Generic parole process for indeterminate and
advertisement
GENERIC PAROLE PROCESS FOR INDETERMINATE AND DETERMINATE SENTENCED PRISONERS (GPP) This instruction applies to: Reference: NOMS Headquarters Prison Providers of Probation Services Issue Date Effective Date Implementation Date 25 June 2015 1 July 2015 AI 11/2015 PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 Expiry Date Issued on the authority of For action by For Review by 01 January 2016 NOMS Agency Board All staff responsible for the development and publication of policy and instructions; NOMS HQ Public Sector Prisons Contracted Prisons* NOMS Immigration Removal Centres (IRCs) National Probation Service (NPS) Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) Other Providers of Probation and Community Services Governors Heads of Group NOMS Rehabilitation Contract Services Team * 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 All staff involved in the Generic Parole Process for indeterminate and determinate sentenced prisoners This new instruction combines the guidance for determinate and indeterminate parole which was previously contained in separate instructions. It also takes forward recommendations from the Endto-End casework review and introduces policy changes for Discretionary Conditional Release (DCR) prisoners and eligibility for open conditions. For Policy issues:ppcs.policy@noms.gsi.gov.uk For PPUD performance issues: performanceteam@noms.gsi.gov.uk PSO 4700 Indeterminate Sentence Manual PSO 6000 Parole Manual PSO 9050 Functional Mailboxes PSI 22/2009 Indeterminate Sentence Manual PSI 12/2010 – Prolific and other Priority Offenders PSI 29/2010 - PI 06/2010 Indeterminate Sentence Manual amendments PSI 36/2010 - PI 11/2010 New chapter 4 for PSO 4700 – indeterminate sentences PSI 71/2011 Parole Hub PSI 75/2011 – Residential Services PSI 14/2012 – PI 08/2012 - Implementation of the Service Specification for “Manage the Sentence: Pre and Post Release from Custody” (transitional version) PSI 30/2012 – PI 16/2012 - The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012 – General summary of release and recall provisions PSI 41/2012 – AI 10/2012 – PI 21/2012 – Sentence Planning PSI 04/2013 - The Early Removal Scheme and Release of Foreign National Prisoners PSI 35/2013 Parole Board and Prison Service Oral Hearing standards PSI 19/2014 – AI 14/2014 - PI 13/2014 Sentence Planning PSI 26/2014 - PI 22/2014 Handling of sensitive information provided by Criminal Justice Agencies PSI 30/2014 – AI 22/2014 - PI 27/2014 – Recall, Review & ReRelease of Recall Offenders PSI 37/2014 – AI 25/2014 - Eligibility for Open Conditions and for ROTL of Prisoners Subject to Deportation Proceedings PSI 03/2015 Sentence Calculation – Determinate Sentence Prisoners PSI 12/2015 – Licence Conditions, Licences and Licence Supervision Notices PSI 13/2015 - PI 10/2015 Release on Temporary Licence PI 8/2015 – Managing Indeterminate Sentence Offenders on Licence PI 09/2015 – Licence Conditions and Temporary Travel Abroad Replaces the following documents which are hereby cancelled: PSI 36/2012 – PI 18/2012 Generic Parole Process (GPP) amended to incorporate Electronic Working; PSI 18/2013 – PI 08/2013 – Determinate Sentenced Prisoners Transferred under the Mental Health Act 1983; PSI 19/2013 - PI 09/2013 Generic Parole Process for Determinate sentence prisoners (GPP-D) Audit/monitoring: Mandatory elements of this instruction (i.e. the completion of PAROM1s and full dossiers by probation and prisons respectively) are subject to both timeliness and quality reviews by the Public Protection Casework Section at NOMS HQ. The timeliness data is published by the Performance Analysis Group (PAG) and performance monitored accordingly. There is an expectation that, prior to submission, checks will be made by the appropriate managers, within prisons and probation, who have responsibility for delivery within their operational commands. Introduces amendments to the following documents: None Notes: All Mandatory Actions throughout this instruction are in italics and must be strictly adhered to. PAGE 1 CONTENTS Hold down “Ctrl” and click on section titles below to follow link. Section 1 Subject Applies to Executive Summary All NOMS staff involved in the Generic Parole Process 2 Introduction All NOMS staff involved in the Generic Parole Process 3 Generic Parole Process Timetable – an overview All NOMS staff involved in the Generic Parole Process 4 Pre Tariff Sift Reviews (Indeterminate Sentenced Prisoners only) All NOMS staff involved in the Generic Parole Process 5 Consideration of exceptional transfer to open conditions by the Secretary of State without referral to the Parole Board (Indeterminate Sentenced Prisoners only) Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS) 6 Moving to open conditions following on from a Parole PPCS and Prisons Board recommendation (Indeterminate Sentenced Prisoners only) 7 Setting the date for the next review PPCS 8 Release arrangements All NOMS staff involved in the Generic Parole Process 9 Adverse developments, warning letters, advice cases and re-referrals (Indeterminate Sentenced Prisoners only) PPCS and Prisons 10 Secretary of State’s policy on Indeterminate Sentenced Prisoners with a history of abscond or escape All NOMS staff involved in the Generic Parole Process 11 Referral and Deferral of cases PPCS and Prisons 12 Transfer of Prisoners during review and transfers to other jurisdictions PPCS and Prisons 13 Mental Health Cases All NOMS staff involved in the Generic Parole Process 14 Quality of Parole Reports All NOMS staff involved in the Generic Parole Process 15 The Challenge Process for Generic Parole Process performance data All NOMS staff involved in the Generic Parole Process PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 2 16 Creation and deletion of PPUD accounts All NOMS staff involved in the Generic Parole Process Annex A The Criminal Justice Secure e-Mail (CJSM) Accounts PPCS and Prisons Annex B GPP Timeline – PPCS, Prisons, Probation and PPUD All NOMS staff involved in the Generic Parole Process Annex C Initial notification letter template All NOMS staff involved in the Generic Parole Process Annex D Missing mandatory document template PPCS and Prisons Annex E Roles and Responsibilities for Parole Board Directions All NOMS staff involved in the Generic Parole Process Annex F PPUD naming conventions All NOMS staff involved in the Generic Parole Process Annex G PAROM 1 template Probation Annex H PAROM1 addendum template Probation Annex I SPR L template Prison Annex J SPR E template Prison Annex K SPR G template Prison Annex L SPR H template Prison Annex M SPR J template Prison Annex N Dossier sign-off sheet Prison Annex O Directions of the Secretary of State issued to the Parole Board under Section 239(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 All NOMS staff involved in the Generic Parole Process Annex P Pre-tariff sift reminder letter PPCS and Prison Annex Q Notification of Sentence Planning Review Meeting and pre-tariff sift Prison Annex R Outcome of pre-tariff sift (for prison use) PPCS and Prison Annex S Outcome of pre-tariff sift review (for PPCS use) PPCS and Prison Annex T Consideration of further pre-tariff review Prison Annex U Outcome of consideration of further pre-tariff review PPCS and Prison Annex V Advancement of review decision template All NOMS staff involved in the Generic Parole Process Annex W Executive decision request for application for transfer to open conditions under the ‘exceptional’ circumstances criteria PPCS PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 3 Annex X Transfers to open conditions indeterminate sentence prisoners Annex Y Process for consideration of open conditions All NOMS staff involved in the Generic Parole Process Annex Z Consideration of Parole Board recommendation for ISP transfer to open conditions template PPCS Annex AA Annex AB LISP4 template Prison Guidance to PPCS case managers on ISPs with a history abscond, escape or offending while on ROTL PPCS Annex AC Guidance for report writers on ISPs with a history of abscond Prison and Probation Annex AD Annex AE Annex AF Annex AG Annex AH First Tier Tribunal dossier disclosure form PPCS PAROM 1 Evaluation Tool Probation SPR L Evaluation Tool Prison Notification for new EDS prisoner Prison Glossary of Terms All NOMS staff involved in the Generic Parole Process PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 for adult male All NOMS staff involved in the Generic Parole Process ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 4 1. Executive Summary 1.1. This instruction replaces PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012 (GPP – Indeterminate) and PSI 19/2013 - PI 09/2013 (GPP – Determinate) providing one instruction that covers parole for both determinate and indeterminate sentence prisoners. It incorporates the findings of the NOMS/Parole Board joint “End to End Review of the parole process”, entitled Streamlining the Parole Process Together. It also reflects the changes to the Parole Board oral hearing process arising from the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Osborn, Booth and Reilly (OBR). It also amends processes to reflect changes arising from the Transforming Rehabilitation Programme and statutory changes arising from the statutory release provisions included in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which were commenced on 3 December 2012. 1.2. The processes and guidance set out in this instruction are designed to facilitate the efficient and timely completion of parole reviews and to enhance the quality of the information received by the Parole Board. 1.3. The instruction sets out: new timetable for parole reviews, including amended target for reports to be submitted; new arrangements for compiling DCR parole dossiers; amended criteria for the Secretary of State when considering Parole Board recommendations for transfer to open conditions; new requirements for prisons to facilitate prisoners instructing legal representatives to represent them throughout the parole process; new arrangements for engaging prisoners in the parole process; streamlined arrangements for compliance with Parole Board directions; new guidance and more robust lines of accountability for the production of the Parole Assessment Report by the Offender Manager (the PAROM1 report) and Sentence Planning and Review report (SPRL) by the Offender Supervisor; a streamlined core parole dossier and streamlined reports from establishments; new streamlined case management processes within the Parole Board; Background 1.4. This instruction sets out the Generic Parole Process (GPP) for all ISPs as well as those determinate sentence prisoners who are eligible for discretionary release by the Parole Board. These include; Discretionary Conditional Release (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); Extended Sentence for Public Protection (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 Extended Determinate Sentence (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 under s246A CJA 2003. (From 13 April 2015 this will include all EDS sentences imposed on or after that date. For those sentences imposed before that date only those sentenced to 10 years or more or PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 5 who were being sentenced for offence under Schedule 15B of the CJA 2003 will attract discretionary release by the Parole Board). Sentence for Offenders of Particular Concern (SOPC) under s.236A of the CJA 2003. It applies to offenders sentenced on or after 13 April 2015 who have committed a qualifying offence from the updated Schedule 18A of the CJA 2003. They are eligible for release by the Parole Board at the half way point of the custodial term and have a guaranteed one year on licence after release at CRD. 1.5. It establishes a single parole process and parole timetable for both determinate and indeterminate sentence prisoners, all underpinned by the Public Protection Unit Database (PPUD). The GPP is supported by key performance indicators (KPIs) for the timely completion of reports and supply of information to the Parole Board. The instruction sets out clear responsibilities for staff in the Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS), establishments and the National Probation Service (NPS). The process reflects changes made by the Parole Board to its case management and preparation for oral hearings in light of the Supreme Court judgment in OBR. 1.6. It also sets out new guidance and clear expectations with regard to the parole dossier and completion and quality of reports, including clear lines of accountability and changes to bring it in line with changes in offender management practice. 1.7. It does not include guidance for recall reviews which are covered by a separate instruction (PSI 30/2014 – AI 22/2014 - PI 27/2014 – Recall, Review & Re-Release of Recall Offenders). Desired outcomes 1.8. A parole process for all parole eligible prisoners that is streamlined and efficient, which eliminates nugatory work, which offers clear lines of responsibility and accountability and which is easily understood by those it affects. 1.9 To provide all participants with clear timescales for their part of the process and gives the prisoner a clear expectation of when s/he can expect their parole decision. 1.10 A parole dossier which provides a robust and coherent assessment of the offender and which is comprised of good quality reports produced by authors with a good understanding of the case, thereby enabling the Parole Board to make an informed and rigorous assessment of risk without having to seek additional information. 1.11 To support a parole process which minimises the potential for delays in order to ensure that prisoners are not detained any longer than is necessary to protect the public. 1.12 A parole process which uses e-working to maximum effect which provides a transparent and paperless system of working, thereby increasing the efficiency of the process, improving the security of personal data, and facilitating better communications between all the agencies and stakeholders involved in the process. 1.13 A parole process which facilitates the full and timely engagement of prisoners and their representatives and is both fair and transparent. Application 1.14 This instruction provides updated guidance on the process to be followed in parole reviews for all parole eligible prisoners, including the processes to be followed to ensure a timely review and the requirement to produce a thorough assessment of risk based upon good quality reports. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 6 Mandatory Actions 1.15 All staff involved in parole reviews for ISPs and parole eligible determinate sentence prisoners must be fully acquainted with this instruction and the mandatory instructions listed. In particular, staff must be aware of: the GPP timetable and the deadline for submitting a completed dossier to the Parole Board (see Annex B); the mandatory reports to be included in the dossier and the issues to be addressed in each report (see paras 3.11 and 3.17-3.19); how to use PPUD in order to complete their mandatory tasks within the GPP; the arrangements for handling Parole Board directions (see Annex E); the arrangements for undertaking an ISP pre-tariff sift (see chapter 4); the roles and responsibilities of prison OMUs, PPCS, NPS and Parole Board case managers (see chapter 2); the requirement on report writers to provide the Parole Board, within the required timescales, with a robust and coherent assessment of risk based on a range of high quality reports (see chapter 14); the role and involvement of prisoners’ legal representatives in the process (see paras 2.23 – 2.29). 1.16 Governors, Directors and Controllers of Contracted out and privately managed prisons must ensure that systems are in place to underpin the GPP, particularly in terms of communication with report writers, the Parole Board and PPCS. 1.17 Nominated staff from prisons, PPCS and NPS must input key points of the GPP onto PPUD having first been trained by PPCS or National Operational & Specialist Training on how to use PPUD. 1.18 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. Key changes to previous instructions 1.19 This new instruction combines the two previous instructions on GPP for determinate (PSI 19/2013 - PI 09/2013) and indeterminate prisoners (PSI 36/2012 - PI 18/2012). The key changes to the process are: A greater emphasis on the need for prisons to be as flexible as possible in facilitating contact between prisoners and their solicitors during the parole process in order to minimise delays The introduction of new casework procedures for PPCS including issuing initial notification letters in all cases, assuming responsibility for core dossiers for DCR/EPP cases and assuming responsibility for liaison with Offender Managers in respect of Parole Board directions The review timeline now begins at week 0 and runs to week 26. PPCS will complete the core dossier during a new preparation phase which takes place before week 0. The Offender Supervisor’s SPRL report will now incorporate all other prison-based reports except psychology and security New templates for the SPRL, PAROM1 and LISP4 pro-formas. The current versions of the SPRL and PAROM1 can be accessed through PPUD’s mail merge functionality Prison-based reports will now be completed two weeks earlier than the PAROM1 report and copied to the OM PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 7 The introduction of a pre-tariff SPRM reminder letter and milestones for establishments Updated and re-numbered milestones for reviews that begin from 1/7/15 onwards An updated chapter on prisoners with mental health issues which combines the previous instructions in PSO 4700 and PSI 18/2013 - PI 08/2013 Prisoners serving the new Sentence for Offenders of Particular Concern (SPOC) will require a GPP review and OMUs will need to notify PPCS when they receive an SOPC into custody. The parole process for the new sentence is referred to throughout this instruction. From 13 April 2015, all prisoners sentenced to an Extended Determinate Sentence will be eligible for discretionary conditional release by the Parole Board regardless of their offence or length of sentence. This is not retrospective and the release provisions for existing EDS prisoners sentenced before 13/4/15 are unchanged. The Secretary of State has given new Directions to the Parole Board in respect of providing advice on suitability for open conditions in ISP cases. These came into effect from 10 April 2015 and a copy can be found at Annex O Resource Implications 1.20 The major new cost implication for establishments arises from the Supreme Court judgment in Osborn, Booth and Reilly, resulting in a significant increase in the number of prisoners who are entitled to have their case reviewed at a Parole Board oral hearing. The Parole Board currently has a backlog of parole review cases awaiting oral hearing and as the Board’s capacity to hold more parole hearings grows in the latter part of 2015, these additional hearings have to be accommodated and supported within establishments. 1.21 Within this instruction there are a number of processes that have been revised, but mostly these do not have resource implications for establishments. However, some revisions should achieve small savings, including the new policy that establishments will only be required to produce one report for the parole dossier, the fact that in future PPCS case managers will assume responsibility for liaising with offender managers in respect of Parole Board directions and the fact that PPCS will assume responsibility for assembling the core parole dossier in DCR cases. 1.22 The overriding objective of this instruction is to facilitate the delivery of timely parole reviews, which in turn means fewer addendum reports are required and the Parole Board is able to hear cases with fewer directions. Ultimately, it means that parole eligible prisoners are released without delay, which in turn has a positive impact in respect of prison population pressures. (Signed) Digby Griffith Director of National Operational Services, NOMS PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 8 2. Introduction 2.1 This Instruction sets out the Generic Parole Process (GPP) for indeterminate sentence prisoners and parole eligible determinate sentence prisoners. In large part, the process will apply equally to both sets of prisoners, but there will be distinctions. 2.2 Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides all ISPs with the right to have their continued detention reviewed by an independent body or court (in the UK this role falls to the Parole Board) once they have served the punitive element of their sentence – in the UK this is referred to as the minimum term or “tariff”. The first review must take place no later than the expiry of the tariff and at least every two years thereafter. 2.3 In the case of parole eligible determinate sentence prisoners, their parole eligibility date (PED) will depend upon the sentence: Those serving an Extended Determinate Sentence (EDS) imposed before 13/04/2015 where the custodial period was one of 10 years or more or the offence was listed in Schedule 5B of the CJA 2003 and all those serving an EDS imposed on or after 13/4/2015, will be parole eligible at the two thirds point of their custodial term. Their first review must take place no later than their PED and at least every two years thereafter and until the expiry of their custodial term (Conditional Release Date - CRD), at which point they must be released. Those serving a Sentence for Offenders of Particular Concern pursuant to section 236A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 are eligible for release by the Parole Board at the half way point of the custodial term and must be reviewed annually thereafter until the expiry of their custodial term (Conditional Release Date - CRD), at which point they must be released. Release will be subject to licence and supervision until the end of the custodial term (if granted parole before that point) plus the one year supervision period. Those serving a Discretionary Conditional Release (DCR) sentence have their PED at the halfway point of the sentence and must be reviewed annually thereafter until the two thirds point of the sentence, at which point they must be released. Those prisoners serving either a Standard Determinate Sentence (SDS) or an Extended Public Protection sentence (EPP) and who are or who may in the future be parole eligible will have their PED at the halfway point in their sentence. They will be reviewed annually until the expiry of their custodial term. Key roles and responsibilities The Governor/Offender Management Unit staff 2.4 The Governor/Offender Management Unit (OMU) staff are responsible for: Ensuring that PPCS are notified of new EDS and SOPC cases that are eligible for discretionary release. This must be done by completing the relevant proforma (one for each sentence type) and submitting the covering note at Annex AG via e-mail to pre-releaseteama@noms.gsi.gov.uk along with a scanned copy of the Order for Imprisonment. Any other documentation that is required by PPCS will be requested. Ensuring that PPCS are notified of new ISP cases. This must be done by submitting a completed LISP1 pro-forma and e-mailing this to prereleaseteama@noms.gsi.gov.uk. The Order for Imprisonment, previous convictions and any pre-sentence reports must also be provided. Any other documentation that is required by PPCS will be requested; PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 9 Commissioning and attaching current mandatory reports to the “core” dossier which is provided by PPCS in respect of all determinate and indeterminate parole reviews. PPUD must be used to support this process with actions being entered on the system as soon as they have been completed; Ensuring the dossier is disclosed to the prisoner and the Parole Board and that a copy is issued to the prisoner’s legal representative. Governors (or a delegated member of staff) are responsible for signing off dossiers and ensuring the prisonbased reports are of sufficient quality to enable the Parole Board to make an assessment of risk. Guidance on quality of reports can be found in Chapter 14; Assisting the prisoner in securing legal representation before the GPP commences and facilitating contact between the prisoner and their legal representatives, including offering use of videolinks where possible. In accordance with PSI 75/2011 establishments must assist prisoners who wish to access legal advice by providing lists of legal advisers, supplying appropriate forms and assisting prisoners to complete them where requested due to language or literacy difficulties. Where a prisoner’s case is outside the scope for legal aid and they instruct someone else, such as a prison visitor or chaplain to represent them, the prison will need to consider how best to facilitate contact between the prisoner and their appointed representative. Guidance for prisoners in this situation has been published by the Prisoners Advice Service and the Parole Board. Notifying PPCS where scheduled offending behaviour work and reports will not be completed in time for an oral hearing and to confirm whether any offending behaviour work or additional material requested by previous Parole Board panels have been complied with; Where a prisoner transfers to another establishment, the OMU staff at the sending establishment are responsible for arranging, within 1 working day of transfer, the 'establishment’ field on the personal screen on PPUD to be updated with details of the receiving establishment. Ensuring the requirements and facilities for Parole Board oral hearing – as set out in PSI 35/2013 - are adhered to; Where 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 NPS 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; Where the Parole Board directs the release of an EDS/SOPC/ISP prisoner, the Governor/OMU is responsible for liaising with the PPCS case manager and serving the completed licence on the prisoner; Where a DCR/EPP/EDS/SOPC prisoner is released at the automatic release point, the Governor/OMU is responsible for liaising with the offender manager to ensure that there is a suitable release plan in place so that the prisoner can be released safely, ensuring that any additional licence conditions are included in the licence and for issuing the licence; Submitting applications to the PPCS case manager to withhold sensitive material. Informing PPCS of any adverse developments which may have a bearing on the assessment of the prisoner’s risk of harm. This may be during the parole process or after it has concluded. PPCS should also be informed of any significant positive developments that may occur during a review which may have a bearing on the risk assessment, such as gaining Enhanced status. Where the ISP has been temporarily returned to closed conditions, a LISP 4 form must be submitted to the relevant PPCS case manager as soon as possible. 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. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 10 The Public Protection Casework Section 2.5 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: Being the single point of contact between establishment and probation staff and the Parole Board; Overseeing the GPP and working with the establishment and probation staff as well as the Parole Board to ensure that cases are considered without delay; The collation of key court and sentencing documents in respect of ISP and EDS cases to enable new PPUD records to be opened, sentence calculations to be made (ISP cases only) and parole reviews set; Preparing the core dossier for all parole eligible cases (determinate and indeterminate), following the agreed dossier checklist, and ensuring that they are loaded onto PPUD in time for the commencement of the GPP; Notifying the prisoner of the forthcoming GPP review at least 6 weeks before it is to commence and to advise the prisoner to seek legal representation; Identifying issues flagged up by the previous Parole Board panels that need to be addressed in the dossier; Liaising with the prison to identify cases where scheduled offending behaviour work might prevent the GPP review being completed on schedule and highlighting this to the Parole Board; Ensuring that all Parole Board directions are complied with within the required timescales and, where appropriate applying on behalf of the Secretary of State (SofS) to the Parole Board for directions to be varied or rescinded; Assisting the Parole Board with witness attendance in cases where they have had difficulty in arranging attendance and where they have escalated the case to PPCS; Deciding whether to make applications to the Parole Board for information to be withheld from the prisoner and, where the Parole Board directs otherwise, considering whether the material should be withdrawn; Liaising with the OM to ensure that Victim Personal Statements are submitted no later than 4 weeks before the hearing where possible. Informing the OM when the VPS has been added to the dossier and providing the OM updates on the progress of any victim-related non-disclosure applications; Representing the Secretary of State at oral hearings in cases where it is considered to be appropriate; In EDS/SOPC/ISP cases where the Parole Board directs release, compiling the release licence, ensuring that the release plan agreed by the Parole Board is still in place so that the prisoner can be released safely, and for issuing the licence, ensuring that any additional conditions are included and that the Parole Board is notified promptly if additional conditions, which were not discussed at the hearing, are considered absolutely necessary before release; PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 11 2.6 Where the Parole Board recommends that an ISP be transferred to open conditions, considering the recommendation and notifying the prisoner of the SofS decision; In EDS/SOPC/ISP cases where the Parole Board does not direct release, determining the timing of the next review, in consultation with the OMU and offender manager; Recording adverse developments for ISPs when advised by the prison by opening a new ‘failure in open conditions’ record on PPUD and notifying the Parole Board as appropriate. In addition to these specific actions, 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 PPCS policy team (ppcs.policy@noms.gsi.gov.uk). 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 in EDS/SOPC/ISP cases and Team A for DCR/EPP cases. Offender Manager and Offender Supervisor 2.7 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 - Implementation of the Service Specification for “Manage the Sentence: Pre and Post Release from Custody” (transitional version). 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. 2.8 The OM is responsible for: 2.9 Ensuring that a Parole Assessment Report (PAROM1) is completed in accordance with the guidance at chapter 14 and that it reaches the establishment by week 8 in the GPP process. The PAROM1 must be countersigned by the Senior Probation Officer (SPO); Liaising with the Victim Liaison Officer to ascertain whether there are any victims within the Victim Contact Scheme and whether they wish to submit a Victim Personal Statement or request additional licence conditions. It is essential that the OM maintains regular contact with the VLO during the parole process and notifies them of all key target dates. It is desirable to submit the VPS no later than 4 weeks before the oral hearing to allow sufficient time for any non-disclosure issues to be resolved; Submitting any addendum reports as directed by the Parole Board and attending the oral hearing to give evidence, either in person, or via video-link or teleconference as directed by the Parole Board’s Panel Chair; and In cases where the Parole Board directs release, liaising with the OMU and the PPCS case manager to ensure that release arrangements are in place. The OS is responsible for: PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 12 Ensuring the SPRL report is completed and uploaded onto PPUD by week 6 in the GPP process. Guidance on the completion of reports can be found in chapter 14. Submitting any addendum reports and attending the Parole Board oral hearing to give evidence in person as directed by the Board; and Notifying the PPCS case manager at any time throughout the GPP timetable of any adverse developments which might have a bearing on the Parole Board’s assessment of the prisoner’s risk of harm. The Parole Board 2.10 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/life licence of all indeterminate sentence prisoners and parole eligible determinate sentence prisoners (i.e. those 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 Board’s responsibilities include: Notifying all parole eligible prisoners (indeterminate and determinate) of the commencement of their GPP review on or before Week 0 of the GPP process; Issuing directions for additional material or witness attendance in advance of determining a case; Deciding whether to review the case on the papers or at an oral hearing; Determining any applications to withhold information from the prisoner; Listing the case for oral hearing and advising the prisoner and the Secretary of State of the hearing arrangements; Liaising directly with witnesses to arrange their attendance at the hearing and escalating to the relevant PPCS Case Manager where there are difficulties; Ensuring that Parole Board panels comply with the requirements set out in PSI 35/2013; Deciding upon any applications to adjourn or defer the hearing; and Issuing the panel’s decision within 14 days of the conclusion of the hearing. Generic Parole Process (GPP) 2.11 The GPP is the parole process for pre-tariff and post-tariff ISPs and for those determinate sentence prisoners who are eligible to be released on Parole licence by the Parole Board. Parole eligible determinate sentence prisoners include: 2.12 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 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). The performance of all agencies involved in the process is monitored centrally. The NOMS Performance Hub records performance data for both probation performance (submission of PAROM1s) and prison performance (submission to the Parole Board of completed parole dossiers) and displays data at a regional and national level broken down into monthly, quarterly and annual data. The Performance Hub monitors performance against the PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 13 delivery of timely parole reviews. This includes monitoring the performance of establishments against targets for completion of dossiers. Other key performance indicators include: the timeliness of mandatory reports from HMPS and Probation the disclosure of complete dossiers to the Parole Board by HMPS the provision of core dossiers by PPCS case managers the compliance on the part of NOMS with Parole Board directions the timely issuing of ISP and EDS licences (for EDS cases with discretionary release by the Parole Board. 2.13 The GPP covers all parts of NOMS involved in the delivery of the parole process for indeterminate and parole eligible determinate sentenced prisoners. Senior managers within the NOMS agency are responsible for supporting the GPP and driving forward its delivery and performance indicators. 2.14 PPUD is the database that underpins and supports the GPP. All agencies involved in the GPP, i.e. PPCS, establishments, the NPS and the Parole Board, have access to PPUD. 2.15 GPP is a paperless process. All actions are recorded onto PPUD and dossiers, reports and information are collated, paginated and transferred electronically. 2.16 Parole dossiers provided to the Parole Board by establishments must contain all the mandatory reports before they are sent. Parole dossiers must 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 is not possible to submit a dossier that does not contain all of the mandatory documents. 2.17 PPCS has overall responsibility for administering the GPP and the reporting of prison and probation performance against indicators, using data recorded on PPUD. OMU and probation staff who are involved with the GPP must have access to PPUD whether directly, or indirectly through a colleague, and must ensure that the relevant fields are updated 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. 2.18 The Parole Board also has access to PPUD and has similar data inputting responsibilities. 2.19 Where there are disputes within NOMS regarding data entries the PPCS Quality Assurance Team will resolve them and their decision will be final. 2.20 For the purposes of this instruction, “Governors” applies to “Directors” in private prisons. 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. 2.22 All Offender Management Units (OMUs) must maintain a team functional mailbox (for example: omu.establishment@hmps.gsi.gov.uk) in order to ensure that communication is not disrupted due to the absence of a single member of staff. Each pre-release team in PPCS must also maintain a team functional mailbox. PPCS case managers and HMPS OMU staff must ensure that any communications relating to the GPP are copied to the team functional mailboxes. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 14 Legal Representation 2.23 Those who represent prisoners for the purpose of Parole Board reviews play an integral part in the parole process. Early instruction of legal representatives can facilitate the swift and efficient progress of the review. The expectation is that the legal representative will: 2.24 Ensure that the prisoner’s representations are submitted by week 12 in the GPP process and that any request for witnesses or observers are submitted no later than week 18; Submit any request to defer the proceedings in sufficient time to prevent the Parole Board from having to defer proceedings on the day. The prisoner can authorise anyone to represent him except for: any person who is detained or is liable to be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983(1); any person serving a sentence of imprisonment; any person who is on licence having been released from a sentence of imprisonment; or any person with a conviction for an offence which remains unspent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974(2). 2.25. Parole Board reviews are within scope of legal aid in all cases where the Parole Board has the power to direct release. Reviews which are solely seeking Parole Board advice in respect of an ISP’s suitability for transfer to open conditions are out of scope for legal aid. 2.26 In those cases where a prisoner’s case is outside the scope for legal aid and the prisoner is unable to fund their own legal representation, they should be advised that they can ask a friend or family member or someone else, such as a prison visitor or chaplain to represent them or give them advice and support (subject to the exclusions above). They should also be advised of charities such as the Prisoners Advice Service (020 7253 3323). If the prisoner asks a member of the family or a friend to represent them, they must be advised to check whether the Governor will allow the person access to the prison. Guidance for prisoners in this situation have been published by the PAS and Parole Board 2.27 If a prisoner’s legal representative requests a dossier on behalf of their client, this must be sent electronically by the establishment, provided the legal representative has a CJSM account. PPUD has the facility to allow dossiers to be “chunked” to enable larger documents to be e-mailed. If the solicitor does not have a CJSM account, they must be advised to apply for one (see Annex A). In the interim, they can apply to the HMPS OMU staff to provide a hard copy, which must be issued within one week of the request being made. There must be no charge for this. 2.28 The OMU must consider how best to facilitate access between the prisoner and the legal representative during the parole process. The Service Specification for Conduct Visits states that official visits must take place in an area that is conducive to the need of such visits. In the context of parole reviews this means that legal visits must be held in private rooms so that sensitive topics can be discussed away from other prisoners. Prisoners have 28 days in which to submit written representations and so facilitating timely access to the legal representative is important to minimise delays in the review process. Where there is difficulty in arranging a face-to-face visit, establishments must consider allowing contact by telephone where possible. Again, a private room is required and the prisoner must not be expected to use their PIN phone credit. Where contact by video-link is available, the OMU must offer this facility to the legal representative where there is capacity to do so. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 15 2.29 On the day of the hearing, the OMU must allow the legal representative and the prisoner adequate time to meet prior to the hearing. This is essential in order to avoid the panel being delayed and subsequent hearings having to be adjourned or deferred. Establishments must set aside at least an hour for the pre-hearing legal visit. It is strongly recommended that the legal representative discusses the arrangements with the establishment before the day of the hearing to reduce the possibility of delays on the day. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 16 3. Generic Parole Process (GPP) Timetable – an overview 3.1 The GPP timescale and process is divided into three stages: Preparation: The 6 weeks prior to the commencement of the Parole process, during which PPCS completes the core dossier and advises the prisoner of the commencement of their parole process together with their right to instruct legal representatives. They also remind establishments of the outstanding issues identified at previous hearings which need to be covered in the new reports. The pre-tariff sift process is also completed during the preparation phase (see chapter 4). Review: 26 week GPP period starting at week 0 and leading up to the date on which the Parole Board lists the case for hearing. Reports are written and disclosed and Parole Board directions are completed during this stage. Some cases may be concluded on the papers and without the need for an oral hearing. Outcome: follows on from the oral hearing, and requires that the Parole Board provide the decision and supporting reasons within 2 weeks of the oral hearing date. Within 4 weeks after the decision has been issued, in the case of ISP, PPCS must consider any Parole Board recommendation for transfer to open conditions in cases where the Secretary of State has invited the Parole Board to consider such a transfer, and/or set a new further review date if the Parole Board does not direct release. In determinate sentence cases the review will automatically be held 12 months later unless the prisoner is serving an EDS of 10 years or longer, in which case PPCS may, exceptionally, determine a review period of longer than 12 months if it is considered that it would provide the Parole Board with better evidence of diminution of risk. The maximum review period for all cases is 24 months. 3.2 Establishments are responsible for sentence calculation for all determinate sentence prisoners. PPCS Team A are responsible for calculating the tariff expiry dates for ISPs and any queries about the sentence calculation or timing of the parole review in those cases should be addressed to pre-releaseteama@noms.gsi.gov.uk. For determinate prisoners, OMU staff should refer to PSI 03/2015 Sentence Calculation – Determinate Sentence Prisoners. 3.3 OMU staff must notify PPCS Team A if the sentence of any parole-eligible prisoner changes during their time in custody. For example, if they receive a new sentence, a successful appeal, Added Days Awarded (ADAs) (determinate sentenced prisoners only), or if they are subject to a confiscation order. Team A will then be responsible for changing the existing review date on PPUD if necessary and notifying the prisoner accordingly. It is essential that any recalculation is noted on the dossier so that the panel are aware and understand the revised dates. 3.4 Establishments are involved in all stages of the parole process and must ensure that all key actions relevant to their involvement are fully completed within the prescribed timescales. This includes ensuring that the Parole Board and all parties are notified of any significant developments subsequent to the submission of the reports so that the Board can consider whether to defer the proceedings or direct the submission of further evidence. 3.5 The GPP sets out the key milestones that are required to be achieved at various stages through the process. The role of PPCS case managers is to oversee the process and to ensure the timely progression of all cases in order to enable the Parole Board review to be completed on target. 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 B. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 17 3.6 The process set out below highlights the key milestones and required action by relevant parties in the process. Preparation Stage Stage GPP Preparation 6 weeks prior to PPCS writes to the prison with a GPP initial notification letter PPCS / Prison the GPP review in preparation for the start of the review. It includes a letter to be given to the prisoner to advise of the impending parole review, provide key dates of the review and to act as a reminder of the right to seek legal representation. There is also a letter to send to the OM advising of the key dates of the review for report purposes. PPCS compiles the core dossier for all review types. PPUD PPCS sends auto notification to the prison that the dossier is available. 3.7 To assist with an effective review, it is important for all parties to be prepared. PPCS and establishments must ensure the prompt commencement of the process in order to enable the review process to be completed on time, and so the whole system targets can be met. PPCS, prisons and probation can refer to the flow chart GPP timeline illustrated in Annex B when a review is about to commence. 3.8 It is important that OMU staff respond to the initial notification letter from PPCS and distribute the annexes to the prisoner, his/her legal representative and the OM (see Annex C for an example of the letter). The OM and OS must be alert to cases where psychological and psychiatric input may be necessary and reports from psychologists and or psychiatrists must be be commissioned at the earliest opportunity. The contact details for the solicitor and the OM should be added to PPUD in the ‘Parole’ roll-up box on the review screen. Engaging a solicitor at an early stage will help the parole review run more smoothly so its importance should be emphasised to prisoners without a solicitor. OMU will need the solicitor’s details when they come to disclose the complete dossier. 3.9 OMU staff should also consider if there is any impediment to the review taking place within the scheduled month. For example, is the offender going to be in the middle of an offending behaviour programme or awaiting reports following the completion of one. If so they should notify the PPCS case manager so the possibility of a deferral application can be considered. 3.10 By week 0 the core dossier in EDS/SOPC/ISP cases, which is completed by the PPCS Dossier Team (Team B), must be available on PPUD for staff in establishments and in the NPS. From 1 July 2015, PPCS will also assume full responsibility for completing the core dossier for DCR and EPP cases in respect of those cases whose week 0 falls on or after this date. Again, PPCS ensure the core dossier for these cases available on PPUD. PPCS must ensure that each individual report is uploaded to PPUD, either as single document or as part of any bulk scanned document, so that the dossier can be assembled electronically on screen. Once the core dossier is completed, PPUD will automatically notify the holding establishment so that the process of compiling the full dossier can begin. The notification will be in the form of an e-mail, generated by PPUD, which will go to the relevant functional mailboxes and individuals associated with the case. 3.11. The core dossier must contain: an Index Sheet the note formally referring the case to the Parole Board for consideration PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 18 the pro-forma case summary containing the basic details of the case including: o a summary of progress in prison (only for cases where the prisoner has spent at least 8 years in custody for their current sentence) o the period of time the prisoner has served in custody o the prisoner’s current location o the dates of remand o sentence and length of tariff o brief details of the Index Offence Offence related papers. These must include (where they exist): o the summary of offence prepared by PPCS in applicable cases (including reference to sources relied upon) o transcript of the trial judge’s sentencing remarks o the pre and post trial sentence reports prepared by qualified probation staff o 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 o any other relevant papers such as psychiatric or psychological reports prepared for trial and/or sentencing, and Trial Judge’s report to Home Secretary (for ISPs sentence before 18.12.03) o Any judgment that varied the sentence or tariff (e.g. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) judgments, High Court tariff setting decisions or HMP Tariff Review decisions – these can all be obtained from PPCS Team A) o 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. o a summary of reports of progress in prison including Therapeutic Community and Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder (DSPD) Unit reports o all post programme reports that have been produced since the last review o all SARN/DARNA/Psychological/Psychiatric/Therapeutic Community reports where available which have been produced since the sentence commenced o previous Parole Board decision and the Secretary of State’s letter stating the next review (where applicable) 3.12. If some documents e.g. judge’s sentencing remarks or Pre-Sentence Report cannot be provided, this must be clearly indicated in the dossier by PPCS to avoid unnecessary Parole Board directions. The missing mandatory documents must be replaced with a proforma (Annex D) explaining that the document is unavailable. This is the responsibility of PPCS in respect of the core dossier or the Case Administration Officer thereafter and must include an explanation why and any action taken to locate the missing paperwork. . 3.13. A prisoner cannot decide to opt out of the parole process. Review Stage Stage Week Wk 0 GPP Review Actions Responsibility PPUD informs PPCS/PB/Prison to commence review PPCS PB issues notification of target hearing period (Post-Tariff only) and letter to prisoner in all cases referred to it PB Prison request all relevant prison based reports from OS/security/psychology (with a 6 week target) and the OM Prison, PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 19 (with a 8 week target) Wk 6 Deadline for all prison based reports to be completed and uploaded to PPUD to assist the OM with completion of the PAROM1 Prison Wk 8 Deadline for the PAROM1 to be completed and uploaded to PPUD Prison, Probation Prison compiles and PPUD paginates dossier Prison Prison discloses dossier to prisoner + reps/disclosure form Prison Wk 10 PPCS undertake a case progression assessment for ISP reviews taking place in open establishments / progression regime PPCS Wk 12 Deadline - Prisoner to submit personal/legal representations Prison PB instigates an initial review on the papers. This review is undertaken by a single member PB Wk 13 MCA member issues directions if necessary PB Wk 14 PB issues decision/recommendation or Directions for Oral hearing (If negative decision issued, the prisoner has 28 days to accept the decision or request an oral hearing PB PPCS issue letter to prisoner to advise of next review date or release at CRD (for determinate cases where applicable) PPCS PB seeks witness availability PB Prison confirms all PB Directions complied with where a deadline was set Prison PPCS confirms all PB Directions complied with where a deadline was set PPCS PB puts case forward for oral hearing date PB PB issue oral hearing exact date notification PB PB identifies panel members PB PB confirms hearing date to all parties PB Deadline for any challenge to negative decision issued at week 12 to be forwarded to PB by prison/legal representative Prison PB copies dossier to members PB Panel chair issues further Directions (if required) and rules on applications for non-disclosure, victim and witness attendance PB Prison confirms all outstanding Directions complied with Prison Wk 16 Wk 18 Wk 20 Wk 24 PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 20 Wk 26 PPCS confirms all outstanding Directions complied with PPCS PB issues Timetable for oral hearing to all parties PB Oral hearing (if applicable) takes place PB 3.14. At week 0 the Parole Board will issue a notification of review commencement in all cases. At the same time, PPUD informs establishments to commence the 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. 3.15. Reports must be requested in week 0 and the date of the request recorded at milestone 12. The target date for completion of all prison based reports is by week 6 and the PAROM1 must be completed by week 8. 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 F. OMU staff must also disclose the completed reports to the Offender Manager and update milestone 17 when they have done so. The reason for the different deadlines is to enable the author of the PAROM1 to draw from all other sources when completing their report, so as to provide as full and accurate an assessment as possible. The list of relevant reports must be agreed with the Offender Manager (OM) for IPPs or the Offender Supervisor (OS) for ISPs following the SPR meeting and where applicable must take account of any recommendations made by the previous Parole Board panel which will be set out in the PPCS initial notification letter (Annex C). 3.16. Offender Managers should be encouraged to use PPUD to access the dossier where possible and facilitating wider access to the database for OMs is a ongoing process. For OMs that cannot access PPUD, OMU staff should send only the completed prison-based reports to the OM via e-mail. It is not be necessary to send the full dossier to the OM at this stage. Week 8 - Disclosure of full dossier 3.17. This is the deadline for receipt of the PAROM1 and OASys. Prison reports must be completed by week 6 and OMU staff must ensure that they are all uploaded to PPUD and disclosed to the Offender Manager in time for the completion of the PAROM1. Establishments must add all of the mandatory reports set out before disclosing to the Parole Board: 3.18. PAROM 1 - Offender Manager’s overview report (see Annex G) SPRL – Offender Supervisor’s report (see Annex I) This must include contributions from any key workers involved with the prisoner and any healthcare information The full OASys report reviewed within the last 12 months of the target month for the review hearing and countersigned by OASys supervisor (only the latest version of the OASys is required for the dossier) The following reports may also be included in the parole dossier, depending on the requirements in each case. The reports may be requested by the OM (for IPPs), OS (for Lifers), Parole Board or PPCS: SPR E – psychologist report (see Annex J) SPR G – psychiatrist report (see Annex K) SPR H – security report (see Annex L) PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 21 SPR J – offender’s comments (see Annex M) 3.19. Further guidance on what must be included in mandatory reports can be found in Chapter 14 of this Instruction. 3.20. 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 by PPCS staff. PPUD functionality will automatically paginate the dossier and generate the front sheet. Before a full dossier can be created on PPUD, Governors (or delegated authority) must sign off the dossier to confirm that all reports have been completed to the required standards. They must ensure that the PAROM1 and SPRL have been countersigned by a line manager to confirm that each report is complete and 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 using the template at Annex N which must be uploaded to PPUD. 3.21. Once a full dossier has been created on PPUD, 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 autofilled with the actual date the e-mail alert is sent. A hard copy of the full dossier will need to be printed out by Establishment staff to give to the prisoner and it must also be disclosed to the legal representative at the same time. PPCS supports any local agreements made between prisons and probation that will enable the PAROM1 and the dossier to be completed before the target date. This is now the definitive document for timings for report writing, as well as those reflected in the GPP, and must be adhered to. 3.22. 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 75dpi in PDF format and for higher quality resolution documents (e.g. for maps) 150dpi in PDF format. For this reason, such maps may need to be scanned separately from any documents they may be contained within as the scanner resolution settings may need to be different. 3.23. 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. No tampering of the order or pagination of the original disclosed dossier should take place. 3.24. 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) needs to bear in mind the possible effect on the prisoner and the establishment should the contents of the dossier become widely known. Particular care needs to be taken in those cases where there are vivid accounts of the offence, notorious cases, 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. In cases where there is a Victim Personal Statement (VPS) or Victim Contact Report (VCR) within the dossier, they must be stored away from the prisoner and kept with the prisoners file in the OMU. Prisoners must only read the VPS and VCR under supervision, or when locked in their cell alone and must not be allowed to take them away or share with third parties. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 22 Week 10 - Case Progression Assessment 3.25. For prisoners in open conditions and in the progression regime, as soon as the full dossier is disclosed the PPCS case manager will review the dossier to identify if there is any missing information or any issues that could possibly delay the case progressing through the Parole Board or potentially lead to a deferral. In particular they must check the SPRL and PAROM1 reports for a comprehensive risk management plan, the number of ROTLs prior to the oral hearing and whether there is any victim interest in the case and if so, whether the victim intends to submit a VPS. 3.26. If any issues are identified then the case managers will contact the report author for clarification and may ask that a brief addendum report is provided with a view to anticipating any Parole Board directions that may be issued. Week 12 - Administration of completed dossiers and Parole Board Directions 3.27. 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. 3.28. To facilitate timely legal representations the establishment must ensure that a copy of the dossier is disclosed to the solicitor immediately on completion and that the prisoner is given the opportunity to discuss their case with their representative, either on a legal visit or on the telephone. Discussions between the prisoner and their legal representative are privileged and may involve sensitive topics so a private room should be made available. 3.29. The Parole Board Member Case Assessment process (MCA) is designed to provide Parole Board members with the tools to undertake proportionate and fair risk assessments for all case types. 3.30. When the dossier has been received by the Board (week 8), and 28 days has been allowed for the receipt of representations (or sooner where representations are provided earlier), the case will be referred to a single Member (the MCA Member) at week 12 for consideration on the papers. The MCA Member will do one of the following: Decide that the case is appropriate for an oral hearing and, once any witness availability has been ascertained, instruct that a date be secured for the hearing. Decide the case is not quite ready for an oral hearing and issue Directions for additional or missing information, as well as identifying potential witnesses that may be required. Once the Directions have been complied with the case can be put forward for an oral hearing date. Advise that the case is not ready for full assessment and Directions will be issued, however in view of the amount of work still required it is unlikely that the original target date will be met. In these instances the MCA member will adjourn the case for a set period of time. Make a negative decision based on the papers. The negative decision is issued to the prisoner and other parties. This will remain provisional until 28 days have elapsed, after which it will become final, unless the prisoner has successfully requested an oral hearing. Make a positive decision on papers in the case of EDS/SOPC/DCR/EPP Defer the case for a defined period of time, after which the MCA process will begin again. Week 14 - Parole Board issues the result of the MCA Member paper review and, if appropriate, refers the case for an oral hearing PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 23 3.31. The Parole Board Secretariat will issue the results of the MCA member assessment. Where the MCA Member has made a negative decision ‘on the papers’ (decision to remain in custody or not to release) this will be issued by the Parole Board Secretariat to the OMU staff, the PPCS case manager and copied to their respective team functional mailboxes. The OMU staff must take immediate steps to ensure that the decision is served on the prisoner. The prisoner has 28 days to request an oral hearing if they believe one is needed. For ISPs, if the assessment ‘on the papers’ does not result in a negative decision, the case will be referred to an oral hearing. For determinates, the MCA member may make a positive decision on the papers without an oral hearing. 3.32. If a case is referred to an oral hearing, directions may be issued by the Parole Board at this stage. These too will be sent to the staff members and mailboxes as above. These Directions, which might include commissioning fresh reports or seeking addendum reports and updates, must be complied by the target date specified by the Parole Board. 3.33 Once the Parole Board paper decision or the MCA directions have been received the PPCS case manager and OMU staff must update PPUD milestones 27 and 28 respectively. 3.34 Directions for DCR/EPP cases are managed by the prison until such time that the Parole Board decide to progress the case to an oral hearing, at which point they will be managed by PPCS Team A (pre-releaseteama@noms.gsi.gov.uk). PPCS case managers are responsible for overseeing the compliance with Parole Board directions in all cases that proceed to an oral hearing. 3.35 Directions are uploaded to PPUD by the Parole Board who will also set the targets for responses. PPCS case managers will be prompted by their To-Do lists when directions are due and will contact OMU staff to ensure that directions issued by the Parole Board are complied with in the timescales set. PPCS case managers are now responsible for liaising directly with the Offender Manager to ensure that the Parole Board directions are met and OMU staff will no longer have to undertake this task. The PPCS case manager will also be responsible for adding the directed OM reports to the dossier and for disclosing them to the prisoner’s legal representative. OMU staff must disclose the additional reports to the prisoner. 3.36 PPCS case managers must ensure that the directions screen on PPUD is updated as each direction is complied with and that any e-mails or telephone calls chasing overdue reports are uploaded and minuted for audit purposes. 3.37 The deadlines for compliance with directions will often be short but PPCS case managers and Governors must endeavour to comply with directions within the timescales that are set. Where a Parole Board direction issued by the Parole Board cannot be delivered within the required timescale or where the information is either not available or would incur disproportionate cost, the Governor must alert the PPCS case manager on receipt. PPCS will then consider whether to appeal or seek a variation of the direction(s) under the Parole Board Rules. Full guidance on responding to directions can be found in Annex E. 3.38. The Parole Board secretariat are responsible for alerting report writers who are directed by the Parole Board to attend an oral hearing to give evidence as a witness and ascertaining their availability. The witness should be advised to notify the Parole Board Secretariat of their non-availability during the target month for the hearing and several months beyond as it is often the case that listing is after the target month. 3.39. A witness may only attend if so directed by the Parole Board. Where the Parole Board has difficulty in contacting or securing the witness’s attendance, the matter will be escalated to the PPCS case manager who will broker a solution or obtain a witness summons if necessary. Where a witness summons is required; this will be undertaken by a PPCS PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 24 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. 3.40. To assist the Parole Board with making witness arrangements, it is important that NPS staff contact details are available on all the relevant reports (PAROM1, PAROM1+) and that PPUD is kept up to date. 3.41. PPCS Team Managers/Secretary of State representatives are responsible for submitting all applications to either vary or rescind Parole Board directions when they have been signed off by the Head/Deputy Head of Casework. NPS or OMU staff must not send applications directly to the Parole Board, but instead must liaise with PPCS who will submit any applications to withhold information to the Parole Board. 3.42. PPCS case managers in conjunction with Secretary of State Representatives are responsible for submitting applications to the Parole Board, where appropriate, to have information withheld from the prisoner. NPS or OMU staff must not send applications directly to the Parole Board, but instead liaise with PPCS. Week 18 - Notification of oral hearing date from Parole Board 3.43. The Parole Board Secretariat notifies PPCS, the establishment, prisoner and legal representative of the oral hearing date, together with a provisional draft timetable. PSI 35/2013 sets out the agreed protocol between prisons and the Parole Board in respect of Parole Board oral hearings. The requirements in this instruction must be adhered to at all times. Further information on the requirements of establishments for oral hearings can be obtained from the Parole Board case managers allocated to establishments. 3.44. The Parole Board Secretariat is responsible for notifying any witnesses directed by the Board of the arrangements for the proposed oral hearing. Witnesses should note that an oral hearing may take place via the Parole Hub if appropriate. Applications to give evidence via videolink or teleconference should be made as early as possible and the panel Chair’s decision is final. 3.45. In cases where a negative decision has been issued by the Parole Board and the prisoner has requested an oral hearing; the case will revert back to Week 14 for the purposes of the parole process. If no request for an oral hearing is made to the Parole Board, then the decision will become final and the Parole Board will issue a confirmation letter. 3.46. 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 MCA stage will be confirmed or stood down by the Chair. Again the PPCS case manager will liaise with the OMU staff to ensure that the directions are complied with and any changes are fully communicated to those affected. 3.47. Where a person wishes to attend an oral hearing as an observer, an application can be made through the PPCS case manager to the Parole Board in writing who can agree to any such request, subject to the prisoner’s agreement. The prisoner or legal representative may similarly make requests for observers and this will be done directly with the Parole Board. 3.48. The attendance of witnesses at an oral hearing is a matter for the Parole Board to determine and each party to the hearing must apply in writing to the Parole Board (copied to the other party) for leave to call witnesses. In many cases the Parole Board will have already identified relevant witnesses, usually at the MCA stage, details of which will be placed on PPUD by the Parole Board Secretariat. Week 24 - Timetable for oral hearing PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 25 3.49. The Parole Board issues the final 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. 3.50. Where establishments have been notified of oral hearing listing times that are unrealistic they must contact PPCS immediately to ask the Parole Board Secretariat to amend the timetable accordingly. The requirements for Parole Board oral hearings as set out in PSI 35/2013 must be complied with and Governors must use the escalation processes as set out in that instruction if they believe that they are not. Week 26 onwards – Oral hearing 3.51. This is the 1st day of the calendar month listing period in which the oral hearing is to be held. The Parole Board will appoint a panel and a panel chair (this is undertaken at week 18). The size of the panel will vary from 1-3 members. There is no restriction on which member can chair the panel or how many members should sit on a panel, although it is likely that a judicial member will chair cases that are complex or noteworthy. 3.52. The Secretary of State no longer routinely provides a view and is therefore no longer represented at oral hearings as a matter of course. Establishments must not provide a representative of the Secretary of State, unless previously agreed by managers at PPCS. Any representation of the Secretary of State will be carried out by a PPCS representative and only where PPCS senior managers have agreed that representation is required in order to facilitate the progress of the review. However, relevant staff from establishments may still be called to an oral hearing to give evidence as a witness. 3.53. Where a Secretary of State representative is required to attend, the PPCS case manager will alert the prison and the Parole Board in advance of the hearing. GPP outcome Stage 2 weeks post oral hearing Release as appropriate or in EDS/ SOPC/ISP cases, PPCS have 4 weeks to set the next review GPP Outcome Deadline for receipt of PB decision PPCS, PB, Prison ISP cases - Release at tariff expiry (or after) / Consideration of transfer to open conditions/setting new review date EDS/SOPC cases – Release on/after PED or CRD or setting new review date PPCS DCR/EPP cases – setting new review date if more than 13 months left on sentence PPCS DCR/EPP cases - Release on/after PED or NPD if less than 13 months left on sentence Prison PPCS Receipt of Parole Board decision (2 weeks from date of oral hearing) 3.54. This is the deadline for receipt of the Parole Board decision following the oral hearing. It will be issued electronically to the relevant staff members at PPCS, the holding establishment, the relevant team functional mailboxes, the OM and the legal representative. On receipt of the decision PPUD milestones 33 and 34 must be updated for PPCS and the prison PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 26 respectively. Release preparation is commenced by PPCS case managers for EDS/SOPC/ISP cases if release is directed. If the Parole Board directs that a DCR/EPP prisoner be released on parole licence, the Governor/OMU staff are responsible for making the release preparations. 3.55. In the case of ISPs, PPCS Team Managers must commence consideration of Parole Board recommendations that the prisoner be transferred to open conditions (where appropriate). The decision whether to accept or reject such a recommendation must be completed within 28 days of the decision being issued. In the case of parole eligible determinate sentence prisoners, transfers to open conditions are an operational decision and Parole Board advice is not sought. 3.56. Where the victim or their family have asked to be kept informed of a prisoner’s progress then it is the responsibility of the OM to notify the Victim Liaison Officer of the outcome of a parole review. Where the outcome is anything other than a release direction, the PPCS case manager must send a copy of the next review date notification letter to the OM. Victim Contact guidance can be found in PI 48/2014 3.57. If the Parole Board directs the release of an ISP, its decision is binding on the Secretary of State. A release direction can only be made if the Parole Board is satisfied the risk of serious harm the offender poses to the public is acceptable. This means ISPs can remain in prison after they have served the punitive period of imprisonment (the tariff) on public protection grounds. 3.58. A parole eligible determinate sentence prisoner must be released on or after their Parole Eligibility Date (PED) if so directed by the Parole Board. The prisoner must be released automatically and without a Parole Board recommendation once they have reached their Non-Parole Date (DCR prisoners) or the Conditional Release Date (EDS, SOPC and EPP prisoners). Licences in those cases will be issued by the establishment. 3.59. Further guidance on release arrangements can be found in Chapter 8. 3.60. If the Parole Board recommends that the prisoner should remain in closed conditions then the PPCS case manager will set the next review date in accordance with the guidance in Chapter 7. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 27 4. Pre Tariff Sift Reviews for Indeterminate Sentenced Prisoners 4.1 Pre-tariff ISPs are eligible to have their cases referred to the Parole Board to consider their suitability for transfer to open conditions up to three years before the expiry of their tariff. 4.2 In order to target Parole Board and NOMS resources effectively, the Secretary of State refers only those pre-tariff cases to the Parole Board where there is a reasonable prospect of the Board making a positive recommendation. 4.3 The Offender Management Model Phase III (OM3) provides for regular SPRMs during which notes are taken for sentence planning purposes. The SPRM prior to the commencement of an ISP’s pre-tariff review must consider whether to recommend that a case be referred to the Parole Board for consideration of the prisoner’s transfer to open conditions. The SPRM is not required to make a recommendation on whether a prisoner is ready to be transferred to open conditions. Instead it needs to examine whether there is evidence in support of such a move such that a panel of the Parole Board might reasonably conclude that the prisoner could be safely transferred. OM3 is due to be reviewed in 2015 and where there are any discrepancies between this instruction and OM3, the guidance in the instruction takes precedence. 4.4 The key action points for establishments are: Holding an SPRM prior to the scheduled commencement of the parole process (week 0). Completing SPRM notes as outlined in OM3. Ensuring that the SPRM notes contain sufficient detail for PPCS case managers to produce reasons for non-referral of the prisoner’s case to the Parole Board and the contact details of the author of the notes so that the PPCS case manager can contact them for additional information or clarification if required. Consideration by Governors as to whether the prisoner’s case warrants, exceptionally, a further review prior to tariff expiry with a view to considering whether to refer the case to the Parole Board. HMPS OMU staff being aware of pre-tariff cases by using PPUD and making data entries. 4.5 Any recommendation made by the Governor must be based on sound risk assessment principles and underpinned by a multi-disciplinary approach to the SPRM. Governors may delegate any requirement under this process to suitable grades within their establishment as long as that person has the necessary knowledge and skills to perform that requirement. In practice, most establishments will use the OMU Manager to monitor this process and to countersign the SPRM decision. 4.6 In IPP cases, the OM will continue to chair the SPRM whenever possible, as per OM3. Governors must ensure that their nominated representative attends those meetings and are responsible for the production of the SPRM notes and their forwarding to PPCS case managers. For ISP cases, the SPRM will usually be chaired by the prisoner’s OS. Key principles of sift considerations 4.7 It is not a requirement of the SPRM that all contributors share the same view regarding whether there is evidence to support the prisoner’s case being referred to the Parole Board. Those attending the meeting and those submitting written reports should consider whether there is evidence of progress on the part of the prisoner to suggest that if the case was referred to the Parole Board, there would be a reasonable prospect that the prisoner may receive a positive recommendation in support of a transfer to open conditions. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 28 4.8 The pre-tariff SPRM at which the sift review will be conducted must be 2 months before the parole review process would have otherwise commenced. A new PPUD milestone has been introduced to help establishments arrange the meeting on time (milestone 02 – SPRM held). If the SPRM is not held within a sufficient period of time before the commencement of the review, it may not be possible to complete the sift. 4.9 Guidance for the SPRM and their notes are provided within OM3 but, for easy reference, the following areas should be considered, by the SPRM in making their recommendation to PPCS: Static risks identified in the case Current OASys Risk of Serious Harm assessment Risk of abscond Interventions undertaken or ongoing, including accredited programmes and completion dates where applicable Progress against objectives in the sentence plan and offender’s engagement with this progress Custodial behaviour Outstanding treatment needs Security information available 4.10 The SPRM must also be aware of the Directions of the Secretary of State issued to the Parole Board under Section 239(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. When considering the prisoner’s case it is not necessary for the SPRM to be prescriptive in relation to testing the prisoner’s case against those Directions. A copy of the Secretary of State’s Directions can be found at Annex O 4.11 Prisoners must have access to the SPRM as per the OM3 guidance. Cases Presumed Unsuitable for referral to the Parole Board 4.12 There are some cases where the prisoner will be presumed as not meeting the criteria for referral to the Parole Board, unless there are exceptional circumstances that lead the SPRM to conclude that a referral should be made. 4.13 The following factors will normally lead to a presumption that the prisoner does not meet the criteria to be referred to the Parole Board for a pre-tariff review, however this does not mean the prisoners are automatically excluded; there must be a pre-tariff sift in every case and each case must be considered on its individual merits. The factors are: category A status OASys assessment of high/very high risk of harm a proven adjudication for serious violence within last 12 months 4.14 Where such factors have been identified, the SPRM must record them in their SPRM notes stating that the prisoner has been deemed unsuitable for referral. Where such factors do exist but the SPRM considers that there are exceptional circumstances leading them to conclude that the prisoner’s case should be referred, the notes must set out clearly what the circumstances are which have led to this exceptional recommendation. 4.15 Prisoners with a history of absconding, escape or attempted escape, failing to return from ROTL or convicted of an offence committed whilst on ROTL during the current sentence will not be eligible for a pre-tariff review unless there are exceptional circumstances. See chapter 10 for further guidance on prisoners affected by this policy. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 29 The pre-tariff sift process 4.16 Arranging the SPRM is the responsibility of the establishment but PPCS will issue a reminder two months before it is due using the template at Annex P. Establishments are expected to submit the SPRM minutes within 5 working days of the meeting. If PPCS do not receive the SPRM minutes by the target prescribed by milestone 04 then they will assume the review will not be proceeding and it will be cancelled on PPUD. This must not be taken as an indication that sifts are not necessary in cases where the recommendation would be negative; a sift must be held before every pre-tariff review and the prison will be expected to account for failure to hold one on time. If there is going to be a delay then the OMU staff must alert the PPCS case manager. 4.17 A sift is not required for prisoners who are excluded from open conditions due to the Secretary of State’s policy on those with a history of abscond or escape (see chapter 10). OMU staff should consult the PPCS case manager if there is any doubt over whether a sift is required. 4.18 Report writers need not complete a full report for the SPRM. However, under the OM3 guidance, if those reports fall at the 3-years stage for ISPs where full reports are required for the purposes of sentence planning; these must continue to be provided. This is explained below:Type of Date to be held Meeting Reports required Outcome SPRM Sift Minimum 2 months prior to parole commencement date (Week 0) Formal report not required if not a 3 year review. However, key report writers unable to attend the SPRM sift meeting must submit a brief report addressing the issue of transfer to open conditions SPRM Sift at 3 Year Stage As above Full SPR reports if coincides with 3 year review (i) Decision by Governor on whether to refer prisoner’s case to Parole Board for consideration of transfer to open conditions (ii) Decision by Governor to recommend an exceptional pre-tariff review (iii) Confirmation by Governor that prisoner is automatically excluded from a pre-tariff review (iv) Recommendation from Governor on whether the case, despite negative aspects, should be referred for a pretariff review As above 4.19 OMU staff must alert report writers that a pre-tariff sift is to take place as part of the SPRM at least 4 months prior to commencement of the parole process. The OMU staff must use PPUD to establish the commencement of the parole process and to identify those cases where a pre-tariff sift is required. The OMU staff must mark the relevant field on their ‘to do’ list on PPUD to confirm that they have requested reports at the 4 month stage. 4.20 Prisoners must be notified that an SPRM is to take place during which the consideration of submitting the prisoner’s case to a pre-tariff parole review by the Parole Board will be discussed. Reports which are to be considered at the SPRM must be provided to the prisoner beforehand to enable them to submit representations using Annex Q. 4.21 All report writers must be invited to the SPRM and, if it is not possible for them to attend, they must provide a written contribution. The Offender Manager must be invited to all SPRMs. OMU staff may find it expedient to set the SPRM date at the time of requesting reports. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 30 4.22 The SPRM attendees should be as specified within the OM3 guidance. The SPRM should, as part of its deliberations, consider whether there is evidence to suggest that if the Secretary of State referred the case to the Parole Board for a pre-tariff review, there is a reasonable prospect that the Board would make a positive recommendation in support of transfer to open conditions. If the meeting concludes there is a case for consideration by the Parole Board, this should be stated in the SPRM notes and the meeting should continue under the guidance contained within OM3. It is not necessary to provide specific reasons to support this decision by the SPRM. 4.23 If the SPRMs preliminary conclusion is that there is no reasonable prospect that the Parole Board would make a recommendation for transfer to open conditions, the reasons for this should be clearly described within the SPRM notes. Similarly, the SPRM notes should clearly indicate those cases where the prisoner is presumed unsuitable. In presumed unsuitable cases, the reasons simply need to set out the criteria under which the presumption was made. The meeting should then continue as per the guidance within the OM3. 4.24 The record of the SPRM must be sent to the prisoner using Annex R. The record of the SPRM must be forwarded to the PPCS case manager within 5 working days of the meeting. The case manager will then decide whether the review will go ahead, and must notify the prisoner of the decision in writing within 14 days of receiving the SPRM record using Annex S. PPUD milestone 04 must be updated with the date the SPRM record was received and either milestone 05 or 06 must be updated to record the decision. If the prisoner’s case is not to be referred to the Parole Board, then the status of the review must be changed to ‘Cancelled – Pre Tariff Sift’ on PPUD by the PPCS case manager. If there is not already an on-tariff review on PPUD then one must be created. Where an on-tariff review has already been created then its status must be changed to ‘Active’. Further pre-tariff reference 4.25 Where a prisoner is considered to have made good progress since their last SPRM or since their last pre-tariff reference, the SPRM may consider whether it is appropriate to recommend that the case be referred to the Parole Board for a pre-tariff or further pre-tariff review prior to tariff expiry. Examples of good progress may include cases where the prisoner has, subsequent to the last review, completed key risk reduction work, the results of which indicate progress and a reduction in risk. 4.26 The decision to recommend referral is for the SPRM. If it is decided that the case merits reconsideration, the reasons why the prisoner is believed to have made good progress must be recorded in the SPRM notes. 4.27 The criteria to be applied for a further review are the same as for an initial pre-tariff review, namely: there is evidence of sufficient progress on the part of the prisoner to suggest that if the case was referred to the Parole Board, there would be a reasonable prospect that the prisoner may receive a positive recommendation in support of a transfer to open conditions. 4.28 The record of the SPRM must be sent to the prisoner using Annex T. The record of the SPRM with the recommendation must also be forwarded to the PPCS who will consider whether the criteria for a pre-tariff review have been met. If PPCS concludes the criteria are met, they will refer the case to the Parole Board. The prisoner will be notified of any decision by PPCS using Annex U, which will also confirm the reference commencement date. PPCS must update PPUD as necessary following the decision. 4.29 PPCS case managers are available to offer advice to Governors in respect of the setting of a further pre-tariff reference. The on-tariff review must go ahead on time and therefore an exceptional pre-tariff review will only be agreed if there is sufficient time to complete it prior to the start of the tariff expiry review. The restrictions on prisoners with a history of PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 31 abscond, escape or attempted escape, failing to return from ROTL or convicted of an offence committed whilst on ROTL during the current sentence also apply (see Chapter 10 for guidance). Appeals 4.30 Prisoners may use the complaints procedure to challenge the decision not to refer their case to the Parole Board for a pre-tariff review. Governors must ensure that the person considering the appeal was not part of the SPRM considering the prisoner’s case, and that they have sufficient understanding of ISP management to undertake the appeal. Advancing the pre-tariff review date 4.31 Where an ISP becomes a Category C prisoner or a female 2nd Stage prisoner 4½ years before tariff expiry, the date of the pre-tariff review can be brought forward by 6 months to begin 3 ½ years before tariff expiry. An advancement of the review will mean a prisoner may be considered for open conditions at an earlier stage. 4.32 OMU staff should identify any prisoners who may be eligible and to apply they should contact the PPCS case manager via e-mail providing the date that the prisoner reached Category C or female 2nd Stage. Requests for a review advancement must be endorsed by the Head of OMU and must not be made any sooner than the point 4½ years before tariff expiry. 4.33 On receipt of an application the PPCS case manager must check that the prisoner qualifies for an advancement and if so they will issue the decision letter at Annex V. They must also close the existing review and set up the new one on PPUD. All relevant correspondence must be uploaded and PPUD must be minuted. 4.34 A decision to advance the review date does not guarantee that a pre tariff review will take place. Prisoners whose reviews are advanced must still have their prospects of a positive recommendation for a transfer to open conditions considered through the pre-tariff sift process set out above. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 32 5. Consideration of exceptional transfer to open conditions by the Secretary of State without referral to the Parole Board (Indeterminate Sentenced Prisoners only) 5.1 The Secretary of State is required to consider transfer to open conditions in cases where an ISP can demonstrate exceptional progress without reference to the Parole Board. 5.2 This process will apply to all ISPs where the case has been referred to the Parole Board, the parole process has commenced and there is a complete dossier of reports. 5.3 The criteria for exceptional progress are: The prisoner’s parole dossier must contain evidence that the prisoner has made significant progress in addressing all identified risk factors; and There must be a consensus amongst report writers that the prisoner is suitable and safe to be transferred to open conditions; and There are no areas of concerns identified which would clearly benefit from further exploration by an oral hearing of the Parole Board; and The prisoner has demonstrated in his/her representations that there are clear benefits to being transferred to open conditions immediately rather than following the established process (for example, because it would maintain the momentum of his/her recent progress, or would allow sufficient time for the prisoner to be fully tested in open conditions prior to the expiry of tariff). 5.4 Applications are considered on their individual merits, although usually the prisoner will have to meet all the criteria to be regarded as exceptional. The restrictions on transferring to open conditions by virtue of any previous absconds or escapes (see chapter 10), or deportation status (see PSI 37/2014 – AI 25/2014 - Eligibility for Open Conditions and for ROTL of Prisoners Subject to Deportation Proceedings) also apply. The Head of Offender Management and Public Protection Group (OMPPG) will make the final decision whether to transfer to open conditions without reference to the Parole Board. 5.5 The application can be made either by the prisoner or through their legal representatives, and sent directly to PPCS. Upon receipt of the initial application the Team Manager must generate the milestones using the ad hoc process functionality on PPUD. They must also check to see that the prisoner’s parole process has commenced under the GPP and that up to date reports are available on which to assess the case. 5.6 Where an application is received and all reports are available, the PPCS Team Manager must assess the application to see whether it meets the criteria as defined in paragraph 5.3. Except where a dossier has been received fairly recently, PPCS Team Managers must also check with the prison that the current dossier is up-to-date in respect of reports. The PPCS Team Manager must use the proforma at Annex W to record their assessment of the application, ensuring that the conclusion explains why it is accepted or rejected with reference to the criteria. PPCS Team Managers must ensure that they check for any victim involvement in the case and where appropriate ask whether the victims wish to submit a Victim Personal Statement (VPS). Where they do wish to submit VPS, this must be received before the application can be considered. 5.7 If the PPCS Team Manager considers that the criteria for agreeing a transfer to open conditions without reference to the Parole Board are not met, they may reject the application themselves within 14 days without reference to the to the Head/Deputy Head of Casework. The proforma must still be completed to record the reasoning for the decision. Noteworthy cases and Foreign National prisoners must always be referred to the Head/Deputy Head of Casework for a decision. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 33 5.8 If the PPCS Team Manager is of the view that the criteria have been met and that the prisoner is suitable for transfer to open conditions without consulting the Parole Board, the case must be passed to the Head/Deputy Head of Casework within 14 days of receipt for approval. If the Head/Deputy Head of Casework decides to reject the case at this stage, they must complete the proforma with reasons within 14 days and return to the PPCS Team Manager. 5.9 If the Head/Deputy Head of Casework agrees that the case meets the criteria the case must be passed within 14 days to the Head of PPCS who will in turn forward it to the Head of OMPPG for final approval. Where the case is agreed/rejected by the Head of Group, they will complete the proforma with reasons and inform the Head/Deputy Head of Casework who will forward to the PPCS Team Manager. The PPCS Team Manager must then record the Head of Group’s decision on PPUD and issue the decision letter to the prisoner and/or legal representative informing them of the outcome within 7 days. 5.10 If the case has been accepted, the PPCS Team Manager must ensure the Parole Board is notified immediately. In pre-tariff cases the Parole Board will inform the prisoner that the review is now closed. The PPCS Team Manager must set the next review in line with normal procedures and update PPUD with the new review date. In on or post-tariff cases, the Parole Board will continue to review the case but only in terms of suitability for release. An amended referral note must be added to the dossier which instructs the panel to only look at release. When the Parole Board has concluded the review, the PPCS case manager must set the next review in line with normal procedures and update PPUD with the new review date. The PPCS case manager must change the previous review status on PPUD to ‘open agreed – Awaiting TX’. 5.11 Once the holding establishment has received confirmation that the move has been agreed, a transfer must be arranged in the same way as following an accepted recommendation from the Parole Board for such a move. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 34 6. Moving an ISP to open conditions following on from a Parole Board recommendation 6.1 ISPs will only be transferred from closed to open conditions when OMPPG officials decide, on behalf of the Secretary of State, that the prisoner has made exceptional progress sufficient to justify transfer to open conditions without seeking the advice of the Parole Board (see Chapter 5); or (ii) a positive Parole Board recommendation has been accepted by the respective PPCS Team Manager on behalf of the Secretary of State. 6.2 In those cases where the Parole Board has made a positive recommendation, the process is as follows: The Parole Board, having considered the prisoner’s dossier containing all relevant reports, makes a recommendation for transfer to open conditions. OMU staff must disclose the recommendation to the prisoner but must inform him/her that PPCS will make the final decision. The respective PPCS Team Manager considers the Parole Board’s recommendation and decides within 28 days (on behalf of the Secretary of State) whether to accept or reject that recommendation, taking into account the Secretary of State’s Directions to the Parole Board (see Annex O) and the guidance to PPCS Team Managers at Annex Y. The Team Manager must ensure that all of the papers considered by the panel when reaching its decision, including any reports submitted on the day of the hearing and any post-programme reports are considered. The decision will be sent to the establishment via e-mail and the OMU Manager (or equivalent) must then arrange for the prisoner to be informed of the Secretary of State’s decision for accepting or rejecting the Parole Board recommendation. 6.3 The Offender Assessment and Management Section (OAMS) within OMPPG and Population Management Section (PMS) will arrange for the transfer of adult male ISPs (see annex X). It is important that no adult male ISPs are moved to open conditions outside of this process; this applies to all ISP moves including following an acceptance by the SSJ of a Parole Board recommendation; consideration of continued suitability for open conditions following removal from open and where ISPs are being returned to open conditions following removal for any other reason. For all other ISPs, Governors must e-mail the approval to Population Management Unit (PMU), using the appropriate inter-prison escort booking form. PMU will then arrange the transfer. 6.4 If the Team Manager is considering rejecting a recommendation to transfer a prisoner to open conditions, the case should be discussed with the Head/Deputy of Casework immediately and if necessary advice sought from legal advisors. A recommendation can only be rejected with the approval of the Head of OMPPG. The parameters for rejecting a Parole Board recommendation for transfer to open conditions are very limited. The criteria for rejection are that the panel’s recommendation: either goes against the clear recommendations of report writers without providing a sufficient explanation as to why; or is based on inaccurate information. The Secretary of State may also reject a Parole Board recommendation where he does not consider that there is a wholly persuasive case for transferring the prisoner to open conditions at this time. 6.5 The Team Manager must use the proforma at Annex Z to record the decision. The Team Manager is also responsible for setting the offender’s next review date in accordance with the guidance in Chapter 7. When creating the next review, the Team Manager must delete the pre-tariff sift milestones as they will not be applicable for on-tariff or post-tariff cases. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 35 6.6 For ISPs who are not recommended for open conditions, any requirement for the allocation and arrangements for the transfer of prisoners in the closed prison estate e.g. high security, Category B and Category C, remains a matter for the holding establishments. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 36 7. Setting the date for the next review 7.1 In the case of ISPs and EDS/SOPC prisoners, where no direction for release is made, PPCS case managers must set the next review date and create the new review on PPUD. Once the letter informing the prisoner of the date of their next review is issued, the PPCS case manager must update PPUD milestone 35. They must also delete the pre-tariff sift milestones from newly created ISP reviews as they will not be applicable to on-tariff or posttariff cases. 7.2 PPCS case managers must ensure a prisoner is referred to the Parole Board in sufficient time before the expiry of their tariff/PED so that if the Parole Board wishes to direct release it can do so, either on the PED or as soon as practical after the expiry of the tariff period. 7.3 The maximum period that can elapse between post-tariff/PED reviews is 2 years, taken from the month of the previous oral hearing or paper decision. In the case of ISPs, all decisions on the timing of the next hearing must be based on the individual circumstances of the particular case. In reaching their decision on the timing of the next review, PPCS case managers must take into account what risks have been identified by the Parole Board, as well as the positive steps taken by the prisoner. Where there are further interventions to be undertaken, or a period of gradual adjustment into the community via open conditions or the progression regime is required or where the prisoner has been assessed as presenting a significant and continuing risk of serious harm to the public, a longer period between reviews may be reasonable. Where there is evidence that a process of change is underway and further improvement is anticipated in the short term, a shorter review period may be more appropriate. 7.4 Where PPCS are setting short periods before the next review, PPCS case managers should be satisfied that there is sufficient time to enable the completion of interventions and to assess the prisoner’s response to the greater liberty and autonomy in open conditions and/or a progression regime, including, if in open conditions, a possible time spent on Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL). 7.5 In SOPC and EDS cases, the next review period will be set at 12 months unless there are reasons that justify a longer period, such as the completion of an offending behaviour programme. DCR and EPP prisoners must always be reviewed annually. 7.6 When PPCS case managers are considering the timing of future reviews, they must discuss cases with the OM and/or the OS to seek their views. This may be particularly appropriate in cases where there are complex management issues. PPCS case managers must: Check outstanding and ongoing interventions identified within reports that were placed before the Parole Board in dossier and as recommended by the Board in its decision. Check the NPD/CRD date for determinate sentence prisoners Establish with OMU staff and OMs the nature of the interventions highlighted by reports, Parole Board decision including any view that the Board expresses in relation to any testing period (e.g. anger management, violence, thinking skills, sexual offending). Establish the length of the relevant interventions, including the time required to produce post programme reports in consultation with HMPS (Treatment Managers/Programme Managers). Consider those interventions which have been completed or other positive aspects of behaviour that may have been included within the dossier or commented upon by the Parole Board. Minute the case fully on PPUD regarding any discussions had or advice given. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 37 7.7 Other than when setting an annual review for DCR/EPP prisoners, decisions must always be taken on the individual circumstances of the case. PPCS case managers must provide reasons to the prisoner to explain what review period has been set, how the decision was reached and why the interval is justified. 7.8 In relation to some DCR/EPP 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 from the panel date 15 months or more 13 months or more, but less than 15 months Under 13 months Next review to begin 18 weeks after PED, last anniversary or panel date of early review 47 weeks before NPD Not eligible Indeterminate sentenced prisoners transferring to open conditions 7.9 The purpose of open conditions is to give the prisoner the opportunity to test the progress made during the time spent in closed conditions and from undertaking offending behaviour work. PPCS Team Managers are responsible for setting the review periods for prisoners where an open recommendation has been accepted. They must ensure that a suitable review period is set to enable the prisoner sufficient opportunity to demonstrate the progress made to the Parole Board and avoid, where possible, the need for the case to be deferred purely for a longer period of time in open conditions for testing. 7.10 When considering the length of time to set for the next review in these cases, in addition to the above points, PPCS Team Managers must take the ROTL timetable into account: The ROTL timetable for ISPs is set out in chapter 8 of PSI 13/2015 - PI 10/2015. All ISPs are subject to Restricted ROTL which may not be taken from closed conditions. In addition, any prisoner moving to open conditions may not take resettlement ROTL until after an assessment period of three months in open conditions. In most cases this should have no impact because the three months will be served before the resettlement day release eligibility date is reached. ROTL is generally a key part of the regime in open conditions as it helps to prepare the prisoner for release into the community. The general approach is to commence a programme of ROTL which gradually increases in frequency and duration before the potential release date. PSI 13/2015 - PI 10/2015 sets out the ROTL timetable for indeterminate sentence prisoners when, after a full risk assessment, the prisoner becomes eligible for the different types of ROTL. The timetable is a good guide as to when it might normally be appropriate to consider a prisoner for the various types of ROTL, although Governors do have some flexibility if the particular circumstances of the case warrant it. The timing for ROTL eligibility is based on the interval between of the Secretary of State’s letter granting a transfer to open conditions and the provisional date of the next parole hearing. Unsupervised day release (except for paid work) may be considered at the half way point. Overnight ROTL and paid work may commence at the two thirds point prior to the provisional parole review. For example: If a prisoner was set a 13 month review: PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 38 Date of oral hearing 15 February 2015 SofS approved transfer to open conditions 1 March 2015 Date set for next review March 2016 Day release ROTL consideration (halfway September 2015 point) Overnight ROTL consideration (two thirds December 2015 point). The Governor decides the frequent and duration of ROTLs In this example there are 12 months between the date the SofS approved the transfer (1/3/15) and the date of the next hearing (March 2016). Day release ROTL can begin after 6 months and overnight ROTL after 9 months. Give the appropriate weight to the type and length of sentence the prisoner was given. For example life sentence prisoners with a long tariff may need a longer period of time in open conditions to assist with the gradual adjustment back into the community compared to the short tariff IPP prisoner. As a general rule, and based upon the current timescales for ROTL, it will normally be appropriate to set the review period for a minimum of 15 months to allow for the possibility of a number of overnight ROTLs, thereby enabling the prisoner to demonstrate their progress. However, there will be cases, such as, for example, short tariff sentences or prisoners who have been returned to custody following recall, where a shorter 12 month review may be considered suitable. 7.11 The Governor decides the frequency and duration of ROTLs. In terms of overnight ROTLs, the prisoner may apply for this no more than once in every 4 weeks after their overnight ROTL eligibility date and for a maximum of 4 nights at a time. 7.12 Decisions must always be taken on a case by case basis, based upon the individual circumstances of the case. A letter setting a suitable date for the next Parole Board review of the case giving the full reasons for this decision must be sent to the prisoner. In pre-tariff cases, the next review must always be set for the tariff expiry date. The PPCS Team Manager must update PPUD with the new review date. Once the letter informing the prisoner of the date for the next review is issued, the Team Manager must update PPUD milestone 43 and change the review status on PPUD to ‘Open Agreed – Awaiting TX’. 7.13 The next review date letter must be copied to the legal representative and the OM. Changing the date of next review 7.14 Exceptionally, if it becomes apparent that a review period which has been set is no longer appropriate then OMU staff should notify the current PPCS case manager and ask for the decision to be re-taken. This may occur, for example, when at the time of setting the review the prisoner was due to undertake a lengthy offending behaviour programme but they are subsequently assessed as unsuitable for it. 7.15 Requests must be submitted via e-mail and endorsed by the Head of OMU. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 39 8. Release arrangements 8.1 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. The Parole Board case manager will update PPUD when they issue a release decision. 8.2 For determinate sentence prisoners (DCR, EPP, EDS and SOPC cases) who reach their automatic release date, 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. In ISP, EDS and SOPC cases (where release is directed by the Parole Board) the PPCS case manager must make contact with the OM to ensure that the licence conditions are correct and to confirm release arrangements. In all cases, if a licence condition makes reference to an exclusion zone, a map must be provided by the OM. 8.3 The OMU staff or the PPCS case manager must then arrange a release date with the OM. If the release decision is issued before the Tariff Expiry Date (TED)/Parole Eligibility Date (PED), the release date must not be before the TED/PED. Otherwise, release must take place as soon as practicable on an agreed date. If the TED/PED falls on a Saturday, Sunday or Bank Holiday, releases must be arranged for the next working day. Where the prisoner is liable to deportation, the Governor or PPCS must ensure that Home Office Immigration Enforcement (HOIE) are notified of the release decision, so that consideration can be given to detaining under Immigration Act powers. The procedures for handling such cases are set out in PSI 04/2013 - The Early Removal Scheme and Release of Foreign National Prisoners. 8.4 For ISP, EDS and SOPC cases where release is directed by the Parole Board and where release is to take place at a date post the TED/PED, the PPCS case manager should contact the relevant OMU staff at the establishment to confirm the release date and inform them of when they should expect the release licence and associated documents. The PPCS case manager will prepare and issue the licence and associated letters to the prisoner/prison/probation, update PPUD and complete milestone 38. The ISP licence templates are attached to PI 8/2015 – Managing Indeterminate Sentence Offenders on Licence and the all-purpose licence for EDS and SOPC prisoners is in PSI 12/2015 – Licence Conditions, Licences and Licence Supervision. The all-purpose licence can be produced through P-NOMIS. 8.5 Where release is directed by the Parole Board, if the release plan made reference to residence in Approved Premises, Governors or, in the case of ISP, EDS and SOPC prisoners, the PPCS case manager, must be satisfied that a bed space is available before effecting release. If the release plan cannot be put fully into place at the point of release, or the probation service wish 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. For determinate releases at the end of the custodial period, the Governor may authorise changes to licence conditions subject to the guidance in PSI 12/2015 – Licence Conditions, Licences and Licence Supervision. 8.6 For all cases, either OMU staff (for DCR/EPP cases) or the PPCS Case manager (for EDS, ISP or SOPC cases) must update PPUD by changing the review status to ‘Completed’. Once release has taken place, OMU staff need to complete milestone 39. If a determinate sentence prisoner is not granted release on licence by the Parole Board at their last review then PPCS will write and inform them that release will take place at CRD/NPD. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 40 Notification to the Police 8.7 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 ISP/EDS cases. 8.8 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. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 41 9. Adverse developments, warning letters, advice cases and re-referrals Note: This chapter should be read in conjunction with the chapter 10 - The Secretary of State’s policy on ISPs with a history of abscond or escape 9.1 An adverse development is linked to an Indeterminate Sentenced Prisoner’s (ISP) behaviour which suggests an increase in risk and casts doubt on their suitability for open conditions. Some examples of adverse developments are as follows: 9.2 Escape from closed conditions Abscond from open conditions Failure on ROTL Failure of a Mandatory/Voluntary Drug Test Security information comes to light e.g. using and supplying drugs/mobile phones, bullying and intimidating other prisoners General behaviour (e.g. behaving aggressively) Failure of a breath test on return from ROTL Breach of conditions whilst on ROTL – late return, seen entering licensed premises Brewing illegal alcohol (hooch) Found in possession of an unauthorised item, mobile phone, mobile phone charger, debit card, sim card etc. Arrested for assault Arrested for other offences When an adverse development has occurred in an ISP case, HMPS staff must inform PPCS who will record the details on PPUD. Where there has been an adverse development, HMPS staff must submit a LISP4 form (Annex AA) to the relevant PPCS case manager as soon as possible. In cases where a LISP4 has been completed the PPCS case manager responsible for the Category D establishment must open a new ‘failure in open conditions’ record on PPUD. Adverse developments do not only occur in open conditions and a LISP4 must be submitted in the following circumstances: After removal from open conditions. Adverse developments from prisoners who have been recommended or approved for transfer to open conditions but are still in closed awaiting their move. Adverse developments from prisoners who are still in custody but are awaiting release following a recent Parole Board direction. 9.3 When details of the adverse developments are received by PPCS and where there are concerns that an ISP is not suitable for open conditions or release, he/she must be provided with a copy of the LISP4 so that representations can be made. A time period of 28 days must be given to submit representations. 9.4 On receipt of the prisoner’s representations or confirmation that the prisoner does not intend to submit representations, PPCS must consider the history of the case, the adverse developments/temporary removal from open conditions, any representations submitted and whether to: Issue a warning letter to the ISP; Refer new information to the Parole Board for consideration in the context of an ongoing Parole Board review; Refer a case to the Parole Board for its advice about the prisoner’s continued suitability for open conditions or release; Direct that the prisoner will remain in closed conditions until their next scheduled GPP review. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 42 Warning letters 9.5 It is not always necessary to refer the case to the Parole Board for advice. A warning letter may be issued by PPCS in cases where there are concerns about an ISP’s behaviour but the level of risk presented has not substantially increased to warrant more serious action. Warning letters can be issued if an ISP is: 9.6. awaiting transfer to open conditions; detained in open conditions; or has been temporarily transferred from open to closed conditions. A warning letter should always be considered before a case is referred to the Parole Board for advice. If the adverse development does not affect risk and is not a major development, a warning letter will usually be sufficient. However, a warning letter must not be used where it is considered that the ISP’s risk has increased and there is a causal link to the index offence. Any cases where a warning letter is being recommended rather than a referral to the Parole Board for advice must be agreed by the Head or Deputy Head of Casework. Advice cases 9.7 Cases can be referred to the Parole Board for advice by PPCS where: the Secretary of State has agreed a transfer to open conditions and the ISP is waiting for the transfer to open conditions to take place but an adverse development has occurred and a warning letter is not considered appropriate; or the ISP has transferred to open conditions but due to an adverse development has now been returned to closed conditions and a warning letter is not considered appropriate. 9.8 In a few cases, the ISP may remain in open conditions whilst the Parole Board is asked for advice on their continued suitability for open conditions, but usually they will have been temporarily removed to closed conditions. The referral for advice is made under Section 239 (2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 using the pro-forma found in the new core dossier guidance. 9.9 In cases where there is an ongoing GPP review or one is about to start, the PPCS case manager must consider whether to ask the Parole Board to consider combining it with the advice case. This is a decision for the Parole Board and each case will be considered on their merits. The GPP and the advice case review will usually be considering separate issues. The advice case would consider the adverse developments, whereas the GPP review is the regular review of their detention in custody. Re-referrals 9.10 A case may be re-referred to the Parole Board if there has been a change in circumstances before the Secretary of State can act on the decision (usually within a month of the decision having been taken), or if the Parole Board’s decision is considered to be flawed in some way. A re-referral can only be made by the Secretary of State through PPCS and the Parole Board will not re-open a case until a formal re-referral has been received. There is no standard pro-forma for re-referrals and no particular section of the Act. The re-referral will usually take the format of an e-mail to the relevant Parole Board case manager providing the reasons for referral and attaching any new information. 9.11 Re-referrals must be made using the original dossier. It may be necessary to provide addendum reports/further paperwork depending on the reason for the re-referral. A new PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 43 dossier must not be compiled. Once a re-referral has been made the PPCS case manager must change the review status on PPUD to ‘Active-Re-referred’. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 44 10. Secretary of State’s policy on ISPs with a history of abscond or escape 10.1 As at 21 May 2014, any such prisoner who has: absconded or attempted to abscond from open conditions; and/or failed to return from a period of ROTL*; and/or been convicted of a criminal offence that took place when they were on ROTL; and/or escaped or attempted to escape from a prison or escort during the current sentence, must be considered as unsuitable for transfer to open conditions, save in exceptional circumstances. 10.2. The definition of a failure to return is as follows – Where a prisoner has failed to return to an establishment from ROTL and Unlawfully at Large (UAL) contingency plans have been activated, including notification to the police, unless the prisoner surrenders to prison custody later the same day, or other exceptional circumstances apply (e.g. where following further enquiries, the Governor/Director is satisfied that the prisoner was unable to return as required due to circumstances beyond their control). Exceptional circumstances 10.3. There is a very strong presumption that an ISP who has absconded from open conditions as part of their current sentence will not be eligible to return to open conditions. However, exceptionally, the prisoner might be assessed as to their suitability for open conditions once they have completed their tariff at the next, and each successive, parole review but only if the SSJ considers that the case meets the following criteria: The prisoner has made significant progress in reducing their risk of harm; and risk of abscond such that a further abscond is judged very unlikely to occur; AND they meet one or more of the following exceptions There are compelling circumstances beyond their control which make a placement in open conditions necessary; or A placement in open conditions is absolutely necessary, in that their need to provide evidence of reduced risk for their parole reviews and their need for resettlement work cannot be met in a progressive regime in closed conditions; or Preventing the offender returning to open conditions would in all the circumstances be manifestly unjust/unfair. Progression Regime for ISPs 10.4. The Progression Regime in closed conditions referred to above has been designed for ISPs with an abscond history who will not be transferred to an open prison and who will not be eligible for temporary released (unless exceptional circumstances apply). 10.5. The Progression Regime will not be suitable for all ISPs who are not eligible for transfer to open conditions on the basis of the policy above, so it is important that their suitability is assessed on an individual basis. ISPs will be potentially suitable (subject to assessment) for the Progression Regime if they are assessed as being both willing and capable of taking greater responsibility. It will also require them to be able to engage in planning for their resettlement more proactively than previously. ISPs suitable for the Progression Regime are, therefore, likely to have a clear understanding about the risks they may still present PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 45 and have a commitment to demonstrate how, through their positive engagement in the Progression Regime, they can demonstrate that those risks are reduced. Guidance for report writers is available at Annex AC. Casework procedures 10.6. PPCS will write to any offender whom they believe should be excluded from open conditions as soon as it comes to light. The letter will explain the reasons why they are considered to meet the exclusion criteria and will offer the offender the opportunity to submit representations. Offenders may challenge the decision to exclude them either on factual grounds (i.e. that they have not absconded within the meaning of the definition in para 10.1 and 10.2 above), or put forward reasons why they meet the exceptional circumstances criteria given in para 10.3. 10.7. The guidance for PPCS staff on identification and consideration of cases can be found at Annex AB. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 46 11. Referral and Deferral of cases 11.1. PPCS refer cases to the Parole Board before tariff expiry/PED in sufficient time to allow the prisoner to be released upon tariff expiry/PED (the review end date), and/or to seek advice about transfer to open conditions (for ISPs only). If the prisoner is not released on licence as a result of the tariff expiry/PED review, PPCS must set the date on which the next review will conclude for ISP, EDS and SOPC cases (unless the next review would be post CRD in EDS or SOPC cases). The maximum period that can elapse between the Parole Board’s consideration of post tariff cases is two years. All decisions on the timing of subsequent reviews are undertaken by PPCS case managers on the basis of the individual circumstances and needs of each particular case. 11.2. Prior to referral of a case to the Parole Board, any requests from a prisoner or legal representative for a deferral of the review should be made to the PPCS case manager, setting out the reasons and the length of time being sought. PPCS on behalf of the Secretary of State will consider the request and decide whether to agree or reject it, informing the prison and prisoner accordingly. 11.3. Following a 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 e-mail, setting out the reasons and the length of time being sought. They must not contact the Parole Board direct as it is for the PPCS case manager, in consultation with their Team Manager, to decide whether the request will be made to the Parole Board. 11.4 Any deferral request made by PPCS must be copied to all parties including the establishment’s OMU functional mailbox, the OM and the legal representative. Similarly, the Parole Board case manager will notify all parties if they receive a deferral request from the legal representative. This will ensure everyone has the opportunity to comment on the proposal before a decision is made. The request will 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. 11.5. The review date is calculated on the basis of time spent in custody. If a prisoner escapes, then the date of his or her review will normally be put back by the period the prisoner was unlawfully at large. Governors must report any such incident to PPCS Team A as soon as it occurs. Where the prisoner is returned to custody following abscond the next review date will be set by PPCS, and each case will be considered on its own individual merits. 11.6. Prisoners cannot opt out of their review process and it will continue with or without the prisoners’ involvement. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 47 12. Transfer of Prisoners during review 12.1 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 during the entirety of their parole review. 12.2 Only in exceptional circumstances should prisoners be transferred during the review. 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. 12.3 ISP prisoners should not be delayed in their progress to open conditions or to the Progression Regime and may be transferred during the course of a review providing the guidance at Annex X is followed; transfers should not take place after the oral hearing date has been listed unless the receiving establishment can accommodate arrangements for the prisoner to attend the hearing. If establishments have any queries as to whether or not a case is listed, please contact the relevant PPCS case manager. Prisons must also still comply with the process as laid out below. In cases where a transfer has taken place, Governors must inform the Parole Board and PPCS of the reasons for the move. OMU staff at the sending establishment are responsible for ensuring that PPUD is updated with details of the receiving establishment. 12.4 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 any outstanding actions (e.g. pre-tariff sift, completion of the dossier or Parole Board directions) as it will normally have greater knowledge of the prisoner. In ISP, EDS and SOPC cases, the sending establishment’s PPCS case manager will also retain responsibility for the compilation of the core dossier and for the case until the complete dossier is disclosed. On the Review screen, PPUD must be updated to show that the sending establishment remains as the Dossier Producing Establishment. 12.5 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. 12.6 It is even more critical that a transfer of any prisoner after the oral hearing date has been listed by the Parole Board is avoided if at all possible as this 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. OMU staff at the sending establishment are responsible for ensuring that PPUD is updated with details of the receiving establishment. Transfers between jurisdictions 12.7 The Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (section 41 and Schedule 1) provides for prisoners to be transferred from England and Wales (E&W) to another United Kingdom jurisdiction, the Channel Islands, or the Isle of Man, and vice versa. The provisions are used primarily to PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 48 facilitate family contact, enabling prisoners to transfer to another jurisdiction either to complete their sentences, or for time limited periods, to receive accumulated visits. There is also provision for prisoners to be transferred for judicial purposes. 12.8 Transfers are made on either an unrestricted or a restricted basis. Where transfers are made on an unrestricted basis the continued administration of the prisoner’s sentence becomes a matter entirely for the receiving jurisdiction. Where a prisoner is transferred on a restricted basis the sending jurisdiction continues to administer certain aspects of the sentence. NOMS will therefore need to hold a GPP review for eligible prisoners in the following circumstances: 12.9 For prisoners transferred from E&W to another jurisdiction on a restricted basis For prisoners transferred to E&W on an unrestricted basis Further information on the transfer of prisoner between jurisdictions can be found in PSO 6000 – Parole Manual. OMU Staff must notify PPCS when a parole-eligible prisoner is transferred on a restricted or unrestricted basis so they can ensure the prisoner’s status is correctly recorded on PPUD. In PPCS, restricted/unrestricted transfer cases are managed by Team K (pre-releaseteamk@noms.gsi.gov.uk). PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 49 13. Mental Health Cases 13.1 Prisoners transferred under the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) do not have a right of access to the Parole Board for as long as they are deemed to require inpatient hospital treatment. Whilst time spent in 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. Whilst detained in hospital, the Secretary of State’s functions under the MHA, including consideration of their discharge from hospital, come under the responsibility of the Mental Health Casework Section (MHCS) in the Offender Management and Public Protection Group of NOMS. Transfer to hospital 13.2 Prisoners may be transferred to hospital either immediately by the trial judge when passing sentence (under s.45A of the MHA), or by order of the Secretary of State at any point during the sentence (under s.47/49 of the MHA). 13.3 MHCS must notify the Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS) of any prisoners admitted to hospital directly from court. MHCS must also upload any offence-related papers to PPUD they may receive, such as the order for imprisonment, the list of previous convictions, any pre or post sentence reports and the MG5 Case Summary. It is the responsibility of PPCS to obtain any missing Source Planning Documents not received from MHCS. On receipt of the trial judge’s sentencing remarks, PPCS will calculate the tariff expiry date and set the first Parole Board review date as normal. The review will be left at ‘Active’ status to ensure it does not get overlooked when the offender returns to custody. 13.4 The power to send a prisoner to hospital under either s.45A or s.47/49 may be exercised where there is evidence from two registered medical practitioners that: the prisoner is suffering from a mental disorder; detention in hospital for treatment is appropriate; and that appropriate treatment is available for them in hospital Casework actions for transferred prisoners 13.5 When a prisoner is being considered for a transfer to hospital under s.47/49, MHCS will alert PPCS by creating a milestone. Responsibility for the case will then pass to the PPCS specialist mental health case manager. The specialist case manager must check the case on a weekly basis to ascertain when the prisoner has been transferred. 13.6 Once the transfer has taken place, the specialist case manager must check when the offender’s next GPP review is due to begin and take one of the following actions: If the review is not due to commence for at least 4 weeks then the review screen must be clearly minuted with the date of the transfer but the review status must be left as ‘Active’. Leaving the review as Active will ensure the review is not missed in the event that the offender is remitted to prison without PPCS being notified. The OM and the prisoner’s legal representative, if known, must be informed of the transfer. If the review is already underway or is due to commence in the next 4 weeks then the review status must be changed to “Suspended – Transfer to hospital” and the prisoner’s location must also be updated accordingly. The PB, the OM and the offender’s legal representative, if known, must all be informed by e-mail. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 50 Remission and discharge 13.7 A prisoner’s suitability to remain in hospital detained under MHA is subject to regular reviews by the ‘First Tier Tribunal – Mental Health’ (‘the Tribunal’). Transferred prisoners may apply to the Tribunal during the second six months of their time in hospital and once in any period of 12 months thereafter. MHCS will automatically refer a restricted patient to the Tribunal after any three year period during which the patient has been continuously detained in hospital and has not had his or her case considered by the Tribunal. 13.8 Where a hospital direction (with a limitation direction) or transfer direction (with a restriction direction) has been made, if the Secretary of State is notified by the responsible clinician or other approved clinician that the prisoner no longer requires treatment in hospital for mental disorder or that no effective treatment can be given, the Secretary of State may remit the prisoner back to prison. 13.9 The Tribunal cannot order the discharge of a transfer direction (with a restriction direction) or hospital direction (with a limitation direction) prisoner without the prior agreement of the Secretary of State. Once the offender no longer needs treatment, the Tribunal will either recommend they are discharged, and if the Secretary of State does not agree to discharge they will be remitted to prison or, if the Tribunal recommends a conditional discharge but considers that returning to prison might compromise the offender’s mental health, the Tribunal can recommend the offender remains in hospital until they can be released on licence. This is known as a section 74(1)(b) recommendation. Casework actions for remitted/discharged prisoners 13.10 When a prisoner is being considered for a return to custody MHCS create a milestone 06(a). The PPCS specialist case manager dealing with mental health cases must review the case on weekly basis to check when the prisoner has been transferred back into custody. 13.11 Once the prisoner has been returned, the PPCS specialist case manager is responsible for determining their next Parole Board review date subject to the nature of the remission/discharge and timing of the previous parole review: i) Prisoners yet to reach their notified review date 13.12 For all parole eligible determinate sentence prisoners, if they are returned to prison before they have reached the point six months prior to their PED, their parole review should commence in accordance with the normal timetable for such cases. For indeterminate prisoners who are pre-tariff and have not yet reached the date of their first review, the review will also take place as scheduled. For both determinates and ISPs, the PPCS specialist case manager must ensure the review status on PPUD is changed to ‘Active’. ii) Prisoners given a conditional discharge by the First Tier Tribunal 13.13 In cases where an ISP is tariff expired/about to become tariff expired and MHCS has informed PPCS the Tribunal has made a discharge recommendation, PPCS must arrange for the case to be referred to the Parole Board for listing for a hearing as soon as possible to consider their release. 13.14 MHCS will notify the PPCS specialist case manager of any instances where report writers have recommended that an offender is discharged from hospital before the Tribunal hearing takes place by creating a milestone 03(b) on PPUD. At that point the PPCS specialist case manager must alert the OM to the prospect that the Parole Board may direct release on licence at a subsequent Parole Board hearing in the near future, so that they may contact the offender and begin formulating a release plan. In cases where an OM has PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 51 not been allocated to the case, PPCS will contact the National Probation Service Local Delivery Unit involved at the time of sentencing to request that a Supervising Probation Officer be allocated to the case. Where this proves difficult, cases should be escalated to the relevant PPCS Team Leader. 13.15 The reviews for conditionally discharged prisoners must run to an accelerated 13-week timetable. Once the Tribunal’s decision is received, in order to ensure that the shortened timetable is adhered to as closely as possible, the PPCS specialist case manager must create a GPP review with an end-date of 5 months from receipt of the decision. The PPCS specialist case manager must complete a late referral proforma and submit it to the Quality Assurance Team. A 5 month review should ensure the 13-week point falls within oral hearing target month. For example: If the decision was received on 2 February 2015 then the 13-week point will be 4 May 2015. A GPP review date set 5 months after the decision would have an end date of 1/7/2015 thereby producing an oral hearing target month of May 2015. 13.16 The core dossier will be prepared by PPCS in accordance with the instructions in chapter 3. The establishment which last held the prisoner must also be asked to supply copies of any sentence planning documents which may have been completed before transfer. In addition PPCS must commission a PAROM1 report from the OM with a 28 day target for completion. On receipt, the dossier must be built incorporating the PAROM1 and paperwork from the Tribunal which can be obtained from MHCS via PPUD. 13.17 Once the dossier has been collated, it must be sent to the prisoner for disclosure to give him/her an opportunity to make representations. PPCS are responsible for disclosing the dossier to the OM, the hospital, the legal representatives and the Parole Board. It is the responsibility of the hospital managers/OMU staff to ensure that the dossier is disclosed to the prisoner so that they can submit any representations to the Parole Board within 28 days. The disclosure form at Annex AD must be prepared by PPCS and will need to be adapted in every case to reflect the documents which are available. If the OM is not local to the hospital, it may be possible to enlist the help of the hospital social worker in explaining the dossier to the prisoner if required. iii) Prisoners remitted by the Secretary of State whose reviews did not take place because they were in hospital, or were underway at the point of transfer 13.18 Where the offender is returned to prison after 3 months or less in hospital then the suspended review can be re-opened using the original target dates. The PPCS specialist case manager must alert the Parole Board, the holding prison, the OM and the prisoner’s legal representative via e-mail that the review has re-commenced. As any earlier referral to the Parole Board will have been withdrawn, the case will need be referred to the Parole Board, which will be classed as a late referral. To facilitate a speedy review, at the same time PPCS will commission addendum reports from the OS and OM giving a target date of 28 days for completion. PPCS will also add any relevant progress reports from the prisoner’s time in hospital. The case will then proceed as normal. 13.19 Where the offender returns to custody after longer than 3 months in hospital then the suspended review should be cancelled and a new review created using the accelerated 13 week timetable described above. Where a prisoner is back in HMPS custody then in addition to commissioning a PAROM1, the PPCS case manager must also request an SPRL from the Offender Supervisor. In these cases the OMU staff will be responsible for disclosing the completed dossier. 13.20 The same process will operate for determinate prisoners returned from hospital to prison and where the PED has passed or where a parole review should have already commenced. In those cases PPCS Team A (Pre-releaseteamA@noms.gsi.gov.uk) is responsible for rePSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 52 opening the review on PPUD, creating a new review and commissioning the addendum reports from the OS and OM as applicable. Deterioration in a prisoner’s mental health following a s.74 (1) (b) recommendation 13.21 The Parole Board are responsible for assessing a prisoner’s potential risk of harm to the public but they are not empowered to act in place of a Tribunal by refusing to direct a prisoner’s release because of concerns about mental health. If in the course of the review process there are concerns raised about any apparent deterioration in the prisoner’s mental health since the Tribunal recommended discharge then PPCS must seek urgent advice from colleagues in MHCS. 13.22 In these circumstances PPCS must ask MHCS to consider exercising the Secretary of State’s power to re-refer the case back to the Tribunal under s.71 of the MHA on the grounds that there has been a material change in circumstances in light of the deterioration of the patient's mental health. Parole decisions and releases 13.23 In view of the nature of the cases, the Parole Board will send all decisions to PPCS and all notifications relating to transferred cases must be sent from PPCS. 13.24 Release directions from the Parole Board must be handled in accordance with the instructions in chapter 8. DCR, EPP, EDS and SOPC prisoners must be released on licence in line with PSI 12/2015 and PI 09/2015 - Licence Conditions and Temporary Travel Abroad and PPCS Team A is responsible for issuing these parole licences for s.74 (1)(b) recommendations where the offender remains in hospital. 13.25 In cases where release is not directed, PPCS will determine the date of the prisoner’s next review in accordance with the guidance in chapter 7. Non-Parole Licences 13.26 For parole eligible determinate prisoners (DCR, EPP, EDS and SOPC), it is not practical to expect prisons to maintain contact over what could be a very lengthy period and to take on the responsibility for liaising with the Probation Service and issuing the licence. The task of issuing non-parole licences to transferred parole eligible determinate prisoners is therefore the responsibility of PPCS Team A. 13.27 If the prisoner is not to be returned to prison, PPCS will identify from PPUD those transferred prisoners approaching the end of their custodial sentence three months before restrictions cease. MHCS will at the same time write to the Probation Service to remind them of the statutory duty to supervise the patient. In addition, to assist the identification of relevant prisoners, OMU Staff must notify PPCS Team A of any DCR, EPP, EDS or SOPC prisoners transferred to hospital within six months of their NPD/expiry of their custodial term. 13.28 When notification is received in PPCS, a check must be made for any existing papers on the prisoner (who may have been transferred after a parole review). If no background information is available, details of the offence etc. may be available on PPUD or papers may still be available in the prison which last held the prisoner. These must be obtained. 13.29 The PPCS case manager must identify the OM and discuss with him/her the need for any additional licence conditions. The imposition of additional medical conditions must only be considered after discussion with the supervising psychiatrist, either directly or through the OM. If any additional conditions are proposed, these must be approved in accordance with the guidelines set out in PSI 12/2015 and PI 09/2015. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 53 13.30 Once conditions have been agreed, the PPCS case manager must liaise with the OM and hospital about serving the licence. It must be signed, at least, at Band 5 level in the Section before being sent out. If the Offender Manager is not local to the hospital, a social worker there may agree to serve the licence. A signed copy must be returned to the Section and copies sent (by the Section) to the National Identification Service (NIS) New Scotland Yard and the Chief Constable of the area to which the prisoner is being released in the normal way. Automatic Conditional Release, Standard Determinate Sentenced prisoners and Extended Determinate Sentenced prisoners transferred to hospital 13.31 If an ACR prisoner, SDS prisoner or an EDS prisoner eligible to be released automatically at the two thirds point of their custodial term is transferred under the MHA, OMU staff must bring forward his/her records to one month before the Conditional Release Date (CRD), PNOMIS should record a release. OMU staff must follow the guidance set out in PSI 12/2015, in respect of the consideration of additional and (where applicable) courtrecommended licence conditions, and must arrange for the licence to be issued. This must be signed by the Governor in the normal way and sent to the OM or social worker attached to the hospital, so that it can be explained to the prisoner and served on him/her. Copies must also be provided for the Chief Executive Officer of the hospital and the Responsible Clinician (RC). OMU staff must ask for signed copies to be returned to the prison for distribution in the normal way. 13.32 If a young offender (YO) is transferred to hospital from a YOI, OMU staff must ensure that a Notice of Supervision is issued in appropriate cases. If the offender can no longer be regarded as a YO when the CRD is reached (whether for ACR or SDS prisoners) and the YOI cannot therefore issue the necessary adult licence, the case must be referred to PPCS Team A so that it can, exceptionally, issue an ACR/SDS licence. Notifications to the Police 13.33 Where they have issued the licence, PPCS will provide a copy of the licence to the National Identification Service (NIS) New Scotland Yard and the Chief Constable of the area to which the prisoner is being released. For other cases it will be the responsibility of the OM. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 54 14. Quality of Parole Reports 14.1 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. 14.2 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. substance misuse 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 training (e-learning and a two day classroom course); Working with Indeterminate Sentence Prisoners (WISP), beneficial for key workers and any other staff working with ISPs; Report Writing, a course which is recommended for any staff who are expected to write reports for the sentence planning or Parole processes. Preparing for parole review 14.3 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: 14.4 request a full set of SPR reports from relevant parties; hold the parole review meeting; write the PAROM1 overview report, or the relevant addendum template if appropriate, following the sentence planning parole review meeting; and ensure a Victim Personal Statement is available where the victim wishes to complete one. PSI 19/2014 – AI 14/2014 - PI 13/2014 explains that Offender Managers are responsible for overseeing the sentence planning for IPPs, EDS prisoners and any determinate prisoners assessed as posing a high or very risk of harm. For life sentence prisoners, the Offender Supervisor is responsible for overseeing sentence planning during the custodial part of the sentence. In practice the OS/OMU will normally oversee the preparations for parole, including the coordination of report preparation and the sentence plan review meeting. 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. Reports required 14.5 For all parole dossiers, the following reports are mandatory (templates of all reports below are available at Annexes G to I): PAROM1 (or PAROM1+ addendum report where appropriate) - Offender Manager’s report completed by a qualified probation officer; SPR L - Offender Supervisor’s report include applicable contributions from the following staff, where they are actively working with the offender to reduce any risks: PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 55 substance misuse worker, interventions and activity supervisors, offending behaviour programmes staff, therapeutic community, DSPD staff, personal officer or wing staff, chaplaincy staff. 14.6 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: SPR E – psychologist report (see Annex J) SPR G – psychiatrist report (see Annex K) SPR H – security report (see Annex L) SPR J – offender’s comments (see Annex M) 14.7 Reports from psychologists are only usually required in cases where there has been substantive psychological input or significant personality issues. Psychiatric reports are only usually required where there are mental health issues on which to report. These may be directed by the Parole Board at the directions stage (week 14). 14.8 The probation OM and OMU staff must work closely as the offender manager has to receive the reports in time to consider them before the sentence planning parole review meeting. Following the detailed discussions at that meeting the offender manager will prepare a PAROM 1. 14.9 It is important that report writers do not consider suitability for open conditions of those prisoners who are not eligible for transfer to the open estate due to a history of abscond. In these cases, unless exceptional circumstances have been evidenced, the Parole Board will only be asked to consider release. Guidance for report writers can be found on the NOMS Intranet and on EPIC (Annex AG) The Offender Manager’s report (PAROM1) 14.10 The Parole Board relies heavily on the contents of the parole dossier in making its decision. As the report which the OM completes, the PAROM1 becomes the key document in that dossier. In writing this the OM will draw on a variety of sources, and the SPR reports, to present a comprehensive view of relevant information about the offender, victim information, risk and risk management throughout the sentence. 14.11 The request for and receipt of Victim Personal Statements is the responsibility of the OM’s Probation area. 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. 14.12 When an OM completes a PAROM 1 for a case in which s/he has not previously been involved, s/he may not have access to sufficient information to complete section 9 – Behaviour in Prison - in any detail. In such circumstances the OS report (SPR L) becomes particularly important 14.13 The OMs overview report to the Parole Board (PAROM 1) 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 PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 56 risks of serious harm and of re-offending at the time of the offence any relevant victim information, including subsequent contact by the probation service with the victim confirmation of request for and status of the Victim Personal Statement relevant information about the personal circumstances of the offender details of interventions undertaken and progress made against sentence plan objectives during the prison sentence to address the risk of harm and of 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 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 full and comprehensive risk management plan to address any risks the offender poses if released now. It should include any MAPPA involvement and relevant multiagency planning undertaken or to be undertaken a clear proposal as to suitability for open conditions (in the case of indeterminate sentence prisoners only) or release on licence; or the work that needs to be undertaken before such moves could be considered. 14.14 The options for immediate release must be assessed in every PAROM1 written for an offender who has reached their tariff expiry date or parole eligibility date, even where release is not supported. The Parole Board are empowered to release any such offenders and may do so despite any contrary recommendations from report writers. Failure to set out the options available for immediate release in PAROM1s can cause significant delays to the review process due to the need for addendum reports or where oral hearings have to be deferred on the day. Addendum PAROM 1+ template 14.15 The purpose of the Addendum PAROM1+ is to provide a structure for OM to build on their original reports, where one has previously been completed, rather than have to repeat material covered in the earlier report. The report for the first Parole hearing must always be on the full PAROM1 template. Thereafter, the addendum PAROM1+ should only be used in specific situations: if the OM is the author of the original PAROM, they can complete the addendum report. if the OM is not the author of the original PAROM but endorse the risk assessments in that report, the addendum report can be completed. however, if the OM is not able to endorse the risk assessments in that report, the full PAROM1 should be completed. Offender Supervisor’s report: SPR L 14.16 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. The OS will draw on the prisoner’s attitudes and behaviour in prison, noting any patterns or association with previous offending, and identifying compliance with and progress against the objectives in the sentence plan. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 57 14.17 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 Staff Member and the associated report (SPR K). However, where an OS is new to the role, or has not previously worked with ISPs, there may be a need to work jointly with another staff member with greater experience, in order to prepare the SPR L report. 14.18 The OS’s report must 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 serious harm s/he poses to the public; an overall assessment of the prisoner’s current risk to the public, including evidence from assessment tools which have been used such as OASys, Risk Matrix 2000 or SARA and previous sections of the report. This should distinguish between the assessed likelihood of reoffending, and the risk of serious harm the offender poses; recommendations in relation to further actions or interventions required to reduce the level of risk the offender poses, including proposals for transfer or recategorisation if appropriate. NB This is only required for non-parole reviews; Details on the ROTL timetable (if applicable) planned for the offender and progress made against it; Anything else previously covered in SPRDs. 14.19 All reports prepared for a Parole Board review must be e-mailed rather than posted or faxed in hard copy, so that they can be uploaded to PPUD by OMU. Any report that cannot be sent electronically must be scanned by the holding establishment so that it can be uploaded. Reports must always be submitted via OMU for inclusion in dossiers and must never be sent directly to the Parole Board. Other reports and information 14.20 In some cases, it may be that the Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel (MAPPP) plans may inform parole decisions. Where this information is not immediately available via the PAROM1 report, an executive summary of the MAPPP meeting relating to the prisoner must be included in the dossier following consultation with the information owner. Quality assurance and countersigning 14.21 All SPR reports, in particular the OM report (PAROM1) and OS report (SPR L) are to be PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 58 reviewed by a line manager who must ensure that the report follows the guidance, and addresses all the areas outlined in the templates provided at Annex T and Annex S 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 must countersign the relevant report before it is submitted. 14.22 For ISP prisoners in open conditions and in the progression regime, PPCS will perform a case progression assessment at week 10 and may ask report writers for further information (see para 3.24 and 3.25). PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 59 15. The Challenge Process for Generic Parole Process performance data 15.1 The GPP is subject to centrally monitored performance indicators and PPCS issue data on the production of completed dossiers by establishments on a monthly basis. Governors and Deputy Directors of NPS or delegated managers within the NPS 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. 15.2 If staff in establishments or the NPS believe that the raw data is not accurate this must be raised by sending an e-mail to the Quality Assurance Team at parolehelpdesk@noms.gsi.gov.uk. Full reasons for the challenge must be given and the challenge form attached to the raw data must be used. 15.3 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. 15.4 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 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 60 16. Creation and deletion of PPUD accounts 16.1 Staff in establishments and the NPS wishing to obtain a PPUD login account must first complete the GPP and PPUD training course. Establishment staff should consult Phoenix for details of course dates and how to book a place. Once the course is completed the new user will be assigned an account by PPCS. It should be noted that each account is user specific and under no circumstances should members of staff log in with an account that is not their own. 16.2 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 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 61 Annex A The Criminal Justice Secure E-Mail (CJSM) Accounts CJSM Background The CJSM service is an important part of the process of joining up the Criminal Justice System (CJS) in England and Wales. It allows people working in the Criminal Justice System and those working to prevent crime, including public, private and voluntary organisations, to send emails containing information up to an equivalent of ‘Restricted’ (i.e. sensitive data), in a secure way. This has made it possible for key groups of people to send emails securely to each other. CJSM uses a dedicated server to securely transmit emails between connected Criminal Justice practitioners. Once connected, practitioners can use CJSM to send secure emails to each other and to Criminal Justice Organisations. Criminal Justice Organisations already have a secure email, as they are connected to secure Government networks. However, the CJSM service will enable other people and organisations involved in the Criminal Justice process, such as defence solicitors, YOTs, barristers, local authorities and victims and witness groups to send and receive secure emails as well. PPCS Case managers and Prison staff PPCS Case managers and prison staff must only email GPP related material to a law firm / Solicitor via a CJSM account. A CJSM domain is usually abc.def@Lawfirm.com.cjsm.net PPCS Case managers and prison staff must not send any material to a non CJSM email account, and if they are requested to do so, they must direct the law firm / solicitor to the www.cjsm.net website and encourage solicitors to sign up and obtain a CJSM account. Under strict rules from the Office for Criminal Justice Reform (OCJR) all law firms / solicitors are required to be sponsored by a government body in order for them to obtain a CJSM email account. If law firms / solicitors request for PPCS Case managers to sponsor them, PPCS Case managers will need to ensure to the CJSM application process that: The law firm / solicitor is known to Case managers and are regularly communicated with (not necessarily by email but phone and letter as well). The law firm / solicitor resides at the address they have supplied (i.e. post mail is sent to their supplied address). Their email address has a secure domain i.e. xxxx.xxxx@noms.gsi.gov.uk The above checks will be made by CJSM if the law firm / solicitors details need verifying. There is no cost to sponsor firms, however ultimately, the final decision in sponsoring a law firm / solicitor rests with PPCS Heads of Casework. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 62 Annex B Generic Parole Process – timeline for PPCS 6 week preparation period Week 0 PPCS complete the core dossier and advise the offender of the commencement of the review and their right to instruct legal representatives. 90% core dossiers to be received by week 0 Glossary of abbreviations & terms PPUD informs PB/Prison to commence review. HMPS request all required reports PPCS PB issues review notification to offender HMPS 6 8 Deadline for all prison based reports to be completed and uploaded to PPUD. Deadline for the PAROM1 to be complete and uploaded to PPUD. 90% of PAROM1s to be received by week 8 PB OH MCA Public Protection Casework Section Her Majesty’s Prison Service (establishment Case Administrator in this context) Parole Board Oral Hearing Member Case Assessment All parties = PPCS, HMPS, PB, Prisoner and their representative HMPS create the full dossier on PPUD. Note the Governor or a delegated authority must sign off the dossier. ] 10 PPCS undertake a case progression assessment for reviews taking place in open establishments and progression regime. 12 Deadline for the offender to submit personal and, or legal representations. 90% of dossiers to be disclosed by week 8 Where a negative decision is issued PB refers dossier to MCA on receipt of representations. 14 PB issues MCA paper review decision, or refers the case for an Oral hearing. 18 PB issue Oral Hearing exact date notification. 24 PPCS confirm all outstanding directions are complied with. PB issues oral hearing timetable to all parties 26 Oral Hearing Outcome period 28 day deadline for the offender to accept the decision or request an oral hearing Negative decision If no OH is requested PPCS have a further 28 days to issue a letter to the offender advising of the next review date. PB issues decision to all parties 95% of decisions to be issued within 2 weeks of OH date. PPCS have 28 days from day of receipt to process the PB decision. Tariff Expiry Date / Review End Date. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 63 Generic Parole Process - timeline for Prisons 6 week preparation period Week 0 PPCS complete the core dossier and advise the offender of the commencement of the review and their right to instruct legal representatives. 90% core dossiers to be received by week 0 Glossary of abbreviations & terms PPUD informs PB/Prison to commence review. HMPS request all required reports PPCS PB issues review notification to prisoner HMPS 6 Deadline for all prison based reports to be completed and uploaded to PPUD. PB OH MCA 8 Deadline for the PAROM1 to be complete and uploaded to PPUD. 90% of PAROM1s to be received by week 8 HMPS create the full dossier on PPUD. Note the Governor or a delegated authority must sign off the dossier. 90% of dossiers to be disclosed by week 8 ` 9 All parties = PPCS, HMPS, PB, Prisoner and their representative PB assess dossier and return to HMPS if incomplete. Rejected dossier 10 12 HMPS return completed dossier to PB Deadline for offender to submit personal and, or legal representations. Where a negative decision is issued HMPS upload representations to PPUD and inserts in to e-dossier 14 18 Public Protection Casework Section Her Majesty’s Prison Service (establishment Case Administrator in this context) Parole Board Oral Hearing Member Case Assessment 28 day deadline for the offender to accept the decision or request an OH PB issues MCA paper review decision, or, refers the case for an OH. Negative decision If no OH is requested PPCS have a further 28 days to issue a letter to the offender advising of the next review date. PB issue Oral Hearing exact date notification. Outcome period PB issues decision to all parties 95% of decisions to be issued within 2 weeks of OH date. PPCS have 28 days from day of receipt to process the PB decision. Tariff Expiry Date / Review End Date. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 64 Generic Parole Process – timeline for Probation Week 0 6 8 Glossary of abbreviations & terms HMPS request required reports from Probation. PPCS HMPS Deadline for all prison based reports to be completed. Reports to be uploaded to PPUD and sent to the OM. Deadline for the PAROM1 to be completed and uploaded to PPUD. VPS submitted to PPCS, if available. PB OH MCA 90% of PAROM1s to be received by week 8 Public Protection Casework Section Her Majesty’s Prison Service (establishment Case Administrator in this context) Parole Board Oral Hearing Member Case Assessment All parties = PPCS, HMPS, PB, Prisoner and their representative 14 PB issues MCA paper review decision, or, refers the case for an OH. Where a negative decision is issued Negative decision 18 22 OM to submit VPS to PPCS and discuss any non disclosure with PPCS case manager. 24 PPCS confirm all outstanding directions are complied with. PB issues oral hearing Timetable to all parties 26 Oral Hearing Outcome period 28 day deadline for the offender to accept the decision or request an OH PB confirms exact OH date and details to all parties. HMPS must arrange suitable witness arrangements, accommodation, escorting of visitors and any other arrangements relevant to the hearing If no OH is requested PPCS have a further 28 days to issue a letter to the offender advising of the next review date. PB issues decision to all parties 95% of decisions to be issued within 2 weeks of OH date. PPCS have 28 days from day of receipt to process the PB decision. Tariff Expiry Date / Review End Date. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 65 Generic Parole Process – timeline for PPUD Week Prep. Phase Week 0 Action required PPUD Milestone number Responsibility PPCS update 07 HMPS update 08 PPCS and HMPS PPCS prepares the core dossier 09 PPCS HMPS commissions reports for the dossier 11 HMPS 13 - 16 HMPS HMPS disclosed the completed reports to the Offender Manager 17 HMPS Probation submit PAROM1 to HMPS to enable HMPS to complete dossier 18 Probation 19 - 22 HMPS PPCS issues the initial notification letter to establishments. HMPS distribute the annexes Prison based reports are completed 6 8 HMPS completes the dossier on PPUD and discloses it to the prisoner and their legal adviser. Note: The Governor or a delegated authority must sign off the dossier. 12 Deadline for prisoner to submit representations. PB instigates MCA process PB 4 Parole Board 14 PB issue MCA decision and/or directions to all parties. HMPS issue a copy to the prisoner PPCS update 27 HMPS update 28 and 29 PPCS and HMPS 18 PB sets the oral hearing date PB OH 3 PB 24 PB issues oral hearing timetable. PPCS and HMPS record receipt on PPUD and check compliance with directions PB update PB OH 4 PPCS update 31 HMPS update 32 PB, PPCS and HMPS 26 Oral hearing (OH) takes place PB OH 2 PB PB update PB OH 5 PPCS update 33 HMPS update 34 PB, PPCS and HMPS 35 – 36 (Remain in closed) 37-39 (Release) 43- 44 (Open recommendation) PPCS and HMPS Outcome phase OH plus 2 weeks PB issues oral hearing decision to all parties. HMPS disclose a copy to the prisoner OH plus 6 weeks PPCS process oral hearing decision within 28 days of receipt Note: release decisions are processed as soon as possible PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 66 Annex C OMU Department National Offender Management Service Public Protection Casework Section 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Email: pre-releaseteamB@noms.gsi.gov.uk Fax: 0870 336 9200 Your ref: ____ [insert NOMIS # where known] File ref: ____ [add date] Initial notification of the commencement of the Parole Board review – subsequent review The Secretary of State has referred ____ (insert NOMIS # where known]) to the independent Parole Board for a parole review. As you will be aware from PPUD, the review for this prisoner is due to commence shortly with the disclosure of the core dossier by the Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS). In preparation for the review and to assist with ensuring that it is completed within target, this is a reminder of what is expected to be included in the full dossier to ensure that the Parole Board will have all the necessary information available in the dossier to ensure an effective review. Prisoner I attach at Appendix A, a letter which should be passed to the prisoner to inform them of the start of the parole review, give key dates throughout the review and seeks legal representative details. This does not replace the initial notification letter issued by the Parole Board at the commencement of the review. Legal Representatives In order to reduce delays in engaging with offenders legal representatives it is important to establish contact with them at an early stage. They need to be made aware of the date the parole process is due to commence and the key targets dates so that they can contact the offender and submit their representations within 28 days of the disclosure of the full dossier. Attached to Appendix A is a form for the prisoner to complete to ensure that the OMU has up to date legal representative contact details. Please ensure that you regularly chase the offender for these details if you do not receive a prompt response. When you know the contact details, the letter at Appendix B must be sent to them. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 67 The letter contains a list of all the key target dates for the review to assist with the planning of prison visits/contact with the offender to enable the preparation of representations on time. Please ensure that the legal representative details are kept up to date on PPUD as all parties use this information. Offender Manager I attach at Appendix C, a letter which should be passed to the prisoner’s Offender Manager to inform them of the key dates throughout the review. This should assist them in preparing for, and submitting their PAROM 1 report in time for disclosure of the full dossier. The request for and receipt of Victim Personal Statements is also the responsibility of the Offender Manager. This letter should remind them that they must liaise with Victim Liaison Officer to ensure all victims have the opportunity to submit a statement and that it is included in documentation submitted to the Parole Board. Please ensure that the Offender Manager details are kept up to date on PPUD as all parties use this information. Offending behaviour work/reports When the full dossier is compiled, it is essential that reports cover any further offending behaviour work/documents/issues that were discussed at the last Parole Board review and detailed within the resulting decision letter. The inclusion of these documents will enable the Parole Board to see the progress made and any work still outstanding. Where there are any work/issues still outstanding, report writers should make it clear why they are outstanding; whether or not they will be addressed; and if so a timetable. To assist report writers with this, below is an extract from the last review outcome letter dated [XX] which stated what should be undertaken and/or areas to be addressed prior to the next review: [insert extract from the last outcome letter that details what needs to be undertaken by the prisoner prior to the next review] Please can you ensure that this information is passed to all relevant report writers in the prison when requesting their reports for the dossier to assist them with the preparation of their reports. Please note that it is also important for all new post programme reports since the last review to be added to the dossier. PPUD All the relevant dates for the review are set out on PPUD and it is important that these dates are adhered to in order for a timely and effective review. It is therefore essential that you update the PPUD milestones when you have completed any actions. In addition, please ensure that all addendum reports/post programme reports are uploaded to the appropriate PPUD placeholder immediately. If you have any queries about the review please contact the relevant PPCS pre-release team [team name and team inbox email address]. Dossier Team PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 68 Notification letter Appendix A [add date] Parole Board review commencement The Secretary of State has referred your case to the independent Parole Board for a parole review and this letter is to inform you that your review is due to commence shortly. 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 case. You are advised to engage a legal representative to help you with your representations and, if your case proceeds to an oral hearing, to represent you at the hearing. You must inform your Offender Management Unit (OMU) of your legal representative’s contact details as soon as possible using the form attached. The OMU will write to your legal representative to advise them of the start of your review and give them key dates of the review process to assist with arranging visits/contact with you to enable any representations you wish to present to be submitted to the Parole Board within 28 days of the disclosure of the full dossier. The Parole Board will commence reviewing the case after this deadline has passed. So that you are fully aware of the key stages of your review, these are explained below: Stage Disclosure of the full dossier by the prison with all reports to you and all parties Deadline for submission of legal representations and commencement of initial review by the Parole Board The Parole Board will review your case and either issue a paper decision if an oral hearing is not required or issue directions (instructions for further information ) if an oral hearing is likely to take place Target * [Date from PPUD – milestone 22] 28 days after disclosure of full dossier [Date from PPUD- milestone 29] If the Parole Board issue a paper decision, you have a further 28 days to decide whether to accept the decision or request an oral hearing. If the paper decision is accepted, you will not have an oral hearing. If you request an oral hearing, this will be considered and decided by the Parole Board If an oral hearing is deemed necessary you will be given the opportunity to present your case. You will normally be informed of the date of the hearing 8 weeks before it takes place * Please note these are only target dates and may be subject to change The full dossier that is prepared for your review you will contain the following documents: PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 69 Standard documents on you and your sentence (for example - trial judge’s sentencing remarks, pre/post sentence reports/previous convictions, last review decision letter (if applicable, etc.) Documents on your progress to date. This will always include updated reports from your Offender Manager, Offender Supervisor and any other relevant reports. If you have any questions about your review, please ask your Offender Supervisor or someone within the OMU. The Parole Board will contact you directly after your case has been reviewed about whether your case will be concluded on the papers or an oral hearing is deemed necessary. OMU Department PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 70 Prisoner name: Prison number/NOMIS number: My legal representative/s name My legal representative’s address Telephone number Fax number Email address Signed: Dated: This form must be returned to your OMU as soon as possible to avoid any unnecessary delays with your review PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 71 Notification letter Appendix B [legal rep] [add address] [add date] Parole Board review commencement As you may be aware, the Parole Board review for your client ____ [insert NOMIS # where known] ) is due to commence in [month of milestone 12] with the disclosure of the core dossier by the Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS) in NOMS. The prison will then add all of the relevant reports to the dossier before disclosing it to all parties. In preparation for the review and to assist with ensuring that it is completed without delays, it is important that legal representations are made within target – 28 days of receipt of the full dossier. The Parole Board will commence reviewing the case after this deadline has passed. To assist with your arrangements to visit/make contact with your client and prepare the subsequent representations for the Parole Board, the key target dates for the review are: Stage Target* Disclosure of the full dossier by the prison with all reports [Date from PPUD – milestone 22] to your client and all parties Deadline for submission of legal representations and 28 days after disclosure of full dossier commencement of initial review by the Parole Board The Parole Board will review your clients case and either [Date from PPUD- milestone 29] issue a paper decision if an oral hearing is not required or issue directions (instructions for further information) if an oral hearing is likely to take place * Please note these are only target dates and may be subject to change Please arrange any legal visits in the usual way. If you have any questions about the review, please refer these to PPCS. OMU department PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 72 Notification letter Appendix C [Offender Manager] [add address] [add date] Parole Board review commencement As you may be aware, the Parole Board review for _____ ([insert NOMIS # where known]) is due to commence in [month of milestone 12] with the disclosure of the core dossier by the Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS) in NOMS. To assist with your arrangements to visit/make contact with [prisoner name] and prepare your PAROM1 report for the Parole Board, the key target dates for the review are: Stage Target* Date your PAROM 1 report is due - PPCS support any [Date from PPUD- milestone 18] local agreements made between prisons and NPS that will enable the PAROM1 and the dossier to be completed before the target date Disclosure of the full dossier by the prison with all reports [Date from PPUD – milestone 22] to all parties The Parole Board will review [prisoner name and [Date from PPUD – milestone 29] number’s] case and either issue a paper decision if an oral hearing is not required or issue directions (instructions for further information) if an oral hearing is likely to take place * Please note these are only target dates and may be subject to change When the full dossier is compiled, it is essential that reports cover any further offending behaviour work/documents/issues that were discussed at the last Parole Board review and detailed within the resulting decision letter. The inclusion of these documents will enable the Parole Board to see the progress made and any work still outstanding. Where there are any work/issues still outstanding, report writers should make it clear why they are outstanding; whether or not they will be addressed; and if so a timetable. To assist with your report, below is an extract from the last review outcome letter dated [XX] which stated what should be undertaken and/or areas to be addressed prior to the next review: PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 73 [insert extract from the last outcome letter that details what needs to be undertaken by the prisoner prior to the next review] It is your responsibility to liaise with the Victim Liaison Officer and keep them informed of key stages so they can keep victims informed as applicable. All victims should have the opportunity to submit a Victim Impact Statement in time for it to be included in documentation submitted to the Parole Board. Where a case progresses to an oral hearing, you must inform the VLO promptly so they can check whether a victim wishes to attend and make an application to the Parole Board via the PPCS Case manager where applicable. If you have any questions about the review, please refer these to PPCS. OMU department PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 74 Annex D National Offender Management Service Public Protection Casework Section 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ ………(insert title of document)…………. IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR INCLUSION IN THIS DOSSIER Comments: (Give detailed reasons why the document (e.g. Trial Judge Sentence Remarks, missing pages etc.) is not included AND (delete as appropriate) As an alternative, the following document has been added to the dossier for your reference which is considered to contain relevant information: Date: PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 75 Annex E Roles and Responsibilities for Parole Board Directions Introduction 1. The Parole Board is an independent court-like body with the power to direct that it be provided with specific reports and information that might enable it to make informed assessments of risk. 2. NOMS is committed to supporting the Board in performing its important function in protecting the public. We aim to comply with all Parole Board directions wherever possible. In those few instances where we are legitimately unable to comply with a direction, we always apply to have the directions amended or revoked. Under no circumstances can a direction be disregarded. 3. The Supreme Court judgment in the case of Osborn, Booth and Reilly has increased the number of Parole Board cases that are referred to an oral hearing and, as a result, it has also increased the number of Parole Board directions. This has made it more important than ever that we comply with directions in a timely manner in order to ensure that the parole process runs as close to target as possible. 4. With that in mind, this is an opportune time to remind colleagues about the importance of complying with Parole Board directions and to confirm responsibilities of staff in NOMS to ensure that this happens. Summary of responsibilities 5. The Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS) in NOMS is responsible for overseeing the directions process on behalf of NOMS. PPCS is responsible for: 6. Chasing and tracking the progress of outstanding directions; Recording completed directions on the PPUD directions screen; Sending a copy of any directions calling for psychological or psychiatric assessments to the Head of Regional Psychology; Acting as the first point of contact for prisons and probation to raise issues about directions; Responding to directions that require information from sources outside NOMS/Probation such as the police, immigration or security services; Submitting all direction variation/revocation requests to the Parole Board and ensuring these are copied to all parties including the legal representative. Such requests should always be channelled through PPCS case managers; they should never be sent directly to the Parole Board. Resolving problems with witness attendance following escalation by the Parole Board; Submitting applications to the Parole Board to withhold sensitive material from the prisoner; Submitting victim personal statements; Handling any Ministerial correspondence, letters before action, FoI requests and judicial reviews relating to the parole process; and Following publication of the revised GPP PSI in March/April 2015, PPCS will assume responsibility for all liaison with Offender Managers (OM) on direction issues. The Offender Management Unit (OMU) in prisons is responsible for: Ensuring that directions received from the Parole Board are passed on to the relevant report writers immediately on receipt; PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 76 7. The Parole Board is responsible for: 8. Uploading completed reports onto PPUD, notifying the PPCS and Parole Board case managers once this has been done and ensuring copies are provided to the OM, the prisoner and prisoner’s legal representatives; Alerting PPCS at the earliest opportunity to any potential difficulties in complying with any direction target or where the prison believes that there may be grounds for an application to vary or revoke the direction; Submitting requests to withhold sensitive material to the PPCS case manager in accordance with PSI 26/2014 – PI 22/2014. Issuing directions to all parties; Adding direction letters to the e-dossier and creating placeholders for the requested reports; Creating an entry on the direction screen for each report requested; Responding to variation/revocation requests submitted by PPCS, the prisoner or their legal representative; Informing all parties of any variation/revocation requests by PPCS and/or legal representatives; Deciding on applications from PPCS to withhold sensitive material from the prisoner; Arranging witness attendance and escalating any problems to PPCS. The Offender Manager/NPS and Offender Supervisor are responsible for: Ensuring that directed reports are completed on time and addressing any specific points the panel have raised. Reasonable efforts must be made to gather all information directions, including consulting with other stakeholders such as MAPPP, where appropriate; Notifying all parties of any developments that may affect the Board’s assessment of risk (such as a new adjudication or the completion of an offending behaviour course) by submitting an addendum report; Attending Parole Board hearings to give oral evidence when required; Being fully prepared for the hearing and ready to answer questions on all aspects of the case, including details of the risk management plan and release options for on or post tariff ISP prisoners; Being mindful of any potential disclosure issues and discussing these with the PPCS case manager at the earliest opportunity. Maintaining contact with the VLO through the review process to keep them updated with developments and to ensure the VPS is provided in good time. Ensuring that any potential non-disclosure issues, especially around victim personal statements and security information, are discussed with PPCS at the earliest opportunity. Directions process overview 9. Directions can be issued by the Parole Board at three points in the GPP process: a) b) c) 10. At the initial paper assessment stage if the Member decides that an oral hearing is required, or where further information is required before an assessment can be made Once the case is listed and assigned to a panel the Panel Chair may issue directions, Directions will normally be issued if the case is deferred or adjourned at any point. The Parole Board issue directions by e-mail and will copy them to the Offender Manager and the prisoner’s legal representative if known. OMU staff must ensure the OM’s details are correctly recorded in the ‘Parole’ roll-up box on PPUD. On receipt of a directions e-mail it is good practice to check the copy list and email addresses to ensure they are correct. Normally there will only be one set of directions outstanding at a time but this cannot be guaranteed. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 77 When new directions are issued, prison and PPCS staff should be mindful of whether everything on the previous version has been complied with. 11. The Parole Board case manager will upload the directions, add them to the dossier and create placeholders for the reports that have been requested. It has been decided that from 1 April 2015 a copy of each set of directions issued will remain in the dossier as a paginated document to make it easier to follow the chronology of the review. It is therefore important that once completed, the new reports are inserted into the correct placeholders. If in doubt, OMU staff should contact the PPCS case manager for advice (also see para 28 below). 12. The type of material requested by Parole Board panels typically includes information such as addendum reports, psychological assessments, copies of post-programme reports or copies of reports prepared at the time of sentencing. The Parole Board panel can request any information that they consider will help them assess the offender’s risk and directions must be complied with unless the panel subsequently issue a variation or revocation order. 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, OMU staff must alert the relevant PPCS case manager as soon as possible so that a variation or revocation application can be considered (see below for more information). 13. If any new information comes to light during the parole process that report writers feel is relevant to the assessment of risk, such as an adjudication or a completed course, they should inform the Parole Board and PPCS in the form of an addendum report. Addendums can be submitted at any time and report writers do not have to wait for a direction to provide new information to the Board. Indeed, we have a duty to ensure that the Parole Board is kept informed of any development throughout the parole process that might have a bearing on the Board’s assessment of risk. The exception to this is where an indeterminate sentence prisoner is removed from open conditions, which requires the establishment to submit a LISP4 proforma to PPCS. Psychological or Psychiatric risk assessments 14. The panel may direct that a psychological or psychiatric assessment be undertaken where they consider it will help them assess the offender’s risk. Psychological reports will normally be completed by NOMS staff but psychiatric reports will usually need to be commissioned externally. Both types of report can take up to 12 weeks or longer to obtain, so OMU staff must take action to commission them immediately on receipt of the direction. In most cases the Parole Board direction will leave it up to NOMS to decide the most appropriate professional to undertake the assessment, however in some instances this may be specified (for example a specific type of psychologist or psychiatrist should complete the report, i.e a Forensic Psychologist etc). Care must be taken over this and complied with where possible. If an author with the relevant qualification or title cannot be identified then OMU staff should contact the PPCS case manager for advice. 15. Where a psychological report is directed, the PPCS case manager must always notify the relevant regional psychologist. If the regional psychologist has any concerns about the direction, they will contact the PPCS case manager. 16. PPCS recognise that there can be particular difficulties in obtaining psychiatric reports as establishments do not currently have arrangements in place to commission them. PPCS is currently trying to a set up a standardised practice for doing so which should include a Service Level Agreement, a list of available experts and fixed fees. This should come into effect in 2015 but in the meantime if there are problems in identifying a suitable author for a psychiatric report then establishments should contact colleagues in other prisons in their region or their local NHS Trust. If the problem persists then they should alert the case manager within PPCS. 17. Please note that it is the responsibility of the holding establishment to pay any fees for specialist reports. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 78 Security Reports 18. There can often be problems surrounding disclosure of security information to the offender and these can cause delays or failure to comply with directions, which in turn can lead to hearings being deferred. In order to undertake a proper assessment of risk that protects the public, however, the Parole Board needs to have access all relevant information regarding an offender’s risk. 19. Under the Parole Board rules the Secretary of State can make a non-disclosure application to withhold information from an offender. However, this will not normally be possible for security information which relates to risk because in order to have a fair hearing the offender has the right to see any allegations against them and have the opportunity to make representations. 20. The preferred approach is that security information should be disclosed to the offender in a gisted format that protects any sources of intelligence. It is not acceptable for security departments to refuse to release information requested by the Parole Board. Where there are concerns about disclosure then these must be discussed with the PPCS case manager at an early stage so that a suitable format for the report can be agreed in time to meet the target. 21. Applications for non-disclosure must always be made through PPCS and under no circumstances should they be submitted directly to the Parole Board by prisons or Offender Managers. If PPCS believes that the request to withhold the information is not appropriate it will contact the prison to discuss how the information might be safely relayed to the prisoner. OASys 22. The OASys is a mandatory document and the current version must be added to the dossier before it can be recorded as complete but during the course the review panel may direct that an up to date version is provided. It is important that the pagination of the dossier is not altered so if a new version is directed then it must be added to the back of the dossier in the placeholder created for the directions and the original version must be left in place. Variations or Revocations 23. On receipt of a direction the report writer or the regional psychology contact must make a note of the target date and consider any specific issues that the panel have asked to be addressed. If there are any concerns about not being able to meet the target or not being able provide the required information then the report writer or the psychology contact should notify PPCS as soon as possible. PPCS can ask the panel for an extension to the target date and can also for directions to be revoked entirely if the information being sought is unavailable or would incur disproportionate cost. 24. All requests for variation or revocation must be made through PPCS and not directly to the Parole Board. This is so PPCS can ensure a consistency of approach and can include any overarching policy issues when making the request. The Parole Board’s new Member Case Assessment (MCA) process, which replaces the current Intensive Case Management (ICM) process, will include an MCA Response form which PPCS can use to request direction variations or to comment on any other pertinent issues. When sending any variation or revocation requests to the Parole Board, the PPCS case manager must copy them to the legal representatives, OMU and the Offender Manager. OMU staff must to pass a copy directly to the prisoner if they are not legally represented. PPCS escalation process for outstanding reports 25. The Parole Board are required to generate the target date on PPUD for directions to be complied with. A ‘chaser target’ will also be generated automatically by the database which will appear on the PPCS case manager’s to-do list 14 days before the actual target. In some PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 79 cases the targets may not be generated until the case is listed for an oral hearing. The PPCS case manager is responsible for ensuring timely compliance with the directions and will base their contact with report writers on the process outlined below (subject to minor adjustments to reflect the responses from the report writers in individual cases). 26. The PPCS case manager must keep the Parole Board and the prisoner/the prisoner’s representative informed of developments via e-mail. They must also ensure that all e-mails are uploaded and telephone conversations are minuted to maintain an audit trail. When the chaser target is reached PPCS must contact the report writer via e-mail, copied to the OMU inbox, the Parole Board and the prisoner’s representative, to remind them of the target date and to ask if they foresee any problems in meeting the actual target. Subject to the report writer’s comments, a further chaser target should be set for 7 days before the actual target. When the next chaser target is reached, PPCS will send a further reminder to the report writer (copied to all parties) to ask if they are still on track to comply with the directions in target. If at any stage the report writer says their report will be late or there are problems with complying with the direction, then the PPCS case manager must refer the case to their Team Manager. If the report is not been provided by the actual target date, the PPCS case manager must chase it again and ask for an urgent update on progress. The e-mail must copied to all parties and to the PPCS Team Manager. If no written response is received within 24 hours then the Team Manager must contact the report writer by telephone. The Team Manager must attempt to agree a reasonable timeframe for the report to be provided which must be recorded on PPUD, confirmed by e-mail and copied to all parties. If the report is still not received by the target agreed following the Team Leader’s intervention then the case must be escalated to the Deputy Head of Casework. Completion and disclosure of reports 27. OMU staff are responsible for uploading completed reports to PPUD, adding them to the edossier and distributing them to PPCS, the PB, the legal representative and the OM if necessary. The new reports must be added to the dossier in the correct placeholders which will have been created when the directions were issued. If in doubt, advice should be sought from the PPCS case manager. 28. The Offender Supervisor must ensure the OM is kept aware of any developments in an offender’s sentence so they are fully informed when writing reports and preparing for the hearing. The PPCS case manager will then update the directions screen on PPUD with the date of completion. 29. Once the full dossier has been disclosed then any new reports must always be added to the back of the dossier in the placeholder created by the Parole Board. This is because the Parole Board members are given hard copies of the dossier and slotting new documents to the middle makes it more difficult to ensure the members have all of the up to date information. This also avoids different versions of dossiers being in use by Parole Board members, Legal Representatives and others, where the pagination no longer matches. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 80 PPUD naming conventions in chronological order Annex F 203 - Initial documents (put under “Personal”) LISP1 Acknowledgement letter Change in Tariff/Review & Covering letter CoA Orders Covering letter to OMU First review notification Sentencing remarks 204 – CSD Documents (put under “Personal”) E-mail chasing CSD LISP2 MARAP Media reports MG5 Miscellaneous CSD Police Protocol Post-sentence report Pre-cons Pre-sentence report Pre-trial medical report Prosecution case summary Victim’s charter information Warrant 205 - HMP Tariff Reviews (put under “Personal”) Covering letter to LIMIT Full dossier High Court recommendation Invitation letter Reply slip Representations Request Representations Request TARs Sift Proforma Skeleton dossier SofS decision – prisoner SofS decision – solicitor SofS decision – VLO Victim Impact Statement 206 – LIMIT (put under “Personal”) PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 81 Decision - full judgment Decision – Order Explanation note to prisoner New applications 207 – Reviews (put under “Current Review”) Advance Review - prisoner Advance Review Request Agree to deferral - prisoner Change in review date following escape - prisoner Changes re advancing 1st review Deferral request to PB - prisoner Dossier disclosure letter and acknowledgement of receipt Full Dossier Guittard - application Guittard – decision ICM directions Knockback notification - prisoner OH Notification - exact date OH timetable Open acceptance - prisoner Open recommendation proforma Open rejection - prisoner Open rejection submission to Minister Panel Chair Directions PB Appeal Notification - accepted PB Appeal Notification - refused PB Decision - knockback or release PB Decision - recommend transfer to open PPA referral proforma Pre tariff Sift - application Pre tariff Sift - decision Prisoner's Reps Refuse deferral - prisoner Request to defer review Review Request - OMU Secretary of State's Non Proforma Secretary of State's View Skeleton Dossier 208 – Release (put under “Releases”) IPP Licence Life Licence Release Details – ACO PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 82 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 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 83 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 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 84 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 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 85 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 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 86 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 - Lifer Representations (put under “Review”) Adjudications Court Documents Issue Dossier Letter Issue Dossier Letter to Prison Lifer Recall Reasons Notice of Return to Custody Proforma to casework team Recall Dossier Representations Team Record Sheet 225 – Non disclosure (put under “Review”) Compensation claim PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 87 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 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 88 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 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 89 Annex G Parole Assessment Report Offender Manager (PAROM 1) HMP/YOI Forename/s Prison Number Sentence Date/s of previous PAROM 1 Report Date Family Name Prison Category 1. SOURCES 2. RISK SCORES Static Risk Scores: OGRS score: Time of Sentence OGRS score: Now Risk Matrix: Time of Sentence Risk Matrix: Now OASys Scores: OASys Risk of Reoffending: Time of Sentence OASys Risk of reoffending: Now OASys Risk of Serious Harm level: Time of Sentence OASys Risk of Serious Harm level: Now SPRP score: Any other known risk score (including Offender Violence Predictor [OVP]): 3. KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRISONER 4. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE OF REPORT WRITER 5. INDEX OFFENCE PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 90 6. PREVIOUS OFFENDING HISTORY 7. ANALYSIS OF RISK OF SERIOUS HARM AND REOFFENDING AT THE TIME OF SENTENCE . 8. VICTIM INFORMATION Victim issues: Checklist (For guidance on the requirements in relation to victims please refer to PI 48/2014 - the Victim Contact Guidance Manual) 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? Where possible the VPS should be submitted no later than 4 weeks before the oral hearing. 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 (TO BE PROVIDED IN EVERY CASE WHERE THE OFFENDER IS ELIGIBLE FOR RELEASE. SEE GUIDANCE IN CHAPTER 14 OF PSI 22/2015 FOR MORE INFORMATION) 15. RECOMMENDATION 16. SIGNATURE AND DATE Name Countersignature Probation Trust Office address Email address Contact telephone number PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 Signature Role Date Date Extension ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 91 Annex H 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 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 92 Any other available risk scores Please indicate as applicable: EITHER I confirm I am the author of the previous PAROM 1 Report [dated ] OR I am not the author of the previous PAROM 1 [dated assessments and other key information contained in that report. ] but I confirm that I endorse risk 2. What is your response to the request in the directions or decision letter? Show sources of information used for this Addendum report, including detail of whom you have spoken to or liaised with, where applicable 3. What changes to the case have arisen since the original PAROM1 was prepared? What impact does this information have on the current risk management plan? OR mark box to indicate that no significant changes in the case have occurred. I confirm there have been no significant changes, including in relation to Victim issues/Victim Impact Statement since the last review. 4. Victim issues: 1. As part of designing the Risk Management Plan you must contact the VLO. ON what date did you do this? 2. Have you informed the VLO of the hearing date? On what date did you do this? 3. Are the victims engaged in the victim contact scheme? Y/N 4. Do victims wish to submit a Victim Personal Statement? Y/N This information will be disclosed to the offender so if there is sensitive information please think about how to present this. 5. Are there diversity issues relating to the offender which may affect his/her ability to engage at the Oral Hearing (eg. learning difficulties, hearing impairment, physical disability, mental health issues, literacy problems, interpreter required, etc.)? 6. Recommendation Name: Signature: ................................................................ Date: PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 93 Countersignature: …………………………….. Role: Date: Probation Area: Office Base Address: Email Address: Contact Telephone Number: PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 Extension: ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 94 Annex I SENTENCE PLANNING AND REVIEW REPORT BY SPR L OFFENDER SUPERVISOR FOR ALL INDETERMINATE SENTENCE PRISONERS HMP/YOI Sentence Planning and Review Report Date Forename/s Family name Prison number Security category DOB REPORT TEMPLATE You must familiarise yourself with the offender’s offence, offending history and Sentence Plan objectives as well as any other reports or relevant information before completing this report. You should consult with the Offender Manager. The Sentence Planning and Review (SPR) Report provides information by the Offender Supervisor to the SPR meeting. The report must focus on the offender’s progress against his/her sentence plan, with particular emphasis on the offender’s risk of serious harm to the public and his/her risk of re-offending. Risk of re-offending relates to the likelihood of the prisoner committing any offence once released into the community. Serious harm is defined as: An event that is life-threatening and/or traumatic, and from which recovery, whether physical or psychological, can be expected to be difficult or impossible. Risk must be assessed as if the offender were to be released into the community immediately. In other words, the fact that the prisoner is in custody should not be a factor in determining risk. The relative levels of risk are described in Chapter 8 of the OASys Manual. NOTE: IF THIS REPORT IS FOR A PRE-PAROLE SPR MEETING, THE OFFENDER MANAGER WILL ALSO PREPARE A PAROLE REPORT USING TEMPLATE PAROM 1. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 95 The report should be set out in the following way using ALL of the headings below. It should incorporate comments from any prison staff who have actively worked with the offender to reduce risk. This may include: substance misuse worker, interventions and activity supervisors, offending behaviour programmes staff, therapeutic community, DSPD staff, personal officer or wing staff, chaplaincy staff 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) 8a. Details of any periods of ROTL completed since the previous review (if applicable) 8b. Details of the planned or estimated ROTL timetable up to the oral hearing target month. In your opinion will the planned ROTLs be sufficient to demonstrate risk reduction by the hearing month or would more be desirable (if applicable)? 9. Reduction in risk 10. Victim information 11. Additional Information 12. Assessment of the prisoner’s current risk to the public 13. Recommendations PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 96 Report Writer’s Name Signature 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 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 Date ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 97 Annex J 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 PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 98 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. 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: PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 99 Contact Telephone Number: Extension: Email address: PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 100 Annex K 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 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 101 5. Risk to the public 6. Release and resettlement 7. Additional information Report Writers Name: Signature: Date: Office Base Address: Email address: Contact Telephone Number: PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 Extension: ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 102 Annex L Sentence Planning and Review Report By Security SPR H H M P/Y O I: Sentence Planning and Review Report Date: Forename/s: Family Name: Prison Number: Security Category: This report is disclosed to the offender unless there is an application: For a Governor’s decision under PSO 6000 For a non-disclosure under Parole Board Rule 6 For the above applications to made there must be evidence that non-disclosure is necessary in order to: Ensure national security Prevent disorder or crime PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 103 Safeguard the health and welfare of the prisoner or others, including victim PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFFICIAL - SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 104 Report Template 1. Security information 2. Allocation 3. Additional information Report Writers Name: Signature: Date: Countersign Name and Role: Signature: Date: Office Base Address: Email address: Contact Telephone Number: PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 Extension: ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFFICIAL - SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 105 Annex M 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 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFFICIAL - SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 106 Reports Have you seen your Sentence Plan? Have you seen all the Review Reports? Do you have any comments about what has been written to you? Self-Assessment What progress do you feel you have made through your sentence to date? What further work do you still feel you need to do? Additional Information Do you want to make any further comments? Name: Signature: PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 107 Annex N GOVERNORS DOSSIER SIGN-OFF SHEET Current Establishment: Prisoner’s name: Prison number: NOMIS number: GPP review date: I have checked the dossier prepared for this prisoner’s Parole Board review. I am satisfied that the mandatory reports are included and have been completed to the required standards. Mandatory documents checklist SPRL PAROM1 OASys Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Any Comments: Name…………………………………… Role…………………………………….. Telephone……………………………… E-mail…………………………………… NOTE: Once completed, this notification should be uploaded to PPUD PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 108 Annex O Directions to the Parole Board under Section 239(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 - Issued April 2015 Transfer of indeterminate sentence prisoners to open conditions Introduction 1. A period in open conditions can in certain circumstances be beneficial for those indeterminate sentence prisoners (ISPs) who are eligible to be considered for such a transfer. 2. Open conditions can be particularly beneficial for such ISPs, where they have spent a long time in custody, as it gives them the opportunity to be considered for resettlement leave (although there is no automatic entitlement to such leave and any decision to grant such leave will depend upon a careful assessment of risk). It is not necessary in every case, however, for an offender to spend time in open conditions in order for the Parole Board to direct their release. 3. The main facilities, interventions, and resources for addressing and reducing core risk factors exist principally in the closed prison estate. The focus in open conditions is to test the efficacy of such core risk reduction work and to address, where possible, any residual aspects of risk. 4. Prisoners who are not eligible for transfer to open conditions will be considered by the Secretary of State as to their suitability for the Progression Regime. For such prisoners, this is designed to be an alternative regime to open conditions; however, the Parole Board is not invited to advise the Secretary of State on the suitability of a prisoner for the Progression Regime. 5. A move to open conditions should be based on a balanced assessment of risk and benefits. However, the Parole Board’s emphasis should be on the risk reduction aspect and, in particular, on the need for the ISP to have made significant progress in changing his/her attitudes and tackling behavioural problems in closed conditions, without which a move to open conditions will not generally be considered. Directions 6. Before recommending the transfer of an ISP to open conditions, the Parole Board must consider: all information before it, including any written or oral evidence obtained by the Board; and each case on its individual merits without discrimination on any grounds. 7. The Parole Board must take the following main factors into account when evaluating the risks of transfer against the benefits:a) the extent to which the ISP has made sufficient progress during the sentence in addressing and reducing risk to a level consistent with protecting the public from harm, in circumstances where the ISP in open conditions may be in the community, unsupervised, under licensed temporary release; b) the extent to which the ISP is likely to comply with the conditions of any such form of temporary release (should the authorities in the open prison assess him as suitable for temporary release); c) the extent to which the ISP is considered trustworthy enough not to abscond; and PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 109 d) the extent to which the ISP is likely to derive benefit from being able to address areas of concern and to be tested in the open conditions environment such as to suggest that a transfer to open conditions is worthwhile at that stage. 8. Pursuant to Prison Rules, an ISP who has been served with a deportation order and who has exhausted all their in country appeal rights is ineligible to be considered for open conditions. An ISP who is liable for deportation, but does not meet the criteria set out above can still be considered for transfer to open conditions. However, before recommending that such an ISP be transferred to open conditions, the Parole Board must be satisfied that the ISP presents as a very low risk of abscond. In considering whether the ISP is a very low risk of abscond, it must take into account the following: a) The risk that the ISP will use the low security of the open estate or temporary release to evade not only custody but also possible removal/deportation action. This risk may be heightened in circumstances where it is known the ISP is unwilling to be removed/deported from the UK and has previously sought to frustrate or evade the immigration process, for example - through their previous failure to comply with immigration restrictions, immigration bail or via the terms of leave in the UK, or because they have previously absconded from an IRC. b) Previous failures by the ISP within prison, not only in terms of failures to return from previous ROTL but also late returns and other failures to comply with prison rules and regulations that may indicate an inclination to abuse the privilege afforded by open conditions or ROTL and abscond or fail to return when considered in conjunction with their deportation status. Any failure of this nature in prison or immigration custody should normally be seen as proof of not falling within the “very low risk” of abscond category. c) Risk may be lessened where the ISP is known to be cooperative and is seeking to return to his or her home country, as will other factors such as strong family ties in this country or that the ISP does not wish to jeopardise his chances of successfully appealing and remaining in this country. 9. In assessing risk in all the above matters, the Parole Board shall consider the following information, where relevant and available, before recommending the ISP’s transfer to open conditions, recognising that the weight and relevance attached to particular information may vary according to the circumstances of each case:a) the ISP's background, including the nature, circumstances and pattern of any previous offending; b) the nature and circumstances of the index offence and the reasons for it, including any information provided in relation to its impact on the victim or victim's family; c) the trial judge’s sentencing comments or report to the Secretary of State, and any probation, medical, or other relevant reports or material prepared for the court; d) whether the ISP has made positive and successful efforts to address the attitudes and behavioural problems which led to the commission of the index offence; e) the nature of any offences against prison discipline committed by the ISP; f) the ISP's attitude and behaviour to other prisoners and staff; g) the category of security in which the ISP is held and any reasons or reports provided by the Prison Service for such categorisation, particularly in relation to those ISPs held in Category A conditions of security; h) the ISP’s awareness of the impact of the index offence, particularly in relation to the victim or victim's family, and the extent of any demonstrable insight into his/her attitudes and behavioural problems and whether he/she has taken steps to reduce risk through the achievement of sentence plan targets; PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 110 i) any medical, psychiatric or psychological considerations (particularly if there is a history of mental instability); j) the ISP's response when placed in positions of trust, including any outside activities and any escorted absences from closed prisons; and k) any indication of predicted risk as determined by a validated actuarial risk predictor model or any other structured assessment of the ISP's risk and treatment needs. 10. Before recommending transfer to open conditions, the Parole Board shall also consider the ISP’s relationship with the National Probation Service (in particular the Offender Manager), and other outside support such as family and friends. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 111 Annex P National Offender Management Service Public Protection Casework Section 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ The Governor HMP xxxxxx Email: Pre-releaseteamB@noms.gsi.gov.uk XX/XX/XXXX PRE – TARIFF REVIEWS FOR INDETERMINATE SENTENCED PRISONERS As you are aware, pre-tariff Indeterminate Sentence Prisoners (ISPs) are eligible to have their cases referred to the Parole Board up to three years before the expiry of their tariff for consideration of their suitability for transfer to open conditions. In order to target Parole Board and NOMS resources more effectively, the Secretary of State now refers such cases only where there is a reasonable prospect of the Board making a positive recommendation. Pre-tariff cases are therefore only referred to the Parole Board when the Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS), having considered the establishment’s recommendation, believes that there is such a prospect. Following a SPRM the full minutes of the meeting containing all relevant information should be sent to the Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS) no later than eight weeks prior to the GPP commencement date (Note: the target dates for holding the SPRM and submitting the minutes to PPCS can be found on PPUD at milestones 02 and 04). PPCS will decide, on behalf of the Secretary of State, whether or not to refer a case to the Parole Board. This does not mean that in cases where the establishment is not recommending that a pre-tariff review takes place, the SPRM minutes should not be submitted as PPCS must provide full reasons to the prisoner for allowing/refusing a pre-tariff review in all cases. When a pre tariff review is initially refused it may be possible, subject to timing, for an exceptional pre-tariff review to take place if there is support for a move to open conditions following a further SPRM. Please ensure that PPCS is provided with; a copy of the SPRM minutes and recommendation If recommending a review, the date that you wish it to commence The cases listed below still have active pre-tariff reviews showing on PPUD and should the review go ahead are due to have dossiers disclosed in xxxxxxxxxxx. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 112 Please send all correspondence to: pre-releaseteamb@noms.gsi.gov.uk Clare Pope Head of Casework PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 113 Annex Q Notification of Sentence Planning Review Meeting and pre-tariff sift PRISONER REPRESENTATIONS Name of prisoner: Date: Date of Sentence Planning Review Meeting: There is a Sentence Planning Review Meeting scheduled for [insert date] during which consideration will be given to whether your case should be considered by the Parole Board at the pre-tariff review under the Generic Parole Process scheduled to begin [inset date]. The meeting will consider the factors in your case and make recommendations based on whether there is a reasonable prospect that the Parole Board would recommend your transfer to open conditions. You will be present during the SPRM that will consider your transfer to open conditions, and you are invited to submit representations on your case to set out why you consider that your case should go forward to a pre-tariff review consideration by the Parole Board. The establishment can make the following recommendations in your case:1. That your case proceeds to a pre-tariff review by the Parole Board. 2. That your case does not proceed to a pre-tariff review by the Parole Board. 3. That the specific factors of your case do not warrant a pre-tariff review, but that an exceptional pre-tariff review is considered by Public Protection Casework Section. However, this is a recommendation, and the final decision rests with the Public Protection Casework Section. This is your opportunity to submit representations on the form below, which must be submitted to the Case Administration Officer by [insert date]. OMU Manager HMP [insert establishment] PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 114 Name Prison number Reasons supporting your transfer to open conditions; Signed PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 Date ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 115 Annex R Prisoner Name: Prisoner number: Current establishment: OUTCOME OF PRE-TARIFF SIFT As you know your case was considered at the Sentence Planning Review Meeting on [insert date]. The minutes of the meeting have been sent to the Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS) for consideration. If your case will not be proceeding to a pre-tariff review by the Parole Board, PPCS will provide the reasons for this to you in due course. You may appeal against the decision not to grant you a pre-tariff review through the complaints procedure. Governor HMP (insert establishment) cc: Public Protection Casework Section – with enclosure [Name of Supervising Probation Officer, enter Area] Probation Trust – with enclosure Caseworker - Parole Board PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 116 Annex S Prisoner’s name HMP __ National Offender Management Service Public Protection Casework Section 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Email: __ Your ref: __ File ref: __ [insert date] OUTCOME OF PRE-TARIFF SIFT REVIEW At your recent Sentence Planning Review Meeting consideration was given to whether your case should be referred to the Parole Board for a pre-tariff review. The Secretary of State has now received the Governor’s recommendation in respect of the pre-tariff review and for the following reasons has decided that your case should not/be referred to the Parole Board before the expiry of your tariff: PPCS Case Managers should provide the following: A brief outline of the Governor’s concerns, both positive and negative, and any salient points that is referred to in their decision Any period of monitoring requirements and reasons for the duration of monitoring and/or behavioural targets Any other factors that have influenced the decision not to refer the prisoner’s case to the Parole Board Any other relevant comments As a result of the outstanding work that you are still required to complete and the risk you present, you do not at this time present a realistic prospect of receiving a recommendation from the Parole Board for you to be transferred to open conditions. (Use if review being cancelled) Therefore, your first parole review process will be undertaken upon the expiry of your tariff in____. Your parole review will commence in [insert month of GPP], and the month for your case to be considered by the Parole Board is [insert month]. (Use if review being cancelled) PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 117 You will be notified by the Parole Board nearer the time about the exact date of that consideration and whether or not your case will be decided on the papers or proceed to an oral hearing. (Use if review being cancelled) It is possible that you may be recommended for an exceptional pre tariff review if relevant factors change and if the Governor supports such a recommendation. The Secretary of State will consider any such recommendation provided that any exceptional review awarded is able to be completed prior to the scheduled commencement of your on tariff review. (Use if review being cancelled) Therefore, your pre-tariff parole review will commence ………………, with the disclosure of your dossier to you in ……………. and will aim to conclude in ……………….. (Use if review going ahead) Should your case be directed to be heard at an oral hearing, you will be notified by the Parole Board nearer the time about the exact date of the hearing. (Use if review going ahead) PPCS Dossier Team cc: Offender Management Unit, HMP ___ – with enclosure [Offender Manager, National Probation Service] – with enclosure PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 118 Annex T Prisoner Name: Prisoner number: Current establishment: CONSIDERATION OF FURTHER PRE-TARIFF REVIEW As you know your case was considered at the Sentence Planning Review Meeting on [insert date]. It has been recommended that an exceptional pre-tariff Parole Board review should be undertaken prior to your tariff expiry. The decision on whether to grant an exceptional pre-tariff review by the Parole Board rests with the Public Protection Casework Section who will notify you of their decision directly in due course. Governor HMP (insert establishment) cc: Public Protection Casework Section – with enclosure [Name of Supervising Probation Officer, enter Area] Probation Trust – with enclosure Caseworker - Parole Board PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 119 Annex U [add name] [establishment] [add address] National Offender Management Service Public Protection Casework Section 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ [add date] Telephone 03000 474[xxx] Fax [000 0000 0000] Email [add email name] [Add Name] [Add Job title] Your ref:[add ref] File ref: [add ref] OUTCOME OF CONSIDERATION OF FURTHER PRE-TARIFF REVIEW At your recent Sentence Planning Review Meeting consideration was given to whether your case should have an exceptional pre-tariff reference to the Parole Board. The Secretary of State has now received the Governor’s recommendation in respect of the pre-tariff reference and the Governor has recommended to PPCS that your case should have an exceptional pre-tariff reference that should occur [insert timescale] after the date your original pre-tariff review was scheduled for. [The Secretary of State has now considered the Governor’s recommendation, and agrees with this recommendation.] (Delete if not appropriate) [The Secretary of State has now considered the Governor’s recommendation, but does not agree to the recommendation for the following reasons:] (Delete if not appropriate) List reasons – [e.g. insufficient time to complete review, need to transfer, waiting list for courses, post course reports not taken into account, need for assessment and/or parole process length not taken into account] (Delete if not appropriate) You will be notified by the Parole Board nearer the time about the exact date of your review. Case manager’s name Team cc: Offender Management Unit, HMP [enter name of establishment] – with enclosure [Name of Supervising Probation Officer, enter Area] Probation Area – with enclosure Caseworker – Parole Board PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 120 Annex V Head of OMU HMP xxx National Offender Management Service Public Protection Casework Section 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Telephone ___ Email: ____ [insert date] File ref:___ Dear Sir/Madam, PRISONER’S NAME, PRISON NUMBER Thank you for your e-mail dated ____ which asked for the above named prisoner’s review to be advanced by six months following their transfer to Category C. [Accepting the request] I have considered the case and I am satisfied the requirements for the advancement of the review have been met. Subject to a positive SPRM recommendation being accepted by PPCS the pre-tariff review is therefore now scheduled to begin in [insert month/year of milestone 12]. Please note that the decision to advance the review does not guarantee that a review will actually take place. A pre-tariff sift must still be held to consider the likelihood that a positive recommendation for progression to open conditions would be made. In light of the advancement, the pre-tariff sift recommendation is now due to be submitted to PPCS by [insert target date of milestone 04]. [Rejecting the request] I have considered the request but I am not satisfied that the criteria for advancement have been met for the following reasons. [Insert brief explanation] The pre-tariff review date will not be brought forward at this time and the pre-tariff sift recommendation is still due to be submitted to PPCS by [insert target date of milestone 04]. Yours faithfully [Case Manager] Team __ cc. Prisoner OM PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 121 Annex W EXECUTIVE DECISION REQUEST FOR APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER TO OPEN CONDITIONS UNDER THE ‘EXCEPTIONAL’ CIRCUMSTANCES CRITERIA Part A Name of ISP: Sentence details and offence: Date of sentence: Tariff: Pre Post Noteworthy: Yes No FNP: Yes No Tariff Length: Tariff Expiry Date: Projected date of next Parole Board hearing: Criteria for Accepting Application (all four criteria must be sufficiently explained): a) The prisoner’s parole dossier must contain evidence that the prisoner has made significant progress in addressing all identified risk factors: b) There must be consensus amongst report writers that the prisoner is suitable and safe to be transferred to open conditions: c) There are no areas of concern identified which would clearly benefit from further exploration by an oral hearing of the Parole Board: d) The prisoner has demonstrated in their representations that there are clear benefits to being transferred to open conditions immediately rather than following the established process (for example, because it would maintain the momentum of his recent progress or would allow sufficient time for the prisoner to be fully tested in open conditions prior to the expiry of tariff: Recommendation: PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 122 Media handling Issues: Submitted by: Date: Recommendation endorsed: Part B Authorised by: Date: Decision taken: PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 123 Annex X Transfers to open conditions for adult male indeterminate sentence prisoners In 2011, NOMS identified that some ISPs were experiencing delays in achieving a transfer into the open estate following Secretary of State for Justice (SSJ) approval. As of 6 October 2011, transfers into the open estate for those ISPs who have received SofS approval have been managed centrally by the Directorate of National Operational Services: Offender Management and Public Protection Group (OMPPG) are responsible for producing the prioritised lists of prisoners and Population Management Section (PMS) arrange the transfers. While NOMS aims to transfer prisoners to open conditions as soon as possible, it is extremely important, given the numbers involved, that transfers are managed safely with appropriate consideration for the needs of the prisoner and at a pace that is manageable for individual establishments. Where the parole process has begun, the expectation is that transfers will be made during the course of the process unless the Parole Board has listed the case for an oral hearing (cases are usually listed 6-12 weeks before the oral hearing date) transfer is to be made within an eight week window of the next parole hearing date. In those circumstances, subject to the Parole Board's decision and unless the open establishment can facilitate the prisoner’s attendance at the hearing. If this is not possible, the transfer will be arranged for as soon as practicable following the outcome of the hearing. If establishments have any queries as to whether or not a case is listed, please contact the relevant PPCS case manager. Prioritisation criteria The central process was implemented in October 2011 in order to clear the backlog of ISPs awaiting transfer that existed at the time, giving due weight to appropriate prioritisation. The following prioritisation criteria were applied: o Post tariff prisoners were prioritised for transfer ahead of those who had yet to reach tariff expiry. This was because pre-tariff prisoners had not yet reached the point where they could be considered for release by the independent Parole Board. o Post-tariff prisoners were prioritised in line with the date that the SSJ approved their transfer to open conditions. For pre-tariff prisoners, the following prioritisation criterion applied: o Pre-tariff prisoners (i.e. prisoners whose tariff has not yet expired) were prioritised according to proximity to tariff expiry date: the closer to tariff expiry a prisoner is the higher will be the priority to transfer them. The SSJ approves around 100 ISPs for open conditions each month and NOMS operates a monthly waiting list upon which these prisoners appear at the end of each month. In circumstances where there is no backlog of ISPs awaiting transfer, referrals of all ISPs are made to Population Management Section (PMS) during the month following their approval. Prioritisation criteria are therefore not required in these circumstances. However, should there be delays in future; the prioritisation criteria applied above would again apply. From October 2012 to date, the normal time for prisoners to transfer has been around 2 months from date of SSJ approval to actual transfer. Allocation It is not necessarily always possible to take into account prisoners’ preferences for allocation to specific open establishments in this process, as this can create delays. Prisoners will be offered the opportunity to transfer to open establishments where there is a space and will be expected to take it. PMS consult Offender Management Units as part of this process to ensure that transfers are not PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 124 made to inappropriate locations. If there are insurmountable reasons why a prisoner cannot be transferred to a specific establishment, these will be taken into consideration by PMS during the allocation process. The position of victims subject to the Victim Contact Scheme (VCS) will be taken into account before deciding the prison to which the prisoner will be transferred. Where it is proposed to transfer the prisoner to an open prison in the vicinity of the victim’s home, the OM will be consulted and their views taken into account. Exceptional circumstances In the event of delays and the consequent use of prioritisation criteria, requests for expedited transfer due to exceptional individual circumstances will be considered using the information provided. It should be noted that criteria such as impending parole reviews, length of time spent post tariff and length of tariff are not considered to be exceptional, as many other prisoners experience similar circumstances. It should also be noted that where there is no backlog of ISPs awaiting transfer, all ISPs approved for transfer are referred to PMS during the month following their approval for the move. This is the earliest that referral can take place. As such, expedited moves and standard moves will take the same amount of time. Future Application of this Instruction Where there is no backlog, all approved prisoners will be referred to PMS for transfer each month following generation of the central list. If there does again come a time where there is a backlog or delay in the movement of a number of prisoners to open conditions then cases will be prioritised in accordance with the prioritisation criteria in paragraph 2.4 and prisoners will be able to make applications that they should be prioritised for a move outside of the prioritisation criteria due to individual exceptional circumstances. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 125 Annex Y PROCESS FOR CONSIDERING OPEN RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Initial consideration of all Parole Board open recommendations should follow the standard open pro-forma. Start with reading the Parole Board recommendation and then just the conclusions and risk reduction sections of the main report writers as identified on the pro-forma. To help you consider whether a recommendation to move a prisoner to open conditions should be accepted or rejected, you should use the following criteria as an initial guide: Parole Board recommendation at odds with recommendation of some or all reports Where most (e.g. 2 out of 3 reports or 3 out of 5 reports)* of the available evidence contained in the key reports points towards open conditions then the recommendation should be accepted. The new pro-forma should be completed. Where most* of the available evidence contained in the reports points towards closed conditions then the completed pro-forma must be referred to the Head of Casework for further scrutiny as it is likely that the recommendation will be rejected. Where there is a conflict between report writers with some recommending closed and some open, provided these conflicts have been addressed by the Parole Board then the case should be accepted but they should be discussed with the Head of Casework first to ensure a consistent approach is being taken. Account should be taken of any oral evidence that addresses the conflicts. Where the conflicting views have not been addressed then the case will require further scrutiny as it is likely that the recommendation should be rejected. Inaccurate Information Where the Parole Board recommendation was based on inaccurate information, the case must be re-referred back to the Parole Board rather than submitting it for rejection. For example, where the Board have recommended open on the basis that a particular course is available in open conditions and in fact it is only available in closed conditions. History of abscond The Team Leader must check that the prisoner has not absconded during their current sentence. If so then the recommendation will almost certainly be rejected in line with the policy on open conditions (see chapter 10) but they should first be brought to the attention of the Head of Casework. Deportation status The Team Leader must be satisfied that the prisoner is not excluded from open conditions by virtue of his/her deportation status (see PSI 37/2014 - AI 25/2014 - Eligibility for Open Conditions and for ROTL of Prisoners Subject to Deportation Proceedings). 2. If Team Leaders are satisfied that there are no grounds on which to reject the Parole Board and the case is not noteworthy or liable for deportation then they can accept the recommendation without reference to the Head of Casework. Where the Team Leader is recommending rejection then the completed pro-forma should to be referred to the Head of Casework. Team Leaders will have an element of discretion and they will need to apply careful judgment and discretion on a case by case basis. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 126 3. Where the Parole Board have recommended the transfer of a Category A prisoner to open conditions, before a decision is taken, the Team Leader should prepare a short summary/chronology of the case setting out the report writers recommendations and any changes of view made in oral evidence. The summary and the Parole Board recommendation must then be referred up to the relevant Head of Casework who will escalate it to the Head of OMPPG via the Head of PPCS. Such cases are so unusual that the Head of OMPPG must discuss the case with the Director of High Security before a decision is taken. 4. All Foreign National Prisoners, all Noteworthy Cases and any cases that require further scrutiny should always be submitted to the Head of Casework for consideration. Having completed carried out a more in depth analysis of the case the conclusion may still be to accept the recommendation. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 127 Annex Z CONSIDERATION OF PAROLE BOARD RECOMMENDATION FOR ISP TO OPEN CONDITIONS Part A Offender’s Name: Date of birth: Sentence details: Review type: Pre On Post Tariff expiry date: Foreign national prisoner? Yes No Noteworthy status? Yes No Excluded from open criteria met? Yes No If you have marked either of the above three questions as “Yes”, then the case must be referred to your Head of Casework. Part B Date of Parole Board’s recommendation: Report writer’s recommendations: Report writer Date of report Closed Open Release Offender Manager Offender Supervisor Prison Psychologist/Psychiatrist Other specialists Part C If you answer ‘yes’ to any of the following three questions then detailed comments must be given Has the panel gone against the clear recommendations of report writers without providing a sufficient explanation as to why? Yes / No PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 128 Is the panel’s recommendation based on inaccurate information? Yes / No Do you consider the panel has made a wholly persuasive case that the offender has to be placed in open conditions at this time? Yes / No Part D Team Leaders recommendation / decision: [insert comments justifying your recommendation with reference to the light touch criteria above. Should be brief if accepting] Next review date: [insert next GPP review date] Reasons and summary of any contact with report writers: [insert reasons for setting the next review date] Areas of concern to be addressed: [list any areas of concern and further work to be undertaken which may include: To further develop the progress made to date to demonstrate the reduction in your risk. To test your ability and commitment to remain drug and alcohol free and subsequently reduce the level of risk posed. Consolidate your learning and skills learned to date, practice these skills and test relapse prevention plans. Completed by: Date: Part E (only applicable where rejection is being considered, or for any noteworthy or FNP prisoners) Head/Dep. Head of Casework comments (if applicable): Head of PPCS comments (if applicable): Head of OMPPG comments (if applicable): PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 129 Annex AA LISP 4 ADVERSE DEVELOPMENT FOLLOWING TRANSFER TO OPEN CONDITIONS, WHILE AWAITING TRANSFER, OR AFTER A PAROLE BOARD RELEASE DIRECTION REPORT BY OFFENDER SUPERVISOR HMP/YOI Report date Forename/s Family name Prison number Security category REASON FOR REPORT Please indicate whether prisoner is currently in open or closed establishment. Reason for failure/adverse development. IF THE PRISONER HAS ESCAPED/ABSCONDED/FAILUED TO RETURN FROM ROTL – PLEASE STATE WHETHER AND WHEN UNLAWFULLY AT LARGE PROCEDURES WERE ACTIVATED. IF THE PRISONER HAS RETURNED TO CUSTODY, PLEASE PROVIDE DATE/TIME/PLACE OF RETURN PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 130 In the event of an escape, abscond or failure to return, name the PreRelease Section staff member who was informed. ACTION TAKEN What action has been taken? [Prisoner suspended from further ROTL, placed in segregation or transferred to closed conditions, police alerted etc.] Include dates, times and places where known. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 131 PUBLIC PROTECTION ISSUES What action has been taken to ensure the protection of the public and/or known victims? What further action should be taken? ALLOCATION Is the prisoner suitable to transfer/remain in open conditions? Give your reasons. If currently in open conditions, should the prisoner be returned to closed conditions? Give your reasons. If a release direction has recently been made then do you still support release in light of the adverse development? Give your reasons. Do you have any recommendations regarding his/her future allocation? PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 132 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Are there any known factors that might have precipitated this incident? Is there any further information or any other comments relating to your knowledge of, or contact with, this prisoner that you wish to include? Offender Supervisor name Signature Date Office/Base address Contact telephone number and e-mail address PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 Ext ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 133 Annex AB Guidance to PPCS Case Managers Handling Indeterminate Sentence Prisoners with a History of Abscond, Escape or Offending Whilst on Release on Temporary Licence Background On 21 May 2014 the Secretary of State announced a change in policy in respect of the consideration of whether an indeterminate sentence prisoner (ISP) is suitable for transfer to open conditions. With immediate effect, any such prisoner who has: absconded or attempted to abscond from open conditions; and/or failed to return from a period of Release on Temporary Licence (RoTL) as defined below; and/or been convicted of a criminal offence which took place when the prisoner was on RoTL; and/or escaped or attempted to escape from an open or closed prison or whilst subject to escort; during the current sentence, must be considered as unsuitable for transfer to open conditions, save in exceptional circumstances. The definition of ’failed to return from RoTL’ is where a prisoner has failed to return to an establishment from RoTL and Unlawfully At Large (UAL) contingency plans have been activated, including notification to the police, unless the prisoner surrenders to prison custody later the same day, or other circumstances apply (e.g. where, following further enquiries, the Governor/Director is satisfied that the prisoner was unable to return due to circumstances beyond the prisoner’s control). Under this policy, an ISP’s suitability for open conditions can be assessed only if the Secretary of State considers that they meet the “exceptional circumstances” criteria: The prisoner has made significant progress in reducing their risk of harm and risk of abscond such that a further event is judged very unlikely to occur; AND that the prisoner meets one or more of the following exceptions there are compelling circumstances beyond the prisoner’s control which make a placement in open conditions necessary; a placement in open conditions is absolutely necessary, in that the prisoner’s need to provide evidence of reduced risk for their parole reviews and their need for resettlement work cannot be met in a progressive regime in closed conditions; preventing the prisoner from returning to open conditions would in all the circumstances be manifestly unjust/unfair. Identification of cases We have identified all those live cases that appear to meet the criteria for exclusion from open conditions as set out above. For the purpose of this note, all prisoners identified as meeting the PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 134 criteria for exclusion from open conditions are referred to as “absconders”. These cases have been flagged on PPUD as “Excluded From Open Conditions”. Any cases subsequently identified by case managers as meeting the “absconder” criteria must also be flagged up, but only with the approval of the Team Manager. On the commencement of any parole review, the Dossier Team must always check whether a case has an absconder flag before it issues the core dossier. Identification of an “Absconder” where they do not have a current GPP review There will be prisoners who are identified as an absconder but their current GPP review has not commenced. In cases where this happens and there has not been an adverse development, if the Team Leader agrees that the case meets the exclusion criteria the relevant PPCS case manager must minute the personal screen on PPUD with details, notify the dossier team of the details of the case and ensure that the case is flagged on PPUD as “Excluded From Open Conditions”. The case will then be dealt with by the dossier team on the commencement of the next Parole Review. In cases where this happens and there has been an adverse development, if the Team Leader agrees that the case meets the exclusion criteria the relevant PPCS case manager must minute the personal screen on PPUD with details, and ensure that the case is flagged on PPUD as “Excluded From Open Conditions”. The adverse development cannot be considered until the offender has been considered against the exceptional circumstances criteria. The PPCS case manager must issue the letter at Annex 4 titled ‘adverse developments’, this may have to be adapted to fit the particular circumstances of the case, advising the prisoner that the SofS has identified him/her as an absconder. The SofS is minded not to consider the prisoner’s return to open conditions unless the prisoner meets the exceptional circumstances criteria. Again, the prisoner will be given the opportunity to make representations and this letter must be copied to the prisoner, his/her legal representative, the Parole Board, OM and OS. Commencement of a Parole Review for an ISP “Absconder” Once the dossier team have identified an ISP as being an “absconder” case they must ensure that the appropriate cover sheet is attached at the front of the dossier. For these offenders the cover sheet at Annex 6 must always be used. Where ISPs were already in open conditions prior to 21 May and have had a previous abscond, please check with the Head/Deputy Head of Casework for further advice. The dossier team must also write to the prisoner to alert them to the fact that they have been identified as absconders and offering them the opportunity to make representations. The letter template can be found at Annex 1. The prisoner has 28 days in which to respond to an Annex 1 letter. Representations must be addressed to the relevant team manager, who will be responsible for considering them. Identification of an “Absconder” midway through a Parole Review There will be prisoners who are only identified as an absconder midway through their review. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 135 In cases where this happens, the relevant PPCS case manager must remove the original referral template from the dossier and replace it in the dossier with an amended terms of reference to the review using Annex 6. A copy must be issued to the prisoner and their legal representatives, the Parole Board, offender manager and offender supervisor. The caseworker is also responsible for advising the prisoner of their right to make representations in respect of the exceptional circumstances criteria. The template letter to be used in these cases is at Annex 2. Again, the prisoner will have 28 days to respond. Identification of an Absconder after the Parole Board has issued its decision In a small number of cases a prisoner might be identified as an absconder after the Parole Board has issued its decision. In cases where the Parole Board has not recommended transfer to open conditions there is no further action to be taken. In cases where the Board is recommending transfer to open conditions the PPCS case manager must issue the letter at Annex 3, advising the prisoner the SofS is minded to reject the recommendation unless the prisoner meets the exceptional circumstances criteria and giving him/her the opportunity to make representations. Again this letter must be copied to the prisoner, his/her legal representative, the Parole Board, OM and OS. Before issuing the letter the team manager must contact the prison Offender Management Unit (OMU) and alert them of the development and that it might cause the prisoner distress. This conversation will enable the prison to make appropriate arrangements to disclose the letter to the prisoner. The PPCS team manager must not consider the Parole Board recommendations until the prisoner has had 28 days in which to make representations or has indicated that s/he does not intend to challenge the rejection. Identification of an Absconder after PPCS has issued a decision to accept a recommendation for transfer to open conditions In a very small number of cases it may only come to light that a prisoner is an absconder in cases where the Parole Board has recommended transfer to open conditions and the PPCS team manager has written to the prisoner to inform him/her that the recommendation has been accepted. When these cases occur the team manager must contact the governor and Offender Assessment Management Section (via the functional mail box OMPPG IPP Queries) immediately to inform them that the prisoner must not be transferred until further notice. The PPCS case manager must issue the letter at Annex 4 titled ‘adverse developments’, advising the prisoner that the SofS has identified him/her as an absconder and as such, he is reviewing his earlier decision to transfer him/her to open conditions. The SofS is minded to rescind the decision unless the prisoner meets the exceptional circumstances criteria. Again, the prisoner will be given the opportunity to make representations and this letter must be copied to the prisoner, his/her legal representative, the Parole Board, OM and OS. Again, before issuing the letter, the team manager must contact the prison OMU and alert them of the development and that it might cause the prisoner distress. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 136 Non-submission of representations Where a prisoner does not submit any representations within the 28 day time scale, PPCS will wait a further week and on the 35th day will consider the available material in the current parole dossier to consider whether, in the absence of representations, there is any evidence to suggest that the offender meets the exceptional circumstances criteria. The consideration process is set out below. Once this exercise is complete, the PPCS case manager must write and inform the prisoner that in the absence of any representations their case has been considered to see whether the exceptional criteria is met and that they are considered suitable/unsuitable for consideration by the Parole Board for a move to open conditions */ and that as they are not considered suitable, they have been categorised to Cat C. The template letter to be used in these cases is at Annex 9. Considering “Exceptional Circumstances” representations A prisoner can make representations on two issues. The first is that s/he disputes the events that are being cited as meeting the “absconder” criteria. Where a dispute over factual accuracy is concerned the team manager must explore the prisoner’s claims, seeking further evidence where required. Where the claims are unsupported by the evidence, the team manager must reject the representations. Where the claims appear to be valid, the team manager must refer to the Head of Casework to consider and take the decision whether to allow the representations and remove the “Excluded from Open Conditions” marker from PPUD (you will need to make sure you “save” this action on PPUD. Where this is agreed, PPUD must be minuted to show that the flag has been removed, by whom and on what date. The second point on which the prisoner can submit representations is whether he/she meets the exceptional circumstances criteria. If the team manager considers that the representations should be rejected, he/she must reply to the prisoner, copying the OM, OS and solicitors, rejecting the representations and providing reasons. This must be done using the template at Annex 8. If the team manager is of the view that the criteria have been met they must complete an executive decision template and refer the case to the Head of Casework, who in turn must refer it to the Head of Section and Head of Group. Consideration of Exceptional Circumstances in the Absence of Representations Where the prisoner declines to submit representations, the team manager must consider the case (using the reports in the current parole dossier) in the absence of representations to see if there is any evidence to suggest the criteria may be met. In undertaking this consideration the team manager should consider the following: (a) Has the prisoner made significant progress in reducing their risk of harm and risk of abscond such that a further event is judged very unlikely to occur? The team manager should consider the current reports submitted by the OS and the OM, together with any other up to date and relevant information (i.e. psychology reports). If the conclusion is that the prisoner has not, then no further consideration is required. PPUD should be minuted PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 137 as to the reason why the prisoner is not considered to be a reduced risk of harm. If the prisoner has reduced the risk of harm, the team manager must consider each of the following: (b) Are there are compelling circumstances beyond the prisoner’s control which make a placement in open conditions necessary? For example, if the prisoner is a mother of young children, would her continued incarceration in closed conditions restrict her from developing closer ties with her children and being involved in their care? Alternatively, if the prisoner is receiving medical care in the community, would their continued incarceration restrict their ability, independently, to continue receiving such care. It will not be sufficient for a prisoner to claim that they need to be in open conditions because their report writers want them to undertake ROTL. (c) Is a placement in open conditions is absolutely necessary, in that the prisoner’s need to provide evidence of reduced risk for their parole reviews and their need for resettlement work cannot be met in a progressive regime in closed conditions? An example might be that the prisoner has been incarcerated for a lengthy period, possibly from a young age, and all report writers consider that a period of adjustment in open conditions is an essential precursor to successful resettlement. (d) Would preventing the prisoner from returning to open conditions in all the circumstances be manifestly unjust/unfair? This might be because a significant period of time has elapsed between the abscond and the current time during which the prisoner has made significant progress. Alternatively, the abscond took place prior to an earlier release and lengthy period of time in the community before being recalled back to custody. If the team manager is of the view that the criteria have been met, they must complete an executive decision template and refer the case to the Head of Casework, who in turn must refer it to the Head of Section and Head of Group. Consideration for Progression Regime Where it is decided that the prisoner does not meet the exceptional circumstances, in most cases, the team manager should complete Annex 10 to the relevant Governor/Director asking that they assess the prisoner for the Progression Regime. However, it should not be sent in the case of female offenders as there is no progression regime for them. It should also not be sent in those cases where the parole review has commenced and the target date for the hearing is within the next six months. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 138 Annex AC OFFENDER MANAGEMENT AND PUBLIC PROTECTION GROUP Guidance for report writers – indeterminate sentence prisoners (ISPs) with an abscond history 1. This guidance is to aid report writers when drafting reports for sentence planning and parole review purposes following the change in policy announced by the Secretary of State for Justice (SSJ) in respect of prisoners with a history of abscond accessing open conditions. Report writers should read this in conjunction with PSI 41/2012 – AI 10/2012 - PI 21/2012 - Sentence Planning, and the Consolidated Interim Instructions on changes to Release on Temporary Licence. 2. With immediate effect (as at 21 May 2014), any prisoner who has: absconded or attempted to abscond from open conditions; and/or failed to return from a period of ROTL*; and/or been convicted of a criminal offence that took place when they were on ROTL; and/or escaped or attempted to escape from a prison or escort during the current sentence, must be considered as unsuitable for transfer to open conditions, save in exceptional circumstances. 3. The definition of a ‘failure to return’ is – Where a prisoner has failed to return to an establishment from ROTL and Unlawfully at Large (UAL) contingency plans have been activated, including notification to the police. However, if such a prisoner surrenders to prison custody later the same day, or other exceptional circumstances apply (e.g. where following further enquiries, the Governor/Director is satisfied that the prisoner was unable to return as required due to circumstances beyond their control), thens/he will not be deemed to be a ‘failure to return’. Exceptional circumstances 4. There is a very strong presumption that an indeterminate sentence prisoner (ISP) who has absconded from open conditions as part of their current sentence will not be eligible to return to open conditions. However, exceptionally, a prisoner might be assessed as suitable for open conditions once they have passed their tariff at the next, and each successive, parole review but only if the SSJ considers that the case meets the following criteria: PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 139 the prisoner has made significant progress in reducing their risk of harm and risk of abscond such that a further abscond is judged very unlikely to occur; AND they meet one or more of the following exceptions: There are compelling circumstances beyond their control which make a placement in open conditions necessary; or A placement in open conditions is absolutely necessary, in that their need to provide evidence of reduced risk for their parole reviews and their need for resettlement work cannot be met in a Progression Regime in closed conditions; or Preventing the offender returning to open conditions would in all the circumstances be manifestly unjust/unfair. 5. It will be for NOMS (Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS)) to assess whether the test of exceptional circumstances is met in each case of an ISP with an abscond history. PPCS will offer offenders the opportunity to submit representations citing either that the abscond history does not apply/is incorrect, or that there are exceptional circumstances. In cases where ISPs are able to evidence exceptional circumstances, or where PPCS otherwise judge that exceptional circumstance apply, PPCS will send an amended referral to the Parole Board asking the Board to consider both release and suitability for open conditions. In all other cases, PPCS will inform ISPs with an abscond history at the appropriate point in the Generic Parole Process (GPP) that a referral to the Parole Board for consideration of release only has been made. 6. The suitability of ISPs for the Progression Regime should be assessed only once PPCS has confirmed that they do not meet the exceptional circumstances criteria and so will not be referred to the Parole Board to consider their suitability for open conditions. In relevant cases, when PPCS writes to the offender to inform them that their exceptional circumstances have not been approved, they will copy the letter to Offender Supervisors (OSs) and Offender Managers (OMs). The letter will also inform the offender that they will now be assessed as to their suitability for transfer to the Progression Regime. PPCS will also write separately to the holding prison, via the Offender Management Unit, informing them that the offender should now be considered for suitability for the Progression Regime. Progression Regime 7. The Progression Regime in closed conditions referred to above has been designed for ISPs with an abscond history who will not be transferred to an open prison and who will not be eligible for temporary release (unless exceptional circumstances apply). 8. Once in the Progression Regime, for the first two weeks prisoners will be located in an assessment phase which will begin their induction and their sentence planning based on the Enhanced Behaviour Monitoring (EBM) Framework. Here they will meet their OS and Keyworker and commence an individual development plan. This will enable them to meet the expectation of taking an active role in their sentence planning, identifying their resettlement needs and taking proactive steps to address them. 9. The regime will be staged, with prisoners progressing to the next stages only when it is agreed at a regime board linked to the EBM Framework. Progressing through the stages will not be a right, but earned by prisoners after completing an application detailing the benefit and outcomes and the link to progression and reduction of risk. Details of the regime are described below. Daily and weekly routine which promotes self motivated compliance. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 140 10. The regime will allow prisoners more time out of cell, and freedom of movement within the establishment to test their ability to display ‘self-motivated co-operation’. They will be encouraged to become less reliant on staff-led activities. This will be underpinned by a compact, designed to structure expectations from the start and to be supported by management. This compact will help point prisoners in the right direction in terms of resettlement, rather than telling them what to do. For instance, prisoners will be responsible for getting up on time, washing, dressing and going to work without escort. Evenings will be structured for meetings, Night School, OU work, charity work, studying, chaplaincy meetings/groups and completion of the evidence for their portfolios, whether this is for forthcoming parole or in relation to the enabling environment. Work which embeds self responsibility 11. Work will be a core feature of this regime in order for prisoners to develop the necessary skills to take up employment upon release. The expectation will be that prisoners will have completed any required offending behaviour programmes prior to transfer to the Progression Regime. This will allow them to concentrate on consolidation and acquiring more practical work-based skills to aid them in resettlement. All prisoners will work, where appropriate – there may be some prisoners who have passed retirement age for example, and all jobs will be performance managed on their delivery. Offenders will receive bonuses linked to a structured performance model including attendance and work ethic. Residential ‘Community Units’ 12. The community will be allocated a budget to manage for cleaning materials and consumables and will have peer-led prisoner information points to provide advice. There will be a Community Council chaired by prisoners who will produce action plans and minutes and propose events that are linked to charitable and reparation activity. Prison visits to strengthen family relationships as a protective factor in supporting desistence 13. As part of the EBM arrangements, prisoners will be expected to take responsibility for identifying, re-building and maintaining protective relationships which may involve family members or other community support. This will involve prisoners planning how the relationships important to their resettlement will be re-established and/or maintained and what role visits should play. These arrangements are designed to enable relationship building in a similar way to that achieved on Resettlement Day Release (RDR); albeit from inside the prison. To achieve this, visits in the later stages will be extended and increased in frequency. Sharper focus on sentence planning provided by EBM arrangements 14. The new EBM arrangements offer enhanced assessment, oversight and risk management in a multidisciplinary setting. The process is designed to be collaborative, with staff regularly feeding back to prisoners on risk related issues so that they are encouraged to take responsibility for identifying and reducing their own risks. This will include prisoners playing a greater part in the preparation for release in terms of making their own practical arrangements, with support from the OS and OM. Security and control which provide ‘public protection’ and safety assurance 15. Despite the resettlement focus of this new regime, it is important to remember that it is located in a Category C prison. Therefore, as with all other closed establishments, should a prisoner leave the prison unescorted and without permission, or attempt to, it will be treated as an escape or attempted escape and not an abscond. Supervision of prisoners will still remain a security requirement. Suitability of offenders PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 141 16. In order to be assessed as suitable for transfer to the Progression Regime, prisoners must: have reached the appropriate point in their sentence for assessment to take place i.e. once they are eligible for transfer to open conditions but have been ruled out due to an abscond history and where there are no exceptional circumstances; display willingness to engage in a regime which requires high levels of personal responsibility; have completed any offending behaviour programmes or other interventions specifically designed to reduce risk, where appropriate; have had a recent record of good behaviour; be willing to engage in a regime where they are expected actively to confront offending-related behaviour; display a willingness to take responsibility for actions which will assist in their rehabilitation; and be unlikely to pose any evident and significant security risk, either to staff or other prisoners, in such a regime. 17. The Progression Regime will not be suitable for all ISPs barred from open conditions, so it is important that their suitability is assessed. ISPs will be suitable for the Progression Regime if they are assessed as being both willing and capable of taking greater responsibility. The Progression Regime requires them to be able to do well not just in work, say, or in their general conduct, but all-round. It will also require them to be able to engage in planning for their resettlement more proactively than previously. ISPs suitable for the Progression Regime are, therefore, likely to be candid about the risks they may still present and to give a genuine commitment to demonstrate how, through their positive engagement in the Progression Regime, they can demonstrate that those risks are reduced. 18. The Progression Regime will be available only at a small number of prisons; indeed, initially only one. Report writers must consider whether what is on offer in the Progression Regime is needed or will be of any benefit in individual cases in the same manner as open conditions are considered. However, a period in open conditions or in the Progression Regime is not an essential pre-requisite to release in every case. Indeed, report writers should note that some offenders are suitable for release directly from closed conditions if their risks are assessed as safely manageable and any further work required can be undertaken in the community. Therefore, report writers should consider, as they do with all cases, where offenders have an abscond history, whether there is anything to be gained from a period spent in the Progression Regime in terms of resettlement opportunities and of evidencing risk reduction. This judgement should be based on a full and up to date OASys. 19. The assessment process for suitability for the Progression regime does not involve the Parole Board. In cases where NOMS does not consider that the exceptional circumstance test has been met, ISPs may be considered for the Progression Regime. This process will be managed administratively within NOMS, and a decision taken executively by NOMS. The OS will identify the Progression Regime as an objective for the sentence plan. A referral checklist will be available from the Progression Regime on request which must be completed by the OS and signed off by the Head of OM in each case. The checklist will include confirmation that the following has been sought or is available; The view of the offender; An up to date OASys; The view of the psychologist in relevant cases (i.e., only where the complexity of the case absolutely requires a psychologist’s input before a decision is taken); The view of the Offender Supervisor (concisely expressed); The view of the Offender Manager (concisely expressed); and PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 142 A view on an appropriate period of good behaviour (concisely expressed). 20. Transfer decisions should wherever possible be reached through agreement between the sending and receiving sites. Where agreement can not be reached; the final decision will rest with the Governor of the sending prison. Transfers should be managed as now through the single prisoner transfer process involving the Population Management Unit (PMU). What is expected from report writers? 21. For ISPs with an abscond history, report writers must not consider or make recommendations for the offender’s suitability for open conditions in reports prepared as part of the parole process. These offenders are no longer eligible for consideration of suitability for open conditions, unless exceptionally, and consideration should only be given to whether offenders are suitable for release. It is essential that report writers are aware of the new policy and don't revert to previous assumptions about the need to spend time in open conditions. 22. It will be extremely important to consider how to approach report writing for offenders that have accessed the Progression Regime. The Parole Board currently rely quite heavily on the prospect of being able to test prisoners in open conditions and through activities such as ROTL, which will not be available to this group unless they can evidence exceptional circumstances. As such, offenders’ prospects of a release decision will rely heavily on report writers being able to evidence and document positive changes to the levels and/or manageability of risks. Where offenders have accessed the Progression Regime, reports prepared for Parole Board reviews should recognise the opportunities this has presented, as well as progress made. 23. The presence of a good quality risk management plan will be vital in informing the Parole Board about whether offenders are ready to be safely managed in the community. This becomes even more important for this group as the option for release via open conditions and the opportunity to use ROTL, has been removed. Report writers must ensure that a full risk management plan is in place as full consideration will need to be given as to whether these offenders can be safely managed in the community if released directly from closed conditions, whether that means from the Progression Regime or otherwise. It is also important that no assumptions are made that offenders are not suitable for release based solely on the fact that they have not been able to access ROTL or open conditions. It should be remembered that not all ISPs will need a period of time in open conditions prior to release and the Parole Board do release ISPs from closed conditions. The Progression Regime is to be considered as an alternative, and thereby in virtually every respect an equivalent, regime to open conditions, it has been designed around the results from an analysis of a cohort of cases where release from closed conditions has been possible, therefore they should be treated in respect of writing reports to the Parole Board in the same way as a prisoner who has spent time in open conditions – are they ready for release and if not, why not? 24. There are a very small number of women ISPs effected by the policy changes who would be eligible for assessment of suitability for the Progression Regime. Governors in the women’s estate will be issued regime guidance in order for them to be able to support and provide similar opportunities to women with an abscond history as will be available for men. ISPs with SSJ approval for open 25. A small group of ISPs with an abscond history received SSJ approval, or a Parole Board recommendation, for open conditions just prior to the policy change in May 2014. These offenders had not yet transferred to open conditions and the SSJ was minded to re-take these decisions on suitability for open in light of the policy change. Where exceptional circumstances have not been evidenced and transfer to open conditions is no longer an option, these offenders must be assessed for suitability for the Progression Regime as a priority. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 143 26. If report writers have previously recommended open conditions, then it would usually be reasonable to expect that a recommendation for transfer to the Progression Regime will also be appropriate, allowing for any developments in individual cases or considerations around any geographical location. For this initial group, if there have been no adverse developments since the Parole Board recommendation/SSJ decision, they will be considered suitable for the Progression Regime. Provided these checks are met, prisons will organise transfer to the Progression Regime in individual cases via the single booking scheme. Where there have been adverse developments, prisons are expected to report them to the relevant PPCS casework team using the LISP4 form, as is usual practice. 27. For future cases, prisons, via the OM and OS, will assess suitability for the Progression Regime in line with the guidance at 18. For queries relating to the Progression Regime at HMP Warren Hill: OMU.WarrenHill@hmps.gsi.gov.uk For queries relating to Offender Management: NOMSOffenderManagement@noms.gsi.gov.uk PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 144 Annex AD FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL (MENTAL HEALTH) DISCLOSURE FORM / PRISONER'S REPRESENTATIONS This form must be issued to the prisoner at the same time that the parole dossier is disclosed. Prisoner's Name.................. Parole Review No......... Prison No........................ Parole Ref............... PED............ NPD............. Your application for early release on licence is to be considered by the Parole Board and a member of the Board may visit you to interview you. A copy of your parole dossier has been made available to you and this form allows you to make any comments on the contents of your dossier and also give any other information about your application that you feel the Parole Board should have. The following reports have been disclosed to you: Statement by the Secretary of State: Circumstances of Offence Pre-sentence probation report (if applicable) Pre-sentence psychiatric report (if applicable) Court transcription of sentencing remarks (for sentences after 1.1.97) Previous convictions (if applicable) Statement by Responsible Authority to the First Tier Tribunal (Mental Health) Admission summary Annual Report Report of Section 117 meeting (if applicable) Social work reports Nursing progress report Psychiatric reports First Tier Tribunal (Mental Health) (if applicable) Parole Assessment Report Copies of previous parole papers (if applicable) If available, Victim Personal Statement Other................................................................... The Parole Board has/has not been given additional information which has been withheld from you in accordance with guidance issued by the Secretary of State. You have no right to see this information and no grounds for appeal to the Parole Board or Prison Service. Please sign to indicate that disclosure has taken place. Signed......................... Date................. I have no comments on the reports I have seen / My comments are as follows PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 145 If there is any other information which you feel the Parole Board should have when considering your case, please record it here (continue on a separate sheet if necessary). The Board will have to decide whether your early release on licence would put the public at risk, whether you are likely to commit any further offences and what the chances of you returning to society to lead a law-abiding life will be. Signed............................... Name (Caps).......................... Date................................. PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 Annex AE 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 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 Score 0 - 3 Total 0 - 3 Has author stated limitations of assessment if reliant solely on prisoner’s account? Have they identified what issues need further exploration if not all info available? Does report author draw a conclusion where discrepancies arise? Is their view supported by evidence? Has the author corroborated key pieces of evidence? For IPP cases, has the author seen all prison reports before drafting PAROM1 and summarised their conclusions, addressing agreement and/or differing views? ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 Score 0 - 3 Has the author identified key pieces of missing information and explained implications of missing information for their assessment? Has the author ensured sensitive/non-disclosable information is not included? Assessor Comments Criterion Prisoner’s Background Has author ensured victims not inappropriately identified? Has author given reader indication that additional non-disclosable information is available separately? Total 0 - 3 Indicators Appropriate reliance on historical information Score 0 – 3 Is the background information in the report relevant to the assessment of risk or identification of risk/protective factors? Assessor Comments Criterion Analysis of Offending Has author described how offender’s account has changed over time, if at all, and significance of this for assessment of risk? Is there an adequate and accurate description of all relevant offences and un-convicted offending? Does the report include an adequate analysis and not just a description of offending? Does the report identify all relevant risk factors, motivations and triggers? Total 0 - 3 Indicators Demonstrates analysis of the evidence bearing in mind the referral question: risk of re-offending and/or serious harm Insight demonstrated, level of responsibility accepted, justification, motivation and attitudes to offending. Has there been a comparison of accounts given e.g. to PSR writer and PAROM1 author or compared with judge’s remarks? Is there sufficient factual information of what occurred before, during and after offence: behaviour, attitudes, relationships, emotions, physical, cognitive and sexual elements? Has victim information been included? Does author identify patterns, themes, links between different offences/behaviours and between attitudes and behaviours? Are unique features of behaviours identified? Has author considered previous convictions as well as index offence? Is there a clear formulation or working hypothesis to make sense of the risk presented by the prisoner? Has author identified relationships between risk factors? Has author explained this type of offending, in this context, to this victim? Risk factors defined as features of offender’s personality, attitudes, behaviour, relationships, environment, personal circumstances which increase/decrease risk. Have static and dynamic factors been identified? Does the report identify positive/protective factors? Has the author discussed relevance of the offender’s insight and acceptance of responsibility/denial in assessing risk? PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 Score 0 – 3 Assessor Comments Criterion Evidence of Change Has the author assessed the prisoner’s motivation and engagement with sentence plan? Has the author analysed the impact of relevant interventions on the prisoner’s level of risk? Has report analysed the presence/absence of key indicators of increasing or decreasing risk including behaviour and attitudes? Total 0 - 3 Indicators Demonstrate a clear analysis of change backed by evidence, not just opinion Score 0 – 3 Has the author tracked changes in behaviour and attitudes against completion of interventions along a timeline to monitor impact of interventions? Have they analysed post-programme or end of treatment reports? Focus on learning, motivation and application of new skills Adjudications, MDTs, wing behaviour, conduct on ROTL, IEP, security info, qualifications. Comment on significance of absence/presence of behaviours e.g. is the offending behaviour situation-specific? Does environment influence likelihood of observing behaviour? Does the report identify offence-paralleling or offenceapproach behaviour observed in custody? Has the author indicated whether behaviour is managed by internal processes or external controls? Has the report analysed relationships with staff and other prisoners and relevance to risk? Has the author commented on the significance of the prisoner’s behaviour and attitudes (referred to in previous section) for overall assessment of risk? Has the author assessed the capacity of the prisoner to change? Assessor Comments Are there learning disabilities/personality attributes which might limit ability to change? Criterion Current Risk of Serious Harm and Likelihood of Reoffending Are specialist/actuarial assessments interpreted in context of wider risk information? If the author supports or departs from the actuarial assessment scores, is their rationale clear? Are the author’s assessments of RoSH and LoR clearly Indicators Author provides their own assessment of risk taking into account relevant actuarial/specialist assessments and evidence in custody Are specialist and actuarial assessments quoted and dated in the report? OASys, RM2000, SARA, psychological. Are the reasons for reaches in scores explained? How assessment applies to this individual given tools based on general group of similar or different offenders Do they give their own interpretation of the evidence rather than just quote the PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 Total 0 – 3 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 Score 0 – 3 stated? Is it clear over what time period risk is being assessed? OASys or other tools? Do they state the level and meaning for this prisoner? Does the author indicate the current nature and imminence of risk, circumstances in which risk will occur and to whom? Have they considered the parole period e.g. for DCRs? Does this link to conclusion? Assessor Comments Criterion Risk Management Planning Does the report anticipate type and likelihood of circumstances arising in which risk might increase to an unacceptable level? Have all identified risk factors been addressed in risk management plan? (Unless risk sufficiently low not to merit further action/management or factor not susceptible to change e.g. static factor) Does each protective factor have a corresponding element in the risk management plan? Is there a SMART Risk Management Plan outlining precise licence conditions requested to manage identified risks Does the author comment on offender’s likely compliance with conditions? Assessor Comments Criterion Conclusions Does the author draw conclusions about the level of risk which the prisoner would present if the risk management plan were in place? Does author make a firm recommendation relevant to test to be applied in the relevant case? PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 Total 0 - 3 Indicators Demonstrate RMP adequate to address/manage outstanding risks and monitoring to detect if risk increasing. Has the author considered future circumstances which might reflect previous offences bearing in mind changes e.g. in domestic relationships? Score 0 – 3 Indicate how would detect increasing risk which might need additional licence condition/recall. In cases where release is being considered for Medium, High and Very High Risk prisoners, has the RMP drawn on risk management planning arising from MAPPA? Has Victim Liaison Officer information informed plans to protect victim? If release is being considered, has a home circumstances report been conducted/ reported? Are conditions necessary and proportionate given assessment of risk? Does it include monitoring, control, interventions? How will plan be implemented? Significance of motivation/engagement in sentence plan as indicators of likely compliance with RMP Total 0 - 3 Indicators Link explicitly to stage of sentence e.g. pre-at/post tariff expiry and therefore decision/recommendation to be made by the Parole Board 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 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 Score 0 – 3 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? 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? Assessor Comments PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 Score 0 – 3 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 Do not score Annex AF 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: 2. Qualification and experience of report writer Author states: their credentials and length of time in this role; length of time as a Prison Officer or other staff member; length of time working with ISPs training completed, including: o Offender Supervisor Foundation training o OASys o Working with Indeterminate Sentence Prisoners (WwISP) PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 Score 0 – 3 Score 0 – 3 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 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 reoffending and causing serious harm? Has the author commented on the prisoner’s perception of their offending? Assessor Comments: Score 0 – 3 5. Sentence Plan and response Has the author described the offender’s response to the overall Sentence Plan since the date of sentence in relation to the following?: a. To what extent has the offender achieved their Sentence Plan objectives? b. Summarise the offender’s participation in any meaningful interventions and specifically indicate which of these are intended to reduce any identified risks of serious harm and/or risk of re-offending. What was the outcome? (or refer reader to report which gives this e.g. Offender Behaviour Programme (OBP) post programme report, making sure this is included in the dossier). c. Has the offender shown any motivation to change his/her attitudes and behaviours? d. What effect the Sentence Plan (interventions etc.) has had on the offender’s attitudes and behaviour: PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 i.To staff? ii.To other prisoners? iii.To family and friends? iv.To the victims of the offence? v.To lifestyle choices and offending e. The impact of the intervention on the offender and his/her risk? Has the offender displayed any behaviour that might be related to his/her offence or previous patterns of offending? For example is there any mirroring of previous behaviours such as: overcompliance/ grooming of staff; inability to deal with stress; withdrawal rather than problem solving etc. Assessor Comments: Score 0 – 3 6. Behaviour in Prison Has the author addressed the following?: Provided a description of all significant events during the sentence or as a minimum since the last Sentence Plan Review (SPR). Listed, if any, adjudications, mandatory or voluntary drug tests, warnings, or changes in IEP status are there on prisoner’s record? Stated what these indicate in terms of their level of risk of re-offending/serious harm? Summarised the offender’s disciplinary record and their response to issues that have arisen. Described how compliant the prisoner is with the prison regime? Described his/her relationships with other prisoners, visitors and staff? What evidence there is that the offender has changed their attitudes and/or learnt to control their behaviour? Assessor Comments: Score 0 – 3 7. Community Links (for a pre-Parole SPR these areas will be covered by the OM) Based on the author’s liaison with the Offender Manager, have they addressed?: What sort of relationships the prisoner has with family, friends, or other outside contacts? Are any connected with the commission of offences? e.g. a co-defendant or victim What degree of support these relationships provide? Where the prisoner’s main external contacts live? Are there any difficulties in communicating or visiting? Whether the prisoner maintains family contacts through visits, letters and/or telephone? Any current known release plans – are they of long standing? Have links been made to organisations/services which are needed to manage risk in the community? PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 Assessor Comments: 8. Reduction in Risk Has the author, based on their knowledge of the prisoner, assessed what evidence there is, if any, that the prisoner has demonstrated a reduction in the serious risk of harm they pose to the public? What is the author’s assessment of the likelihood of her/him re-offending or causing serious harm to others? Has the author outlined what changes have taken place to support their conclusion/ how has their conclusion been tested? Assessor Comments: Score 0 – 3 9. Victim Information Are there any confidential victim issues? – Any confidential victim information must be submitted in a separate report. Score 0 – 3 Has the author included in this report any non-confidential victim issues which may affect eventual release and/or resettlement? Assessor Comments: 10. Additional information Has the author provided any further information or other comments relating to their knowledge of, or contact with, this prisoner? Score 0 – 3 Assessor Comments: 11. Assessment of the prisoner’s current risk to the public Has the author provided an assessment of the risk of serious harm that this offender poses to the public if released into the community now? Has the author provided an assessment of this offender’s risk of re-offending? Score 0 – 3 Has the author stated the evidence s/he has relied on to make this assessment including the sources and key behaviours. Assessor Comments: 12. Recommendations Only complete this paragraph if this report is for a Non Parole Review Has the author provided any recommendations with regard to further interventions/ activities/ are required in order to reduce the levels of risk? Have they provided proposals on transfer/re-categorisation to another establishment? Assessor Comments: Score 0 – 3 13. Style Is the report: Score 0 – 3 PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 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 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 NOTIFICATION OF A NEW EXTENDED DETERMINATE SENTENCE PRISONER – (EDS) (THIS NOTIFICATION FORM IS FOR PAROLE ELIGIBLE EDS CASES SENTENCED PRIOR TO 13 April 2015 ONLY) PAGE 156 Annex AG CHECKLIST Is the offender subject to Discretionary Release.* Yes No Is the offender subject to a custodial term of 10 years or more. Yes No Has the offender been convicted of a schedule 15b offence. No Yes If yes to any of the above questions, you will need to inform PPCS and provide the documents and details shown below: If no then you do not need to inform PPCS. Please refer to PSI 30/2012 – PI 16/2012 - The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012 – General summary of release and recall provisions for guidance Please complete the details below within 7 days of sentencing in all cases that meet the above criteria, and send along with the following supporting documents:Order of Imprisonment Previous Convictions Pre Sentence Report Police Report/Prosecution Case Summary To PRE-RELEASE TEAM A: e-mail to: pre-releaseteamA@noms.gsi.gov.uk HMP / YOI: Forename/s: Family Name: NOMIS Number & Prison Number: Date of Birth: Date of Sentence: *Discretionary release by the Parole Board between the two-thirds and end point of the custodial term – This applies 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. For prisoners convicted of Schedule 15B offences the custodial term could be less than 10 years but release at the two-thirds point will be at Parole Board discretion. Prisoners in this category 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. Pre Release Team A – April 2015 PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 157 NOTIFICATION OF A NEW EXTENDED DETERMINATE SENTENCE PRISONER – (EDS) (THIS NOTIFICATION FORM IS FOR ALL EDS CASES SENTENCED ON OR AFTER April 2015 ONLY) Please complete the details below within 7 days of sentencing in all cases that meet the above criteria, and send along with the following supporting documents:Order of Imprisonment Previous Convictions Pre Sentence Report Police Report/Prosecution Case Summary To PRE-RELEASE TEAM A: e-mail to: pre-releaseteamA@noms.gsi.gov.uk HMP / YOI: Forename/s: Family Name: NOMIS Number & Prison Number: Date of Birth: Date of Sentence: *Discretionary release by the Parole Board between the two-thirds and end point of the custodial term – This applies 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. For prisoners convicted of Schedule 15B offences the custodial term could be less than 10 years but release at the two-thirds point will be at Parole Board discretion. Prisoners in this category 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. Pre Release Team A – April 2015 PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 158 NOTIFICATION OF A NEW SENTENCE OFFENDER OF PARTICULAR CONCERN (SOPC) Please complete the details below within 7 days of sentencing in all cases that meet the above criteria, and send along with the following supporting documents:Order of Imprisonment Previous Convictions Pre Sentence Report Police Report/Prosecution Case Summary To PRE-RELEASE TEAM A: e-mail to: pre-releaseteamA@noms.gsi.gov.uk HMP / YOI: Forename/s: Family Name: NOMIS Number & Prison Number: Date of Birth: Date of Sentence: PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 159 Annex AH Glossary of Terms ACR – Automatic Conditional Release ADAs – Added Days Awarded AUR – Automatic Unconditional Release CJA 2003 – Criminal Justice Act 2003 CJCA 2015 – Criminal Justice & Courts Act 2015 CJS – Criminal Justice System CJSM – Criminal Justice Secure Email CPPC – Critical Public Protection Case CPS - Crown Prosecution Service CRC - Community Rehabilitation Company CRD - Conditional Release Date CSA – Crime Sentences Act 1997 DCR - Discretionary Conditional Release DPP – Detention for Public Protection ECHR – European Convention on Human Rights EDS – Extended Determinate Sentence EPP - Extended Sentence for Public Protection E&W – England and Wales DSPD – Dangerous & Severe Personality Disorder DYOI – Detention in a Young Offenders Institution FTR – Fixed Term Recall GPP - Generic Parole Process HDC – Home Detention Curfew HMCTS – Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service HMPS – Her Majesty’s Prison Service HOIE - Home Office Immigration Enforcement IPP – Imprisonment for Public Protection IRAM – Introduction to Risk Assessment and Management ISP – Indeterminate Sentenced Prisoner KPI – Key Performance Indicator LASPO 2012 – Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 LDU – Local Delivery Unit MCA – Member Case Assessment MAPPA – Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements MAPPP – Multi Agency Public Protection Panel MHA – Mental Health Act MHCS – Mental Health Casework Section NIS – National Identification Service NOMIS – National Offender Management Information System NOMS – National Offender Management Service NOMS IRC – National Offender Management Service Immigration Removal Centres NO&ST – National Operational & Specialist Training NPD – Non Parole Date NPS - National Probation Service OAMS – Offender Assessment and Management Section OASys – Offender Assessment System OBR – Supreme Court judgement of Osbourne, Booth and Reilly OM3 – Offender Manager Model Phase iii PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015 PAGE 160 OM - Offender Manager OMPPG – Offender Management and Public Protection Group OMU – Offender Management Unit OS – Offender Supervisor OSF - Offender Supervisor Foundation OOH - Out of Hours ORA 2014 – Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 PAROM1 – Parole assessment Report by Offender Manager PAS – Prisoner Advice Service PBS – Parole Board Secretariat PDCS - Pre Departure Check Scheme PECS – Prisoner Escort Custody Services PED – Parole Eligibility Date PI - Probation Instruction PSI - Prison Service Instruction PMU – Population Management Unit PNC – Police National Computer PPO – Prolific and Priority Offender PPCS – Public Protection Casework Section PPUD – Public Protection Unit Database PTR – Person Transportation Request RC – Responsible Clinician ROA – Rehabilitation Offenders Act 1974 RMP - Risk Management Plan RoSH – Risk of Serious Harm ROTL – Release on Temporary Licence SED – Sentence Expiry Date SDS – Standard Determinate Sentence SofS – Secretary of State SOPC – Sentence for Offenders of Particular Concern SPO – Senior Probation Officer SPR E - Sentence Planning & Review Report by Psychologist SPR G - Sentence Planning & Review Report by Psychiatrist SPR H - Sentence Planning & Review Report by Security SPR J - Sentence Planning & Review Report: Offenders Comments SPR L – Sentence Planning & Review Report by Offender Supervisor SPR M - Sentence Planning & Review Report Meeting SPOC – Single Point of Contact SSJ – Secretary of State for Justice TED – Tariff Expiry Date UAL - Unlawfully at Large VCT – Video Conferencing Technology VCR – Victim Contact Report VLO – Victim Liasion Officer VPS – Victim Personal Statement WWISP – Working with Indeterminate Sentence Prisoners YO – Young Offender YOI – Young Offender Institute YOT – Youth Offending Team PSI 22/2015 PI 14/2015 AI 11/2015 ISSUE DATE 25/06/2015
