Date of Review: 19 September 2007
Type of Review: ANNUAL - LAP RECOMMENDATION FOR DOWNGRADING
Name: FRANK WILKINSON - R60852 (WHITEMOOR)
DOB: 28/12/1946 (aged 60)
Tariff: 20 yrs. (expired)

 Sentenced:
30 January 1987 at Newcastle Crown Court.

Offences:
Murder Life
[Further charges of aggravated burglary and indecent assault were ordered to remain on file.]
[Frank: There were 3 further charges - one of aggravated burglary and two of theft. None was tested in open court. There was never any charge of indecent assault. Here is a copy of the original indictment.]

Circumstances of the offence:
Mr Wilkinson beat a man to death. He and an accomplice apparently lured the victim to a forest for a business deal. Mr Wilkinson beat the victim to death with a hammer and left the body hidden in the forest.
The further charges relate to separate offences committed with the same accomplice.

Backqround:
He has previous convictions going back to 1961 for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, larceny, grievous bodily harm, shopbreaking, felonious wounding, housebreaking, forgery, possessing a firearm when committing an offence, possessing a firearm after release from imprisonment, assault with intent to rob, burglary, robbery, aggravated burglary and unlawful wounding.
[Frank: The prison service has confused and amalgamated the records of two separate people. The record of Frederick James Wilkinson - my twin brother - is being confused with mine. Because we were considered unmanageable together, I was sent to live in Ireland in 1956 and did not return to England until 1962 when I was 16. To help me point out the fact of this confusion, both birth certificates (Frederick's and mine) were sent to me in Whitemoor prison in March 2007. However, the prison refused to let me keep them and they were sent back the following day. (My personal officer at Whitemoor will verify this.) I don't deny that some of the offences are correctly attributed to me - I'm not trying to hide anything - but I would like to be able to set the record straight, particularly as it seems to be unfairly weighing against me.]
He was made high risk in 1999 on the basis of intelligence suggesting enhanced escape potential but downgraded back to standard in 2002.
[Frank: While in Long Lartin, I and several others were the subject of lies by another inmate. None of the stories was ever substantiated and, after a nine-month investigation, I was recategorised back to Standard Cat A in 2000 when in Full Sutton Prison. I have been in Whitemoor prison since 2001 and have never been High Risk here.]

His last parole review in 2006 recognised the strides he had made in recent years in terms of his behaviour, educational self-improvement and willingness to be assessed for programmes. While accepting his need to address offence-related risk factors, the Parole Board concluded this indicated his risk had reduced considerably. Some individual reports recommended downgrading to allow testing in less secure conditions.

Present circumstances:
He has shown significant improvements in his attitude and co-operation in recent years. In the past he was poorly behaved, but has for some time now been compliant and had a good relationship with staff. He has received no adjudications since 2001. He has also made good use of his time through education. His parole medical report dated July 2005 stated he had osteoarthritis that affected mobility, but the current report by the same medical officer states there are no medical issues that affect categorisation.

He has maintained firm denial of the present offence throughout his sentence and states he is appealing. He also claims most of his previous convictions relate to his twin brother. He completed a few courses earlier in his sentence but there is no record of the content of these or his progress. Although he says he is willing to be assessed for programmes, he has for some time declined actual participation on the basis that he doesn't need them. Recommended programmes include the ETS, CALM and CSCP. He has therefore completed no significant work on his identified risk factors, in particular his extensive history of violence.
[Frank: In 1995, while at Frankland prison, I took part in two non-accredited courses, forerunners of the current ETS courses. I have supplied copies of the certificates awarded which clearly record the areas covered by these courses: Patterns of Offending; Attitudes to Crime; Excuses, Consequences, Risks; Discussion of individual offences and Victim Awareness. In my opinion, these courses were much more valuable than those currently on offer. (Read a fuller account of my views on these courses here.) Typically, my prison files do not record my attendance on these courses, nor the progress I made on them. Both the prison psychologist and the senior probation officer have been unable to obtain details from my previous locations despite extensive enquiries.]

Additional police information:
Nil.

Representations:
From Stephensons solicitors dated 6 August 2007.

He should be downgraded on the basis of the Parole Board risk assessment and the low/medium risk of harm OASys score.
[Frank: The OASys assessment has me as low risk in all categories apart from one. I am apparently a medium risk toward known persons outside prison - though there is no suggestion who these persons might be.]
The present reports are threadbare and do not offer sufficient analysis for risk assessment. An oral hearing is required in view of the discrepancies between the risk assessments in the current reports and the. November 2006 Parole Board reports.

There are a number of factual errors in the current reports, including his name, his use of an alias, the reference to previous convictions that relate to his brother and the suggestion that items were stolen from the murder victim.

He has been in prison 20 years and maintained his innocence throughout. He has previously undertaken work and recently agreed to be assessed for the ETS programme. He has achieved a number of educational qualifications, including a BA, a PhD doctorate and received awards from the Koestler Trust. He is a keen writer, a calming influence and not a control problem. He has provided consistent negative drugs tests.

The long and probing parole hearing highlighted significant changes in terms of behaviour. The psychology report for this review stated he had displayed no offence-parallel behaviour and made constructive use of his time. It recommended his testing in less secure conditions. The overwhelming recommendation at his parole hearing was for his downgrading to enable further progression. The OASys assessment indicates a medium risk of harm and conviction.

He is now 60 and has mobility problems. They are surprised the information in the parole medical report is not reflected in the report for the present review. They request that the enclosed documents, including the parole dossier, are fully considered in the present review.

LAP recommendation:
Although he maintains his innocence and has completed no accredited offending behaviour work, it notes his sustained good behaviour and the parole reports that suggest he can be managed in less secure conditions. It recommends his downgrading to category B.

Reasons for the decision:
The Director accepted that Mr Wilkinson had now maintained a long period of satisfactory and compliant behaviour. He also noted Mr Wilkinson's constructive use of his time through educational achievements.
However, the Director did not consider that Wilkinson's sustained good behaviour or improvements in his custodial behaviour could by themselves provide clear evidence of insight into his offending or a significant reduction in his risk.

The Director also did not consider that Mr Wilkinson's good behaviour and age on a cumulative basis could provide evidence of an appropriate reduction in risk. The Director was satisfied that evidence was also needed that Mr Wilkinson had made progress addressing the risk factors relating to his violent offending.

The Director accepted that he had a duty to consider any exceptional circumstances that suggested Mr Wilkinson's escape could be made impossible within less secure conditions. However, while the Director noted Mr Wilkinson's representations relating to his health and mobility, on the basis of all the evidence the Director was satisfied there were no circumstances that warranted such a consideration.

The Director noted Mr Wilkinson had yet to take part in any offending behaviour work that could help assess his progress exploring and addressing the risk factors relating to his offending. The Director noted Mr Wilkinson had also yet to participate in non-offence-focused work that would not require him to discuss his specific offences.

The Director therefore considered that no accurate assessment could be made of Mr Wilkinson's insight into his risk factors or of a significant change in his level of dangerousness. The Director recognised the local advisory panel's recommendation for Mr Wilkinson's downgrading, but noted this was based essentially on Mr Wilkinson's good custodial behaviour and favourable Parole Board recommendation.
[Frank: Surely a "a long period of satisfactory and compliant behaviour" is as good as anyone can reasonably ask as indication of change. I have not been involved in any form of physical confrontation since 1988 - twenty years ago. Twenty years is a considerable time - especially in prison, where emotions are to the forefront and violence is never far away.]

The Director recognised that Mr Wilkinson's denial of guilt of the present offence should not in itself be a bar to his downgrading. However, the Director had to proceed on the basis that Mr Wilkinson had been lawfully convicted of this offence. The Director also had to proceed on the basis that, until there was substantial evidence to the contrary, the risk factors indicated by his offending remained active or undiminished.

The Director noted the reports prepared for Mr Wilkinson's recent Parole Board review and the Board's own recommendations. But he was satisfied that, in common with the reports prepared for Mr Wilkinson's security category review, the Parole Board reports and recommendations did not provide evidence that Mr Wilkinson had achieved significant insight into his offending or significant progress addressing his risk factors.

The Director noted the Parole Board's recommendations acknowledged Mr Wilkinson had yet to address his specific risk factors in any depth. He did not consider these recommendations could provide grounds for a downgrading of Mr Wilkinson's security category. The Director also noted Parole Board reviews are not concerned with assessing a prisoner's risk should he be unlawfully at large, which is the specific purpose of the security category review.

While the Director accepted that in certain cases on oral hearing might be the fairest means of determining a prisoner's security category, he was satisfied there were no grounds for an oral hearing of Mr Wilkinson's present security category review.

The Director noted Mr Wilkinson's representations, repeated from his previous reviews, that a number of his previous convictions relate to his brother. However, the Director had no corroborating evidence beyond Mr Wilkinson's own representations to substantiate this claim.

The Director noted Mr Wilkinson had an extensive history of violent offending. He considered that Mr Wilkinson's offending behaviour indicated a high level of potential dangerousness, and that his downgrading could not therefore be approved until there was convincing evidence of a significant reduction in his risk of reoffending in a similar way should he be unlawfully at large.

The Director was satisfied that no such evidence was yet available, and that Mr Wilkinson should therefore remain category A at this time.
[Frank: I am 61 years old and have been in prison for over 21 years, long past my adjusted tariff. OASys and RAM panels both assess me as low or medium risk; the Psychology department considers I am low risk; the Probation department considers I am low risk; reports by my personal officers say I am low risk. All recommend my downgrading. They say I am a calm, mature man and that I am influential in calming the more volatile prisoners with whom I live each day. My most recent psychological report states that I have displayed no "offence-parallel behaviour". My "extensive history of violent offending" dates from more than twenty years ago.]