“Risk of harm High risk to the public --28 October 2010 OASys --05 Nov 2010 PAROM1 Serious Index Offence – 2003 – Possessing two guns (one a self loading pistol), a silencer and some ammunition. He admitted to the Offender manager that the gun found at his home was there for approximately two years. These items would suggest a level of professionalism. Pattern of offending behaviour which involves the use of weapons. In 2000 found guilty of possessing an article with a blade or point in a public place which he received an 18 months conditional discharge. OM states that he ‘continues to accept little responsibility for his offending behaviour’ PAROM (5/11/2010 ) Given the serious nature of his offending behaviour and his apparent minimising of the possible consequences, I believe he has the potential to cause serious harm to others. Increased risk of harm I am unclear as to how any earlier assessment of risk of harm to the public was reached. I note the PAROM (5/11/10) indicates OASys risk of harm level; Time of sentence: High. OASys risk of harm level; now: high. I believe that there may have been a period where Mr Ates was considered a low risk on his OASys score for harm. I can only stress that the current score is consistent with the serious nature of the offence.”
“The decision maker relied upon the static risk of harm as determinative and failed to take account of the low risk of reoffending in circumstances whereby the former cannot be reduced, thereby rendering the decision irrational and/or unlawful by virtue of the failure to take account of relevant considerations.”
“The reliance upon the current risk assessments as determinative of the claimant’s categorisation is irrational in circumstances whereby the means of him demonstrating a reduction in that risk have been put beyond him.”
“Every prisoner must be placed into the lowest security category consistent with the needs of security and control.” (1.2.3) 1.2.11: “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.”
“The purpose of the recategorisation process is to determine whether, and to what extent, the risks a prisoner presented at his or her last review have changed and to ensure that the prisoner continues to be held in the most appropriate conditions of security. Recategorisation must be based on: • Evidence of a clear change in the level of risk posed by the prisoner in terms of escape or abscond and/or risk of harm to the public in the event of an escape or abscond. • New or additional information, which impacts on the original categorisation decision • Concern that the previous recategorisation decision is unsound. There must be corroborative evidence to support that concern. • Control issues, which mean that the prisoner poses a threat to the security of the prison, or the safety of staff or other prisoners, or that the prisoner’s notoriety potentially undermines the security of the prison. Risk levels may increase or decrease depending on individual circumstances and the prisoner’s security category must reflect this” (Paragraph 8.1) Paragraph 14.1: “It is essential that prisoners must be assessed as trustworthy and sufficiently low risk before being allocated to open conditions. In making the decision, governors must keep in mind the particularly challenging management issues associated with the low physical security and supervision levels of the open estate and that the environment and regime opportunities available in open prison may not be suitable for a prisoner who is still many years away from possible release. Paragraph 14.4: “When assessing long sentence prisoners for open conditions it is vital to balance the risks involved if the prisoner were to abscond against the likely benefits to the prisoner of going to open conditions at this stage.”
“OASys scores ... OASys risk of reconviction; now: Low. ... OASys risk of serious harm level; now: High. ... These were serious offences, indicating the risk of significant harm to others. The use of a silencer as well as the gun suggests a level of professionalism, and the fact that Mr Ates was found in possession of two firearms is of particular concern. His account of how and why he bought a firearm lacks credibility in my view. I asked him what he intended to do with the gun once he purchased it, and he denied any intention to actually use it, though he could not explain how he planned to protect himself with it if he did not intend to use it. The fact that he purchased a gun and kept it for such a length of time as ‘protection’ would indicate that there was intent to use it if he considered it necessary. There appears to have been more going on around these offences than he is prepared to admit and therefore it has not been possible to ascertain the full extent of Mr Ates’ offending behaviour. ... 9. Current risk assessment: a. Serious harm to others. Due to the serious nature of these offences, I would assess Mr Ates as posing a high risk of harm to the public. Despite his claim that no harm was intended, it was certainly the view of the sentencing court that this was not the case. In addition, Mr Ates has expressed limited insight into his offending behaviour. Any offence involving a firearm has the potential to cause serious harm to others and these offences were of particular concern. It is my assessment that Mr Ates has the potential to cause harm to others if he reverted to his previous lifestyle upon release. He insisted this would not be an issue for him, however he continues to accept little responsibility for his offending behaviour. b. Re-offending The static risk assessment tool assesses Mr Ates’ risk of reoffending as low. I would assess Mr Ates as being of medium risk of reoffending. This is based on the nature of the index offences and the fact that Mr Ates continues to minimise his role in what happened. His risk of reoffending may reduce if he moves away from London. ... ... 12. Recommendation Mr Ates has made significant progress in custody and his maintained enhanced status demonstrates continued motivation and compliance. In addition, Mr Ates has completed a number of courses and has improved his English-speaking skills over the course of his sentence, thus improving his employment prospects. He completed both of the recommended programs and stated he is willing to comply with any conditions put in place for him. There is no offending behaviour work suitable for him at this time, and therefore I am not able to recommend any further offence related programmes for his completion. While Mr Ates’ behaviour has been without concern, it is my assessment that his risk remains high at this time. I am of the view that Mr Ates would, however, be suitable for a move to open conditions. Due to the ongoing immigration issues he has previously been denied the opportunity to progress to a Category D establishment. However, it is my assessment that this would be an appropriate move for him at this stage in his sentence. His risk could be tested in open conditions and this would also allow him to pursue employment and educational links, which will assist his resettlement on release. It is therefore my recommendation that Mr Ates be considered for a move to a category D prison, where he will need to continue his good behaviour and prove to the Board that his risk can be managed in these conditions, and eventually in the community.”
“Offender Supervisor’s Comments: Mr Ates is a High Risk to the public, as set by Probation and a MAPPA nominal. He has also had paperwork served on him informing him that Immigration are seeking to revoke his refugee status and Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK. These facts would normally go against recommendation for open conditions. However, Mr Ates has been given a rolling 6 months period when he is in the community to report regularly to immigration to prove that he has not been re-offending and is complying with the authorities. His wife and daughter, who visit him, are here in the UK and they appear to be a strong family unit. Mr Ates would have a lot to lose if he were to attempt to abscond. His custodial behaviour has been exemplary, and he is an enhanced offender with no IEP warnings or adjudications against him. There are no further interventions available to further reduce his risk and his Offender Manager will not reduce it until he has been tested. Probation are of the opinion that it was time he was tested in open conditions. I therefore recommend him for progression to re-categorisation to ‘D’.”
“I agree with all the relevant entries and feel that Mr Ates would make a highly suitable Cat D prisoner” and the recommendation is “Re-Cat to D.”
“His account of how and why he bought a firearm lacks credibility in my view.”
“There appears to have been more going on around these offences than he is prepared to admit, and therefore it has not been possible to ascertain the full extent of Mr Ates’ offending behaviour.” “There appears to have been more going on around these offences than he is prepared to admit, and therefore it has not been possible to ascertain the full extent of Mr Ates’ offending behaviour.”