the management of life and indeterminate sentence ... · the management of life and indeterminate...

July 2012

The management of life and indeterminate sentenceprisoners in Northern Ireland

i

The management of life and indeterminatesentence prisoners in Northern Ireland

July 2012

Laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly under Section 49(2)of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 (as amended byparagraph 7(2) of Schedule 13 to The Northern Ireland Act1998 (Devolution of Policing and Justice Functions) Order 2010)by the Department of Justice.

iii

Contents

List of abbreviations iv

Chief Inspector’s Foreword v

Executive Summary vi

Recommendations viii

Section 1: Inspection Report

Chapter 1 Introduction and background 3

Chapter 2 Governance and overview of provision 7

Chapter 3 Service delivery - managing life prisoners in custody 11

Chapter 4 Service delivery - managing the transition of life prisoners 23back into the community

Chapter 5 Assessment of outcomes 35

iv

List of abbreviations

CJI Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland

CJO Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008

DCS Determinate Custodial Sentence

DoJ Department of Justice

ECS Extended Custodial Sentence

ICS Indeterminate Custodial Sentence

IPP Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection

LMU Lifer Management Unit

LSO Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001

LSU Life Sentence Unit (of the Department of Justice)

NICTS Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service

NIPS Northern Ireland Prison Service

OBPs Offending Behaviour Programmes

OMU Offender Management Unit

PAU Prisoner Assessment Unit

PBNI Probation Board for Northern Ireland

PCNI Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland

PPANI Public Protection Arrangements Northern Ireland

PRISM Prisoner Record Information System

PREPS Progressive Regimes and Earned Privileges Scheme

PRVIS Northern Ireland Prison Service Victim Information Scheme

SEE Strategic, Efficiency and Effectiveness Programme (in NIPS)

SEHSCT South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust

SOTP Sex Offender Treatment Programme

TED Tariff Expiry Date

TRO Terrorist Related Offender

VCS Voluntary and Community Sector

VLO Probation Board for Northern Ireland Victim Liaison Officer

YOC Young Offenders Centre

v

Chief Inspector’s Foreword

The thorough management, assessment and testing of life sentence prisoners before they can be considered for release is critical for public protection and public confidence in the criminaljustice system. They have been convicted of the most serious crimes and it is important that the protection of the public is at the forefront when decisions are being made prior to and ontheir release. This inspection examined progress in implementing the recommendations of theCriminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJI) 2009 inspection of how life sentence prisonersare prepared for release.

Inspectors found that the management, testing and assessment of life sentence prisoners hadimproved across a number of areas. The legislative basis for managing indeterminate sentenceshad been informed by the problems experienced in England and Wales. The Northern IrelandPrison Service (NIPS) had improved arrangements for indeterminate sentence prisoners toprogress within the prison system. Conditions for prisoners had improved at Maghaberry Prison with the establishment of a dedicated ‘lifer’ house and life licensees were being carefullysupervised in the community by the probation service. Overall, we felt that indeterminatesentence prisoners were being well managed both in prison and in the community.

The inspection report did find a number of areas for improvement. In particular, the NIPSPrisoner Assessment Unit (PAU) had serious problems and needed fundamental redesign. Thisreport makes the strategic recommendation that the NIPS should develop a new pre-releasescheme as a matter of urgency. The prison service and the probation service should consultclosely with the voluntary and community sector who have experience in running offenderhostels when designing the new scheme and facility. In addition, it was once again disappointingto highlight problems with current methods of delivering psychology services within the NIPS.There were not enough psychologists to undertake all the forensic assessments. The reportrecommends that the probation and the prison services should collaborate to establish a moreintegrated psychology service that will better meet the needs of each organisation. This isentirely possible in a small jurisdiction such as Northern Ireland with single prison, probation and parole organisations.

The inspection was undertaken by Tom McGonigle of CJI. My thanks to all those whoparticipated in the inspection process.

Dr Michael MaguireChief Inspector of Criminal Justice in Northern IrelandJuly 2012

vi

Executive Summary

The management of life sentence prisoners is essential for public protection and publicconfidence in the criminal justice system. It is important that life sentence prisoners are subjectto thorough assessment and testing before they can be considered for release as they have beenconvicted of the most serious offences. This inspection examined progress in implementing therecommendations of Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland’s 2009 review1 of how lifeprisoners were prepared for release. We also assessed the Probation Board for NorthernIreland’s (PBNI) supervision of released life prisoners in the community.

The 2009 CJI review made a total of 18 recommendations: 13 for the Northern Ireland PrisonService (NIPS) and five for the Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland (PCNI). There wereno recommendations for the PBNI.

This inspection does not revisit matters that were addressed in CJI’s recent report on corporategovernance in the Parole Commissioners.2 It does however, deal with the administration of thePCNI’s business and their operational engagement with other agencies.

On this occasion Inspectors found strengths in a number of important areas. They were as follows:

• the legislative basis for managing indeterminate sentenced prisoners in Northern Ireland wasgood, and had been informed by serious pitfalls that arose in England and Wales. The PBNIand the PCNI had comprehensive rules and standards to guide Probation Officers and ParoleCommissioners in the detail of their work;

• the NIPS had improved their response across a number of areas, including:- the NIPS arrangements for indeterminate sentence prisoners to progress and regress within

the prison system were more systematic and transparent than in 2008; and- a dedicated lifer house at Maghaberry Prison was providing a better environment for many

of the prisoners held there;

• the Parole Commissioners administration and operational level contact with criminal justiceagencies was much improved. This was leading to better case management; and

• life licensees were being carefully supervised in the community by the PBNI.

1 A review of transition to community arrangements for life sentence prisoners in Northern Ireland, CJI, April 2009.2 Governance inspection of the Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland, CJI, September 2011.

vii

The inspection report did find a number of areas for improvement:

• the NIPS Prisoner Assessment Unit (PAU) had serious problems and needed fundamental re-design. No effective action had been taken in respect of previous NIPS internal reviews orinspection recommendations into the PAU, and it was suspended in April 2011 when thingsreached crisis point. A pre-release scheme based at a step-down facility is a very importantelement of preparing life prisoners for release and continuing suspension of the PAU was amajor problem;

• current methods of delivering psychology services within the NIPS were not greatly valued.There were not enough psychologists to undertake all the forensic assessments, and whileOffending Behaviour Programme (OBP) delivery had improved, external substitution wasrequired and was proving costly;

• there was scope to further develop prison lifer regimes, for example, for staff to activelyengage with lifers at an earlier stage in their sentence, to better identify and respond to theneeds of potential lifers, and to transfer more lifers to Magilligan Prison; and

• the PBNI needed better access to victims’ relatives in order to offer a valuable service.

This report makes a total of 14 recommendations. The three main strategic recommendationsare for the NIPS and others to urgently establish a new step-down facility for lifers; to re-configure the respective roles of the PBNI and the NIPS psychology; and to improve delivery of OBPs in the prisons. If properly implemented these should significantly enhance the quality of risk management and prisoner resettlement, while also delivering financial savings.

While there were areas in which operational practice can be significantly improved, CJI’s overallconclusion is that indeterminate sentence prisoners were being well-managed in NorthernIreland, both in prison and while under supervision in the community. The improvements werecommend should be quite manageable in a small jurisdiction which has singular prison,probation and parole organisations.

viii

Recommendations

Strategic recommendations

• The NIPS and the PBNI should collaborate to establish a more integrated psychology servicethat will better meet the needs of each organisation by December 2013. In doing so theyshould consult with other criminal justice agencies to assess the possibility of extending theircollaboration (paragraph 3.23).

• The NIPS and the PBNI should extend their current service level agreements to pilot theProbation Board’s delivery of OBPs in custody during 2013-14 (paragraph 3.34).

• The NIPS should develop a new pre-release scheme as a matter of urgency. The schemeshould be based at a new step-down facility and should implement the recommendations from the NIPS October 2011 PAU review; the principles and operational considerations inparagraph 4.22 of this report should also be taken into account in its design; and the NIPS andthe PBNI should consult closely with voluntary and community sector (VCS) organisationswho have experience in running offender hostels, when designing the new scheme and facility(paragraph 4.23).

Operational recommendations

• The NIPS should ensure that Prison Officers who work with life prisoners receive appropriatetraining which is maintained up-to-date. Training should emphasise the benefits of motivationalinterviewing with life prisoners at an early stage in their sentence (paragraph 2.9).

• The pilot transfer of life prisoners to Magilligan Prison should be evaluated. Subject to theevaluation outcome, criteria for transfer should be clarified and the scheme extended to otherappropriate cases (paragraph 3.8).

• The NIPS should implement a formal process for identifying all potential life prisoners toensure they are supported in coping at an early stage after they are remanded in custody(paragraph 3.17).

• Unless there are good reasons to do otherwise, lifer OBPs should be completed by the three-year pre-Tariff Expiry Date (TED); and relapse prevention and booster work should beundertaken up to the point of actual tariff expiry (paragraph 3.35).

• The Parole Commissioners, the PBNI and the NIPS should review their inter-agency andinternal communication processes to ensure all relevant issues about lifer work are addressedand outcomes are communicated to relevant staff at every level (paragraph 3.49).

ix

• The PBNI should allocate a community Probation Officer at six months pre-TED on a pilotbasis for eligible life prisoners; then assess the pilot to plan ahead (paragraph 3.51).

• The NIPS should ensure consistency between the prisons in identifying OBP waiting lists,referral, commencement and completion rates (paragraph 3.52).

• The NIPS should develop its lifer database to distinguish suspensions from the PAU and recallsfrom life licence by licensee status and length of stay in custody (paragraph 3.53).

• Maghaberry management should further develop its regime for life prisoners to ensureprogression is not offset by loss of other privileges (paragraph 5.7).

• Annual lifer reviews should become more meaningful and individualised, and actively reviewedat least twice during the year by the prisoner and a keyworker (paragraph 5.9).

• The PBNI should document the volume and impacts of their difficulties in contacting victims,and share the findings with the PSNI; and that the PSNI should provide adequate resources toensure victim information is provided to the Probation Board in a timely way (paragraph 5.34).

1

Inspection Report

1Section

1

3

1.1 Careful management of life sentenceprisoners is essential for publicprotection and public confidence in thecriminal justice system. It is appropriatethat they are subject to thoroughassessment and testing before they canbe considered for release as they havebeen convicted of the most seriousoffences. This inspection is a follow-upof the 2009 CJI report ‘A review of thetransition to community arrangements forlife sentence prisoners in Northern Ireland’.

1.2 The 2009 CJI report found thatNorthern Ireland had an independentand thorough approach to preparing lifeprisoners for release, there was animproving focus on victims’ needs andagencies were working well together.However, the rate of lifers beingsuspended from community testingoutweighed the number being licensed,and this was causing difficulties for theNIPS. There were several pressuresincluding administrative demands,psychology inadequacies, unclear criteriafor prisoners to progress through the lifer system, insufficient OBPs,inadequate standards and staff training.Inspectors found the oral hearingprocess was legalistic and protracted;and there was an imbalance, with toomuch effort invested in risk assessment,and not enough in risk management andcommunity testing of lifers.

Introduction and background

CHAPTER 1:

1.3 The NIPS accepted tworecommendations of our 2009 report in full, and 11 in principle. The PCNI set out actions to be undertaken inresponse to the recommendations thatrelated to them. The NIPS published an initial action plan to address theirrecommendations, and updated theaction plan in May 2010.

Overview of life sentence prisoners inNorthern Ireland

1.4 There are two main categories of lifesentence prisoners in Northern Ireland.Indeterminate sentence prisonerscomprise those who received mandatoryand discretionary life sentences, andindeterminate custodial sentences (ICS). The differences between thesesentences depends on the offence theycommitted and the legislation underwhich they were sentenced. Howeverthe important common feature of each indeterminate sentence is that theprisoners do not know when they willbe released. For ease of reference theterm ‘life prisoner’ or abbreviation ‘lifer’are used in this report to describe allindeterminate sentenced prisoners.

1.5 A total of 95% of life prisoners aresentenced under the Life Sentences(Northern Ireland) Order (LSO), whichwas most recently updated in 2001. The

4

Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland)Order 2008 (CJO) introduced the newsentences and measures, including ICSfor public protection. The first ICS wasintroduced in September 2010, and bySeptember 2011 a total of 10 had beenimposed. The LSO and the CJO bothrequired the Department of Justice(DoJ) to refer relevant cases to theParole Commissioners for NorthernIreland to make decisions on release,recall and re-release of life and ICSprisoners.

1.6 Life prisoners in Northern Ireland couldall expect to remain in custody at leastuntil their tariff had expired. The tariffwas the minimum period the sentencingcourt stipulated they should serve incustody before being considered forrelease by the Parole Commissioners.Most lifers began sentence in amaximum security environment asCategory A prisoners at MaghaberryPrison, and would spend the rest oftheir sentence there. They would beexpected to progress to less restrictiveregimes during sentence, and ultimatelyto Category D status as they nearedtheir Tariff Expiry Date (TED). Womenlifers were held at Hydebank WoodWomen’s Prison and young offendersusually commenced their sentence inHydebank Wood Young OffendersCentre (YOC).

1.7 As the TED approached the process of testing lifers in the community would begin. Ultimately if the ParoleCommissioners were satisfied withprogress, they would be granted theirlife licence. Once a life licence wasgranted the PBNI would assumeresponsibility for supervising the

licensee in the community. Even ifprobation supervision was eventuallysuspended, the prisoner would remaineligible for recall to prison for the restof their natural life if they re-offendedor if any concerns arose about the risksthey posed. A large group of lifers whohad been sent to prison as a result oftheir involvement in the Troubles wereunsupervised since being released.

1.8 The CJO successfully avoided the majordifficulties that had accompanied theintroduction of similar sentences inEngland and Wales some five yearsearlier. There, the legislation thatprovided for Indeterminate Sentencesfor Public Protection (IPP) caused hugenet-widening and the population ofindeterminate sentence prisonersdoubled to over 11,000. There wereserious ongoing difficulties in managingthese sentences: it was provingimpossible to fully assess IPP prisonersand deliver OBPs before prisonersreached their tariffs, which wererelatively short in comparison to lifeprisoners; and there was a seriousknock-on effect for lifers because theywere a lesser priority for OBPs andother interventions that were essentialto prove they could be considered forrelease. Northern Ireland learned fromthis experience and applied a range ofmeasures which helped ensure muchbetter targeting of the new ICS here.

1.9 On 30 September 2011, there were 197 indeterminate sentence prisoners in custody in Northern Ireland(approximately 12% of the total prisonpopulation), and 48 on supervisedlicences in the community. Theirnumbers had increased by 25% over

the last four years and the vast majorityhad been sentenced for murder. Of theindeterminate sentence prisoners incustody:

• six were females;• four were foreign nationals;• 17 had transferred into NIPS

custody from prisons in England; • 20 had previously been released on

unsupervised life licence under theBelfast Agreement and were recalleddue to reconviction or concern abouttheir conduct;

• 10 were serving ICS;• 13 were discretionary life prisoners,

i.e. they were sentenced for offencesthat did not automatically attract lifesentences;

• the average age was 40 (men - 39;women - 45);

• their overall average tariff was 15.3 years, with a range of one day – 35 years;

• 20 (10%) were still in prison aftertheir tariff had expired. The averagewas six years beyond tariff, and therange was between four months – 21 years;

• 28 were due to reach their TED by2015; and

• the length of tariffs was increasing:comparison between five-year periods(2001-05 and 2006-11) showed a 9% increase in the average length of tariffs imposed on indeterminatesentence prisoners, from 14.4 yearsto 15.7 years.

5

Table 1: Life sentence/licence cases 2007-11 (Source - PBNI)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

30 Sept 2007 30 Sept 2008 30 Sept 2009 30 Sept 2010 30 Sept 2011

Nu

mb

er

Point in Time CaseloadCustody Community

2.1 The strategic goal of the NIPS is‘improving public safety by managing therisk of re-offending, through themanagement and rehabilitation of offendersin custody.’ 3 Thus in addition to holdinglife prisoners securely and safely incustody, the NIPS aimed to provideopportunities for rehabilitation byaddressing attitudes and behaviour thatcontributed to their crimes. Since thelast inspection, the NIPS had improvedlifer accommodation and its proceduresfor managing them in custody byamalgamating the Lifer Management Unit (LMU) with the OffenderManagement Unit (OMU) at MaghaberryPrison in February 2012. In October2011 the Prison Review Team had made 40 recommendations to improvethe NIPS functioning, including asignificant recommendation for it towork with the PBNI and voluntaryorganisations to develop new step-down accommodation for long-term prisoners.

Inter-agency collaboration andleadership

2.2 Collaboration between the PBNI andthe NIPS to manage life prisoners wasgood, while the PCNI had been workingmore closely with operational agenciessince 2008. They were now more

confident in engaging at a strategic level,without feeling their independencewould be compromised. There were bi-annual meetings between the PBNIand the NIPS Senior Management Teamsabout aspects of joint working and toreview their service level agreements;and the Parole Commissioners heldquarterly meetings with the ProbationBoard’s Senior Managers.

2.3 The Parole Commissioners hadestablished a User Group which wasmeeting quarterly since January 2010.Minutes showed there were an average11 attendees including representativesfrom the PBNI, the LMU, the LifeSentence Unit (LSU) of the DoJ,Psychologists and prisoners’ legalrepresentatives. The agenda was wideranging and relevant, and the minutesindicated this was a useful forum forthose who attended.

2.4 There had been other developments inthe infrastructure and organisation ofthe Parole Commissioners office sincethe last inspection which included:

• a move into new, more suitablepremises in 2010;

• dedicated facilities were nowavailable at each prison forCommissioners’ hearings;

7

Governance and overview of provision

CHAPTER 2:

3 NIPS Corporate and Business Plan 2011-15.

8

• an elected Advisory Committee of sixCommissioners plus the Chief andDeputy Chief Commissioner wasappointed and meeting quarterly;

• a Deputy Chief Commissioner had been appointed; and

• a number of work streams had beenidentified to facilitate Commissionerbusiness improvement.

2.5 The DoJ was planning to hand oversponsorship of some PCNI functions tothe Northern Ireland Courts andTribunals Service (NICTS) at a futuredate. This was in keeping with the mainrecommendation of CJI’s corporategovernance inspection, and Inspectorswill be revisiting this topic to ensurethat both the letter and spirit of therecommendation are implemented.Most of the current Commissioners’terms of office are due to expire inSeptember 2012 - this will be achallenging timescale within which to recruit, vet and train newCommissioners.

2.6 The complement of ParoleCommissioners had reduced during2011 as eight (including six legally-qualified Commissioners) retired or resigned, and only three newCommissioners had joined. This could cause complications as panels had to include a balance of legal,psychiatrist/psychologist and othermembers. However it was currentlysustainable with a total of 33Commissioners available in March 2012.A call-off list had been introducedwithin the PCNI, which representedadministrative improvement as it wasenabling commitments to be fulfilledwhile providing equal opportunity ofwork for all Commissioners.

Deployment of staff

2.7 The NIPS amalgamated its LMU with theMaghaberry OMU in September 2011.This was a sensible move to integratepersonnel who were performing similarfunctions, with the aim of sharing casemanagement and report writing amongboth groups of staff, and each shouldbenefit from the other’s experience.

2.8 Some designated NIPS Lifer Officerstold Inspectors they had received specialtraining in 2009. However they felt thetraining was inadequate, and althoughwilling to fulfill the lifer role, reportedthey had no support in doing so. Theydid not write annual reports on theirlifers and they had no instruction in liferlegislation or Parole Commissionersprocesses, nor in helping prisoners andtheir families cope with indeterminatesentences.

2.9 It was therefore encouraging that aSenior Officer at Maghaberry had, on his own initiative, begun to deliver lifertraining towards the end of 2011. Thiswas helpful, especially as a proposed‘liaison officer’ scheme - the latestinitiative to introduce case managementresponsibilities for staff - was stalledpending implementation of the NIPSStrategic, Efficiency and Effectiveness(SEE) Programme. The LMU wouldprefer trained staff working with lifeprisoners to remain in post for aminimum of five years, though the NIPSculture and staff deployment practicemitigated heavily against such stability.We recommend the NIPS shouldensure that Prison Officers whowork with life prisoners receiveappropriate training which ismaintained up-to-date. Training

9

should emphasise the benefits ofmotivational interviewing with lifeprisoners at an early stage in theirsentence.

2.10 The NIPS position in this respect was no worse than in England and Wales.Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons Annual Report 2010-11 said:

‘In most establishments lifers no longerreceived any specialist services. In manyprisons we found that specialist lifer teamshad been disbanded, although life-sentencedprisoners were usually allocated to themost skilled and experienced offendersupervisors. Similarly support structuressuch as lifer groups and lifer days werebeing withdrawn. These structures were a useful means of communicating with a group of prisoners serving lengthysentences, keeping them informed ofdevelopments that affected their lives and maintaining community ties…’

However the NIPS’ smaller scale andstronger funding base - it had only threeprisons and the cost per prisoner placewas more than twice the cost in Englandand Wales - generates a justifiableexpectation of better outcomes.

2.11 The PBNI was entering a new phase inlifer management at the time of thisinspection. They responded to theincreasing volume of work by appointingan additional Area Manager. There wasnow a Manager in the community (fivedays per week) and another in prisons(three days per week). This representeda net increase of 0.6 whole-timeequivalent managerial posts inrecognition of the need for specialistmanagement in a high profile aspect oftheir role.

2.12 The new PBNI managementarrangements recognise that thenumbers were too big for a singleManager as some 58 Probation Officerswere involved in supervising life licenses.There were on average three liferreleases per annum in Northern Irelandbetween 2000-08, that rose to anaverage of 12 releases during 2009-11.By comparison 330 lifers were grantedtheir licence in England and Walesduring the same period. It wasnoteworthy that Probation Officeravailability for life prisoner managementin Northern Ireland had been veryconsistent: only one had left this area of work since 2006, and that was onpromotion.

2.13 Total costs of lifer work by thestatutory criminal justice agencies cameto around £12,000,000. The NIPSestimated they spent £10.5 million (7.6%of 2011-12 expenditure of £138 million)annually on lifer management. The PBNIspent £623,259 (3.1% of their totalexpenditure) on lifer work andestimated this involved a total of 11.03 whole time equivalent staff andManagers. The Parole Commissionersexpenditure on lifer work during 2010-11 was £452,000 (51 lifer casescompleted out of a total of 150 cases,with an annual expenditure of £1.33million). These figures reflect significantinvestment, and do not take account ofother substantial contributions to lifermanagement and support, such as hostelproviders, mental health services andPublic Protection ArrangementsNorthern Ireland (PPANI).

11

3.1 The NIPS - specifically the LMU andPAU staff - took the lead in managinglifers in prison. The LMU staff had highlevels of interaction with individualprisoners, knew most of them well andwere clearly committed to the work.They arranged and oversaw workplacements, wrote reports for prisoners’reviews and hearings, and were in effectfulfilling a personal caseworker function.Over 80% of lifers were held atMaghaberry Prison, where theyrepresented 45% of the sentencedpopulation. A small number of menwere held at Magilligan Prison, while thewomen and young male lifers were atHydebank Wood.

3.2 Previous inspection reportsrecommended that the NIPS shouldensure its regimes, environments andopportunities were appropriate to thestages that life prisoners moved throughtowards resettlement in the community.While the small NIPS estate hadinherent limitations, the model formanaging male lifers had become clearerand more progressive since the lastinspection. They could now progressfrom Category A maximum securityconditions in the main MaghaberryPrison to a specialist Category B liferunit in Braid House, which was also onthe Maghaberry site. From there they

could move as Category C or CategoryD prisoners to the adjacent WilsonHouse where they were allowed to self-cater and work outside the prison walls.The final step in their custodial phasewas to progress to the pre-releasescheme which was based at the PAU inBelfast. This aimed to test their risksprior to possible release on supervisedlicence in the community.

3.3 When we last inspected, the NIPS washolding competitions for life prisonersto progress to Wilson House. This wasinappropriate and we recommendedremoval of the competitive element asprisoners should progress on the basisof merit and risk assessment, the stagethey had reached in their sentence andconformity with prison rules. The NIPShad fulfilled this recommendation andremoved the competitive element, and for those who failed to comply,regression was now individually tailoreddepending on the severity of theirmisdemeanours rather than automaticreturn to Category A closed conditions.

3.4 Each progressive move was subject to prisoners’ fulfilment of publishedcriteria. Notices to prisoners set out the criteria for progression andregression, and flowcharts wereattached. Inter alia these explained that:

Service delivery - managing lifeprisoners in custody

CHAPTER 3:

12

‘All decisions to regress prisoners from thePAU or from Wilson House should be basedon a clear increase in risk factors indicatingthat the allocation is no longer appropriateand prisoners should be given full reasonsfor the decisions.’ 4 Criteria for WilsonHouse in January 2011 explained that the LMU made decisions based onprogression reports by agencies andsatisfaction of eligibility criteria.

3.5 Braid House was newly-opened in 2010as a dedicated lifer management facility.It had capacity for 200 prisoners andprovided a brighter and more spaciousenvironment than the main prison,better suited to people who would be spending a long time in custody.However the pressure of steadilyincreasing numbers throughout theprison system meant that a wing in Braid House had to be given over toshort-term prisoners in July 2011.

3.6 Some life prisoners had spent time inBraid House but subsequently requesteda return to the main prison because theyfound its regime too limiting. ‘Freeflow’movement within Braid House andwithin its grounds was not possible, and access to education and workopportunities was more limited than in the main prison. Freeflow hadpreviously been available at MaghaberryPrison, and was reintroduced in Summerof 2011. It simply meant that prisonerscould walk unescorted within the prisongrounds to visits, work and education,allowing a small measure of liberty topeople who otherwise spent a lot oftime locked up.

3.7 The women life prisoners spent theirentire sentences in the claustrophobicenvironment of Ash House at Hydebank

Wood Prison. Their only opportunity to progress was to a different landingwithin Ash House. There was no step-down facility for them and they sharedthe Hydebank site and facilities with 150 young male offenders which was ahighly unsuitable arrangement.

3.8 In keeping with previousrecommendations, some male lifeprisoners had been transferred toMagilligan Prison - six were there whenwe conducted this inspection. This wasdefined as a pilot project, though it wasunclear whether the pilot had beenconcluded or evaluated. It allowed theprisoners to benefit from the moreprogressive regime at Magilligan and in some cases, also to be held nearertheir families. The NIPS expected themto return to Maghaberry Prison toundertake OBPs later in sentence, andthe pilot was felt to be working well.We recommend the pilot transferof life prisoners to MagilliganPrison should be evaluated.Subject to the evaluation outcome,criteria for transfer should beclarified and the scheme extendedto other appropriate cases.

3.9 Considerable effort was invested by theNIPS in maintaining prisoners’ familylinks, and life prisoners in Braid Houseparticularly valued the longer and moretranquil visits that were available there,in contrast to visits in the main prisonwhich were often noisy and frequentlydisrupted. A 2011 Halloween FamilyDay for lifers was appreciated byprisoners, though it was the first to beheld in over two years. Inspectors heardseveral examples from prisoners of theNIPS applying a considerate approach tohelping them cope with separation from

4 Notice to Prisoners, HMP Maghaberry, Issue 59/09, November 2009.

13

family, especially at times of significanceor stress. We also heard dissent fromother prisoners when officials strayedfrom policy in an area such as awardingCompassionate Home Leave - albeit forperfectly humane and compassionatereasons - if they felt they did not benefitfrom the same level of discretion.

Security status and regime levels

3.10 Security status and regime level wereimportant determinants of prisoners’lifestyles. In this respect, the NIPS had made progress by undertaking bi-monthly reviews which were startingto reduce unnecessarily high levels ofsecurity. In October 2011 the securityclassifications of lifers at MaghaberryPrison were:

• Category A – 20;• Category B – 50;• Category C – 89; and• Category D – 25.

3.11 Decisions about reclassification weresubject to individual risk assessment. Asignificant benefit of achieving CategoryC and D status was that prisoners atMaghaberry could be allowed freeflowstatus. Category A and B prisoners stillrequired staff escorts, which frequentlycaused excessive and frustrating delayswhen staff were unavailable. This hadpreviously been available at MaghaberryPrison but was suspended several yearsago. Freeflow was also in operation atMagilligan Prison, but not for the womenor young male prisoners at HydebankWood.

3.12 While LMU staff reported resistance onsecurity grounds when trying to providenew opportunities for life prisoners,there had been some encouraging

progress. Six Category D lifers whowere not yet on the pre-release schemewere able to cut grass and tidy litteroutside Maghaberry Prison walls, and asmall number were allowed to do aweekly shop for Wilson House self-catering. Life prisoners also worked inpositions of trust in visitor centres, and a lifer delivered internal mail in Wilsonand Braid Houses. These types ofinitiative are to be commended, andInspectors would encourage furthersuch creativity by Prison Managers.

3.13 Regime status was also significant forprisoners. The Progressive Regimes andEarned Privileges Scheme (PREPS) wasbased on conduct and compliance withsentence plans. The PREPS influencedmatters such as prisoners’ weeklyincome, access to the gym and theamount of time allowed for eveningassociation. In October 2011 all thefemale life prisoners had Enhancedstatus. Maghaberry life prisoners’regime levels were:

• Basic – 0;• Standard – 20; and• Enhanced -164.

The high number of lifers with Enhancedstatus reflected the desire of many toserve their sentence as easily aspossible, recognising that they weregoing to be in prison for a very longtime.

Standards and guidance

3.14 An external consultant had beencommissioned to develop lifer standardsfor the NIPS in 2009, but these werethen rejected because they wereconsidered too complicated. Inspectorshad concerns about the limited scope

14

of the existing NIPS standards for lifermanagement and operation of the PAU when we last reported, andrecommended they should be ‘evaluatedafter a short pilot period and developed toincorporate greater clarity and detail.’ Thishad not been done by December 2011,nor was any internal audit conducted to assess how well the standards were working. The NIPS nonethelessbelieved their lifer standards were fit forpurpose. We discuss these standardsfurther and make a strategicrecommendation in Chapter 4.

3.15 The PBNI worked to a detailed set ofstandards which prescribed minimumexpectations for lifer management, both in custody and in the community.All staff who worked with life prisonerswere trained in these standards, andtraining was also offered to NIPSpersonnel. The PBNI standards weresignificantly re-designed in 2011, andwere due to be fully implemented byApril 2012.

3.16 The Parole Commissioners Rules(Northern Ireland) 2009 were beingupdated during this inspection. It wasintended that the draft rules would besubject to Northern Ireland Assemblyprocedures, including consultation with the Committee for Justice in duecourse. The PCNI had also consolidatedtheir Guidance for Commissioners inNovember 2011. This guidance wasclear and detailed, and took account ofthe statutory framework within whichthe Commissioners operated, internalpolicies that had been put in place andrelevant case law. The guidance hadbeen used to form a comprehensiveCommissioners handbook.

Potential life prisoners

3.17 There were around 40 ‘potential’ lifeprisoners (normally defined as prisonerswho were remanded in custody formurder and attempted murder, althoughother offences such as rape and arsoncould also attract indeterminatesentences) in NIPS custody inNovember 2011. They were avulnerable group because of themagnitude of their alleged offence anduncertainty attached to their situation.Inspectors were told that a basicassessment was completed by a PrisonOfficer when they arrived in prison, and they were allocated to a ProbationOfficer. PBNI work with such prisonersalso included committal interviews andreferrals to family links. Otherwise they were treated as ordinary remandprisoners unless their circumstancesrequired special attention. None of the sentenced life prisoners with whomwe spoke could recall any specificengagement while they were on remandto support them in anticipation of thesentence they faced. We recommendthe NIPS should implement aformal process for identifying allpotential life prisoners to ensurethey are supported in coping at anearly stage after they areremanded in custody.

Psychology services in prison

3.18 There were different levels of demandfor psychology services in each ofNorthern Ireland’s criminal justiceagencies and there were disparitiesbetween the terms, conditions andremuneration of psychologists in theNIPS, the PBNI and the Youth JusticeAgency. A joint paper – ‘The need for the

15

development of forensic psychologists inNorthern Ireland’ - was submitted to theCriminal Justice Board in September2011 with recommendations outlining a preferred option for recruiting, training and retaining chartered forensic psychologists to work acrossthe system. The Board agreed itsrecommendations, including one that ‘the Department of Justice shouldundertake a review of responsibilities,salaries and conditions of employment toensure equality and parity with qualifiedforensic colleagues both locally andnationally.’ Some work had begun onthis, though progress was limited.

3.19 The NIPS had to provide psychologyassessments for Parole Commissionershearings, not only in respect of lifers, but also for prisoners serving the newExtended Custodial Sentences (ECS) and Indeterminate Custodial Sentences(ICS), as well as for the growing numberof recalled prisoners. Seventy-fivereports were completed during March2011 – March 2012. Due to alongstanding shortage of psychologistsand slow progress on recruitment since2006, the NIPS had begun to contract inpsychology services. This contract wasfunded from the savings on vacant NIPSpsychology posts. Risk assessment andreport preparation for the ParoleCommissioners cost £88,000 during2010-11, and by December 2011 therewas a budget of £250,000 per annum for external psychology services. Thecontract had enabled the NIPS to copewith increased demand for assessments,but the system was inefficient insofar asthe consultant psychologists had noopportunity to develop professionalworking relationships with prisoners.

3.20 The NIPS also procured externalservices to make up the shortfall ofqualified and experienced forensicpsychologists to provide treatmentmanagement and clinical oversight, and to undertake individual counsellingwith prisoners. The costs of thisprovision were estimated at £75,000during 2010-11 and it was anticipatedwould increase in the future.

3.21 There was further fragmentation ofpsychology services because NIPSpsychologists were not integrated withprison healthcare departments. Clinicaltherapeutic (as opposed to forensic)inputs were the responsibility of theSouth Eastern Health and Social CareTrust (SEHSCT). A more joined-upapproach was needed to respond to the treatment needs of life prisoners as well as completing their riskassessments.

3.22 While the small lifer population atHydebank Wood and Magilligan Prisonswere well catered for in terms ofindividual psychology support, the muchlarger numbers of adult male lifers at Maghaberry Prison meant thesituation there was more pressurised.Twenty-nine Maghaberry lifers wereengaging individually with psychologistsat the time of this inspection, and 33 had individual offence-focussed work outstanding. Psychologists atMaghaberry, supplemented by externalcontractors, aimed to deliver 20 sessionsof one-to-one work each week. This work was frequently directed bythe Parole Commissioners and wasresource-intensive as it might continuefor years.

3.23 Quite apart from the financial costs and inefficiencies of contracting outpsychology interventions and report-writing, it was readily apparent toInspectors that the NIPS lackedconfidence in its current methods ofdelivering psychology services. ThePrison Review Team addressed this issue by saying ‘The prisons-probationpartnership in Northern Ireland can andshould develop much further…. In a smalljurisdiction it would seem to be worthexamining whether both services couldshare their forensic and clinical psychologyservices.’5 We concur and werecommend that the NIPS and the PBNI should collaborate toestablish a more integratedpsychology service that will better meet the needs of eachorganisation by December 2013. In doing so they should consultwith other criminal justice agencies to assess the possibility of extending their collaboration.

Offending Behaviour Programmes(OBPs)

3.24 OBPs were a key component of lifeprisoners’ sentence plans designed toaddress issues that contributed tocriminal behaviour. Delivery of suchprogrammes was mainly theresponsibility of psychologydepartments, with input from PrisonOfficers and Probation Officers.Inspectors have previously commentedon deficiencies in OBP delivery andmade recommendations forimprovement.6 When CJI last reportedon lifer management in April 2009 wemade two recommendations to improvetheir delivery. These recommendations

16

were that:

‘The NIPS should strengthen its OffendingBehaviour Programme delivery structure tomanage the needs of all prisoners anddevelop an effective OBP database; andthe NIPS should provide a programme toaddress the offending behaviour of menwho have murdered their partners.’

3.25 Both recommendations were ‘accepted inprinciple, subject to resource constraints.’The NIPS action plan expected theappointment of 20 Psychology Assistantswould help; and they undertook toresearch a domestic violenceprogramme and implement a new pilot process to manage referrals fromOctober 2009.

3.26 Considerable efforts were made becausein addition to lifers, prisoners servingnew ECS and ICS had a pressing need to demonstrate progress in reducingtheir risks by completing OBPs. Theirnumbers had increased by 50% sinceJanuary 2010, their sentences weremostly shorter than lifers and tighterdeadlines applied to meet ParoleCommissioners’ timescales.

3.27 A ‘Management of Referrals toInterventions’ NIPS policy wasimplemented in October 2009. Thepolicy set out responsibilities of eachdiscipline involved in programmedelivery and allocated timescales.Prisoner involvement was emphasised,an Interventions Panel was to beconvened monthly to discuss referralsand allocate places, and a JointProgrammes Steering Group wasestablished to manage and monitorprogramme planning and delivery.

5 Review of the Northern Ireland Prison Service, Prison Review Team, October 2011, Page 58.6 Most recently in ‘An inspection of prisoner resettlement by the NIPS,’ CJI, October 2011.

17

3.28 Recruitment of Psychology Assistantstook place, but there was rapid attritiondue to more attractive opportunitieselsewhere. By December 2011 only 14Psychology Assistants remained in postout of the original complement of 20;and nine qualified Psychologists had leftto join health and education employers.

3.29 Lifers were prioritised for programmesand no Judicial Reviews had been takenby any NIPS prisoners due to failure toprovide an OBP; and the small numbersat Magilligan and Hydebank Wood weremanageable in terms of programmedelivery. An adapted Enhanced ThinkingSkills Programme and an Alcohol-Related Violence Programme had beenintroduced at Hydebank Wood. Whilethe Maghaberry Governor hadconcluded in March 2011 that deliveryof OBPs was going to be problematicbecause there were not enoughPsychologists available, Inspectors were told that OBP delivery there hadimproved by March 2012 and was better than in other United Kingdomjurisdictions. There were howeverincreasing pressures due to the needs of ECS and ICS prisoners, along with agrowing number of recalled prisoners,and the NIPS Psychologists wantedservice level agreements amended torequire greater support from colleagueagencies in delivering programmes.

3.30 Participation rates for the main OBPs at Maghaberry Prison during 2011-12were as follows:

• Enhanced Thinking Skills Programme -14 lifers participated during 2011-12.

• The Cognitive Self-ChangeProgramme – four lifers werecurrently engaged and another 35

were on the waiting list. Their TEDswere sufficiently far ahead to indicatethat immediate needs were beingmet.

• Low numbers of eligible prisonersmeant a core Sex Offender TreatmentProgramme was not projected asbeing necessary until 2013-14. In the meantime this work was beingundertaken on an individual basis.

• Alcohol-Related Violence Programme- three lifers were currently involvedin this programme and there wereanother 22 on the waiting list.

• A programme was required forwomen lifers who had murderedtheir partners, and the NIPS hadaimed to have a domestic violenceprogramme sourced by the end of2010. They agreed with the PBNIthat the same programme should bedelivered in prison and in thecommunity, but consensus could notbe achieved about an appropriateprogramme. By March 2012 therewere 40 life prisoners - including 13with tariffs which were due to expireby 2015 - identified as needing such aprogramme. Consequently theresource-intensive option of one-to-one work with Psychologists was theonly option to provide for several ofthese prisoners.

3.31 The PBNI had begun to deliver theIntegrated Domestic Abuse Programmein the community and was able toinclude a small number of lifers whowere directed to attend by the ParoleCommissioners and qualified for dayrelease. This was of limited benefit asthe majority were ineligible for dayrelease, and in any event, it waslogistically difficult to get them to and from programme locations.

3.32 Despite prioritisation of lifers and recentprogress, the longstanding logisticaldifficulties and professionaldisagreements about programmesuitability suggest there would be meritin testing a different approach to OBPdelivery within Northern Ireland’sprisons. The Prison Review Teamspecifically said it would be helpful toinvolve the PBNI in delivering OBPs in the prisons. The Team said ‘….community based probation staff could domore work inside prisons in offendingbehaviour work, where some have particularexpertise that prisons desperately need…’7

3.33 The PBNI’s Regional Programmes Teamwas experienced in delivering OBPs infive community locations throughoutNorthern Ireland. The Team comprisedstaff who delivered programmes andalso had its own qualified trainers. They delivered a suite of accreditedprogrammes for sexual and violentoffenders on a continuous basis, and in several cases were deliveringprogrammes that had not beencompleted in custody.

3.34 If the PBNI were to designate theprisons as a sixth site for the purposesof delivering OBPs, then the NIPS could re-deploy its Psychologists toconcentrate on forensic assessment andreport writing, researching, developingand evaluating programmes. Thefinancial savings which would accrue -outlined in Paragraphs 3.19 and 3.20 -could be used to fund the additionalPBNI involvement in deliveringprogrammes in prisons. Werecommend that the NIPS and thePBNI should extend their currentservice level agreements to pilot

the Probation Board’s delivery ofOBPs in custody during 2013-14.

3.35 There was no obvious reason why amore systematic approach could not beapplied to delivering OBPs for lifersspecifically, when nearly all were servinglengthy and predictable periods of timein custody before being considered forrelease. It was suggested to Inspectorsthat earlier completion of OBPs wouldrepresent more structured use of lifeprisoners’ time, allowing follow-up andrelapse prevention work to beundertaken before their tariffs expired.The approach might well vary accordingto individual circumstances, but inprinciple this was a sensible suggestionand we recommend that, unlessthere are good reasons to dootherwise, lifer OBPs should becompleted by the three-year pre-Tariff Expiry Date (TED); andrelapse prevention and boosterwork should be undertaken up tothe point of actual tariff expiry.

Probation services in prison

3.36 Probation Officers’ work with lifers inprison was driven by PBNI/NIPS servicelevel agreements. These specified therequirements of the Probation Board,which included risk assessment and riskmanagement of prisoners, includinglifers. Core functions of ProbationOfficers included contributing to multi-disciplinary sentence planning, riskassessment and risk reduction work,working with lifers during the pre-release testing phase and preparingreports for PCNI hearings.

18

7 Review of the Northern Ireland Prison Service, Prison Review Team, Page 58, October 2011.

3.37 Maghaberry Probation Officers held anaverage 18 life prisoner cases each, inaddition to their other responsibilities.Although Probation Officers were notcontinuously involved with every lifeprisoner, their case managementapproach was beneficial in the prisonsetting as it provided consistency andfamiliarity throughout the course of asentence.

3.38 In recent years nearly all sentenced life prisoners had a probation reportprepared for the sentencing court. This had been a useful development asthe reports provided criminal recordanalysis, detailed family and communityties and other information that aidedunderstanding of the prisoner andhis/her ability to cope with anindeterminate sentence.

Information for the ParoleCommissioners

3.39 Things accelerated for lifers when theyreached the three year pre-TED, whichwas when the Parole Commissionersconducted their first review. The ParoleCommissioners were responsible fordeciding whether it was safe to releaselife prisoners and ICS prisoners whentheir tariffs had expired; once releasedwhether any of them should be recalled; and after recall for makingrecommendations concerning furtherrelease. The Commissioners also hadjurisdiction to make recommendationsto the DoJ in relation to insertion,variation or cancellation of licenceconditions.

3.40 The LMU compiled a dossier for each three year pre-TED review. Thedossiers included detailed reports from

Governors, Probation Officers andPsychologists, plus other material suchas depositions, home leave reports, tariffruling, index offence details, offendingprogramme outcomes and educationfeedback.

3.41 Following submission of the dossier, aCommissioner would interview theprisoner and prepare a report for areviewing Commissioner. The reviewingCommissioner would consider thedossier and the interviewingCommissioner’s report and recommendwork to be undertaken by the prisonerbefore actual tariff expiry. This wasmore efficient than the previous practiceof holding a two person panel.

3.42 Six months prior to actual tariff expiry,the LMU would again refer the case tothe Commissioners, and a singleCommissioner would consider thedossier and the pre-tariff review alongwith updated reports. On the basis ofthese, they would make a provisionaldirection on whether a prisoner hadreduced his risk sufficiently to bereleased. If the provisional direction was for release, the matter wouldautomatically be referred to a panel ofthree Commissioners. If the provisionaldirection was not for release, then thiswould become the final decision of theCommissioners after two weeks of theprisoner receiving the provisionaldirection, unless the prisoner requestedan oral hearing. If there were matterswhich could not be decided without thebenefit of oral evidence, or if there wasa point of law which required an oralhearing, the single Commissioner coulddirect that the case be referred to apanel for consideration.

19

3.43 Prisoners were entitled to appear beforea panel and to be legally represented.Witnesses - such as LMU personnel,Probation Officers and Psychologists -could appear if required, subject toagreement of all parties. TheCommissioners function was to addresstwo questions:

• What risk would the prisoner poseto the public safety if released onlicence?

• If the prisoner were to be released,would it be possible to manage that risk in order to reduce itssignificance?

3.44 In order to take these decisions, theCommissioners required substantialdocumentary evidence, and at the timeof last inspection their requirementswere placing considerable pressure onthe LMU and, to a lesser extent thePBNI. Improved working practices and closer contact at operational level between the NIPS and the Parole Commissioners meant dossierpreparation had been streamlined, andoverlap of reports and data reduced.While numbers of prisoners sentencedunder CJO legislation were lower thanpredicted, the overall workload hadincreased significantly, mainly due toDeterminate Custodial Sentences (DCS) recall cases; and there were still administrative pressures generatedby annual lifer reviews.

3.45 Progress in the administrative processesof both the Parole Commissioners andthe NIPS was apparent in several otherways including:

• two boardrooms had been madeavailable for Parole Commissionersuse at Maghaberry, effectively

doubling the number of hearings that could take place each day;

• the NIPS was providing informationabout future referrals to the PCNI.At 21 September 2011 there were 47 lifer cases due for hearings beforeMarch 2013: 15 three-year pre-TEDreferrals; 13 six-month referrals; and19 re-referrals;

• all completed dossiers were nowbeing forwarded to Commissionerselectronically;

• case management by the PCNISecretariat had become moresophisticated and detailedmanagement notes were maintained on each case; and

• regular monitoring of case allocation to Commissioners hadbeen introduced.

3.46 Comparison with England and Waleswas favourable in respect of paroleadministration, though this may bereasonably expected as NorthernIreland costs per referral were threetimes more expensive. Her Majesty’sChief Inspector of Prisons for Englandand Wales Annual Report 2010-11stated:

‘Because their progress depends on thedecision of the Parole Board, the timeliness of the preparation of reports and hearingsconvened is crucial to this group. In mostprisons reports were submitted on time butthe Parole Board was often not able toarrange hearings to schedule, which wasunjust and a particular frustration toprisoners…IPP prisoners were particularlyconcerned as this invariably meant prolongedstays in custody beyond their initial tariff orminimum term. Many prisoners we spoke toheld particular grievances that they were notbeing treated fairly.’

20

21

3.47 Despite the progress, there were stilloperational matters that neededattention, such as release plans for lifeprisoners. On the one hand the ParoleCommissioners expected detailed plansto be prepared for their hearings, but it was difficult for Probation Officers to make firm arrangements when aprisoner might not be released. Notonly could their work be nugatory, butvaluable hostel and employment placescould be lost to others who were in aposition to use them. There had alsobeen some difficulties involving therecall process, and there were differentviews about the most appropriate timing to submit reports to theCommissioners. Continued efforts need to be made by everyone involvedto address these types of operationalissues.

Parole hearings

3.48 Case law emphasised the ParoleCommissioners should offer lifeprisoners an oral hearing and shouldapply an adversarial approach, and thePCNI Rules gave considerable discretionto the panel as to how to conduct their hearings. Although the Rules said Commissioners should ‘… seek to avoid formality in the proceedings,’ officials suggested that, as when we last inspected, the hearings were stilllegalistic and often stressful events. User Group minutes indicated that IPPhearings in England were considered bysome to be much less formal thanNorthern Ireland hearings, though theyoutlined contrary views that hearingshad to be formal to be taken seriously,and that they ‘are not case conferences.’

3.49 These were matters where it appearedthat clearer communication couldconsiderably improve things. Variousfora - Users Group and bilateral SeniorManagement meetings, as well as jointtraining events – were now in place tomaintain good communication betweenthe organisations involved in lifer work.However operational staff reported thatthe deliberations and conclusions ofthese fora were not always reachingthem.We recommend the ParoleCommissioners, the PBNI and the NIPS should review their inter-agency and internalcommunication processes toensure all relevant issues aboutlifer work are addressed andoutcomes are communicated torelevant staff at every level.

3.50 The pressures of servicing ParoleCommissioners’ requirements alsoshowed in other ways. Inspectors heard that LMU personnel continued to experience pressures which wereexpressed in a 2007 case review. The review found their handling of the case was unduly weighted towardsprogressing the prisoners’ release onlicence, notwithstanding evidencesuggesting the contrary because ‘….stafffear they are seen to have failed if theprisoner has not reduced his risk.’

3.51 Prison Probation Officers said therewere delays in the allocation ofcommunity Probation Officers in a smallnumber of life prisoners’ cases, whichmeant they had to supervise them in thecommunity after licences were granted.This problem was partly due to theProbation Board’s difficulty in allocatingcases before a release date wasconfirmed. However early introduction

22

of a community Probation Officer tolifer cases could be helpful, especiallywhen the community Officer attendedCommissioners’ hearings to outlineplans for supervision. Werecommend the PBNI shouldallocate a community ProbationOfficer at six months pre-TED on apilot basis for eligible life prisoners,then assess the pilot to plan ahead.

Management information

3.52 The NIPS Prisoner Record InformationSystem (PRISM) had been significantlyrevamped during 2011 and was generatinguseful data to assist lifer management.Better information requirements hadbeen identified and improved data wasbeginning to be generated, for example, inrelation to OBP waiting lists, referrals,commencements and completions.However the quality of information inrespect of lifers differed between thethree Northern Ireland prisons, and theavailable information was not leading tomeaningful improvement in delivery of OBPs. We recommend the NIPS should ensure consistencybetween the prisons in identifyingOBP waiting lists, referral,commencement and completionrates.

3.53 The NIPS did not collate or analyse data in relation to suspensions from thePAU, whether recalled lifers had beensupervised in the community or theduration of their stays in custody whenrecalled. This meant it was not possibleto compare recalls by supervision status, or periods served in custody fortechnical breaches as opposed to actualre-offending. We recommend theNIPS should develop its liferdatabase to distinguish suspensions

from the PAU and recalls from lifelicence by licensee status andlength of stay in custody.

3.54 The Parole Commissioners hadsignificantly improved their internalworkflow projections and casemanagement data; and closer liaison with the NIPS was assisting them toforecast cases that would come throughfor decisions and adhere to time limits,even in complex matters. The PBNImanagement information in relation tolifer management was up-to-date,detailed and accurate.

23

step since it discards all the security ofprison, and there is much at stake forthe public and prisoners.

4.4 Phased return to the community is oftendone in open prisons. Northern Irelanddoes not have an open prison. Insteadthe NIPS transferred lifers at any stagefrom 15 months pre-tariff expiry to apre-release scheme that was based atthe PAU, an annex of the formerCrumlin Road prison. It was managed asa satellite of Maghaberry Prison, had amore relaxed regime, and was ideallylocated on the margin of Belfast citycentre.

4.5 The pre-release scheme consisted ofthree phases to incrementally increaselevels of trust and testing in thecommunity:

• prisoners on Phase One were full-time residents in the PAU. Duringthis time - which was for a minimumof one month - they were ‘taughtbasic life skills;’

• during Phase Two, prisoners resided inthe PAU and attended workplacements between Monday toFriday, with permission to reside in ahostel or an approved home addressat weekends; and

• Phase Three prisoners were

Phased release of life prisoners

4.1 Phased release of life prisoners usuallybegan with periods of AccompaniedTemporary Release and UnaccompaniedTemporary Release. These andCompassionate Temporary Release wereprivileges rather than entitlements, andwere subject to the prisoner meetingcriteria that included sufficient timeserved and having a satisfactory riskassessment. There was inter-agencyconsultation about temporary releases,though in reality it was mainly the NIPSand the PBNI who influenced thedecisions, which were always ratified bya Prison Governor.

4.2 Temporary releases were designed to be purposeful, even if only to verify thatthe prisoner could return to custody intime without having infringed any of the conditions attached to his release.They could also provide positivecommunity and societal familiarisation,and strengthen family links.

The Prisoner Assessment Unit (PAU)

4.3 It is in the public interest that lifeprisoners are prepared for freedombefore being released from closedinstitutions. Providing unsupervisedaccess to the community is a significant

Service delivery - managing the transitionof life prisoners back into the community

CHAPTER 4:

24

permitted to reside and work full-time in the community, but were alsorequired to return to the PAU fordrug and alcohol testing.

4.6 The pre-release scheme couldaccommodate a maximum of 25prisoners. It did not run at full capacity,but by 2011 nearly all its residents werelifers. This was an improvement fromthe last inspection when there wasconsiderable difficulty in gettingprisoners transferred to the PAU, andonly 30% of the population were lifeprisoners.

4.7 There were 17 releases on supervisedlife licence during 2010. Since the lastinspection, 10 life prisoners had beensuspended from the pre-release scheme.Suspensions were mainly for failing orrefusing alcohol and drugs tests,inappropriate relationships or goingabsent without leave. One prisoner hadreceived a suspended sentence for theftand a second was imprisoned in theRepublic of Ireland for theft committedwhile absent without leave.

4.8 Although the pre-release model waslargely appropriate, there werelongstanding and well-documentedproblems with its implementation. A 2007 internal NIPS review led to alimited amount of progress. The reviewstated: ‘Arrangements for prisonerstransferring to the PAU will henceforthinclude a one day orientation visit, multi-disciplinary visit prior to transfer, monthlymulti-disciplinary meetings on prisonerswith particular risks/quarterly on others,weekly diary sheets…’

4.9 A December 2009 NIPS review ofreasons for life prisoners being

suspended from the pre-release scheme,and another internal review in 2010made additional recommendations forimprovement. The April 2009 CJI liferinspection, and July 2009 joint inspectionby CJI and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons, reporting on MaghaberryPrison, also identified concerns. Theseincluded inappropriate staff deployment,inadequate staff training, life prisonersnot receiving help they needed,apparently arbitrary suspensions andsome prisoners finding the pre-releasescheme stressful because theyexperienced hostile scrutiny fromcertain staff. All of these inspections and reviews made recommendations toimprove the pre-release scheme.

Suspension of the PAU

4.10 In April 2011 serious concerns emergedabout the conduct of some staff andprisoners at the PAU. A decision wastaken immediately by the NIPS totemporarily suspend the pre-releasescheme that was based there to facilitatea review, and the staff and prisonerswere returned to Maghaberry Prison.Very few of the 21 prisoners werealleged to have been involved inmisconduct and they felt aggrievedbecause the NIPS was subjecting themto collective punishment.

4.11 The NIPS completed a detailed review of the Unit in October 2011. It addressed its role and function as asemi-open step-down facility, includingselection arrangements and criteria for progression and regression, riskmanagement arrangements, mentalhealth and addictions support forprisoners, the role of the NIPS staff, the PBNI and third sector providers.

25

There was very poor monitoring ofprisoners at the most vulnerable times -weekends and evenings. The practice ofdischarging prisoners from the PAU on aFriday morning until Monday eveningwas questionable. Peer support in thecommunity was meant to be used duringPhase Two, but it was patently not aroutine practice, and was only invokedwhen things went wrong.

• Staffing issues

Although the Review Team were contentthat the PAU standards were adequate,it noted that staff were not familiar withtheir content or requirements. Therewas no evidence that the standards wereused as a baseline for performancemeasurement or that they were audited.

Varying methods existed for selectingstaff to work in the PAU. There was acomplete lack of consistency in trainingand induction of Managers and staff, andlittle evidence of staff rotation. The staffhad appropriate job descriptions butmost were unaware of their existence.

Staff did not adhere to the prescribedworking schedule and the system wasfound to be more about facilitating theirneeds than focussing on prisoners’needs. Night Custody Officers were leftin sole charge of prisoners at night,despite this being in direct contraventionof their terms and conditions of service.They did not participate in riskassessments nor prepare reports, andthey were reported to be insufficientlyexperienced and vulnerable.

• Problems with security

There was limited CCTV coveragewithin the PAU, though frequent and

4.12 The review identified many deficienciesincluding:

• Poor governance

The Unit operated without a clearly-defined business plan or specific aimsand objectives. It had no direct link toMaghaberry’s business plan, and therewas little reference to the pre-releasescheme in the NIPS corporate andbusiness plans. There was no Governorbased at the Unit. Instead it wasmanaged remotely, visited frequently butirregularly by Senior Managers, while theoperational Senior Officer was oftenabsent on business. There was no reliefsystem in place if Managers were off; norwas there a system for evening, night orweekend visits by Managers.

• Inadequate management processes

There were no daily briefings or staffmeetings, and although the PRISMsystem was available, it was not used torecord data and log information. An‘accommodation budget’ existed forPhase Three prisoners, but there wereno criteria for its expenditure, nor anyanalysis of how it had been used toresettle prisoners.

There were difficulties in themanagement of individual prisonersbecause they were the responsibility of different LMU Governors. IndividualGovernors took decisions about ‘their’ prisoners but did not alwayscommunicate clearly with theircolleagues. This led to inconsistency andperceptions of favouritism or differentialtreatment among prisoners in respect ofmatters such as conditions of hostelresidence and temporary release.

thorough searches were undertaken andprisoners’ mobile phones were regularlysubmitted for analysis. Workplace andhostel visits were frequent andunpredictable, but there was noevidence that their findings contributedto the risk management process.

4.13 The review repeated findings andrecommendations of previous internalNIPS reports and external inspectionsthat were never taken forward. Itconcluded that many of its findingsderived from ‘inherited custom andpractice, lack of a clearly defined role andfunction for the PAU, remote managementand a well-intended desire to progressprisoners through phased releaseprogrammes…’ In total it made 51recommendations.

4.14 Suspension of the pre-release schemecaused considerable logistical problems:opportunities for testing prisoners weremuch more difficult from Maghaberry’srural location, which was nowhere nearas suitable as a community location inBelfast. Lack of public transport meantthat vehicles were required for them togo anywhere. Unlike the PAU, there wasno opportunity to assess reliability andquality of interaction within a localcommunity in such routine matters asshopping, getting to and from workindependently or attendingappointments. Search procedures, phonecalls and visits were all applied asnormal in the maximum securityenvironment of Maghaberry, which was aretrograde step for prisoners who weremeant to be acclimatising to reducedsecurity requirements.

4.15 Prison Managers worked hard toalleviate the difficulties, but Inspectors

26

heard of prisoners arriving late fromMaghaberry for work placements, or notgetting to work at all due to transportdifficulties. Meanwhile other eligibleprisoners were backing up in the systemand by February 2012 there was noclear indication of when new step-downprovision would recommence.

Developing a new model for transitionof prisoners into the community

4.16 The Prison Review Team hadrecommended in October 2011 that‘funding should be found, in partnershipwith probation and voluntary andcommunity organisations, for halfway houseand step-down accommodation to managelong-sentenced prisoners return into thecommunity and provide supportedaccommodation for those with mentalhealth and substance use issues.’8 Everyonewas keen that a new step-down facilityfor lifers should commence operation assoon as possible, and options had beenappraised by the NIPS in consultationwith the PBNI. The preferred modelenvisaged joint governance based onshared responsibility between the twoorganisations, possibly with an increasedrole for voluntary sector organisations.The NIPS wanted to apply PBNI’s skillsof managing offenders in the communityand they recognised the value ofadapting Probation Board standards tothe step-down setting. When lifeprisoners transferred there, NIPS staffwould maintain overall responsibility asthey were still serving prisoners. Theywould retain responsibility for custodialand residential provision, while the PBNIwould manage reintegration andcommunity involvement, includingprogramme delivery.

8 Recommendation 7, Final Report of the Northern Ireland Prison Service, Prison Review Team, 24 October 2011.

4.17 Recent experience of the NIPS and thePBNI working together in the OMUsshould help in the new facility, while thePBNI had also gained useful experienceof co-working with the Police Service inthe Public Protection ArrangementsNorthern Ireland (PPANI). The NIPShad become more familiar with casemanagement processes since the OMUswere established, and OMU manuals,protocols and procedures were alreadyin place that could serve as a basis forthe new step-down facility.

4.18 The NIPS Estate Strategy envisaged the new step-down facility couldaccommodate female prisoners as wellas prisoners who had repeatedly failedin their efforts to be safely licensed. It might also incorporate a facility for personality-disordered offendersbecause - unlike elsewhere in the UnitedKingdom - they were not eligible fortreatment under the Northern IrelandMental Health Order.

4.19 It was clear from the NIPS review thattheir step-down facility needed afundamental re-think. Detailed planningmust be undertaken before it opens, andthe Parole Commissioners and otherrelevant agencies should be closelyconsulted. The NIPS Strategic Efficiencyand Effectiveness (SEE) Programme will be an important influence as it is expected to reduce overall staffnumbers significantly during 2012, while it will also provide an opportunityto recruit some new staff.

4.20 Schemes of conditional liberty for lifeprisoners will always operate in a highlypoliticised context because they evokeconcerns about public safety, asevidenced by the Scottish experience.Despite a low level of absconds, the

Scottish Prison Service open prisonpopulation declined steadily since 2007after two absconders committed graveoffences, and in early 2010 it stood atjust above half the maximum capacity of 425.

4.21 Despite significant problems with theways in which the Prison Service hasmanaged the transition of prisoners back into the community, there are alsosignificant areas of good practice tobuild upon from PBNIs supervision andthe voluntary sector hostel experience.In moving forward, and in building onthe work of the Prison Review Team,Inspectors believe there is anopportunity to develop a new approachto managing lifers’ transition to thecommunity. This would involve thedevelopment of a strong partnershiparrangement between the PrisonService, the Probation Service and thevoluntary sector.

4.22 There are several important principlesand operational considerations thatshould be incorporated in the ethos and practice of a new model of servicedelivery:

• There must be clarity about itspurpose and processes

The primary emphasis should be onresettlement rather than on security andcustody. For prisoners on Phase Three adifferent template such as a hostelmodel may be more appropriate. In anyevent the new model should have aproper ‘open’ component. The newfacility must not be used to assistpopulation management if the overallNIPS population increases. If it is toachieve its purpose then unsuitable lifeprisoners or short-term prisoners

27

28

should not be sent there simply tomaximise bed space utilisation.

• Governance arrangements requiredevelopment

Overall responsibility for prisonersbefore they are licensed should remainwith the NIPS, and they become theresponsibility of probation after a lifelicense has been granted. At the sametime the legal responsibilities of bothorganisations should not be an inhibitorto developing a partnership approach tomanaging prisoners. Strong governancearrangements and a regular on-sitemanagement presence must be in place.

• There should be improvements in riskmanagement

For example:

- it should be made clear that lifeprisoners are not automaticallyentitled to progress to the step-downfacility. Progress should be determinedby levels of risk presented rather thanlength of time served or compliance inclosed conditions. Pressures toprogress prisoners through the systemmust not outweigh the assessed risks,and compliant behaviour in a closedprison should not be overvalued as anindicator of suitability for progressingto less secure conditions. Systems fordetermining levels of security thatneed to be applied within prison arenot sufficiently sophisticated orappropriate to deal adequately withpublic protection issues in thecommunity. Those who are assessed as‘low risk’ within prison still need aseparate assessment to determinetheir risk level in the step-downenvironment;

- risk management should be accordedhigher priority than risk assessmentin the new facility. Much of theassessment ought to have beencompleted while the prisoner was incustody. The pre-release scheme musttake close account of, and contributeto risk assessment, but the priorityshould be to test risks in conditions of semi-liberty;

- preparation for transfer should addressthe increased personal responsibilitieswhich attach to greater freedoms, andthe cultural and environmentalchallenges that face those ending long sentences. It might be useful torequire successful completion of a pre-transfer programme in secureconditions as a prerequisite tocommencing the pre-release scheme;and

- a new approach should prepare lifeprisoners for the lifestyle restrictionsthat probation supervision will entailafter their licence has been granted.There should be regular formal liaisonwith the police service as they have aninterest in these prisoners and canassist in monitoring them.

• Staffing requires further development

Staff roles need to be based on workthat is compatible with each agenciesremit and values. Opportunities forimprovement include:

- the personnel should be pro-active,flexible, professionally-trained andaccountable managers andpractitioners who will deliverpurposeful risk management andassessment in a supportive manner;

- a broad, gender-balanced staff mixshould be provided. The core groupshould comprise Prison Officers and

29

Probation Officers. Others mightinclude Occupational Therapists,Forensic practitioners andPsychologists; and

- staff need to conduct announced andunannounced home visits, spot checksat workplaces and regular weekendmonitoring of prisoners who are ontemporary release, in particular thosewith identified addiction problems.

• The views of service users should betaken into account

The views of service users should betaken into account in designing the newfacility. Prisoners suggested that oneyear was the optimal length of time tospend in transition. Several reportedboredom and said momentum couldwane the longer they remained on thepre-release scheme. They noted thatpersonal development opportunitieswere not always maximised. As suchconsideration should be given todelivering OBPs in the step-downfacility, and targets should be set togenerate more sustainable jobs andplacements beyond the charity sector.Prisoners said that home leave was oneof the major incentives of semi-openconditions, even for those who had lostfamily ties.

4.23 The NIPS and its partners should alsoconsider some wider implications thatmay arise when designing their new pre-release scheme. If a large facility(60 beds was mooted) is developed, thiscould considerably ease pressure onoffender hostels. While this would bepositive for bail applicants for whomthere was seldom space in hostels, thedynamics of hostels’ residents groupswould change considerably and therecould also be financial implications for

the VCS organisations that run the sixoffender hostels in Northern Ireland.Given these implications, as well as theVCS experience in providing supportedaccommodation for serious offenders,and taking the Prison Review Team’sRecommendation 7 into account, werecommend that the NIPS shoulddevelop a new pre-release schemeas a matter of urgency. Thescheme should be based at a newstep-down facility and shouldimplement the recommendationsfrom the NIPS October 2011 PAU review; the principles andoperational considerations inparagraph 4.22 of this reportshould also be taken into accountin its design; and the NIPS and thePBNI should consult closely withvoluntary and community sector(VCS) organisations who haveexperience in running offenderhostels, when designing the newscheme and facility.

4.24 Pending the re-opening of a step-downcommunity facility, there needs to bebetter interim arrangements for eligibleprisoners. This could include extendingthe Magilligan Prison lifer pilot.Magilligan would be able to manageadditional life prisoners and it provides abetter regime than Maghaberry. Somelife prisoners who have repeatedly failedat pre-release stage might also benefitfrom being at Magilligan, and visiting maybe easier for families who live in thenorth-west.

The role of the voluntary sector

4.25 Management of life prisoners waschallenging. Some had complex andunresolved needs, such as mental healthproblems and addictions, and many also

30

had high media profiles and could evokenegative community reaction. TheNorthern Ireland criminal justiceorganisations therefore used all availableresources in this area of their work.

4.26 Voluntary sector organisations had long made an important contribution insupporting the NIPS and the PBNI’spreparation of life prisoners for release,and in their supervision after beinglicensed. Volunteer mentors, mentalhealth charities, addiction services, jobtraining providers, drama companies andothers provided valuable support toprisoners during sentence and whilemaking the transition to community life.This had the benefit of normalisingthings by providing services that werenot directly linked to the criminal justiceworld.

4.27 The six offender hostels in NorthernIreland were all managed by VCSorganisations. They played a significantrole in community testing of lifeprisoners, combining supervisedaccommodation and other practicalhelp, with restrictions such as curfewsand alcohol testing to help manage therisks. CJI’s ‘Inspection of PBNI approvedpremises’ (July 2008) provides furtherinformation on this important aspect ofresettlement practice.

4.28 There was an increasing reliance onhostels to help resettle life prisoners,and this had increased since the PAUwas suspended in April 2011. InDecember 2011 there were eight lifeprisoners occupying hostel beds (12% of availability) and another six hadapplications pending. Demandoutstripped supply, which led to thepractice of hotbedding, with severalprisoners taking turns to use the same

hostel room at different times of theweek. This was unpopular. A shortageof hostel places at Christmas 2010meant that some life prisoners wereunable to be temporarily released, eventhough they were deemed safe to be ina hostel and had been out for previousChristmas leave periods.

4.29 The NIPS paid £40 per night for lifers’hostel accommodation up to the pointwhen they were licensed. This was anessential arrangement since they wereineligible for housing benefit due to still technically being serving prisoners.It could take several weeks for housingbenefit applications to be processed, and hostels incurred a financial loss ifresidents did not obtain the benefitbefore leaving. However the mainpressure on hostels came from mediainterest in some of their lifer residents.It could be distinctly uncomfortable foreveryone who lived or worked in ahostel when a resident was beingphotographed and identified innewspapers, television and radio.

4.30 It was difficult to acquire employmentand training opportunities for lifeprisoners and the NIPS was heavilydependent on charities such asNorthern Ireland Association for theCare and Resettlement of Offenders(NIACRO), Extern and Barnardos. These organisations offered worthwhileoccupation and responsible monitoring,though the places were often time-limited and had to be terminated once alife prisoner was granted their licence.

Supervision of life licensees in thecommunity

4.31 The LSO and the CJO provided thelegislative basis for indeterminate

31

sentence prisoners to be released intothe community on licence. Theselicences contained conditions whichwere designed to control behaviour andthus protect the public from seriousharm, as well as promoting rehabilitationof the offender. The DoJ wasresponsible for setting licenceconditions, and where appropriaterecalling offenders to prison forbreaching the terms of their licences.

4.32 In October 2011 the PBNI wassupervising 48 life licences in thecommunity - 17 more than when we last inspected. Twenty-three were beingsupervised in Greater Belfast, 14 in rural areas and 11 were supervised byspecialist teams. Between 2000-08 anaverage of three life prisoners werebeing licensed each year. This rose to anaverage of 12 per year between 2009-11;and there is potential for up to 70releases by 2015. These numbers willbe partially offset by discontinuedsupervision of some life licences, butthere will still be an overall net increaseas discontinuations are unlikely to keeppace with the potential increase inlicences.

4.33 A community Probation Officer assumedresponsibility for supervising the case once a life licence was granted.The nature of supervision would bedetermined by licence conditions and by PBNI standards which prescribedminimum requirements for supervision.The standards stipulated weekly contactat the outset, as well as planned andunannounced home visits. Appropriatedisclosure would be made to employers,landlords and significant others; andabsence from normal place of residenceor travel outside Northern Ireland hadto be approved by the supervisor.

4.34 All the community Probation Officerswith whom Inspectors met reportedthat they received close support fromthe PBNIs specialist lifer manager andpsychology department. ProbationOfficers suggested the standards towhich they operated were useful inproviding a framework for their practice,though they felt key performancemeasures and risk assessment methodswere not always synchronised with thestandards. They also considered that bi-annual, rather than quarterly riskassessments and reporting to the LSUwould suffice.

4.35 The vast majority of the 48 life licenseesin the community were doing well at the time of this inspection. HoweverProbation Officers were constantlysurprised at how quickly after releasesome licensees failed to comply whenthere was so much at stake for them.Their overall experience was that veryfew licensed lifers had a straightforwardtransition from secure custody throughthe various pre-release stages toultimate discharge of the supervisionrequirement.

4.36 Attention to detail was a hallmark ofthe PBNI’s practice in this area of work,and Probation Officers were expectedto apply a very thorough approach tomanagement of life licensees. Therewere important decisions to be takenabout complex issues, and eachProbation Officer had a designatedbackup who would cover during leaveperiods and offer an alternativeperspective at other times. PBNI’sability to manage any new risks safely incommunity was constantly under reviewas escalation of risk could lead to thelicensee being promptly recalled toprison.

4.37 Formal annual reviews were undertakento agree frequency of contact andidentify any additional conditionsnecessary for the management of thecase. They were chaired by a PBNIAssistant Director. Inspectors observedfive annual reviews. Each case had arobust and meaningful management plan. A range of relevant practitionersattended the reviews, written reportswere available and the supervisee wascentrally involved. The supervisees sawthe reports that were written aboutthem and knew their risk scores and the significance attached to them.

4.38 The focus was on managing risk byaddressing areas of need. Progress wascommended and clear plans were setfor the incoming year. The tone of thereviews was formal but supportive. Itwas apparent that supervisor/superviseerelationships were for the long-term aslife licenses lasted much longer than themajority of other orders supervised bythe PBNI. The professional relationshipsbetween supervisors and life licenseeswere often challenging and ProbationOfficers had to be resilient to keepthem on track.

4.39 Discontinuation of supervision could beconsidered if the licensee demonstratedsustained stability in the community for at least four years. Applications had to be approved by the ParoleCommissioners and by the Minister of Justice. Three applications todiscontinue life supervision were madeduring 2011.

4.40 Inspectors saw two applications whichwere made after licensees had spent ten years and six years respectivelyunder supervision in the community.

The applications consisted of detailedreports that evidenced reduced risk andpositive responses to supervision sincerelease. Even after applications todiscontinue supervision were granted,the life licence remained in place withthe possibility of recall to prison for theremainder of the offenders natural life.

4.41 The PBNI took their responsibility veryseriously and features of good practiceincluded:

• Psychology – Northern Ireland wasthought to be the only United Kingdomjurisdiction that provided a communitypsychology service to assist in themanagement of life licensees. ThePBNI’s Head of Psychology Services andInterventions and four Psychologistshelped manage the risks they carried in supervising life licensees in thecommunity. Their psychologydepartment was actively engaged withall supervised lifers and worked closelywith the Lifer Managers and supervisingProbation Officers.

• Out-of-hours cover – Since 2009 out-of-hours management support for lifelicensee issues received specific focuswithin the Probation Board’s routine on-call response.

• Training – Specialist training days wereorganised for life licence supervisors.These were sometimes shared withNIPS personnel, and Probation Officersreported they were helpful andsupportive events.

• File recording – Inspectors viewed eightfiles which comprised both electronicand hard copy material. The lifermanager also held a shadow version of

32

33

the file. The files that Inspectors viewedcontained detailed, up-to-date risk ofserious harm assessments, offenderfeedback, LSU progress reports, writtenwarnings, annual reviews (13 in thelongest supervised case) and ongoingcontact sheets. There was evidence of several statutory agencies and VCS organisations actively involved in supporting the PBNI in theirmanagement of the licensee. Theseincluded Social Services, the NorthernIreland Housing Executive, Northlands,NIACRO, Extern and Opportunity Youth.

• Recall reviews – Since the lastinspection seven licensed lifers had beenrecalled, four due to concerns aboutheightened risk and three due to minorfurther offending. The PBNI hadundertaken four reviews to elicit anylearning points that might emerge.

4.42 Community Probation Officers facedseveral cognitive and practical challengeswhich made this area of work especiallycomplex. They had to address theimpact of institutionalisation, grievancethinking, lack of trust and resistance totheir intrusion and disclosure tolicensees’ relatives and friends. ThePBNI were clearly viewed by lifeprisoners as the agency which led ontheir risk assessment and management,both in custody and in the community.They were seen as the main enforcers of their licence, which could militateagainst working relationships.

4.43 Whereas there were formerly anaverage three conditions on life licenses,some now contained up to 11conditions, which was considerably moredemanding for Probation Officers tooversee. A total of 20% percent of

current licensees were required toabstain entirely from alcohol and/ordrugs, and a further 30% were requiredto address alcohol/drugs issues.

35

Outcomes for life prisoners

5.1 Good outcomes for prisoners areimportant because they mean that risksare reduced, and therefore re-offendingis less likely. Life prisoners shared the same frustrations as most otherprisoners in Northern Ireland. Thesehave been well-documented in previousinspection reports, and included over-emphasis on security, lengthy periods of lockup, poor quality education andhealthcare, boredom and anunpredictable regime. Life prisonersalso had to deal with uncertainty abouttheir release and watching otherprisoners come and go while theyremained in custody.

5.2 The main location for life prisoners was Maghaberry Prison. It was holding184 lifers in November 2011. Of these, 117 had progressed to Braid House orWilson House, and the remainder werein the main prison. Four life prisonerswere in Hydebank Wood YOC and six inthe Women’s Prison, Ash House.

5.3 Life prisoners in the main MaghaberryPrison were generally more negativeabout their regime than those who hadprogressed through the system. Most ofthose in the main prison were therebecause they did not yet meet thecriteria to transfer to Braid House or

needed to be kept apart from otherprisoners.

5.4 The limited opportunities for womenlife prisoners to progress heightenedtheir sense of confinement andexacerbated the normal tensions ofimprisonment. Their best prospect wasto progress to Ash 4 and 5 landings inHydebank Wood. Although calmer andallowing a greater measure of self-regulation than elsewhere in thewomen’s prison, these landings wereshared with just a small number ofother women, and could be veryclaustrophobic.

5.5 Longer serving life prisoners identifiedsteady improvement since a structuredlifer system was introduced in NorthernIreland in 2001. Several who hadcustodial experience in England and the Republic of Ireland were able tocompare; they said there was more pro-active lifer management in Englishprisons, and that life prisoners therewere kept busier. Maghaberry howeverwas reported to offer better visits andenhanced opportunities for familycontact. Inter-prison visits with relativeswere more manageable in NorthernIreland. Food, tuck shop andstaff/prisoner relationships were allreported as more relaxed than in theRepublic of Ireland. Foreign national

Assessment of outcomes

CHAPTER 5:

prisoners who could not receive visitssaid they appreciated free weekly phonecalls home.

5.6 Many life prisoners sought the moretranquil environment of Braid andWilson Houses in Maghaberry. Theyalso provided much better visits (twohours duration and quieter than themain prison), extra gym sessions andmore relaxed interaction with staff. The37 life prisoners held in Wilson Housecould cater for themselves, had laterlockup times and unaccompanied accesswithin the prison walls. Some staff toldInspectors they viewed Wilson House asa community of which they were part,though this was variable and staffrotation meant their positive demeanourwas not consistent.

5.7 A few life prisoners had asked to moveback from Braid House because they feltit offered less work opportunities, only asmall exercise yard and no freemovement within the grounds. At leastin the main prison they were able towalk to and from education and visits,and apart from better visits, Braid Housefelt too confined for them. Thiscontradicted the ethos of progression,and while recognising the variouspopulation and other pressures thatexist, we recommend Maghaberrymanagement should furtherdevelop its regime for life prisonersto ensure progression is not offsetby loss of other privileges.

5.8 By 2011 all lifers had received a tariff.Some had entered prison before tariffswere applied to life sentences, and hadto adapt to the tariff lengths that wereretrospectively awarded in their cases.Many of the life prisoners who wereover tariff had a history of difficult

conduct in prison or had failed at thePAU. These failings often reflectedsocial inadequacies that were evidentbefore they entered prison. Some had asexual element to their index offences,and sex offenders were also themajority of the discretionary lifers.

36

5.9 Since 2006 the NIPS had a corporatetarget that every life prisoner shouldhave a sentence plan, which would bereviewed annually. The plans andreviews afforded an opportunity toformally assess progress and determinethe way ahead. The NIPS was trying to

Prisoner A had a 25-year tariff and hadserved 30 years to date. He knew that hisdemeanour and previous conduct causedconcern, but was frustrated at beingbrought back to Maghaberry from the PAUin April 2011. Prisoner A said “That wasunfair as I did nothing wrong, and am stillin Maghaberry.” He was spendingweekends in a hostel and attended ExternRecycling during the week, though wasunsure what the longer term future heldfor his prospects of being licensed.

Prisoner B had a 20-year tariff and served21 years so far. He had taken 10 years tosettle in prison. He said this was“…entirely my own fault… fighting, likedmy drugs, deceit…” However, over thepast 18 months he had progressed toreceiving Accompanied TemporaryReleases. He had completed all therequired programmes, and wasdisappointed that his risk levels had notreduced significantly. He appreciated theincreased levels of freedom and trust inWilson House, but did not expectsignificant developments towards beinglicensed in the near future.

engage lifers in the process and thetarget was invariably met each year.Many of the prisoners, however saidtheir sentence plans and annual reviewswere of limited value and:

“….fairly irrelevant. They only confirm thethings you are doing anyway, like stayingdrugs free, remain Enhanced, studying etc…I have plenty of personal goals – education,work, training, but this system frustratestheir achievement.”

Inspectors commend the practice ofholding annual reviews, though manywere bland and similar. Werecommend that annual liferreviews should become moremeaningful and individualised, andactively reviewed at least twiceduring the year by the prisoner and a keyworker.

Prison staff views

5.10 NIPS Officers told Inspectors that, whilemany lifers had difficulty in coming toterms with their sentence at the outset,they usually settled down and wereeasier to manage than other prisoners.Staff recognised prisoners’ frustrationsand were often sympathetic, but feltpowerless to change things. A PrisonOfficer said “Braid is a good facility, but itis in the wrong place – it should be nearerfacilities such as education, healthcare andworkshops.”

5.11 LMU staff suggested they were cautiousbut progressive in managing lifeprisoners. They were always seekingoffers of assistance from externalorganisations, and had recently obtainedhelp from an organisation that wasproving valuable, free mentoring supportfor isolated lifers. There had been no

judicial reviews since 2007 by lifeprisoners who were refused Christmashome leave, which staff felt wasattributable to having continuouslyrefined their criteria and providedgreater clarity around eligibility.

Suspensions from the pre-releasescheme

5.12 Most life prisoners said they hadreceived adequate preparation formoving to the pre-release scheme, andthose who had been suspended becauseof misconduct knew the reasons forbeing returned to prison. Several saidthey had simply been unable to complywith the stringent conditions. Howeversome contested the basis of theirsuspension and suggested that certainPAU personnel made life difficult, ratherthan assisted them to cope with thestresses of re-adjusting to communitylife.

5.13 In keeping with a former inspectionrecommendation, a more individualisedresponse was now being applied by theNIPS to prisoners who were suspendedfrom the pre-release scheme. The caseof two who failed drugs tests during thisinspection provided an example.Whereas in the past they would havebeen automatically demoted in regimelevel and regressed to the main prison,these prisoners were only moved backto Braid House. They were referred toa drugs programme and allowed tomaintain their Accompanied TemporaryReleases, subject to individualassessment. They received writtennotification of the decision to regressthem, and had an opportunity torespond to the charges at a caseconference.

37

5.14 A December 2009 NIPS review of sevenlife prisoners who were suspended fromthe pre-release scheme found they had:

• an average of 22 temporary releaseseach prior to being suspended;

• an average of four breaches each. The range was two - eight breaches;

• reasons for suspension includedthreatening behaviour, unauthoriseduse of a motor vehicle or a mobilephone, going absent withoutpermission, forming inappropriaterelationships and substance misuse;

• five of the seven had transferred intothe NIPS custody, mostly fromEngland;

• consumption of alcohol was asignificant factor in their suspension;

• most had significant criminal historiesbefore they were sentenced to lifeimprisonment;

• they had completed an average ofthree offending programmes each, but some had not completed all the relevant programmes beforetransferring to the pre-releasescheme, and unavailability of OBPs onthe pre-release scheme was identifiedas a limitation;

• personal social deficits combinedwith extended periods ofimprisonment made it difficult forsome prisoners to maintain supportnetworks and develop appropriaterelationships; and

• lack of gender balance in the PAUworkforce (there was only onefemale Officer) limited theopportunity for prisoners todemonstrate appropriate, pro-socialmale/female relationships.

5.15 A small number of life prisoners hadbeen suspended on more than oneoccasion from the pre-release stages,and the NIPS and others struggled tobalance their resettlement needs againstmanaging the risks they might pose tothe public. Individual programmes hadbeen designed for these prisoners withthe aim of providing socialisationopportunities, rather than necessarily asa precursor to release. They wereusually resource intensive cases whichsignificantly challenged the best effortsof all the agencies.

Terrorist Related Offenders (TROs)

5.16 Under the terms of the BelfastAgreement, the Northern Ireland(Sentences) Act was introduced in July1998. Prisoners convicted of scheduled

38

A life prisoner went absent from his pre-release scheme without permission on fiveoccasions between March 2002 -December 2009. He absconded fromUnaccompanied Temporary Releases, hishostel and work placements. He wasrecognised as a very poor coper and hisperiods of absence ranged from hours to11 days. He re-offended by committingtheft and car theft on two occasions.

Case conference minutes showed repeatedattempts by prison staff, Probation Officersand the Parole Commissioners to engagehim. Careful attention was paid to therisks he might pose, there were regularreview meetings and Parole Commissionerhearings. The prisoner was offered anopportunity to make writtenrepresentations and to attend in person.At October 2011 he remained in prison.

offences and attracting a sentence of fiveyears or more became eligible to applyfor early release to the IndependentSentence Review Commissioners. None of these prisoners were subject to supervision by the PBNI. Between1998-2010 there were 149 lifersreleased under the terms of theNorthern Ireland (Sentences) Act.Around 20 of them were back incustody in November 2011.9 It wasdifficult for the agencies to determinehow best to manage the risks theyposed since their motivation was not‘ordinary’ criminal conduct that mightbe susceptible to psychology orprobation risk assessment and riskmanagement methodologies.

5.17 A working group comprising the DoJ,the NIPS, the PBNI and the PoliceService of Northern Ireland had beenestablished to address the issuesinvolved in all cases where sentencedprisoners were considered to beterrorist-related. It was generallyaccepted that community supervision bythe PBNI was neither appropriate norviable in these cases. The ProbationBoard’s longstanding practice has beenthat any TROs who committed a newnon-terrorist offence would be assessedand managed in respect of the newmatter. The position in March 2012 was that working arrangements hadbeen agreed whereby assessment andcase management would address the‘ordinary’ offending of these prisoners,but not their motivation regarding theoriginal offence.

Community supervision

5.18 Inspectors spoke with four licensed lifeprisoners who had been subject to PBNI supervision for periods of betweenseven months - 17 years. All hadresisted supervision to varying degrees,especially at the initial stages of theirlicence. Many held negative views andgrievances towards officialdom, and theystruggled with the shift in the PBNIsrole over the past decade, from aprimarily welfare focus to riskmanagement and enforcement. Theyresented the levels of intrusion thataccompanied supervision, such asdisclosure about their offences to newpartners, employers and landlords.However all said that probation treatedthem fairly over the longer-term, andthat their views were heard, even if notaccepted.

5.19 The licensees knew their current riskscores and were able to read reportsthat were written about them. Theyprovided examples of constructive andrestrictive interventions that wereapplied to meet their risks and needs.These included accommodation,employment and training programmes,addictions treatment, art therapy,constructive recreation, and controlssuch as breathalyser and drugs tests,curfews and diary monitoring. They said their Probation Officer was usuallyclosely involved when crises arose intheir lives, especially if there was anyhint that their risk levels might increase.

39

9 Digest of Information on the Northern Ireland criminal justice system, DoJ Statistics and Research Branch, Autumn 2011.

5.20 The supervisees felt their preparationfor release had been carefully managed,beginning with Accompanied andUnaccompanied Temporary Releases. In some cases the NIPS had paid a keydeposit and one months rent to helpthem obtain suitable accommodation.They found changes of communityProbation Officer were irritating, butreported that new Officers were usuallywell-briefed before taking oversupervision.

5.21 Most life licensees preferred to distancethemselves from the criminal justicesystem in their attempts to resume anormal life. It was more difficult forthem to access services such asaddictions support in the community, asthere was constant demand and theyhad no special claim on these services.Nor was it easy for some to maintain alow profile, and the PBNI had to arrangeemergency accommodation whennegative publicity threatened somelicensees’ safety.

Recalls from life licence and licencecancellations

5.22 Recall to prison was always a possibilityfor released lifers, not only uponreconviction for committing freshoffences, but also in response to aheightened risk that was assessed asunsafe to manage in the community -which was sometimes a consequence offailure to comply with licenceconditions. For lifers recall wasnormally processed via the NIPS LSU,and in exceptional cases could beexpedited in an emergency via the NIPSOffender Recall Unit. In either

circumstance, the Parole Commissionerswere asked to rule on appropriatenessof the decision to recall.

5.23 Between 2007 - November 2010 thePBNI had no reported convictions ofserious further offending by thosesubject to licence conditions.10 Sevensupervised licensees had been recalledsince the last inspection.

5.24 Since December 2001 a total of 41 lifesentence prisoners had been recalled toprison, 28 of these had been prosecutedfor a further offence. Records alsoindicate that at least 14 other lifelicensees had received letters warningthem about their behaviour; but none ofthe offences suggested that risk to thepublic had increased to a level to justifyrecall.11

5.25 The number of life licensees undersupervision in England and Wales rosefrom 1,350 in 2004-05 to 1,763 in 2010-11. Parole Board figures for 2010-11show that 111 (6.3%) prisoners on lifelicence were recalled during the year, arise from the 5% in 2009-10. The mainreasons for recall were deterioration inbehaviour (69) and further charges(28).12

Outcomes for victims

5.26 The criminal justice agencies wereworking to improve services for lifeprisoners’ victims and their relatives inorder to help them manage feelingsabout traumatic incidents, receiveaccurate factual information and havetheir needs properly considered.Understanding the victim’s perspective

40

10 PBNI Disclosure Log Freedom of Information (FoI) request 02324, 9 December 2010.11 Northern Ireland Assembly Hansard, Friday 23 December 2011.12 Parole Board for England and Wales, Annual Report and Accounts 2010 -11.

could also inform case management ofthe offender while in prison and afterbeing licensed.

5.27 Relatives could register with the PBNIVictim Information Scheme and thePrison Service Victim InformationScheme (PRVIS) to receive informationabout sentences imposed in respect ofoffences that affected them. There hadbeen some progress since the last liferinspection: in November 2009 the PBNIVictims Unit had begun offering reportsthat outlined relatives’ views to theParole Commissioners when lifers’three-year pre-TED hearings were beingconducted. This was an addition to itsexisting role of offering information torelatives when a licensed life prisonerwas being supervised in the community.Another positive development was that,whereas relatives who registered withthe prison scheme were formerly dealtwith by both the LSU and the LMU, theynow had to engage only with the PRVIS.

5.28 While there was good informationsharing between the NIPS and PBNIVictim Information Schemes, theyoperated in very different ways: PBNIVictim Liaison Officers (VLOs) heldface-to-face meetings with families, butthe PRVIS had little direct contact withrelatives and mainly provided a leafletinformation scheme that wassupplemented by phone contact.

5.29 Families could make their ownrepresentations to the ParoleCommissioners via the PRVIS. VictimSupport Northern Ireland might assist inthis process but it was otherwiseunstructured. PBNI reports werecompiled by VLOs who worked in pairs

41

and visited family homes, often meetinglarge groups of extended familymembers. Their experience has beenthat these meetings could be powerfuland significant events, perhaps the firstopportunity ever for participants toarticulate their views about the death of a loved one. Emotions had to becarefully handled, particularly if relativeswere coping with the shock of learning a prisoner was being considered forrelease. This information might only bemade known to them by a letter fromthe NIPS or PBNI’s Victim InformationSchemes.

5.30 The PBNI explained that relatives couldidentify risk management issues whichmay not otherwise be apparent. Asthese issues might impact directly onmanagement of the life prisoner, theywould be shared with supervisingOfficers. The PBNI was responsive toviews which could inform the OBPs thatlife prisoners had to undertake and theirlicence conditions; and life prisonerswho were being supervised in thecommunity had been removed todifferent accommodation on the basis of relatives’ representations.

5.31 VLOs would share a draft report withthe victim’s relatives, and a prisonProbation Officer would discuss it with the prisoner who had a right tocomment upon the contents. VLOswould explain life licence requirementsand the controls that would be applied.Feedback indicated that relatives whowere in contact with the PBNI valuedthe service and said it helped that theywere able to engage with statutoryrepresentatives of the criminal justicesystem.

42

5.32 Probation reports were based on theParole Commissioners Rules. Thecurrent (2009) Rules were considered to be an improvement on the previousversion in that they specified ‘victimattitude’ should be separatelyconsidered from ‘community attitude’.By November 2011 there had been 27requests for reports. A of total 17% had been submitted and the PBNIexpected this work to increase in linewith the growing numbers of lifers beingsentenced and approaching tariff.

5.33 Not all relatives were registered with aVictim Information Scheme, some due tounawareness as their involvement withthe criminal justice system pre-datedcommencement of the schemes; andothers because they consciously electednot to participate. Relatives’ levels ofawareness of the Information Schemeswas expected to increase over time asnearly all newly-sentenced life prisonersnow had pre-sentence reports preparedby the PBNI, and further advertisementshould also raise the profile.

5.34 The LMU was helpful in providinginformation and contacts to the PBNI,but did not always have the necessaryinformation. There were hurdles inobtaining contact details as dataprotection principles dictated thatrelatives had to be contacted via thepolice. Although a protocol existedbetween probation and the police forthis purpose, it was not workingproperly due to police resourcingdifficulties that arose in June 2011. Theupshot was that the Probation Boardwas having problems in tracing relativesto offer their service. The PBNI are astatutory agency with a proven record

of delivering valued assistance in thishighly-sensitive area, and it seemsappropriate that they should be enabledto directly access victims’ relatives to offer a service. Establishment ofWitness Care Units may assist in this respect, but in the meantimeInspectors recommend that thePBNI should document the volumeand impacts of their difficulties incontacting victims, and share thefindings with the PSNI; and that the PSNI should provide adequateresources to ensure victiminformation is provided to theProbation Board in a timely way.

5.35 CJI’s ‘Care and treatment of victims andwitnesses in the criminal justice system inNorthern Ireland’ inspection report(published December 2011) assessedthe Victim Information Schemescurrently in operation. It recommendedtheir amalgamation under the auspicesof the PBNI. The purpose of this is toensure that personal contact will beoffered by trained staff in all cases thatregister to receive information; and alsoto provide a central point for all post-conviction information so that confusionamongst victims will be minimised.

Outcomes for public protection

5.36 The ultimate aim of lifer managementprocesses was to ensure the public wasprotected against any risks that releasedprisoners - who had committed themost serious offences - might pose. Inorder to further this aim the last CJIlifer inspection recommended ‘The NIPSshould establish close formal liaison withthe Public Protection Team.’ Thisrecommendation was accepted in

43

principle and an Instruction toGovernors issued by December 2009 clarifying NIPS responsibilities.

5.37 CJI reported on Public ProtectionArrangements Northern Ireland (PPANI) in June 201113 and said:

‘The Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS)was better engaged with the PPANI than inthe past, but needed to further increase itscommitment, for example to interagencytraining and by increasing the offendingbehaviour programmes provided in prisons.Governors were now designated to attendLAPP Panels, and NIPS Instruction toGovernors 22/09 – NIPS Internal PublicProtection Arrangements provided a detailedoutline of responsibilities for both NIPS and seconded PBNI staff who worked in the prisons. As was the case when weconducted previous public protectioninspections, the NIPS still depended heavilyon seconded PBNI personnel to ensure their responsibilities were properlyfulfilled…There was a mismatch betweenthe NIPS’ expectations of the PPANI andwhat could actually be provided.’

5.38 Some useful work had however beenundertaken since 2009. Whereas theNIPS had wanted Local Area PublicProtection Panels to assess lifeprisoners who were going on eight hourUnaccompanied Temporary Releases, itwas agreed in January 2010 that theywould only be referred once the NIPSinternal assessment considered the risks were sufficiently reduced to allow overnight testing. Otherwise the NIPS own controls would provide asufficiently defensible position fordecisions about UnaccompaniedTemporary Releases. It took some

time to achieve this agreement, but oncein place it clarified the NIPS-PPANIrelationship and the new arrangementswere considered to be functioningeffectively in respect of lifers.

13 An inspection of Public Protection Arrangements Northern Ireland, CJI, 13 June 2011.

Copyright© Criminal Justice Inspection Northern IrelandAll rights reserved

First published in Northern Ireland in July 2012 byCRIMINAL JUSTICE INSPECTION NORTHERN IRELAND

14 Great Victoria StreetBelfast BT2 7BA

www.cjini.org

ISBN 978-1-905283-78-1

Typeset in Gill Sans Printed in Northern Ireland by XXXXXXXXXXX

Designed by Page Setup

the management of life and indeterminate sentence ... · the management of life and indeterminate...

Documents