“There have been no concerns about [the Applicant’s] custodial behaviour since recall. He is an enhanced prisoner and a red band which is a trusted position. There have been no adjudications, negative behaviour entries or adverse security intelligence. He has completed an Anger Management course and a Decision Making course. He has worked 1:1 with his POM [‘Prisoner Offender Manager’] based on the Skills for Relationships Toolkit to help him understand his risk factors and the impact of his life experiences in intimate and professional relationships and highlighting potential problematic situations in the future. He has also completed work sheets with her. He successfully completed the substance misuse Therapeutic Community and followed this up with a short substance free living refresher course. All drug tests have been negative.”
“As is his right, the [the Respondent] has reached a different conclusion to that of the Parole Board panel. [The Respondent] had in mind when reaching this conclusion his published criteria and found the following criteria were not met: · a period in open conditions is considered essential to inform future decisions about release and to prepare for possible release on licence into the community; and · a transfer to open conditions would not undermine public confidence in the Criminal Justice System. Evidence considered to support the conclusion that the criteria is not met is as follows: · You have had multiple unsuccessful periods in open conditions, primarily because of drug use. A further period of abstinence whilst in closed conditions would be beneficial, prior to a transfer to open conditions. It would evidence that you are able to continue your progress, without the input/oversight of the drug TC [Therapeutic Community]. · You have not completed any work on relationships. Prior to recall, there was an incident with a female which the psychologist “was concerned that his relationship with [S] might have been a paralleling scenario”
“The issue is whether the release decision was so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.”
“There is extremely limited information about [the Applicant’s] relationship history which means it is impossible to establish whether there is any pattern of intimate partner violence. [The Applicant] has consistently denied using violence in any other relationship, although he has admitted to being controlling and jealous of previous partners. If that is the case, it is even more important to fully understand why he visited his wife with such extreme violence other than acting out of anger and vengeance. Professionals agree that [the Applicant’s] critical risk lies within the context of intimate relationships. They maintain that [the Applicant] has insight into his risk factors and has strategies to manage them. His plan seems to be to avoid entering into a new relationship. This is totally inadequate and suggests to the panel that he does not possess sufficient insight. A need to address relationships has been identified. This has resulted in 1:1 work conducted by the POM with the assistance of the COM. The panel regarded this work as a helpful stepping stone towards further work but not of sufficient breadth or intensity to be adequate to address; in particular sexual jealousy, grievance thinking, violent thoughts and using sex as revenge. [The Applicant] had started to open up about issues generally in relationships and the work was probably most helpful in improving his relationships with professionals. It is positive that after 20 years he has started to engage. The panel credits [the Applicant] with his positive conduct in prison and notes his efforts to address his drug use. However, the custodial environment cannot replicate the situation and risk factors in the community, particularly within an intimate relationship. On the basis of the reports in the dossier and having closely questioned all witnesses, including [the Applicant], the panel reached the conclusion that [the Applicant] had not fully addressed his core risk factors and had lacked understanding and insight into them. It is of concern that nobody fully understands his risk factors and consequently proposed risk scenarios can only be hypothetical. The panel noted that all four professional witnesses believed that [the Applicant] met the test for release. The panel would not depart from their views without good reason. It anxiously considered their conclusions and assessments but in the final analysis did not agree with them. All professionals agreed that sexual jealousy and violence were critical risk factors, but it is not known whether the index offence was an isolated incident or if there was a pattern of previous violence, making it difficult to identify risks, triggers and warning signs. Unlike the professionals, the panel considered these uncertainties left a risk too high to be satisfied the public would be protected and that there was outstanding core risk reduction work.”
“Since we received the decision, I have liaised with the Psychology to explore this further to establish what intervention, if any, is available to [the Applicant]. I have been advised that in terms of psychology work, it is difficult to suggest or recommend given it is assessed that the 1:1 work [the Applicant] completed with his COM and POM was sufficient and could be built on in the community. The only potential option would be referring [the Applicant] for a 1:1 psychological intervention. This could be bespoke and tailored more specifically to exploring areas the panel were concerned about, such as sexual jealousy/grievance thinking. This would be 6-8 sessions but, due to a clinical prioritisation policy, they have been unable to advise on timescales/availability. Whilst a referral has been made, there has been no response at time of writing. These factors could however be addressed in the community with [the Applicant] engaging with the INSIGHT (OPD) team. [The Applicant] has previously shown his full willingness to engage and has agreed to do so going forward, if necessary.”
“In summary, the panel considered there remained gaps in understanding [the Applicant’s risks] but the period in the drug TC has satisfactorily addressed the ones which have been identified. However, whereas recent improvement in relationships with professionals is creditable, this needs to be demonstrated consistently over a longer period to exude confidence about openness and compliance. For the above reasons, the panel considered it necessary for [the Applicant] to remain confined for protection of the public from serious harm and so did not direct his release. The panel then proceeded to consider eligibility for open conditions. The panel noted the four previous failures were for drug use but present indications are that [the Applicant] is currently drug free and so the challenge will be for him to prove that he can remain so. In addition, he would have the opportunity to demonstrate continued good behaviour and maintain open and positive relationships with his POM and COM. He could also undertake work with his POM or COM on the relationship areas identified by the psychologist. There would be time to plan for employment and accommodation on release, to cement relationships with his sister, and to demonstrate he can comply with conditions of temporary release on licence. For these reasons, the panel considered a period in open conditions was essential to inform future decisions about his release on licence into the community. Having considered all the evidence, the panel considered that [the Applicant] had made sufficient progress in addressing and reducing risk to a level consistent with protecting the public from harm in circumstances where he may be in the community. All witnesses agreed [the Applicant] represented a low risk of abscond and the panel agreed.”