“Transfer of life sentence prisoners to open conditions Introduction 1. A period in open conditions is essential for most life sentence prisoners (lifer's). It allows the testing of areas of concern in conditions that more closely resemble those that the prisoner will encounter in the community often after having spent many years in closed prisons. Lifer's have the opportunity to take resettlement leave from open prisons and, more generally, open conditions require them to take more responsibility for their actions. 2. The main facilities, interventions, and resources for addressing and reducing core risk factors exist principally in the closed lifer estate. In this context, 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. 3. A move to open conditions should be based on a balanced assessment of risk and benefits. However, the Parole Boards emphasis should be on the risk reduction aspect and, in particular, on the need for the lifer 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 4. Before recommending the transfer of a lifer to open conditions, the Parole Board must consider:— • all information before it, including any written or oral evidence obtained by the Board; • each case on its individual merits without discrimination on any grounds. 5. 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 lifer has made sufficient progress during sentence in addressing and reducing risk to a level consistent with protecting the public from harm, in circumstances where the lifer in open conditions would be in the community, unsupervised, under licensed temporary release; b. the extent to which the lifer is likely to comply with the conditions of any such form of temporary release; c. the extent to which the lifer is considered trustworthy enough not to abscond; d. the extent to which the lifer is likely to derive benefit from being able to address areas of concern and to be tested in a more realistic environment, such as to suggest that a transfer to open conditions is worthwhile at that stage. 6. In assessing risk in such matters, the Parole Board shall consider the following information, where relevant and where available, before recommending the lifers 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 lifer'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 judges 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 lifer 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 lifer; f. the lifer's attitude and behaviour to other prisoners and staff; g. the category of security in which the lifer is held and any reasons or reports provided by the Prison Service for such categorisation, particularly in relation to those lifers held in Category A conditions of security; h. the lifers 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 life sentence plan targets; i. any medical, psychiatric or psychological considerations (particularly if there is a history of mental instability); j. the lifer's response when placed in positions of trust, including any outside activities and any escorted absences from closed prisons; k. any indication of predicted risk as determined by a validated actuarial risk predictor model or any other structured assessment of the lifer's risk and treatment needs. 7. Before recommending transfer to open conditions, the Parole Board shall also consider the lifers relationship with the Probation Service (in particular the supervising probation officer), and other outside support such as family and friends.”
“12) Evidence was first heard from the security officer, Ms Littler. In the updated security report submitted on the day, the allegations which had been set out in the previous security report, of Muslim extremism, of bullying and of being part of a gang, were repeated. It appeared the “report” was simply a transcription of notes made in the Claimant’s security file. None of the allegations had been further investigated. 13) Unfortunately, Ms Littler had not written the report. She had no further information about the entries recorded and she had no personal information about them. She had not prepared for the hearing by first speaking to the security governor. She was therefore unable to answer any question about the entries.”
“Ms. Littler told the panel that the prison has a number of intelligence concerns about you. They amount to joining together with others to bully prisoners, including in converting to Islam. She explained that the intelligence had been used primarily to disperse those who were suspected of being involved, including you, to different wings, rather than to gather evidence for adjudication. It was her view that you were involved, but said she was unable to assess whether your involvement was central or peripheral. She noted that you had not come to notice since you and others thought to be involved were transferred to different wings. The panel noted that some caution was needed in reviewing the intelligence as it was not clear about the extent to which some staff who had recorded concerns may be able to distinguish religious observance from extremist activity. The concern linked to your risk of violence was the risk that you might still sometimes choose to associate with anti-social influences and to take less than full responsibility for your behaviour as a member of a group. Ms. Littler did not suggest that the intelligence concerns amounted to evidence that should be given a particular weight by the panel.”
“16) The trainee psychologist, Ms. Carter, alone gave evidence in support of her original recommendation – that is, that the Claimant was not ready for a progressive move. She confirmed her belief that his risk was still too high; he had further offending behaviour work to do. He had risk factors that needed addressing which could only be done in closed conditions. 17) In particular Ms Carter said further work needed doing on the Claimant’s choice of associates. She told the panel that he needed to be tested in C category conditions before he could progress to D category; at that time the Claimant was a C category prisoner, who was still being held in a B category prison. However, she could not, when questioned, identify what work could be done and who could do it if the Claimant was to be transferred to a C cat prison. She admitted that there were no accredited courses that could cover the work she believed was necessary. 18) The Offender Manager, Ms Nicholls, confirmed what she had said in her updated report. She also recommended a progressive move; she recommended that the Claimant be transferred to open conditions. She disagreed with Miss Carter’s conclusion on the basis that it was not possible to identify what work could be done and by whom. She said that clearly it could not be done by Ms Carter if the Claimant was subsequently transferred to a C category prison as recommended and, that Ms Carter could not ensure that any such work would be able to be done in the next prison.”
“Ms Nicholls told the panel that she had read Ms Carter’s report and agreed that you would benefit from further work in the areas she highlighted. However, she said that should not be a barrier to a progressive move to open prison. She was concerned that the work Ms Carter said was needed around choice of associates was not clearly defined at present and could not be addressed through an accredited programme available within the prison system. Ms. Nicholls’ view was that Resolve was the last major piece of your work required before your progression to open prison and was much more relevant to your earlier risk of instrumental violence than the CALM programme which you undertook earlier in your sentence.”
“(1) The panel agreed with representations from Ms. Finnis on your behalf that little weight could be given to the security concerns. The intelligence was doubtless important to the management of a safe prison, but was not of evidential quality. (2) The panel also agreed with her representations that there is no evidence of extremist activity by you. The fact that you are a Muslim is not in dispute and is not known to be a risk factor for your offending. You are of course entitled to exercise your religious freedom in prison. (3) The panel took no account in its decision of the extent to which you are “over tariff”
“(1) Should you move to a different prison, the panel agreed with Ms Nicholls that it is essential that Ms. Carter is involved in setting out the offending-behaviour work that is required of you, as that is unlikely to be delivered through accredited programmes. (2) A future panel of the Parole Board will need to see both that specification and a suitable risk assessment for future violence carried out after completion of that work.”
“Following the last review, further work was recommended to address areas of risk in connection with your understanding of the influence of your peers on your behaviour, your empathy for other people, your plans for the future and your insight into building appropriate partner relationships. It was acknowledged that no specific group work programme could address these areas of risk and further one to one interventions were planned; these were to be delivered by your offender manager. Updated reports present a mixed picture of your progress since last year. Whilst you are reported to have tried to work on your future plans and relationships by actively developing release plans, you have not been given any formal opportunities to engage with work on other areas of risk and so they remain outstanding.” “Following a full oral hearing, the previous panel concluded that further work on key areas of risk remained outstanding and this work has not yet been completed. This may not be entirely your fault; the panel was well aware that resources in the prison service are stretched and that individually tailored interventions, as required in your case, are always harder to obtain.”
“I remind myself that I must not in any way interfere with the discretion or judgement of the Parole Board, who, as Turner J. observed in ex parte Hart (unreported24th May 2000 ) are “uniquely qualified” to make the decisions it is called upon to make. I must ask myself whether they have carried out their task in accordance with the law, as set out in the statutory Directions. I must consider whether the decision falls within the range of decisions which a reasonable Panel might make. I must ask whether the reasons for the decision are proper, sufficient and intelligible.”
“(i) It placed improper reliance on the conclusions of Louise Carter, despite rejecting the evidential basis of those conclusions; (ii) Reliance on the conclusions of Louise Carter was contrary to the conclusions of several other witnesses, including Dr. Conning, but no reasons were given as to why her evidence was preferred; (iii) Reaching a positive conclusion that the Claimant’s remaining work on risk issues must be carried out in closed conditions, when this was contradicted by the evidence before them; and (iv) As a result of the reasons set out above, it failed to properly apply the Secretary of State’s Directions to the Parole Board on open conditions.”
“the need for the lifer 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.”
“the extent to which the lifer has made sufficient progress during sentence in addressing and reducing risk to a level consistent with protecting the public from harm, in circumstances where the lifer in open conditions would be in the community, unsupervised, under licensed temporary release;”