PSO 4700 Replacement chapter 4 page 1
4. SERVING THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
4.1 Aims
4.1.1 The structure and processes for managing indeterminate sentence prisoners (ISP) are derived from the following aims:
Ø ISPs will be detained in custody in accordance with the sentence imposed by the Courts and protection of the public must be paramount in their management;
Ø ISPs will be managed through their sentence plan with the primary aim being to meet their individual needs and help them to reduce the risk of serious harm they present to the public, in line with the principles of offender management and in the light of the principle that the ultimate responsibility for demonstrating a reduction in risk lies with the offender;
Ø ISP sentence plans will aim to identify the risks the prisoner must reduce and offer the effective and timely delivery of properly identified interventions, having regard to available resources, so that:
· Parole Board reviews can be meaningful;
· the release of ISPs is facilitated where it is safe to do so;
· any period of continued detention beyond tariff is necessary because the risk of harm remains too high for release to be appropriate.
Ø ISPs will be referred to the Parole Board at or just before their tariff expiry date and at regular intervals of no more than two years thereafter, in accordance with the direction of the Secretary of State;
Ø Sentence plans drawn up by Offender Managers and/or Offender Supervisors and release decisions taken by the Parole Board will be supported by robust and reasoned risk management assessments;
Ø All work with ISPs will be conducted in accordance with National Specifications and Outcomes; and
Ø The protection of the public will be the principal factor determining the management of the offender whilst on licence.
4.1.2 The management of an indeterminate sentence. ISPs no longer have to move through set stages in order to progress through their sentence. Whilst the female estate will continue to call their categorisation system ‘stages’, see chapter 9, the principles here will apply equally. Each ISP will now have an individual sentence pathway. Each offender’s indeterminate sentence will be managed, as far as possible, to best meet their intervention needs, based upon the following principles:
Ø Staff involved in the management of ISPs will have appropriate training. (see 4.4.1)
Ø An ISP’s sentence will be managed primarily in accordance with the risk of harm they pose to the public, rather than their offence or the length of tariff.
Ø An ISP’s assessed risk level will be determined by the risk factors in their individual case.
Ø An ISP’s risks will be assessed and reviewed using the most appropriate tools, as identified by OASys assessments and complementary specialist assessment protocols where necessary.
Ø Risk factors will be identified, as a minimum, by reference to the following:
§ The nature of offence
§ The circumstances of offence and degree of interpersonal and other aggression used
§ The presence of any special (pathological, sexually unusual or conspicuous) behaviour during or after the offence
§ The offender’s offending history
§ The motivation/triggers behind the offence
§ Victim information
§ Lifestyle and background
§ Behaviour and attitude
§ Presence of substance or alcohol misuse
§ Mental health (including Personality Disorders)
Ø Identified risks will be addressed by a range of interventions, having regard to the availability of resources, and the ISP sentence plan must take account of what may be reasonably delivered through the sentence. Moreover, and fundamentally, it is the ISP’s responsibility to work to reduce his/her risk of harm to the point where the Parole Board can consider it safe to release them into the community. Interventions are not limited to accredited programmes or specific providers, and can include;
§ Prison regime
§ Education
§ Training/work skills
§ Offending behaviour/substance misuse programmes and services
§ Individual therapeutic interventions
§ Psychiatric in-reach
§ Personality Disorder services.
§ Therapeutic Communities.
Ø The offender’s sentence plan will be managed and sequenced through the sentence, with actions aimed at their individual needs rather than interventions available at an establishment, so as to assist the offender to reduce their risk.
Ø ISPs with short (3 years or less) tariffs and those with three years or less to their tariff expiry date or next Parole Board review should be prioritised (over those serving longer tariffs) for interventions.
Ø Sentence plans must span the transition between custody and release into the community, and interventions should be planned to take place during custody and after release.
Ø Appropriate arrangements for management in the community under MAPPA will be in accordance with chapter 1 of the Public Protection Manual and the National MAPPA Guidance.
Ø ISPs will be released under standard licence conditions and, where necessary, with additional licence conditions specific to the offender which address the following:
§ Release and resettlement issues.
§ The residual risk of serious harm and the risk of reoffending.
§ The rights of the victim to be protected, which must be balanced against the offender’s rights to serve their sentence in the community.
§ The sensitivity of the case.
Ø Any conditions relating to victims must (in accordance with Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights - right to respect for private and family life) be proportionate and necessary to fulfil the purposes of ensuring public safety and/or the prevention of crime.
Ø ISPs will be managed in the community in accordance with the terms of their release licence and their assessed risk of harm. If appropriate they will be managed within the context of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA).
Ø ISP licences will be robustly enforced so that recall action is taken if risk escalates.
4.1.3 Directors of Offender Management (DOMs) and High Security will operate within the framework of this Manual and other instructions and guidance. It is for Directors of Offender Management and High Security to determine the best way to manage the ISPs in their establishments, as long as they meet these guiding principles, and with regard to their ISP population, the estate they have at their disposal and their available resources.
4.1.4 Adult prisons must not have allocation criteria which exclude ISPs or limit the maximum numbers of ISPs it will hold, except where such criteria are exceptionally authorised by the DOM (Director of High Security for dispersal prisons), after consultation with their Regional Custody Manager (RCM) and National Operations Group (NOG). Where such authorisation is given, Public Protection and Mental Health Group (PPMHG) and NOG must be informed.
4.1.5 Young adult male IPPs are allocated to appropriate YOIs, in accordance with the designations stipulated in PSI 44/2008. Other than in respect of tariff lengths, YOIs must not have allocation criteria which exclude ISPs or limit the maximum numbers of ISPs it will hold, except where such criteria are exceptionally authorised by the DOM, after consultation with their RCM and NOG. Where such authorisation is given, PPMHG and NOG must be informed.
4.1.6 DOMs should extend the monitoring process set up under PSO 1810 to ensure the stability of establishments in their region is monitored in regards to their ISP population. The precise nature of the arrangements, which must be recorded, will be for DOMs to determine. If particular concerns arise about the impact of ISP allocations on an establishment's stability, consideration can be given to an exceptional (and temporary) restriction on ISP allocations - in accordance with 4.1.4 or 4.1.5 above.
4.1.7 The Directorate of High Security will take particular responsibility for the system’s management of Category A ISPs, whilst playing an important role in the management of Category B ISPs. Assisted by National Operations Group, DOMs will ensure there is appropriate coordination and liaison across different regions and with the Directorate of High Security to provide effective management of the ISP population across the prison system, taking account of national population management strategies.
4.1.8 DOMs must ensure, as far as possible, ISPs in a given Region are not disadvantaged in their ability to work towards, or to demonstrate, reduction in their risk factors (particularly in terms of prospects for release post-tariff) compared to ISPs in other Regions.
4.2 Categorisation
4.2.1 ISPs will continue to be individually categorised. The categorisation for young offenders (18 – 21) is covered in chapter 9 (females) and chapter 10 (males). Offenders under 18 are managed by the Youth Justice Board (YJB).
4.2.2 Initial categorisation for all adult ISPs must be via the revised ICA1 (male) and ICA3 (female). There is no longer a requirement for an ISP initially to move to set security conditions if they are assessed as suitable for lower security conditions on the ICA1/ICA3.
4.2.3 An ISP will normally only be re-categorised to cat D/open conditions after a positive recommendation by the Parole Board has been accepted by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State for Justice.
4.2.4 The responsibility for deciding all other categorisation changes rests with The Governor/Director, or competent senior manager (see 4.4.2) designated by him/her, of the establishment in which the ISP is located. Their decision must be based upon the recommendation of a sentence planning and review meeting and such a recommendation will trigger the writing of full SPR reports for the Governor/Director to base their decision upon. The Governor’s decision must be made within 12 weeks of the sentence planning and review meeting. The decision must be documented on RC1.
4.2.5 There must be recorded liaison and agreement with the RCM for any decision to downgrade an ISP who has been a Category A prisoner (including female/YO restricted status) within the previous 5 years, or who is designated as noteworthy. Current criteria for inclusion on noteworthy lists:
“Offenders whose offence(s) attracted a great deal of national media interest at the time of their offence/conviction and are likely to continue to do so; or who became noteworthy whilst in prison or while on life/IPP licence; or those convicted of multiple murder; or those convicted of murdering a police/prison officer; or those who received a life/IPP sentence for any form of terrorist activity; or were known to be featured in books or films.”
4.2.6 Re-categorisation to a higher security category. Where there are concerns about an ISP’s security risk (e.g. they now pose a greater risk of escape/abscond, their behaviour makes them unsuitable for their current security conditions, the risk of harm they now pose means it is considered they require closer supervision, etc.) their security category must be reviewed. Consideration for raising a male ISP’s security category or female’s security conditions should normally trigger an OASys review. Where time allows before a transfer, a sentence planning and review meeting must be convened and, as a minimum, reports from the Offender Supervisor and Security department must be provided highlighting the concerns and reasons for considering the higher security category/condition. In the case of an IPP prisoner, the OM should be chairing the board or at least consulted over this decision. Where, for operational reasons, it is not possible to hold a sentence planning board first, a board must be held, by the prison making the decision, as soon as possible afterwards with the same reports (including OM’s view for an IPP) provided as a minimum.
4.2.7 Regardless of whether the ISP is transferred or not, they are entitled to notionally retain their original security category until the procedure in 4.2.8 to 4.2.13 has been implemented.
4.2.8 The ISP must be notified in writing of the reasons and evidence (but see below) for raising their security category. If being transferred, they must receive this information prior to the transfer. Evidence can only be withheld on security grounds or to protect the safety of a third party.
4.2.9 The ISP’s Offender Manager/Home Probation Officer must be informed of the decision and sent a copy of the notification. If transferred, the receiving prison must also receive a copy.
4.2.10 At the same time as the notification in 4.2.8, the ISP must be given written notification of their entitlement to make, within 28 days, written representations (via their solicitor if they wish) about the decision to raise their security category. This representation may only be against the decision to re-categorise them. They must be told that if they do not make representations in writing, it will be assumed they do not wish to make any. A record must be kept in their file of the date they are notified of the decision in principle to re-categorise them. The 28-day deadline is fixed and must not be extended unless there are exceptional circumstances, which must also be recorded. Where appropriate (e.g. where the prisoner has illiteracy problems, is a foreign language speaker or has learning difficulties), additional measures may be necessary to ensure they are given an opportunity to make representations and these should also be documented.
4.2.11 The Governor/Director of the prison re-categorising the ISP must make a final decision within 14 days of receipt of the prisoner’s representation. The ISP may also make a separate appeal, through the usual complaints process, against any decision to transfer them.
4.2.12 If representations are rejected, or no representation is received within the 28-day deadline, the prisoner must have their re-categorisation confirmed in writing. The ISP will take on their new security category at that point. RC1 must be completed and clearly state the reasons for the re-categorisation.
4.2.13 When representations are accepted and their security category is, therefore, not raised, the ISP may still be considered for reallocation to another suitable establishment, according to the ISP’s individual security category and the priorities in 4.9.1.
4.3 Risk assessment, reduction of risk and sentence planning.
4.3.1 A full and thorough risk assessment is vital to identify an ISP’s risk factors and appropriate interventions. For further guidance on risk assessment, see chapter 9 of the Public Protection manual.
4.3.2 A full OASys will be the sole initial risk assessment and review tool. It is important this assessment is carried out promptly upon sentence, in line with the multi-discipline approach of OMIII, to ensure early identification of risk factors and any further assessment needed to identify risk, e.g. psychological, psychiatric, medical, educational, etc.