Blog: transfers to open conditions — how “yes” became “no”
In our earlier blog (Parole – the plot thickens), we said we’d be asking the Ministry of Justice for the job title and qualifications of the person taking all the decisions to reject Parole Board recommendations for open conditions, and also what guidance they had received on the criteria for doing so.
We submitted a Freedom of Information request, and have had a response, and again it’s interesting…
First things first, we can now say confidently that the job title of the person given the responsibility to reject Parole Board recommendations to send someone to open conditions is the Head of Public Protection Group (PPG). The ministry’s letter goes into great detail about why we shouldn’t be told the person’s name, but we didn’t ask for a name and we really don’t think it’s relevant.
What the person’s experience, training and qualifications for this important role might be does seem relevant, however, and the ministry’s response doesn’t tell us much. We are invited to be reassured that for all jobs in the ministry there is a “rigorous, comprehensive, recruitment process…which ensures that the appropriate qualified person, with all the necessary experience and skills are awarded the appropriate job based on their merit”.
The response doesn’t mention training, although that was one of our questions.
It is impossible not to be struck by the contrast between the standards that apply to the Parole Board panel that makes the recommendation for open and what appears to be acceptable for the postholder who rejects it.
This really isn’t about a particular individual. But it is impossible not to be struck by the contrast between the standards that apply to the Parole Board panel that makes the recommendation for open and what appears to be acceptable for the postholder who rejects it.
A parole panel will bring a mixture of relevant professional experience from people appointed through a transparent public appointments process which culminates in the government publishing their names on the Gov.uk website. Panel members will all have been trained for their specific role before they are allowed to carry it out. They will have read all of the evidence in the parole dossier, heard and asked questions of the prisoner and other witnesses, and in every case explained to the prisoner who they are and how they reach a decision. In some cases, following recent changes championed by the secretary of state, the hearing may take place in public.
There’s a reason that contrast matters. Here’s an extract from a document produced by the ministry’s own “evidence based practice team”:
“When people believe the process of applying the law (how decisions are made) is fair, it influences their views and behaviour. When people feel treated fairly and justly, they have more confidence in authority, see this as more legitimate, and they are more likely to accept and abide (or commit to abide) by decisions and rules.”
Procedural Justice Perceptions infographic, HMPPS Insights Group
In other words, the way you take decisions matters as much as the decisions you take. The process that produces a Parole Board recommendation meets that test — the process for rejecting it manifestly doesn’t.
The second issue we asked about was what guidance the Head of PPG was given in order to make these very important decisions.
We already knew that the secretary of state had expressed a wish to see a “more precautionary approach” when it came to decision on moves to open. But we wondered what that meant, when the Parole Board already has the protection of the public as its first and most important concern. How could the Head of PPG be sure that they were exercising the power delegated to them by the Secretary of State in the way he wanted?
The answer appears to be that there was no guidance, or at least none that has been “recorded”, to use the language of the ministry’s letter.
Is it really possible that an official, however senior and carefully recruited, decided for themselves that those three words justified saying “no” in almost every case after years in which they had normally said “yes”?
That’s pretty surprising when you consider the change in outcomes that those three words — “more precautionary approach” — have produced. Is it really possible that an official, however senior and carefully recruited, decided for themselves that those three words justified saying “no” in almost every case after years in which they had normally said “yes”?
If that is what happened, it would be an extraordinary use of personal discretion by an official. Frankly, it seems utterly improbable that a civil servant would act in that way. But if, as seems more likely, they were acting on the instruction of the secretary of state, that dramatic change ought at the very least to have been explained to the people affected by it, and been open to scrutiny in the way that all ministerial decisions are — through parliament, the press and, if necessary, the courts.
The recent Bailey judgment showed what a confused and chaotic situation was created by Dominic Raab’s desire to avoid the embarrassment of officials giving expert but inconvenient recommendations in individual parole hearings. It looks very much as though there was a similarly inadequate process when it came to interpreting his desire for a “more precautionary approach” on transfers to open conditions. The consequence is that the department has fallen disastrously short of its own professed dedication to procedural justice, and many hundreds of people have been treated unfairly.
Peter Dawson
Director
