UNCLASSIFIED
GENERIC PAROLE PROCESS FOR DETERMINATE SENTENCE PRISONERS
(GPP-D)
This instruction applies to :-
Reference :-
Prison
Probation Trusts
Issue Date
PSI 19/2013
PI 09/2013
Expiry Date
(Update)
17 September 2013
Issued on the
authority of
For action by
Effective Date
Implementation Date
01 August 2013
08 July 2017
NOMS Agency Board
All staff responsible for the development and publication of policy and
instructions (Double click in box, as appropriate)
NOMS HQ
All prisons
Contracted Prisons*
Probation Trusts
Governors
Contract Managers in Probation Trusts
Probation Trust Chief Executives
* If this box is marked, then in this document the term Governor also applies to Directors
of Contracted Prisons
Instruction type
For information
Provide a summary of
the policy aim and
the reason for its
development/
revision
Contact
Associated
documents
Service Specification Support/ Service Improvement
All staff responsible for the management of determinate sentenced
prisoners including the new Extended Determinate Sentence, who are
eligible to be released on licence by the Parole Board.
This instruction sets out a new parole process for those determinate
sentence prisoners, including the new Extended Determinate Sentence,
who are eligible to be released on licence by the Parole Board. It sets
out the roles and responsibilities for prisons and Public Protection
Casework Section depending on the specific determinate sentence.
ppcs.policy@noms.gsi.gov.uk
parolehelpdesk@noms.gsi.gov.uk
PSO 9050 Functional Mailboxes
PSI 12/2010 Prolific and Other Priority Offenders
PSI 61/2010 – PI 20/2010 - Handling of sensitive information provided
by Criminal Justice Agencies
PSI 71/2011 Parole Hub Pilot
PSI 30/2012 – PI16/2012 - The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment
of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012 – General summary of release and
recall provisions
PSI 40/2012 - Licence and Licence Conditions
PSI 2013/13 - Sentence Calculation – Determinate Sentenced
Prisoners
PSI 04/2013 - The Early Removal Scheme and Release of Foreign
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
National Prisoners.
PSI 14/2012 - PI 08/2012 - Implementation of the Service Specification
for “Manage the Sentence: Pre and Post Release from Custody”
(transitional version)
PSI 18/2013 – PI 08/2013 – Determinate sentenced prisoners
transferred under the Mental Health Act 1983
Replaces the following documents which are hereby cancelled:- PSO 6000 - Parole Release
and Recall Chapter 5; 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.
As an instruction is a mandatory contract variation and in providing contractual services, contract
managers must ensure that Probation staff deliver the mandatory instructions in the PI.
Updated 29 July 2013: Paragraph 2.9 amended - This update provides clarity to prisons about the
timescale of the GPP-D review process.
Updated 17 September 2013: Paragraph 2.4; 2.10; & 2.11 amended – This update provides
clarity of when the second and subsequent review processes should begin.
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 3
CONTENTS
Applies to
Section
Subject
1
Executive Summary
2
Introduction
3
Generic Parole Process-D Timetable – an overview
4
Referral and Deferral of cases
5
Transfer of Prisoners during review
6
Mental Health Cases
7
Quality of Parole Reports
8
The Challenge Process for Generic Parole Process
performance data
9
Creation and deletion of PPUD accounts
Annex A
PPUD naming conventions
Annex B
The Criminal Justice Secure eMail (CJSM) Accounts
Annex C
Notification of Parole Review
Annex D
GPP-D Timeline – PPCS, Prisons, Probation and
PPUD
Annex E
SPR D template
Annex F
SPR E template
Annex G
SPR F template
Annex H
SPR G template
Annex I
SPR H template
Annex J
SPR J template
Annex K
SPR L template
Annex L
PAROM 1 template
Annex M
PAROM 1+ addendum template
Annex N
PAROM 1 Evaluation Tool
Annex O
SPR L Evaluation Tool
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
NOMS Agency staff
(Headquarters), Prison,
Probation staff
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 4
1.
Executive Summary
1.1.
This PSI sets out a new “Generic Parole Process-Determinate (GPP-D)” for those
determinate sentence prisoners who are eligible to be released on parole licence by the
Parole Board. It replaces PSO 6000 “Parole Release and Recall” Chapter 5 and Chapter 8
and PSI 09/2008 ‘Offender Management Functional Mailboxes’. It mirrors to a large extent
the GPP for indeterminate sentence prisoners, but is adjusted to meet the requirements of
determinate sentence parole reviews. This new parole process (GPP-D) replaces the
existing parole process for Discretionary Conditional Release (DCR) cases and residual
Extended Public Protection (EPP) cases subject to parole reviews. GPP-D will be
underpinned by the Public Protection Unit Database (PPUD). PPUD will replace IIS, which
currently supports the determinate parole process. GPP-D will also be subject to electronic
case working (e-working) and as such it will be a paperless process. In future all
determinate parole dossiers will be compiled and paginated electronically. The GPP-D will
also make use of existing functional mailboxes.
1.2.
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.
1.3.
The GPP-D will also be the parole process for the new Extended Determinate Sentence
(EDS) which was introduced in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act
2012 (LASPOA12) and applies to offenders convicted on or after 3 December 2012 (who
would previously have received either an IPP or EPP sentence). There are two types of
release arrangement for EDS prisoners depending on the length of their custodial term and
the seriousness of their offending:


1.4.
Automatic release at the two-thirds point of the custodial term for cases where the
custodial term is less than 10 years, and
Discretionary release by the Parole Board between the two-thirds and end point of
the custodial term where the custodial term is 10 years or more or in cases where
the prisoner has committed one of the most serious offences, listed in Schedule 15B
CJA 2003. Prisoners become eligible to be considered for parole from the two-thirds
point but are not subject to automatic release until the end of the custodial term. On
release, the prisoner will be on licence for the remainder of the custodial term (if
any) plus the extension period
Therefore this instruction and the GPP-D will only apply to those EDS cases with
discretionary release by the Parole Board.
Background
1.5.
This instruction replaces the existing parole process for determinate sentence prisoners
with a new GPP-D. It applies to those determinate sentence prisoners who are eligible to
be considered for release on licence by the Parole Board. They include:


DCR prisoners (i.e. those serving a sentence of 4 years and over for a sexual or
violent offence where the release provisions in Schedule 20B of the Criminal Justice
Act 2003 (CJA 2003) apply (formerly the release provisions of the Criminal Justice
Act 1991 (CJA 1991) are eligible to be considered for release on licence by the
Parole Board at the halfway point of their sentence);
EPP prisoners sentenced before 14 July 2008 pursuant to Section 227 or 228 of the
CJA 2003 who are eligible to be considered for release on licence by the Parole
Board at the halfway point of their custodial term. (Schedule 20B of the CJA 2003
release provisions apply); and
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED

1.6.
PAGE 5
EDS prisoners sentenced pursuant to section 226A or 226B of the CJA 2003 who
are eligible for release by the Parole Board at two-thirds point of the custodial term
(subject to the release provisions in s246A CJA 2003).
GPP-D replaces the previous parole process for DCR and EPP prisoners. It closely mirrors
the GPP for indeterminate sentence prisoners and will be underpinned by PPUD. It means
that for the first time, there will be a single parole timetable for all groups of prisoners
eligible for parole, supported by a single IT system and all subject to e-working.
Desired outcomes

A single parole process for determinate prisoners which is easily understood by
those it affects, and which facilitates easy identification of any weaknesses that exist
within the parole process so that they can be corrected.

A parole process which ensures determinate sentence prisoners’ reviews are
conducted speedily and efficiently; eliminates nugatory work; and 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.

A process that limits the scope for delay and focuses on ensuring that prisoners are
not detained any longer than is necessary to protect the public.

The introduction of e-working for determinate sentence prisoner parole reviews,
which provides a paperless system of working. E-working should increase the
efficiency of the process, improving the security of personal data, and facilitating
better communications between all the agencies involved in the process.

Effective central monitoring of performance of all agencies involved in the parole
process.
Application
1.7.
This instruction provides new guidance on the process to be followed in parole reviews for
determinate sentenced prisoners, including the processes to be followed to ensure a timely
review, making effective use of e-working, and the requirement to produce a coherent
assessment of risk based upon good quality reports. The new GPP-D commences on 1
August 2013, and any determinate parole reviews commencing on or after this date must
be conducted in line with the new arrangements set out in this instruction. Once GPP-D has
commenced IIS will become obsolete in respect of the parole process.
Mandatory Actions
1.8.
All staff involved in parole reviews for determinate sentence prisoners must be fully
acquainted with this instruction and the mandatory requirements listed. In particular, staff
must be aware of:



the GPP-D timetable and the deadline for submitting a completed dossier to the
Parole Board;
mandatory reports to be included in the dossier and the issues to be addressed in
each report;
how to operate effectively the PPUD in order to complete their mandatory tasks within
the GPP-D;
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED



PAGE 6
the arrangements for handling Parole Board directions, including the calling of
witnesses;
the roles and responsibilities of prison Offender Management Unit (OMU) staff , Public
Protection Casework Section (PPCS) and Parole Board case managers; and
the requirement on report writers to provide the Parole Board with a coherent
assessment of risk based on a range of high quality reports.
1.9.
Governing Governors, Directors and Controllers of Contracted out and privately managed
prisons must ensure that systems are in place to underpin the GPP-D, particularly in terms
of communication with report writers, the Parole Board and the PPCS.
1.10.
As an instruction is a mandatory contract variation and in providing contractual services,
contract managers must ensure that probation staff deliver the mandatory instructions in
the PI.
1.11.
Nominated staff must input key points of the GPP-D onto PPUD having first been trained by
PPCS or National Operational & Specialist Training on how to use PPUD.
Resource Implications
1.12.
There are minimal new cost implications arising from this instruction in relation to PPUD to
reflect the inclusion of determinate prisoners eligible for parole and in terms of the impact to
probation resources required to record the PAROM 1 details to PPUD. PPUD development
costs will be minimal and borne by the Offender Management and Public Protection Group
(OMPPG). Provided that reports can be given to establishments in electronic form, there
should not be any new costs for them, however if they cannot, it may be necessary in some
establishments to provide additional scanning facilities. We expect e-casework to deliver
savings 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 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
2.
PAGE 7
Introduction
The Governor/Offender Management Unit staff
2.1.
The Governor/Offender Management Unit (OMU) staff are responsible for ensuring that the
core and complete dossier is compiled in DCR/EPP cases, and the complete dossier for
EDS cases (the core will be complied by PPCS), including all mandatory reports, and is
disclosed to the prisoner and the Parole Board. In terms of responsibility for obtaining all
the necessary reports lies with the establishment. PPUD must be used to support this
process with actions being entered on the system as soon as they have been completed. If
the Parole Board directs that a DCR/EPP prisoner be released on parole licence, the
Governor/OMU staff are responsible for arranging the release date with the Probation
Service and ensuring that the release plan agreed by the Parole Board is still in place so
that the parolee can be released safely, and for issuing the licence, ensuring that any
additional conditions are included. Governors are ultimately responsible for ensuring that
their OMU staff receive sufficient support and guidance to enable them to carry out their
duties efficiently and effectively.
The Parole Board
2.2.
The Parole Board is an Executive Non Departmental Public Body, which means it is
independent of the Ministry of Justice and NOMS. It has statutory authority to direct the
release on parole licence of certain groups of determinate sentence prisoners who are not
eligible for automatic release at the halfway point of their sentence. The Parole Board
secretariat is responsible for supporting the work of the Parole Board.
The Public Protection Casework Section
2.3.
PPCS is part of the OMPPG and has overall responsibility for parole policy and procedures,
including offering central support to OMU staff when necessary. It is responsible for
overseeing the GPP-D and working with the establishment and probation staff as well as
the Parole Board to ensure that cases are considered without delay. PPCS will log all EDS
cases on to PPUD and also prepare the core dossier in EDS cases that are eligible for
release by the Parole Board at two-thirds point of the custodial term, and send it to the
prison. PPCS is responsible for the operation of PPUD. This will include ensuring the
system is compliant with Data Protection legislation and controlling password access,
updating the system with new requirements, having overall responsibility for training and
dealing with any queries that arise. Any queries about general parole procedures or policy
should be directed to the Parole Help Desk (parolehelpdesk@noms.gsi.gov.uk) or, if the
matter is urgent, by telephone on 03000 474510. If there are any issues with the
performance of PPUD (e.g. document conversion not working), these should be sent to
performanceteam@noms.gsi.gov.uk. Any prisoner specific queries should be directed to
the relevant PPCS case manager who has responsibility for the establishment where the
prisoner is detained.
Offender Manager and Offender Supervisor
2.4.
An Offender Manager (OM), who will supervise the offender after release, is allocated to
each prisoner at the start of the sentence. An Offender Supervisor (OS) within the prison
will also be allocated. Their roles are set out in the “Manage the Sentence: Pre and Post
Release from Custody” service specification and accompanying instruction PSI 14/2012 PI 08/2012. The OMU within the prison is responsible for arranging the Sentence Plan
Review (SPR) meeting, as well as commissioning the relevant SPR reports and
coordinating their collation. It is important that the OM ensures that the Parole Assessment
Report (PAROM 1) reaches the establishment according to the GPP-D timetable (please
refer to section 3). The SPR reports should be completed in advance of this, to enable the
PAROM 1 author to draw on all other sources of information.
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 8
Remand Time
2.5.
Time spent on remand (either remand to custody, or court directed remand on bail whilst
subject to an electronically monitored curfew) counts as time served towards the sentence.
Therefore if a prisoner has been on remand for a long period, he/she may be eligible to be
considered for parole soon after sentencing.
Additional Days Awarded and time spent unlawfully at large
2.6.
Additional days (ADAs) automatically put back the Parole Eligibility Date (PED) and the
Conditional Release Date (CRD) or Non-Parole date (NPD). The Sentence Expiry Date
(SED) is not altered. Conversely, dates must be advanced by any ADAs remitted.
2.7.
Days lost on appeal and time spent unlawfully at large (UAL), will affect all sentence dates
including the SED. Any ADAs awarded for being UAL will be subject to the procedures
outlined above. If a prisoner is UAL, or returns from UAL, during a parole review the PPCS
and the Parole Board secretariat must be advised by the OMU staff of the receiving prison
and a report must be sent to the Parole Board giving details such as the date of reception
and any further charges or additional days awarded.
Timing of reviews
2.8.
Prisons have responsibility for undertaking sentence calculations, as set out in PSI 13/2013
- Sentence Calculation – Determinate Sentenced Prisoners. In EDS cases, these must be
provided to PPCS.
2.9.
With the first GPP-D review, particular care is needed to ensure that where applicable,
the oral hearing is held sufficiently early to allow release at PED. If ADAs are awarded once
the first review has started, but before the dossier has been sent to the Parole Board, the
review must continue as normal and the details of the adjudications must be included in the
dossier. If ADAs are awarded after the dossier has been sent to the Parole Board, the
PPCS case manager and Parole Board secretariat must be advised at once. Outstanding
ADAs must also be included in the dossier although they must be clearly marked as such.
The Parole Board secretariat must be advised at once of the outcome. The secretariat must
also be advised if a prisoner goes UAL after the dossier is sent to the Parole Board. If a
prisoner returns from UAL after the dossier is sent to the Parole Board and a significant
number of added days have been awarded, the Board has discretion to postpone its
consideration of the case to nearer the revised PED and in those circumstances the
Secretariat may need to ask for reports to be updated. The secretariat and PPCS case
manager must also be advised of any ADAs restored after the dossier has been submitted
to the Board. If a prisoner goes UAL before the dossier is sent to the Parole Board and is
absent for a period exceeding 6 weeks then the review should be closed by arrangement
with the PPCS case manager. As soon as the prisoner is returned to prison and if it is
within 6 weeks, the original review should continue. For those prisoners UAL for a period
exceeding 6 weeks, a new review should commence upon their return.
2.10.
Second and subsequent GPP-D reviews must commence 18 weeks after the PED, last
anniversary or panel date of review unless ADAs have been awarded between the end of
the first review and the commencement of the second review. Review dates must, however,
be put back by any time spent UAL. Prisoners are not entitled to a statutory number of
reviews and should instead be reviewed on an annual basis, other than EDS prisoners
serving a sentence of 10 years and over. In these cases, the PPCS case manager can
extend the date of the review beyond 12 months, but no longer than 2 years if they consider
that the prisoner is unlikely to demonstrate significant progress within 12 months and/or that
there would be benefit in deferring the timing of the review to enable the prisoner to
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 9
complete offending behaviour work. All subsequent reviews will be added to PPUD by
PPCS following receipt of the decision letter from the Parole Board.
2.11.
In some cases the normal timetable will result in only a short period on licence being
available. So that, on completion of the final review, there will, wherever possible, be at
least three months on discretionary parole licence if the application is successful, the table
below must be used to calculate the timing of the final review:
Time to NPD from PED Anniversary date or Next review to begin
from the panel date if an early/special
review has been granted
15 months or more
18 weeks after PED, last anniversary or
panel date of early review
13 months or more, but less than 15 months
47 weeks before NPD
Under 13 months
Not eligible
2.12.
Any queries about the number of reviews should be directed to the Parole Help Desk
(parolehelpdesk@noms.gsi.gov.uk) or, if the matter is urgent, by telephone on 03000
474510. Such enquiries should not be directed to the Parole Board secretariat.
Monitoring the GPP-D
2.13.
The performance of all agencies involved in the GPP-D process will be monitored centrally.
The NOMS Performance Hub will record performance data for both probation performance
(submission of PAROM 1s) and prison performance (submission to the Parole Board of
complete parole dossiers) and will display data at a regional and national level broken down
into monthly, quarterly and annual data. The key performance indicators will 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 for EDS prisoners
the compliance on the part of NOMS with Parole Board directions in all cases; and
following the receipt of Parole Board decisions, the timely issuing of licences.
GPP-D monitoring will cover all determinate sentence prisoners who are eligible to have
their cases reviewed by the Parole Board with a view to determining whether they can be
safely released on parole licence. Determinate sentence prisoners who are eligible for
parole are:



2.14.
DCR
EPP who are eligible to be considered for release on licence by the Parole Board at
the halfway point of their custodial term
Those EDS prisoners who are eligible for release by the Parole Board at two-thirds
point of the custodial term
GPP-D monitoring will also cover all parts of NOMS involved in the delivery of the parole
process for determinate sentenced prisoners. Senior managers within the NOMS agency
are responsible for supporting the GPP-D and driving forward its delivery and performance
indicators.
Public Protection Unit Database (PPUD)
2.15.
PPUD is the database that will underpin and support the GPP-D and cases dealt with under
GPP-D will no longer be supported by IIS. PPUD functionality has been extended to include
GPP-D. All agencies involved in the GPP-D, i.e. PPCS, establishments, probation and the
Parole Board, have access to PPUD.
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 10
2.16.
The GPP-D is a paperless process. All actions will be recorded onto PPUD and dossiers,
reports and information must all, without exception, be collated, paginated and transferred
electronically. All existing DCR and EPP cases that have outstanding parole reviews have
been uploaded onto PPUD in time for the commencement of GPP-D. If any case has been
overlooked, the establishment must alert PPCS Team A immediately so that this can be
remedied (Pre-releaseteamA@noms.gsi.gov.uk).
2.17.
GPP-D 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.
2.18.
PPCS has overall responsibility for administering the GPP-D and the reporting of prison
and probation performance against indicators, using data recorded on PPUD. Therefore,
OMU staff who are involved with the GPP-D 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.
2.19.
The Parole Board also has access to PPUD and has similar data inputting responsibilities.
2.20.
Where there are disputes within NOMS regarding GPP-D data entries the PPCS Parole
Helpdesk will resolve them and their decision will be final.
2.21.
Governors may delegate any requirement under this instruction to suitable grades within
their establishment as long as that person has the necessary knowledge and skills to
perform that requirement.
Functional Mailbox
2.22.
All OMUs must maintain a team functional mailbox and ensure this is monitored regularly
(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 OMU staff
must ensure that any communications relating to the GPP-D are copied to the team
functional mailboxes.
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 11
3.
Generic Parole Process – Determinate (GPP-D) Timetable – an overview
3.1.
The GPP-D timescale and process is divided into 2 parts:


Part 1: 26 week period starting at week 26 and leading up to Week 0, in which it is
envisaged that most cases will be considered by the Parole Board on the papers.
The dossier compilation and disclosure and, where appropriate, Parole Board
directions are completed during this stage and the case is considered on the
papers. Where a decision is taken on the papers, this will be issued within this
period. The timetable is subject to variation by the Parole Board as it is
envisaged that the majority of cases will be considered within 15 weeks.
Part 2: applies only to those cases where the Parole Board has directed that the
case be heard at an oral hearing. It is the calendar month during which the Parole
Board hears the case which falls on or after week 0. The Parole Board may list the
case at any time during that month. The Parole Board provides the decision and
supporting reasons within 2 weeks of the oral hearing date. The timetable is
subject to variation by the Parole Board.
3.2.
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.
3.3.
The GPP-D 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. OMU staff 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 D.
3.4.
The process set out below highlights the key milestones and required action by relevant
parties in the process.
Part 1
Week
CASE ADMINISTRATION
Actions
Responsibility
All cases
Wk 26
Wk 22
Wk 18
Wk 17
Wk 14
PPUD informs PPCS/ Parole Board /Prison to commence
review
Prison notifies prisoner of the commencement of their parole
review.
Prison request all relevant reports including the PAROM 1
PPCS commence core dossier in EDS cases; or
Prison commences the dossier compilation in DCR and EPP
cases
PPCS
Parole Board
Prison, Probation
PPCS
Prison
Deadline - PPCS send EDS core dossier to prison
PPCS
Relevant reports received by prison including the PAROM 1 etc
from Probation
Prison compiles and PPUD paginates dossier in all cases
Prison discloses dossier to prisoner + reps/disclosure form
Deadline - Prison uploads dossier to PPUD in all cases
Prison, Probation
Prison
Prison
Prison
Parole Board assesses the compiled dossier to ensure it is
complete
Parole Board
Deadline - Prisoner to submit representations - personal/legal
Parole Board instigates an initial review on the papers.
Prison
Parole Board
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
Wk 12
PAGE 12
Parole Board issues parole decision or Directions for Oral
hearing
Parole Board
Oral hearing cases only
Wk 12
Parole Board seeks witness availability
Parole Board
Wk 10
Prison confirms all Parole Board Directions complied with
PPCS confirms all Parole Board Directions complied with
Parole Board lists case for oral hearing
Prison
PPCS
Parole Board
Wk 08
Parole Board identifies panel members
Parole Board issue oral hearing exact date notification
confirming hearing date to all parties
Parole Board
Parole Board
Wk 06
Parole Board copies dossier to members
Pane Panel chair issues further Directions (if required) and rules on
victim and witness attendance
Parole Board
Wk 04
Prison confirms all outstanding Directions complied with
PPCS confirms all outstanding Directions complied with
Parole Board issues Timetable for oral hearing to all parties
Prison
PPCS
Parole Board
Wk 0
End of part 1
CALENDAR MONTH FOR LISTING ORAL HEARING (THIS
WILL ALWAYS BE THE 1st OF THE MONTH)
Parole Board Oral Hearing taking place during this calendar
month
Deadline for receipt of Parole Board decision (2 weeks following
oral hearing)
Parole Board
Part 2
Parole Board
Week 26 - Commencement of parole process
3.5.
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, establishments, and probation should refer to the flow chart GPP-D timeline
illustrated in Annex D when a review is about to commence.
3.6.
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. OMU staff must ensure that they are aware of review
commencement and must request relevant reports. OMU staff must also issue a notification
of the parole review to the prisoner (using the template in Annex C). 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 SPR reports which,
unless there are circumstances which make this impossible, should be submitted earlier
than the PPUD target date, ideally no later than week 20. 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.
3.7.
In the case of an EDS prisoner parole review, the nominated PPCS case manager
commences the core dossier preparation. In all other cases it will fall to the OMU staff to
prepare the core dossier.
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
3.8.
PAGE 13
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 Parole Board for
consideration. OMU staff 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 in EDS prisoner
parole reviews, which is completed by the PPCS case manager. PPCS case managers
must ensure that each individual report is uploaded to PPUD, either as a 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 D: GPP-D –
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

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, Trial Judge’s sentencing remarks and the transcript of any
Court of Appeal judgment

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.

any security intelligence information upon which the adjudication has been
based

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, where appropriate.
3.11.
If some documents e.g. judge’s sentencing remarks cannot be provided, this must be
clearly indicated in the dossier by PPCS so that Parole Board panels do not make
unnecessary directions. Where a mandatory document cannot be located, the PPCS case
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 14
manager or OMU staff must insert a note in the dossier stating that the document could not
be provided or is not available and explain the reasons why.
3.12.
If the prisoner is unhappy with any document in the dossier a complaint may be made
through the request/complaint system to the Governor. If the dossier has been sent to the
Parole Board, the Board must be advised that a complaint has been made and kept
informed of the progress in resolving it, which must normally be within 6 weeks. Subject to
any direction by the Board to the contrary, consideration of the case by the Board will not
normally be deferred while the complaint is being investigated, although if new information
which might have affected the decision comes to light after it has been made the Board
may need to review the case again.
Week 18 - Disclosure of completed dossier
3.13.
This is the deadline for receipt of all reports by OMU staff who must upload the individual
component parts of a dossier to PPUD. Establishments must add the reports set out below
which are mandatory for establishments to obtain before disclosing to the Parole Board:




3.14.
PAROM 1 - OM overview report (see Annex L)
SPR L - OS report (see Annex K)
SPR D - Relevant Key Worker’s reports (see Annex E)
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:





SPR E – psychologist report (see Annex F)
SPR F – healthcare report (see Annex G)
SPR G – psychiatrist report (see Annex H)
SPR H – security report (see Annex I)
SPR J – offender’s comments (see Annex J)
3.15.
Further guidance on what must be included in mandatory reports can be found in Chapter 7
of this Instruction.
3.16.
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 PAROM 1 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 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.
3.17.
OMU staff 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 either by establishment staff (DCR and EPP cases) or by PPCS staff (EDS cases).
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
OMU staff to give to the prisoner. At PPCS we support any local agreements made
between prisons and probation that will enable the PAROM 1 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.
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 15
3.18.
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) PPCS case managers and
OMU staff 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 150dpi in
PDF format, black and white and low resolution. 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.
3.19.
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.
3.20.
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 Criminal
Justice Secure eMail (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 OMU staff to provide a hard copy, which must be issued within one week of the
request being made.
3.21.
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.
Week 14 - Administration of completed dossiers and Parole Board Directions
3.22.
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.
3.23.
When the dossier has been received by the Board, at week 14 the case will be referred to a
panel for consideration on the papers. The paper panel will do one of the following:

Decide the case by making a release decision on the papers. The decision is issued
to the prisoner and other parties.

Decide the case by making a negative decision on the papers. The decision is
issued to the prisoner and other parties.

Decide that the case requires further consideration before an oral hearing. Any
Directions considered necessary will be issued at this stage and a date secured for
the oral hearing once any witness availability has been ascertained.

Decide that the case is suitable for an oral hearing, but is not yet ready. 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 paper panel will defer the
case for a set period of time.
Week 12 - Parole Board issues the results of paper hearings or refers the case for an oral
hearing
3.24.
The Parole Board secretariat will issue the results to the establishment, copied to the
functional mailbox of the holding establishment and PPCS. In all cases, the OMU staff must
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 16
take immediate steps to ensure that the decision is served on the prisoner. The Parole
Board decision is binding.
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 OMU staff members and mailboxes as above as well as
the PPCS case manager. These directions are divided into two categories. The first is
reports required before listing (e.g. commissioning fresh reports etc) must be complied with
before a case can be allocated an exact date for the hearing. The second is reports that
can be provided after listing, (e.g. addendum reports and updates). These normally must be
with the Parole Board 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 OMU within the establishment 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.
Part II – Preparation for Oral Hearing, if applicable
3.26.
PPCS case managers are responsible for overseeing the compliance with Parole Board
directions. They will liaise with OMU staff and the relevant probation staff to ensure that
directions issued by the Parole Board are complied with in the timescales set. OMU staff
must work with the PPCS case managers to ensure that directions are complied with.
3.27.
The Parole Board secretariat will alert report writers who are directed by the Parole Board
to attend an oral hearing to give evidence as a witness. 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 will be advised immediately by the Parole Board secretariat. 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.
3.28.
Only when reports required before listing 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 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 seek a variation of the direction/s under the Parole Board Rules. Once all
reports required before listing have been received, the PPCS case manager must update
PPUD milestone 70a.
3.29.
PPCS Team Managers/Public Protection 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. OMU staff must not send applications directly to
the Parole Board, but instead liaise with PPCS.
3.30.
PPCS case managers, in conjunction with Public Protection Representatives, are
responsible for submitting applications to the Parole Board, where appropriate, to have
information withheld from the prisoner. OMU staff must not send applications directly to the
Parole Board, but instead liaise with PPCS.
Week 10 - Completion of directions
3.31.
This is the target date for completion of any 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 of these directions are complied with.
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 17
Week 8 - Notification of oral hearing date from Parole Board
3.32.
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.
Week 6 - Panel chair Directions
3.33.
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 directions stage will be confirmed or stood down by the
chair. The Parole Board secretariat are responsible for liaising with witnesses, whereas the
PPCS case manager will liaise with the OMU staff to ensure that all other directions are
complied with and any changes are fully communicated to those affected, including the
prisoner and legal representative.
3.34.
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, and copied to the
prisoner/legal representative. The panel chair will decide the request, taking into account
the prisoner’s comments, if any.
Week 4 - Timetable for oral hearing
3.35.
Once reports required after listing have been submitted to the Parole Board, which should
be by this stage in the timetable, PPCS case managers must complete milestone 70b on
PPUD.
3.36.
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.
3.37.
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
3.38.
This is the 1st day of the calendar month listing period in which the oral hearing is to be
held.
3.39.
The Secretary of State does not provide a view and is 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 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.
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
3.40.
PAGE 18
Where a PPCS representative is required to attend, the PPCS case manager will alert the
prison, the prisoner/legal representative and the Parole Board in advance of the hearing.
Receipt of Parole Board decision (2 Weeks from date of oral hearing)
3.41.
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.
Parole process end date
Notification of negative decisions
3.42.
If the parole application has been refused, the notification of the decision sets out the
reasons for refusal. The Governor must arrange for the reasons to be explained to the
prisoner and, where appropriate, he/she must be advised of the date of the next review
(see para 2.10) or the date of release (NPD or end of the custodial term). There is no right
of appeal against the decision to refuse parole. If the prisoner wants to challenge a
decision, he/she can do so direct with the Parole Board. If the prison comes into
possession of further relevant information that should have been made available to the
Board at the time the decision was made, or becomes aware of a significant procedural
error such as inaccurate information used for consideration, the Board can be asked to
review the decision. The prison must approach the PPCS case manager, who will decide
whether the matter should be brought to the attention of the Parole Board. Where it is
referred, the ‘new’ information must be copied to the prisoner, who must be given the
opportunity to make representations.
3.43.
If a refusal is at the last review the prisoner must be released at the NPD in DCR cases or
the CRD at the end of the custodial term in EPP and EDS cases. Licence conditions in
respect of prisoners released at NPD and the CRD are not set by the Parole Board.
Requests for additional licence conditions in these cases must be submitted by the OM to
the Governor in accordance with the arrangements set out in PSI 40/2012 in respect of
DCR and EPP cases and to the PPCS case manager in respect of EDS cases.
Notifications of positive decisions
3.44.
All positive decisions by the Parole Board are based on the assumption that the release
plan contained in the OM’s report can still be put into effect at the point of release. In DCR
and EPP cases, Governors must put in place local procedures to ensure effective liaison
with OMs to satisfy themselves that the release arrangements will be in accordance with
those agreed by the Board. PPCS must do the same in respect of EDS prisoners. If the
release plan made reference to residence in a hostel, Governors or, in the case of EDS
prisoners, the PPCS case manager, must be satisfied that such arrangements have been
put in place before effecting release. If the release plan cannot be put fully into place at the
point of release, or the probation service are planning to change the nature of the release
plan, Governors or PPCS must inform the prisoner, and consult the Parole Board; release
must not take place until written confirmation has been received that the revised release
plan is satisfactory.
3.45.
The OMU staff or PPCS case manager must then arrange a release date - the Approved
Parole Release Date (APRD) with the OM. If the decision is issued before the PED, the
APRD should be the PED. Otherwise, release must take place as soon as practicable on
an agreed date. If the PED falls on a Saturday, Sunday or Bank Holiday, the APRD must be
arranged for the next working day: under the CJA 2003, there is no power to release a
prisoner before their PED other than on compassionate grounds. Where the prisoner is
liable to deportation, the Governor must ensure that UKBA are notified of the release
decision, so that consideration can be given to detaining under Immigration Act powers.
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 19
The procedures for handling such cases are set out in PSI 04/2013 - The Early Removal
Scheme and Release of Foreign National Prisoners.
Notification to the Police
3.46.
A copy of the licence must be sent to the National Identification Service (NIS) at New
Scotland Yard and to the Chief Constable of the area to which the prisoner is being
released. OMU staff will do this for DCR/EPP cases and PPCS will do this for EDS cases.
3.47.
In addition to the above, the prison must alert the relevant police force that the prisoner is
being released on the actual day of release. Where the prisoner is identified as a Prolific
and other Priority Offender (PPO), the police must be notified of release arrangements at
least 28 days prior to release or as soon as possible thereafter. These arrangements apply
to all PPOs, regardless of the length of sentence. The procedures for notifying the police of
PPO releases are set out in PSI 12/2010 - Prolific and Other Priority Offenders.
Suspension or cancellation of release arrangements
3.48.
Approval of release may be suspended at any time up to the moment of departure, if new
and significant information comes to light which would cause the Secretary of State to ask
the Parole Board to review its decision. There is a high threshold in these cases. It might be
that there has been a serious adverse development between the time the decision was
taken and the point at which the prisoner was to be released. If the prisoner's release plan
breaks down before release, this should be regarded as an adverse development.
Alternatively, new information may have come to light, which had not been made available
to the Parole Board at the time it had taken its decision or there is confirmation that
inaccurate information was presented previously which might have resulted in a different
parole outcome. If any such developments arise the prison must alert PPCS, who will
determine whether the case should be re-referred and, if the threshold has been met, will
make the referral. If the case is to be re-referred the PPCS case manager must advise the
prison, the prisoner and the OM, as well as the Parole Board immediately. Written
confirmation of the adverse developments, or copies of the material hitherto not disclosed
to the Parole Board must be submitted to the prisoner and the Parole Board. The prisoner
must be given the opportunity to make representations on the new material. The release
decision is suspended until the Parole Board confirms that it may go ahead. A decision to
withdraw parole can only be made by the Parole Board once the case has been formally
referred back to it.
Confiscation orders
3.49.
Confiscation orders are made in the Crown Court under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, or,
where the conduct occurred before 24 March 2003, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as
amended, or the Drug Trafficking Act 1994. A term in default of payment of a confiscation
order is not classed as a ‘sentence of imprisonment’, but is a ‘term of imprisonment’ and as
such there is no parole eligibility on the default term. Where the term in default is enforced and
is consecutive to a DCR sentence, EPP or EDS, parole, must be completed in line with the
PED of the DCR, EPP or EDS. If a decision to release on licence from the sentence is made,
the OMU staff must ensure that the term in default of the confiscation order runs from the day
after the notional date the prisoner would be released on licence
3.50.
Where a confiscation order has been made by the Crown Court but not enforced, the Parole
Board does not take the default term into account when considering the application for parole
unless it has concerns that the default term might have an adverse effect upon the prisoner’s
behaviour whilst subject to supervision. If parole is agreed for a prisoner before the default
term is enforced, the prisoner must be released under the same procedures as any other. If
the term in default is subsequently enforced, the term will begin from the date that the prisoner
is returned to custody.
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 20
Repatriated Prisoners
3.51.
There may be occasions where a prisoner has been repatriated from another country to
serve the remainder of their prison sentence in the United Kingdom. The sentence
calculation will reveal whether or not the sentence requires consideration for release by the
Parole Board or will be automatic. If the calculated PED is at least 6 months hence, then
the normal parole procedures and timetable will apply. If PED has passed, or is within 6
months, the parole process should commence with immediate effect. However, in order for
meaningful reports to be prepared, it may be in the prisoner’s best interest to defer the start
of the review for three months. A decision to defer the review must be acted upon only after
receipt of the prisoner’s written authority. Failing receipt of such authority, or in cases where
the prisoner is unwilling to put anything to this effect in writing, the parole review should
commence with immediate effect.
3.52.
For those reviews implemented immediately, the timetable can only commence with effect
from the reception date of the prisoner into the prison estate. Any subsequent reviews will
be in accordance with the timetable set out in paragraphs 2.9 and 2.10 above. To initiate an
immediate review, OMU staff should contact PPCS, as these cannot be activated locally
(Pre-releaseteamA@noms.gsi.gov.uk).
Licence issue
3.53.
In DCR and EPP cases the Governor (or an officer authorised by the Governor), or
Controller, must issue the release licence on behalf of the Secretary of State. In EDS cases
this role will be performed by the PPCS case managers. The notification of a positive
decision will contain any additional conditions to be added to the licence and if the OM has
any queries about the additional licence conditions they should alert the PPCS case
manager immediately. See PSI 40/2012 - Licence and Licence Conditions.
3.54.
Following the commencement of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders
Act 2012, all DCR offenders are now released under the provisions of the Criminal Justice
Act 2003, regardless of the act that they were originally sentenced under. However, the
breakdown of the sentence itself is unchanged, and so the following categories of prisoner
are released on a licence which remains in force until the three-quarter point in their
sentence (see PSI 40/2012):



Those sentenced on or after 1 October 1992 (but before 3 December 2012), for
offences committed prior to 4 April 2005 and serving sentences/single terms of 12
months or more and less than 4 years (formerly ‘short-term 1991 Act prisoners’);
DCR prisoners with sentences of 4 years or more for offences committed before 4
April 2005 which fall into Schedule 15 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, or whose
PED fell before 9 June 2008 (formerly ‘long-term 1991 Act prisoners’ not eligible for
‘conversion’);
DCR prisoners sentenced before 3 December 2012 to multiple under 12 month
sentences totalling 4 years or more, for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005,
where one or more of the under 12 month sentences was for a Schedule 15 offence
or the PED fell before 9 June 2008.
3.55.
In all other cases – including all offenders sentenced on or after 3 December 2012
regardless of the date of their offences – release on licence is until the SED.
3.56.
In DCR and EPP cases, the Governor, (or an officer authorised by the Governor), or
controller, must sign and issue the licence. The conditions must be explained to the
prisoner and the prisoner should also sign the licence. If the prisoner will not sign the
licence, the Governor, or authorised officer, must note on the licence that the prisoner was
made aware of the licence and the licence conditions but refused to sign it. The prisoner
will still have to abide by the licence conditions irrespective of the licence being signed.
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 21
3.57.
One copy of the licence must be given to the prisoner on discharge. One copy (as signed or
certified) must be kept on the prisoner's F2050 record and another sent to the OM. Further
copies must be sent to the NIS at New Scotland Yard, and the Chief Constable of the area
to which the prisoner is being released.
3.58.
Where a prisoner has changed his/her name or intends to do so on release, the licence
must contain the new name along with the name under which he/she was previously
known. The licence must also include the prison number. Should the offender be recalled
before the licence is updated, the recall is not invalidated but the licence must be updated
as soon as possible.
Amendments to licence after release
3.59.
The Parole Board must, by law, be consulted about amendments to DCR/EPP/EDS
licences following release if they are released by the Parole Board and not automatically.
Those released at NPD or at CRD at the end of the custodial term do not require Parole
Board approval and are authorised by the Governor. If the OM wishes to add, amend or
delete a licence condition during the supervision period, in respect of a DCR/EPP/EDS
prisoner released by the Parole Board the OM must apply to PPCS with a report of the
prisoner's conduct and reasons for the request for amendments. If the Parole Board
approves the request PPCS will issue a fresh licence. PPCS will send two copies to the
OM, who is responsible for serving and explaining the licence. A copy will be sent to the
prison which released the prisoner, another to the NIS and one to the Chief Constable of
the area in which the prisoner is living. In those cases where the prisoner was released on
NPD or CRD at the end of the custodial term, the request for amendments to licence must
be made directly to the Governor in DCR and EPP cases and to PPCS in EDS cases.
Opt outs
3.60.
Prisoners cannot opt out of the parole process.
3.61.
If a prisoner subsequently refuses to comply with the process, this cannot be regarded as
an opt-out of the parole process. The dossier should be compiled in the normal way, with
reports completed as far as report writers are able.
Re-referrals
3.62.
In cases where the prisoner has been refused release on parole licence, the case can only
be re-referred to the Parole Board if (i) there has been a significant change in
circumstances; or (ii) new material has come to light which, had the Parole Board been
made aware of the material at the time of the review there is a reasonable likelihood that it
might have resulted in a different outcome, or (iii) the Secretary of State considers that the
original decision was flawed in some way. A re-referral can only be made by the Secretary
of State. The Parole Board will not take any action until a formal re-referral has been
received. There is no standard pro-forma for re-referrals. A re-referral can only be made by
the PPCS case manager on behalf of the Secretary of State. Where prison or probation
staff or the prisoner’s legal representative believes that the criteria for re-referral have been
met, they must contact the PPCS case manager, setting out the reasons why they consider
the case should be re-referred.
3.63.
Re-referrals should be made using the original dossier, with the new material added. It may
be necessary to provide addendum reports/further paperwork depending on the reason for
the re-referral. A new dossier should not be compiled. All information re-referred to the
Parole Board must be copied to the prisoner and his/her legal representatives and the
prisoner must have the opportunity to make further representations.
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 22
4.
Referral and Deferral of cases
4.1.
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.
4.2.
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 behaviour course
which the prisoner has already commenced at the 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 and if
so should be copied to the prisoner and/or the legal representative at the same time. 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.
4.3.
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.
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 23
5.
Transfer of Prisoners during review
5.1.
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; 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 5.2 and 5.3. In cases where this has been necessary
Governors must inform the Parole Board and PPCS of the reasons for the move.
5.2.
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. In EDS cases the sending establishment’s PPCS case manager will also retain
responsibility 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.
5.3.
It is even more critical that a transfer of any prisoner after the exact date of an oral 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 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 24
6.
Mental Health Cases
6.1.
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. PSI 18/2013 - Determinate sentenced prisoners transferred under the
Mental Health Act 1983 sets out the arrangements for determinate sentence prisoners who
are transferred the MHA 1983 and who are eligible for consideration for release by the
Parole Board.
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 25
7.
Quality of Parole Reports
7.1.
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.
7.2.
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

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
7.3.
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:




7.4.
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.
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. The OMU staff will
oversee the preparations for parole, including the coordination of report preparation and the
SPR meeting. The OM will produce the PAROM 1.
Reports required
7.5.
For all parole dossiers, the following reports are mandatory (templates of all reports below
are available at Annexes L, M, K and E):

PAROM 1 - OM report completed by a qualified probation officer, or
PAROM 1+ addendum report where appropriate

SPR L - OS report

SPR D - Relevant Key Workers’ 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
7.6.
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:
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED





PAGE 26
SPR E – psychologist report
SPR F – healthcare
SPR G – psychiatrist
SPR H – security
SPR J – offender
7.7.
Reports from psychologists are only usually required in cases where there have been
substantive psychological input or significant personality issues. Psychiatric reports are only
usually required where there are mental health issues on which to report.
7.8.
The OM and OMU staff must work closely as the OM 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 OM will prepare a PAROM 1.
The Offender Manager’s report (PAROM 1)
7.9.
The Parole Board relies heavily on the contents of the parole dossier in making its decision.
As the report which the OM completes, the PAROM 1 becomes a 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 throughout the sentence.
7.10.
The request for and receipt of Victim Personal Statements (VPS) is the responsibility of the
OM’s probation service. As a result, OMs 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.
7.11.
When an OM completes a PAROM 1 for a case in which he/she has not previously been
involved, he/she 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.
7.12.
The OM’s overview report to the Parole Board must contain:











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 VPS
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 reoffending, 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
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED


PAGE 27
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. This should include details of any additional licence
conditions (over and above the standard conditions) being proposed, with a clear
explanation of the purpose and necessity of each condition.
Addendum PAROM 1+ template
7.13.
The purpose of the addendum PAROM 1+ is to provide a structure for OMs 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 PAROM 1 template. Thereafter, the addendum PAROM 1+ should only be used
in specific situations:


7.14.
if the OM is the author of the original PAROM 1,
if the OM is not the author of the original PAROM 1 but endorses the risk
assessments in that report,
However, if the OM is not able to endorse the risk assessments in that report, the full
PAROM 1 should be completed.
Offender Supervisor’s report: SPR L
7.15.
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 identified in the sentence plan.
7.16.
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 Prison Service
Designated Service Manager and the associated report (SPR K).
7.17.
The OS 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 re-offending, 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
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED


7.18.
PAGE 28
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.
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 the 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
7.19.
Where other reports are required, staff completing these should ensure they use the
relevant template provided at annexes E to J and provide an assessment which draws on
the offender’s most recent OASys and Risk of Serious Harm assessments.
7.20.
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
PAROM 1 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
7.21.
All SPR reports, in particular the OM report, addenda and OS report 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 L and K 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 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 29
8.
The Challenge Process for Generic Parole Process-Determinate performance data
8.1.
The GPP-D will be subject to centrally monitored performance indicators and PPCS will
issue data on the production of completed dossiers by establishments and PAROM 1s by
probation 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.
8.2.
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 parolehelpdesk@noms.gsi.gov.uk .
Full reasons for the challenge should be given and the challenge form attached to the raw
data must be used.
8.3.
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.
8.4.
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.
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 30
9.
Creation and deletion of PPUD accounts
9.1.
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, upon receipt of a completed login request form. 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. However, PPCS staff will be running training for prison
staff responsible for the GPP-D throughout 2013 and details of this training will be made
available in PPCS newsletters or through the PPCS Parole Helpdesk.
9.2.
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
parolehelpdesk@noms.gsi.gov.uk .
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PPUD naming conventions in chronological order
PAGE 31
Annex A
203 - Initial documents (put under “Personal”)
LISP1
Acknowledgement letter
Change in Tariff/Review & Covering letter
CoA Orders and Judgements
Covering letter to OMU
First review notification
Sentencing remarks
204 – Source Planning 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 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 32
Decision – Order
Explanation note to prisoner
New applications
207 – Reviews- Indeterminate (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 Oral hearing request – accepted
PB Oral hearing request – 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
Core Dossier
208 – Release (put under “Releases”)
IPP Licence
Life Licence
Determinate Licence
Release Details – ACO
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 33
Release Details – Prison
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
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 34
Response to Director General cases
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)
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 35
Non-disclosure information
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
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 36
Section 39 Appeal Pack
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
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 37
Front Cover sheet
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 – ISP representations (put under “Review”)
Adjudications
Court Documents
Issue Dossier Letter
Issue Dossier Letter to Prison
ISP 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
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 38
Consideration proforma
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
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 39
Panel Chair/ICM Directions Letter
PB Decision
PB Decision Letter
Team Record Sheet
Tsol Referral Letter
Witness Attendees
230 – Reviews - Determinate (put under “Current Review”)
Agree to deferral - prisoner
Change in review date following escape - prisoner
Core Dossier
Deferral request to PB - prisoner
Directions
Dossier disclosure letter and acknowledgement of receipt
Full Dossier
Knockback notification - prisoner
Notification of Parole Review
OH Notification - exact date
OH timetable
PB Oral hearing request - accepted
PB Oral hearing request - refused
PB Decision - knockback or release
PPR referral proforma
Prisoner's Reps
Refuse deferral - prisoner
Request to defer review
Secretary of State's Submission
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 40
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.
Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS) case managers and Prison staff
PPCS case managers and prison staff must only email GPP-D 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).
The 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 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 41
Annex C
Prisoner Name:
Prisoner number:
HMPrison/YOI:
Review Number:
PED:
NPD:
NOTIFICATION OF PAROLE REVIEW
You become eligible to be considered for release parole in six months time. This means that the
Parole Board will consider your case and will decide whether or not you should be released on
licence on or after your Parole Eligibility Date (PED).
As part of your review, reports will be prepared on your progress and these will be disclosed to
you. You will also have the opportunity to make representations to the Parole Board in support of
your application for parole.
It is not possible for you to opt out of the parole process.
Release on parole is not automatic. If you are not successful you will still be released on licence
after serving two-thirds of your sentence/at the expiry of your custodial term*. (Delete as
applicable)
Signed
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
Date
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 42
Annex D
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 43
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 44
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 45
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 46
Annex E
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
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 47
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.
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:
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
Date:
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 48
Countersign Name and Role:
Signature:
Date:
Office Base Address:
Contact Telephone Number:
Extension:
Email address:
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 49
Annex F
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 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 50
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 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 51
Annex G
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
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
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 52
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 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
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 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 53
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 54
Report Writers Name:
Signature:
Date:
Countersign Name and Role:
Signature:
Date:
Office Base Address:
Contact Telephone Number:
Extension:
Email address:
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 55
Annex H
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 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
5.
Risk to the public
6.
Release and resettlement
7.
Additional information
PAGE 56
Report Writers Name:
Signature:
Date:
Office Base Address:
Email address:
Contact Telephone Number:
Extension:
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 57
Annex I
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 in accordance with PSI 61/2010 – Handling of
sensitive information provided by Criminal Justice Agencies
For the above applications to made there must be evidence that nondisclosure 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 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 58
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:
Extension:
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 59
Annex J
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 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 60
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 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 61
Annex K
SENTENCE PLANNING AND REVIEW REPORT BY
SPR L
OFFENDER SUPERVISOR FOR
ALL DETERMINATE 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 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 62
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 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
Report Writer’s Name
Signature
PAGE 63
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 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
Date
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 64
Annex L
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
6. PREVIOUS OFFENDING HISTORY
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 65
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 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
Signature
Role
Date
Date
Extension
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 66
Annex M
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 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 67
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
] but I confirm that I endorse
risk assessments and other key information contained in that report.
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 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 68
Name:
Signature:
................................................................ Date:
Countersignature:
……………………………..
Role:
Date:
Probation Trust:
Office Base Address:
Email Address:
Contact Telephone Number:
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
Extension:
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
Annex N
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 19/2013 - PI 09/2013
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
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PAGE 69
IPP cases, has the author seen all prison reports before drafting PAROM1 and
summarised their conclusions, addressing agreement and/or differing views?
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
Total 0 - 3
Does the report identify all relevant risk factors, motivations
and triggers?
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.
PSI 19/2013 - PI 09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
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?
Score 0 –
3
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PAGE 70
Have static and dynamic factors been identified? Does the report identify
positive/protective factors?
Has the author discussed relevance of the offender’s insight
and acceptance of responsibility/denial in assessing risk?
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 Re-
Indicators
Author provides their own assessment of risk taking into account relevant
PSI 19/2013 - PI 09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
Total 0 – 3
Score 0 –
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PAGE 71
offending
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
stated?
Is it clear over what time period risk is being assessed?
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
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
PSI 19/2013 - PI 09/2013
3
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
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PAGE 72
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?
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
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
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
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 19/2013 - PI 09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PAGE 73
Annex O
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
PSI 19/2013 - PI 09/2013
Score 0 – 3
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PAGE 74
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).
PSI 19/2013 - PI 09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PAGE 75
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:
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?
PSI 19/2013 - PI 09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PAGE 76

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?
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:
Score 0 – 3
12. Recommendations
PSI 19/2013 - PI 09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PAGE 77
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:
 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 19/2013 - PI 09/2013
PROTECT WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE - ISSUE DATE 17/09/2013
PAGE 78
UNCLASSIFIED
EIA
PAGE 1
EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
PSI 19/ 2013 – PI 09/2013 – GENERIC PAROLE PROCESS FOR DETERMINATE
SENTENCE PRISONERS (GPP-D)
Stage 1 – initial screening
The first stage of conducting an EIA is to screen the policy to determine its relevance to the various
equalities issues. This will indicate whether or not a full impact assessment is required and which
issues should be considered in it. The equalities issues that you should consider in completing this
screening are:
 Race
 Gender
 Gender identity
 Disability
 Religion or belief
 Sexual orientation
 Age (including younger and older offenders).
Aims
What are the aims of the policy?
The aim is to introduce a Generic Parole Process for determinate sentence prisoners (GPP-D)
who are eligible to be released on parole licence by the Parole Board, to commence from 1 July
2013. It would replace PSO 6000 “Parole Release and Recall” Chapter 5 and Chapter 8 and PSI
09/2008 ‘Offender Management Functional Mailboxes’. It mirrors to a large extent the process for
indeterminate sentence prisoners (ISPs), but is adjusted to meet the requirements of
determinate sentence parole reviews. The GPP is designed to ensure that prisoners reviews are
conducted speedily and efficiently, eliminating nugatory work and limiting the potential for delays
so that prisoners are not detained any longer than is necessary to protect the public. The
effective operation of the parole process also has a positive impact in reducing the prison
population.
This revised process will replace the existing parole process for Discretionary Conditional
Release prisoners (DCRs) and the residual Extended Public Protection Sentence (EPP)
prisoners subject to parole reviews. In summary the new process will (i) be underpinned by the
Public Protection Unit Database (PPUD) in place of IIS, which currently supports the determinate
parole process; (ii) introduce electronic case working (e-working) and as such it will be a
paperless process as is already the case with ISPs. Therefore in future all determinate parole
dossiers will be compiled and paginated electronically. E-working should increase the efficiency
of the process, improving the security of personal data, and facilitating better communications
between all the agencies involved in the process. It will also make use of existing functional
mailboxes; and (iii) Update processes and expectations with regard to the parole dossier and
completion and quality of key parole reports, to bring it in line with changes in offender
management practice.
The GPP–D will also be the parole process for the new Extended Determinate Sentence (EDS)
which was introduced in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012
(LASPOA12) and applies to offenders convicted on or after 3 December 2012 (who would
previously have received either an IPP or EPP sentence). There are two types of release
arrangement for EDS prisoners depending on the length of their custodial term and the
seriousness of their offending. This PSI and the GPP - D will only apply to those EDS cases with
discretionary release by the Parole Board.
In addition, this PSI is also an opportunity to remove the option for determinate prisoners to optPSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 08/07/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
EIA
PAGE 2
out of the parole process which is inline with the current policy for ISPs.
Effects
What effects will the policy have on staff, offenders or other stakeholders?
The policy will provide guidance to establishments and probation trusts on the new GPP - D and
e-working as such:
Prison Establishments – GPP has been in operation across the estate for ISPs since 2009, this
policy will formally communicate the expansion of this to include determinates (with some
adjustments to meet the requirements of determinate sentence parole reviews). The policy sets
out clear timescales to prisons for their role in the process. Establishments are expected to see
savings from the introduction of the new paperless system as they will save in terms of staff time
(for the collation and pagination of the complete dossier), postage and printing costs. NB Establishments may have some small initial costs if they need additional scanning facilities.
Offenders – The developments aim to make the parole process more efficient and limit the
potential for delays in order to ensure that prisoners are not detained any longer than is
necessary to protect the public.
Probation Trusts - The policy sets out clear timescales to Probation Trusts for their role in the
process.
Evidence
Is there any existing evidence of this policy area being relevant to any equalities issue?
Identify existing sources of information about the operation and outcomes of the policy, such as operational
feedback (including local monitoring and impact assessments)/Inspectorate and other relevant
reports/complaints and litigation/relevant research publications etc. Does any of this evidence point towards
relevance to any of the equalities issues?
No. Prisoners affected are all determinate sentence prisoners who are eligible to be released on
parole licence by the Parole Board, including the new EDS prisoners.
Stakeholders and feedback
Describe the target group for the policy and list any other interested parties. What contact have
you had with these groups?
The target group is Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS) staff, Prison staff in Offender
Management Units (OMUs) and Probation Trust staff. Interested parties are the Parole Board
and Offender Assessment and Management Section (OAMS).
The policy instruction has been circulated within PPCS, OAMS, the Parole Board, some prisons,
some Probation Trusts, Security Group, Young People’s Group, Performance Analysis Group.
Do you have any feedback from stakeholders, particularly from groups representative of the
various issues, that this policy is relevant to them?
Feedback has been received from all those consulted namely PPCS, OAMS and the Parole
Board.
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 08/07/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
EIA
PAGE 3
Impact
Could the policy have a differential impact on staff, prisoners, visitors or other stakeholders on
the basis of any of the equalities issues?
No, the policy covers all determinate sentence prisoners who are eligible to be released on
parole licence by the Parole Board, including the new EDS prisoners.
Local discretion
Does the policy allow local discretion in the way in which it is implemented? If so, what
safeguards are there to prevent inconsistent outcomes and/or differential treatment of different
groups of people?
No, the policy covers all determinate sentence prisoners who are eligible to be released on
parole licence by the Parole Board, including the new EDS prisoners, and provides clear
mandatory instructions.
Summary of relevance to equalities issues
Strand
Race
Gender (including
gender identity)
Disability
Religion or belief
Sexual orientation
Age (younger offenders)
Age (older offenders)
Yes/No
Rationale
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
If you have answered ‘Yes’ to any of the equalities issues, a full impact assessment must be completed. Please
proceed to STAGE 2 of the document.
If you have answered ‘No’ to all of the equalities issues, a full impact assessment will not be required, and this
assessment can be signed off at this stage. You will, however, need to put in place monitoring arrangements to
ensure that any future impact on any of the equalities issues is identified.
Monitoring and review arrangements
Describe the systems that you are putting in place to manage the policy and to monitor its
operation and outcomes in terms of the various equalities issues.
The instruction provides mandatory actions for Governors, PPCS and Probation Trusts to ensure
the policy is appropriately carried out. GPP-D will be subject to centrally monitored performance
indicators overseen by PPCS.
State when a review will take place and how it will be conducted.
The GPP and e-working are under continual review and development. Therefore the new GPP –
D will be part of this. The policy will be subject to an ongoing review in line with the business
needs.
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 08/07/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
Policy lead
Head of group
EIA
PAGE 4
Name and signature
Date
Russell A’Court
15/04/2013
Gordon Davison
16/04/2013
PSI 19/2013 – PI 09/2013
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 08/07/2013