FUTURE OF PROBATION REVIEW THE CASE FOR OFFENDER MANAGEMENT BEING RESERVED TO PROBATION TRUSTS

CASE STUDIES - APPENDIX

Five case studies are included to illustrate the complexity of Probation staff work. The first three are tier 3 / tier 2 cases and show how complicated even relatively routine cases can be. They all show how critical it is to have an offender manager who is committed and persistent and who has an ability to draw together a range of partner organisations to tackle the specific issues underpinning the offending. The last two cases focus on work with extremist offenders. They have been included because they vividly show how Probation Trusts have responded to a new area of work where there is relatively little established practice, but which is high profile. They illustrate the importance of a professional workforce which can rise to the challenge of difficult new work and of the importance of being able to build on long-standing good relationships between Probation and the Police. The cases provide a useful touchstone for any planned reorganisation of Probation. Any alternative arrangements need to be able to ensure that no less effective a service is provided. The case studies below are of real cases but names and some details have been removed to protect anonymity. CASE STUDIES - WORKING WITH TIER 3 / TIER 2 CASES Case Study 1: A – 24 month community order for offences of violent assault and battery. Sexually abused as a child and raped as a teenager, A was entirely distrusting of others, particularly professional workers. Her alcohol consumption was described as “seismic”,

drinking quantities that would probably kill the rest of us. She would frequently fail appointments, often because she was too intoxicated. She had lost custody of her 3-yearold child to her mother for the same reason. Repeated self-harming was evident through blade marks on her arms and ankles. A disclosed three previous attempts to overdose on her anti-depressants. The probation officer referred A to the Criminal Justice Mental Health Team for urgent assessment. She could not manage the 2-hour gap between her supervision appointment and the CJMHT assessment and disappeared to the nearest pub. The probation officer accordingly arranged a Police welfare visit for that afternoon where she was found holding a knife to her wrists. Police were forced to use CS gas to restrain her. This eventful beginning was only the start of a busy period of hard work which involved the probation officer in liaison with solicitors; explaining to magistrates her drunken assault on a police constable, then a court official; constantly re-negotiating contact with partner agencies, despite her flouting the rules, lacking commitment, failing appointments and being abusive. He was able to put in place a treatment plan of constructive daily activities including basic skills, alcohol treatment, alternative therapies, psychiatric and probation appointments. Over a despondent Christmas period, when A’s mental health caused real concern, the probation officer persuaded her to section herself, then again set about making new arrangements for supporting her in the community on discharge from hospital. When A eventually became more stable, contact with her mother and son was re-instated. She continues on her programme of recovery, supported by a network of agencies from her local community and ultimately by the relentless and inspiring work of her probation officer. Case study 2: B – 24 month community order for offences of domestic violence B was sentenced to a 24 month community order with requirements for supervision, domestic violence programme (IDAP) and 100 hours community payback for offences of assaulting his partner in front of the children. First convicted at the age of 14, B had a variety of previous court appearances including car theft and a caution for assault. This domestic abuse offence was a lot more serious, and it was not the first time he had assaulted his partner. B had never worked and could not read well. He did not get on with his mother or grandmother. Father wasn’t around. He spend most of his days slumped in front of the TV. He was a habitual cannabis smoker. By the age of 21, he was anti-everything, and particularly Social Services, who were now in his view interfering with his life, supervising his access to his children. His anger with them was explosive. His probation officer set about the task of planning the sequence of work needed to get him on the right track. The first was to get him to engage with probation. B could not see what all the fuss was about. The probation officer’s approach was direct, putting him straight on a few issues. He would not be able to sail through probation as he had with other agencies during his teens. What type of man was he? What type of man did he want to be, and how were we going to get him there? B decided he wanted to have a job, and wanted to be a good father. In the 8 months which have followed, he has done a lot with Probation:




Preparation work for the IDAP group:. Putting B straight into the IDAP programme would have been counter-productive – his poor literacy would have been problematic and his negative attitude meant he would not have stayed the course. His probation officer worked with him individually to prepare him. He is ready now, though not looking forward to it.




Literacy and numeracy training with local college partners: B has passed his maths, and looks forward to an English pass. He is proud to have achieved a qualification for the first time.




Community Payback: The 100 hours have been completed, including painting, decorating and gardening in local churches.




Maritime training with the Princes Trust: B heard of the training they offer and with his probation officer’s encouragement, applied. The Prince’s Trust were not keen to take him on initially, but were persuaded by the probation officer. B passed his initial Team Building and Leadership training. He was one of the four out of 16 entrants to be taken on to the next level, and now spends a good deal of his week learning more. When he completes his course, he is aiming for a job on a local wind farm. His probation officer will be in there pushing him.




Improved relationships with Social Services. His probation officer has been working with him on discussion techniques and assertion rather than aggression. B was made to go back to Social Services to apologise for shouting at them during a joint meeting. As his self esteem and confidence grows, his behaviour towards authority figures improves.




Parenting Courses: B has applied to join one provided by Social Care.

It has not all been plain sailing. B got further community payback hours from the court for driving his grandmother’s car without a licence to get a pizza. After assaulting his mother’s partner, and telling his probation officer and Social Care about it, he was on a knife-edge, ready to throw it all up and go to London. He was persuaded to stay and face the music. No court appearance resulted, and Social Care reinstated supervision of his access to his children. However, the B of eight months ago is unrecognisable now. He has stopped using cannabis, and there are no further offences on the horizon. He says “ My probation officer’s a straightforward lady. She tells me what she thinks of me, no matter what. She’s even shown me how to get on with Social Care. Nobody’s better than her.” Case Study 3: C – 24 month community order for domestic violence C had served in the army in Iraq. He was placed on a community order following offences of violence against his partner with a requirement that he attend an IDAP programme. At the time of his court appearance, C was homeless and living in a tent in his sister’s back garden. He was drinking very heavily – approximately 120 units of white cider per week. These issues needed to be addressed in depth before meaningful work could start on his domestic abuse and relationship needs. This case was also complicated because C was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder following his time in Iraq, which had had an impact on his mental health.

It was absolutely crucial for the offender manager to create a period of stability so that C could obtain stable housing, support with his alcohol and appropriate counselling in relation to his post traumatic stress disorder. The probation officer was instrumental in identifying suitable partner agencies both statutory and voluntary, who could support C to rebuild his life and tackle his offending. She worked closely with these partners to coordinate their assessments and the package of care they were putting in place. These included SEVA (an organisation that works with service men and women), the Piccadilly Project (for his alcohol abuse), accommodation providers and the probation programmes team. She accompanied him to appointments where needed to sustain his motivation. In addition she worked with him on emotional management to help improve his self-esteem, build protective relationships with estranged family members and help him gain safe access to his daughter. The outcome is that C completed his order and the domestic violence programme. He is now in stable housing, has access twice weekly access with his daughter, is alcohol free and works on a voluntary basis full time at a Housing Association. CASE STUDIES - WORKING WITH EXTREMIST OFFENDERS Case Study 4: D – 10 year prison sentence for offences of conspiracy (Terrorism Act) In August 2008 D was convicted of Conspiracy (x2) under Section 57 of the Terrorism Act. This was for playing a significant role in the amassing of information relating to acts of terrorism, which indicated that he and his co-accused were planning a terrorist attack and enticing others to join them. He was sentenced to ten years imprisonment. Managing offenders who have committed terrorist-related offences is a relatively new and developing area for the Probation Service nationally, requiring innovative practice, and well co-ordinated partnership working. Each stage in the management of the case required the breaking of new ground and best practice to be designed as the case progressed. This was undertaken by the Probation Offender Manager, supported by local specialised training and the input of the West Yorkshire MAPPA co-ordinator. D was the first individual with terrorist offences to be released in the locality. Initial prison contact by the offender manager had identified D as very defensive, and suspicious of criminal justice agencies, not wishing to discuss at length his offending (which he denied) or his background. D appealed his sentence, and the offender manager took the view that an order for immediate release was a possibility. At very short notice a comprehensive release plan was compiled as a contingency. This required swift liaison between the offender manager, partnership agencies (Police, Counter-Terrorism Unit, MAPPA, approved premises) and NOMS Headquarters to identify effective and legally justifiable license conditions and an appropriate area for release with a corresponding resettlement plan (also allowing for the potential for significant negative media publicity). The Court of Appeal reduced D’s sentence to eight years resulting in a release date of June 2010. Prior to this revised release date the offender manager proceeded to improve the release plan, delivering a bespoke application of the OASys risk assessment tool designed to be more accurate for assessing the risk of those committing terrorist offences. Risk management was coordinated at level 3 MAPPA meetings, chaired by the Assistant Chief Officer and involving the local Prevent lead. This was held in good time before release given

the new and unique offences requiring public protection. More extensive liaison followed with the Ministry of Justice to produce a unique and tailored set of licence conditions. In the period leading up to release, a joint visit by Police and Probation was undertaken to D at the holding prison, to his family, and to his local mosque to inform the Imam and to check its suitability. The offender manager also liaised with NOMS to provide a final check on the legality of the proposed license conditions. Then immediately on release a special induction case conference was held with his solicitor to communicate his licence conditions, and a further joint home visit to reinforce these. This enabled the safe release to his home address, and the management of D’s constant pushing of boundaries. Given the sensitive nature of this type of offending, special measures were put in place to ensure Probation records could only be accessed by those with pre-agreed involvement in the case. D has constantly sought to exercise his right to access these records (Data Protection), necessitating a shadow set of records to be maintained for confidentiality reasons, not least because of information obtained from the Counter Terrorism Unit. In custody, no relevant offending behaviour courses were available for such offences, so D was released having completed no significant programme of change. Given the absence of accredited or suitable courses to address his offending behaviour, and given his negative attitude towards both the Government and the criminal justice system, Probation’s partnership with an Asian voluntary agency has been deployed post-release to explore D’s beliefs and values. This has been delivered in conjunction with supervision sessions with the offender manager, informed by ongoing and cutting edge local training and the sharing of violent extremism casework experiences organised through the Trust’s MAPPA cocoordinator. (For instance, considering extremist perspectives, identity, social involvement, as well as media and current affairs). These sessions have fed into an improved specialised risk assessment model for those committing terrorist/domestic extremism offences, and has started to move D towards some engagement, albeit limited. Risk management has continued to be steered by regular MAPPA meetings. An effective working relationship has been developed between the Police Counter-Terrorism Unit and the Probation Service, allowing for improved information exchange, the consensual development of proportionate risk management strategies, and operating together to deliver these strategies. This has involved joint visits to monitor progress, promptly enforce and resolve emerging risk management concerns (such as contact with others convicted of terrorist offences), and the presentation of a concerted and consistent front to reinforce such matters. It has also enabled co-ordinated disclosure to organisations (such as the gym where D volunteers and the timely disclosure to the local college to manage the potential for further offending, through gathering internet resources and the radicalisation of others). The continued success of the partnership working has allowed the MAPPA management level to be reduced to level 1. Additionally, a new phase in addressing offending behaviour has begun. This is to incorporate (a) a fresh review of his beliefs behind D’s offending, utilising other resources from the partner voluntary agency, (b) to use and innovatively build on recently developed area resources for extremist offending, and (c) to progress towards re-integrating the offender back into the community through education and/or employment in accordance with managing their risk of re-offending. The development in practice, not least the co-coordinating and risk management role of the Offender Manager, and the experiences of its effectiveness will also soon be fed into the preparation for resettlement of the next terrorism case to be released to the same locality next year.

Case Study 5: E – 7 year prison sentence for offences committed under the Terrorism Act The Probation Trust has deployed semi specialist offender managers to work with offenders convicted of offences that fall within the Terrorism Act. These have undertaken training relating to the PREVENT agenda and in relation to issues relevant to local Muslim communities, to ensure that they are equipped with the necessary skills and understanding to work with the risk such individuals pose. E was convicted in April 2009 and received a 7 year custodial sentence in relation to his plans to attend a terrorist training camp in Pakistan. Due to time he had already served on remand he was released in September 2010. During his time in custody, and since release, he maintained that his intentions were innocent, that he attended the camp out of interest, and that he enjoyed having the opportunity to use the weapons,” playing soldier” as it were. He has continued to maintain that he has never held anti–western views, and that the camps he went to were related more to the Kashmir situation and the dispute between India and Pakistan. On release he was subject to a stringent release plan with licence conditions in place relating to areas such as, residence, having to report / sign in at the approved premises at specific times every day, restrictions on computer usage, as well as requirements that, should he wish to observe his religion, agreement be sought through Probation and, by extension, the Counter Terrorism Unit as to which place of worship would be appropriate to do this. This was a high profile case. A series of multi agency meetings, involving police, counter terrorism officers, Probation, and other associated parties, were held prior to his release in order to ensure that he would be managed effectively. It was determined that he would initially be required to reside in approved premises out of the eventual resettlement area, partly to ensure that the anticipated interest from the media (which might be disruptive to his resettlement) could be monitored / managed. Contingency plans were also made, should this become an issue, so that he could be quickly moved to an alternative location. It was determined that contact with E would be maintained by offender managers from both the interim and the eventual Trusts who would be responsible for the management of the case. It was expected that, if progress was sustained, the case would return to the home area after a number of months, at which point plans would be deployed to manage E in conjunction with a partner Asian organisation that had long experience of co-work with Probation on complex cases. E was able to return to the home area, where he spent a further three months in approved premises. During this time more focused work was undertaken to investigate his offending behaviour and attitudes, as well as identifying practical measures to manage potential future risks and encourage positive re-integration into the local community. The subsequent plan was for him to return to his family address and prior to this taking place, the offender manager and a partnership worker conducted several visits to the address to ensure suitability. E was then given the opportunity to spend a few nights each week away from the approved premise at his partner’s address, to monitor if this was a viable move-on option. No concerns arose, and he subsequently returned to the family home. Through the MAPPA process it became increasingly apparent that whilst he was not assessed as presenting a specific risk to children, Social Care were interested as to any impact his offending and incarceration may have had for his children. As a result and through further considered partnership work with a number of agencies, including the Counter Terrorism Unit, the offender manager was able to effectively engage with the family,

schools and medical professionals over a period of weeks and establish that there were no relevant concerns. More recently the focus of Probation supervision has progressed to more practical issues relating to employment and training, which are usually important protective factors. There have continued to be some difficulties in the fact that he has mobility issues relating to childhood polio; however progress has been made been made and he is shortly due to begin a work placement secured through his engagement with the Skills4Work team based at the Probation Office. As for the future, continued work around unpicking offending behaviour and attitudes will continue. Due to the nature of the offences this will be a slow process. Currently the offender manager is working on a timeline looking back at his family history in order that to improve understanding of key events that have shaped his attitudes. He is now actively engaging with this process. Due to ongoing positive progress and no further concerns being highlighted by any agency involved with him, the decision has been taken to reduce his MAPPA level of management. This is a very different scenario from the one that applied at the time of sentence.