversity issues relating to the offender which may affect his/her ability to engage at the
Oral Hearing (eg. learning difficulties, hearing impairment, physical disability, mental health issues,
literacy problems, interpreter required, etc.)?
6. Recommendation
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 81
Name:
Signature:
................................................................ Date:
Countersignature:
……………………………..
Role:
Date:
Probation Area:
Office Base Address:
Email Address:
Contact Telephone Number:
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP
Extension:
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
Annex T
PAROM 1 Evaluation Tool
Guide to completion
 Evaluate the PAROM1 against each of the criteria below using the questions and indicators described.
 Score each question for each criterion using the following scale:
0 = poor – few, if any, relevant issues covered and all unsatisfactorily
1 = inadequate – not all relevant issues covered and those which are, are covered unsatisfactorily
2 = adequate – most relevant issues covered satisfactorily
3 = good – all relevant issues covered well
 Write any explanatory notes in the “Assessor Comments” boxes. This provides an opportunity to comment on issues not highlighted in the
questions/ indicators but which assessors feel are relevant in the case. Overall, this enables assessors to highlight the evidence they have relied on
in making their assessment and enables themes to be identified in the national evaluation.
 The total score for each criterion should be the mean (average) of the scores for each question.
Criterion
Author
Are role and qualifications/expertise of author set out?
Has author stated extent of knowledge of prisoner?
Does the author indicate quality of relationship between
them and offender and implications for assessment?
Assessor Comments
Indicators
Establishes how much weight can be given to the author’s assessment/opinion
Knowledge, experience and qualifications in risk assessment and management
Number and type of contacts (face-to-face, video link, telephone, correspondence)
Criterion
Sources
Indicators
Enables Parole Board to judge how accurate, reliable, valid, recent and complete
the evidence is
Are sources dated?
Have all sources (written evidence and consultation with
people working with prisoner) been listed?
Has author reported they have had access to an
independent account of offences and if not, what the
implications are for their assessment?
Does report integrate old and new data from multiple
sources?
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP(AMENDED)
Score 0 - 3
Total 0 - 3
Score 0 - 3
Has author stated limitations of assessment if reliant solely on prisoner’s account?
Have they identified what issues need further exploration if not all info available?
Does report author draw a conclusion where discrepancies arise? Is their view
supported by evidence? Has the author corroborated key pieces of evidence? For
IPP cases, has the author seen all prison reports before drafting PAROM1 and
summarised their conclusions, addressing agreement and/or differing views?
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 82
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
Has the author identified key pieces of missing information
and explained implications of missing information for their
assessment?
Has the author ensured sensitive/non-disclosable
information is not included?
Assessor Comments
Criterion
Prisoner’s Background
Has author ensured victims not inappropriately identified? Has author given reader
indication that additional non-disclosable information is available separately?
Total 0 - 3
Indicators
Appropriate reliance on historical information
Score 0 –
3
Is the background information in the report relevant to the
assessment of risk or identification of risk/protective factors?
Assessor Comments
Criterion
Analysis of Offending
Has author described how offender’s account has changed
over time, if at all, and significance of this for assessment of
risk?
Is there an adequate and accurate description of all relevant
offences and un-convicted offending?
Does the report include an adequate analysis and not just a
description of offending?
Does the report identify all relevant risk factors, motivations
and triggers?
Total 0 - 3
Indicators
Demonstrates analysis of the evidence bearing in mind the referral question: risk of
re-offending and/or serious harm
Insight demonstrated, level of responsibility accepted, justification, motivation and
attitudes to offending. Has there been a comparison of accounts given e.g. to PSR
writer and PAROM1 author or compared with judge’s remarks?
Is there sufficient factual information of what occurred before, during and after
offence: behaviour, attitudes, relationships, emotions, physical, cognitive and
sexual elements? Has victim information been included?
Does author identify patterns, themes, links between different offences/behaviours
and between attitudes and behaviours? Are unique features of behaviours
identified? Has author considered previous convictions as well as index offence? Is
there a clear formulation or working hypothesis to make sense of the risk presented
by the prisoner? Has author identified relationships between risk factors? Has
author explained this type of offending, in this context, to this victim?
Risk factors defined as features of offender’s personality, attitudes, behaviour,
relationships, environment, personal circumstances which increase/decrease risk.
Have static and dynamic factors been identified? Does the report identify
positive/protective factors?
Score 0 –
3
Has the author discussed relevance of the offender’s insight
and acceptance of responsibility/denial in assessing risk?
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP(AMENDED)
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 83
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
Assessor Comments
Criterion
Evidence of Change
Has the author assessed the prisoner’s motivation and
engagement with sentence plan?
Has the author analysed the impact of relevant interventions
on the prisoner’s level of risk?
Has report analysed the presence/absence of key indicators
of increasing or decreasing risk including behaviour and
attitudes?
Total 0 - 3
Indicators
Demonstrate a clear analysis of change backed by evidence, not just opinion
Score 0 –
3
Has the author tracked changes in behaviour and attitudes against completion of
interventions along a timeline to monitor impact of interventions? Have they
analysed post-programme or end of treatment reports? Focus on learning,
motivation and application of new skills
Adjudications, MDTs, wing behaviour, conduct on ROTL, IEP, security info,
qualifications. Comment on significance of absence/presence of behaviours e.g. is
the offending behaviour situation-specific? Does environment influence likelihood of
observing behaviour? Does the report identify offence-paralleling or offenceapproach behaviour observed in custody? Has the author indicated whether
behaviour is managed by internal processes or external controls? Has the report
analysed relationships with staff and other prisoners and relevance to risk?
Has the author commented on the significance of the
prisoner’s behaviour and attitudes (referred to in previous
section) for overall assessment of risk?
Has the author assessed the capacity of the prisoner to
change?
Assessor Comments
Are there learning disabilities/personality attributes which might limit ability to
change?
Criterion
Current Risk of Serious Harm and Likelihood of Reoffending
Are specialist/actuarial assessments interpreted in context of
wider risk information?
If the author supports or departs from the actuarial
assessment scores, is their rationale clear?
Are the author’s assessments of RoSH and LoR clearly
Indicators
Author provides their own assessment of risk taking into account relevant
actuarial/specialist assessments and evidence in custody
Are specialist and actuarial assessments quoted and dated in the report? OASys,
RM2000, SARA, psychological. Are the reasons for reaches in scores explained?
How assessment applies to this individual given tools based on general group of
similar or different offenders
Do they give their own interpretation of the evidence rather than just quote the
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP(AMENDED)
Total 0 – 3
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 84
Score 0 –
3
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
stated?
Is it clear over what time period risk is being assessed?
OASys or other tools? Do they state the level and meaning for this prisoner? Does
the author indicate the current nature and imminence of risk, circumstances in
which risk will occur and to whom?
Have they considered the parole period e.g. for DCRs? Does this link to
conclusion?
Assessor Comments
Criterion
Risk Management Planning
Does the report anticipate type and likelihood of
circumstances arising in which risk might increase to an
unacceptable level?
Have all identified risk factors been addressed in risk
management plan? (Unless risk sufficiently low not to merit
further action/management or factor not susceptible to
change e.g. static factor)
Does each protective factor have a corresponding element
in the risk management plan?
Is there a SMART Risk Management Plan outlining precise
licence conditions requested to manage identified risks
Does the author comment on offender’s likely compliance
with conditions?
Assessor Comments
Criterion
Conclusions
Does the author draw conclusions about the level of risk
which the prisoner would present if the risk management
plan were in place?
Does author make a firm recommendation relevant to test to
be applied in the relevant case?
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP(AMENDED)
Total 0 - 3
Indicators
Demonstrate RMP adequate to address/manage outstanding risks and monitoring
to detect if risk increasing.
Has the author considered future circumstances which might reflect previous
offences bearing in mind changes e.g. in domestic relationships?
Score 0 –
3
Indicate how would detect increasing risk which might need additional licence
condition/recall. In cases where release is being considered for Medium, High and
Very High Risk prisoners, has the RMP drawn on risk management planning arising
from MAPPA? Has Victim Liaison Officer information informed plans to protect
victim?
If release is being considered, has a home circumstances report been conducted/
reported?
Are conditions necessary and proportionate given assessment of risk? Does it
include monitoring, control, interventions? How will plan be implemented?
Significance of motivation/engagement in sentence plan as indicators of likely
compliance with RMP
Total 0 - 3
Indicators
Link explicitly to stage of sentence e.g. pre-at/post tariff expiry and therefore
decision/recommendation to be made by the Parole Board
Score 0 –
3
Does author indicate what the referral question is e.g. suitability for release/open
based on LoR or RoSH? Has the author stated the acceptability of the risk in open
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 85
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
conditions and/or in the community?
Has the report been signed off by the author’s line manager
to confirm that the report fulfils its purpose?
Assessor Comments
Total 0 - 3
Criterion
Effective communication
Indicators
Produce a well structured report that works logically through to a clear conclusion.
Does the author communicate clearly?
Avoid jargon, use plain English, concise summaries of information, accurate
spelling and grammar
Have they addressed the Parole Board tests for release or transfer to open
conditions? Have they communicated their knowledge and evidence?
Where conflicting information or assessments, has the author drawn own
conclusion based on evidence?
Are points in a logical order? Do evidence and arguments support conclusion?
Has author demonstrated awareness of audience’s needs?
Is supporting evidence referred to?
Does the report reach a logical conclusion?
Assessor Comments
Criterion
Diversity
Has the author addressed relevant diversity issues
sensitively and appropriately?
Score 0 –
3
Total 0 - 3
Indicators
Identify and address relevant diversity issues
Are assessment tools relevant to prisoner if learning disability or ethnic background
different? Has potential or actual bias of author or evidence been considered? If
English is not first language, has assessment been adapted to address this?
Do not
score
Assessor Comments
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP(AMENDED)
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 86
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
Annex U
SPR L Evaluation Tool
Guide to completion
Evaluate the SPR L against each of the criteria below using the questions and indicators described.
Score each question for each criterion using the following scale:
0 = poor (few, if any, relevant issues covered and all unsatisfactorily)
1 = inadequate (not all relevant issues covered and those which are, are covered unsatisfactorily)
2 = adequate (most relevant issues covered satisfactorily)
3 = good (all relevant issues covered well)
Write any explanatory notes in the “Assessor Comments” boxes. This provides an opportunity to comment on issues not highlighted in the
questions/indicators but which assessors feel are relevant in the case. Overall, this enables assessors to highlight the evidence they have relied on in
making their assessment and enables themes to be identified.
Criterion
1. Knowledge of the Prisoner
Author states current role, how much contact s/he has had with the prisoner and over what time period, and the extent of the relationship
 The basis on which the report is written – number of formal interviews, observed behaviour
 Liaison with others (particularly the Offender Manager). Has author confirmed that s/he has discussed the case with the Offender
Manager (OM)?
 Author states which documents, files or reports s/he has referred to in preparing this report
Assessor Comments:
Score 0 – 3
2. Qualification and experience of report writer
Author states:
 their credentials and length of time in this role;
 length of time as a Prison Officer or other staff member;
 length of time working with ISPs
 training completed, including:
o Offender Supervisor Foundation training
o OASys
o Working with Indeterminate Sentence Prisoners (WwISP)
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP(AMENDED)
Score 0 – 3
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 87
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
o Introduction to Risk Assessment and Management (IRAM), and any other risk assessment training
o other relevant training
Assessor Comments:
Score 0 – 3
3. Attitude to index offence
Has the author addressed the following in relation to the offender?:
a. Has s/he accepted responsibility for the offence, how open is s/he in discussing it?
b. What, if any, discrepancies are there between the offender’s account and facts proven in court?
c. Does s/he provide a full and active account of the offence?
d. What is the offender’s attitude to the victim/s, sentence, others involved in the offence and the degree of remorse expressed?
e. What is the author’s analysis of the offender’s response, attitude to their offending and capacity to have effected change?
f.
Any other contributing factors?
Assessor Comments:
Score 0 – 3
4. Analysis of previous offending

Has the author commented on the links between any patterns of previous offending and the index offence?

Has the author explored the factors which appear, from the offender’s past offending, to increase or decrease the risk of re-offending
and causing serious harm?
Has the author commented on the prisoner’s perception of their offending?

Assessor Comments:
Score 0 – 3
5. Sentence Plan and response
Has the author described the offender’s response to the overall Sentence Plan since the date of sentence in relation to the following?:
a. To what extent has the offender achieved their Sentence Plan objectives?
b. Summarise the offender’s participation in any meaningful interventions and specifically indicate which of these are intended to
reduce any identified risks of serious harm and/or risk of re-offending. What was the outcome? (or refer reader to report which gives
this e.g. Offender Behaviour Programme (OBP) post programme report, making sure this is included in the dossier).
c. Has the offender shown any motivation to change his/her attitudes and behaviours?
d. What effect the Sentence Plan (interventions etc.) has had on the offender’s attitudes and behaviour:
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP(AMENDED)
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 88
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
i.To staff?
ii.To other prisoners?
iii.To family and friends?
iv.To the victims of the offence?
v.To lifestyle choices and offending
e. The impact of the intervention on the offender and his/her risk? Has the offender displayed any behaviour that might be related to
his/her offence or previous patterns of offending? For example is there any mirroring of previous behaviours such as: overcompliance/ grooming of staff; inability to deal with stress; withdrawal rather than problem solving etc.
Assessor Comments:
Score 0 – 3
6. Behaviour in Prison
Has the author addressed the following?:
 Provided a description of all significant events during the sentence or as a minimum since the last Sentence Plan Review (SPR).
 Listed, if any, adjudications, mandatory or voluntary drug tests, warnings, or changes in IEP status are there on prisoner’s record?

Stated what these indicate in terms of their level of risk of re-offending/serious harm?

Summarised the offender’s disciplinary record and their response to issues that have arisen.

Described how compliant the prisoner is with the prison regime?

Described his/her relationships with other prisoners, visitors and staff?

What evidence there is that the offender has changed their attitudes and/or learnt to control their behaviour?
Assessor Comments:
Score 0 – 3
7. Community Links (for a pre-Parole SPR these areas will be covered by the OM)
Based on the author’s liaison with the Offender Manager, have they addressed?:


What sort of relationships the prisoner has with family, friends, or other outside contacts? Are any connected with the commission of
offences? e.g. a co-defendant or victim
What degree of support these relationships provide?

Where the prisoner’s main external contacts live? Are there any difficulties in communicating or visiting?

Whether the prisoner maintains family contacts through visits, letters and/or telephone?

Any current known release plans – are they of long standing? Have links been made to organisations/services which are needed to
manage risk in the community?
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP(AMENDED)
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 89
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012
Assessor Comments:
8. Reduction in Risk
 Has the author, based on their knowledge of the prisoner, assessed what evidence there is, if any, that the prisoner has
demonstrated a reduction in the serious risk of harm they pose to the public?
 What is the author’s assessment of the likelihood of her/him re-offending or causing serious harm to others? Has the author outlined
what changes have taken place to support their conclusion/ how has their conclusion been tested?
Assessor Comments:
Score 0 – 3
9. Victim Information
 Are there any confidential victim issues? – Any confidential victim information must be submitted in a separate report.

Score 0 – 3
Has the author included in this report any non-confidential victim issues which may affect eventual release and/or resettlement?
Assessor Comments:
10. Additional information
 Has the author provided any further information or other comments relating to their knowledge of, or contact with, this prisoner?
Score 0 – 3
Assessor Comments:
11. Assessment of the prisoner’s current risk to the public
 Has the author provided an assessment of the risk of serious harm that this offender poses to the public if released into the
community now?
 Has the author provided an assessment of this offender’s risk of re-offending?

Score 0 – 3
Has the author stated the evidence s/he has relied on to make this assessment including the sources and key behaviours.
Assessor Comments:
12. Recommendations
Only complete this paragraph if this report is for a Non Parole Review
Has the author provided any recommendations with regard to further interventions/ activities/ are required in order to reduce the levels of
risk? Have they provided proposals on transfer/re-categorisation to another establishment?
Assessor Comments:
Score 0 – 3
13. Style
Is the report:
Score 0 – 3
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP(AMENDED)
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 90
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012

Free from spelling and grammatical errors?

Logical in sequence?

Fit for purpose?

Has it been countersigned by Line Manager?

Is the report creditable, does it provide the OM and Parole Board with the information they require?
Assessor Comments:
14. Diversity
Do not score
The author has addressed relevant diversity issues sensitively and appropriately
Assessor Comments:
PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 GPP(AMENDED)
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 91
ISSUE DATE 03/12/2012