‘Offender Craig is attempting to contact the UK [border] agency to ask if his daughter/victim has been given British citizenship. In 2009 he was found to be writing to a family tracing service asking to find a daughter. In 2006 he stated that when released from prison he will end his victim’s life like she has done his.’
‘Rolling SOTP has been recommended as most suitable for Mr Craig. He is in denial of his offences therefore has not completed any coursework to reduce his risk.’
‘Rolling SOTP has been recommended as most suitable for Mr Craig. This offender is maintaining his innocence of offences. SOTP has not been completed as although eligible due to the nature of his offences he cannot participate due to denial. No reduction in risk. Remain Cat B.’
“2.1.1 By the time a prisoner is eligible for review, staff will know much more about him than when he was first categorised by OCA staff in the local prison. However, while his circumstances may have changed, the matters which are relevant to a recategorisation are the same as those for an initial categorisation. The aim of recategorisation is to use this information to establish whether there has been any clear change in the risk the prisoner poses. More specifically, staff must answer two important questions: (1), is the prisoner more or less of a risk to the public than when he was first categorised; and (2), is he now more or less likely to escape or abscond. It is not necessary to prove continued or increased risk in both areas to retain the prisoner in his present category or upgrade him. There will be prisoners who pose less risk of escape than they once did, but who present such a serious threat to public safety that we cannot accept even the smallest chance that they will abscond or escape. “2.1.2 Having balanced the risk of the prisoner escaping or absconding against the likely risk to the public were he to do so, governors (or equivalent grades in contracted out establishments) must decide, provisionally, whether the prisoner should remain in his current category, or whether he should be upgraded or downgraded. Where the provisional decision is to retain the current category or to downgrade it the governor must consider whether any control factors point to a different categorisation. For instance there will be some prisoners who, while posing less risk and therefore being eligible for downgrading, may be unsuitable in other ways for transfer to conditions of lesser security. Staff must complete the suitability Assessment at the end of the Recategorisation form, after which the prisoner’s new security category can be finally decided.”
“‘Assessment of Escape or Abscond Risk’ -This section of the Form must be completed by someone with full access to the prison Security Intelligence system. Such staff are most likely to work in the Security Department, but governors may direct that this base information is recorded by another department in the prison. All facts and items of analysed intelligence that might help determine whether the likelihood of the prisoner attempting to escape or abscond has been reduced, must be recorded.”
“In all cases the form RC1 must be used to record in full detail how the prisoner’s circumstances have changed since his last review and why his current security category and allocation are no longer appropriate. If the prisoner needs to be transferred to conditions of greater security at very short notice then the sending prison must complete the RC1 and forward it to the prisoner’s new establishment as soon as possible..”
“39. I accept Mr Kovats' submissions. There is a very real difficulty facing the review team in cases of this nature. The guilt of the prisoner must be assumed. That is what the review team properly did here. The review team must then assess the nature of the risk in the event of an escape. Where the index offences are so grave, as they will inevitably be in category A cases, the review team can justifiably require cogent evidence that that risk has diminished. 40. That evidence will, in the normal way, be most cogently demonstrated by the prisoner participating in courses and programmes which are directed to the specific offences, so that there can be some self-awareness into the gravity and consequences of his conduct. However, it is a condition of a number of these courses that the prisoner must admit his guilt. That is so, I am informed, for the Sex Offences Treatment course, the CALM course (controlling anger and learning to manage), and the CSCP course (cognitive self change programme). By not participating in such courses or programmes the prisoner inevitably makes the task of the review team more difficult, and in some cases practically impossible. 41. It must be recognised that this compounds the injustice for anyone who has suffered the grave misfortune to be wrongly committed [sic] of such terrible crimes, and there will inevitably be such people. It puts pressure on the innocent to admit guilt in order to facilitate release, or, alternatively, to serve a longer sentence than they would have had to do had they committed the crime and felt properly able to admit guilt. But that seems to me to be inevitable, the system cannot operate unless the verdict of the jury is respected. 42. Moreover, on very, very, many more occasions defendants deny guilt for offences which they have in fact committed, for a whole variety of reasons. Given that the danger must be presumed from the nature of the index offence, it is plainly a proper requirement that there should be cogent evidence in the diminution of risk if the safety of the public is to be secured. No doubt to those in denial the recitation by a review team that being in denial does not of itself preclude recategorisation may appear to have something like a mantra-like quality. There is no doubt that if they disqualify themselves from the courses which address their specific offending, it will be considerably more difficult than to be able to satisfy the review team that recategorisation is justified. This is not, however, a punishment meted out to them because they have not admitted the offences, but it is because by being in denial they limit — and in many cases severely limit — the practical opportunity of demonstrating that the risk has diminished. Indeed, their denial demonstrates that they have not accepted that the risk was ever present. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not consider that the review team can be criticised on this ground.”
“… It would, of course, be wrong for the defendant to retain the claimant in Category C simply because the claimant has not attended appropriate courses or because he is in denial of his offences. Denial and a consequent inability to attend courses are relevant only to the extent that it is usually fundamental to demonstrating reduction in risk that a sex offender accepts responsibility for what has happened in the past and takes concrete steps to address his future conduct. But if he will do neither, he puts himself in a situation in which it is difficult, indeed practically impossible, for him to obtain a downward recategorisation.”
“47. Whether there is scope for more one-to-one work with specialist staff than currently exist, and whether this is a satisfactory alternative, I do not know; but the tenor of the reports I have seen in this case suggests to me, maybe mistakenly, that this possibility may not be widely appreciated by some staff in the prisons. I do no more than raise the question whether it is explored as an alternative as often as it might be.”