You are getting this email because you are already aware of, and may be actively involved in, Frank's case. If you want to be removed from the newsletter distribution list, just send an email saying so. Otherwise, you will continue to receive it from time to time with news of any developments. Past newsletters can be viewed from the Newsdesk page on the web site.
July 20th - headline news!
On Monday July 18th, the Public Protection Casework Section at the National Offender Management Service wrote to Frank as follows:
As you know the Parole Board has recommended your transfer to open prison. The Secretary of State has now considered the Parole Board recommendation, and agrees with this view for the reasons given by the Panel...
So, after over 25 years in Category A prisons, it looks like Frank will shortly be transferred to an open prison with a view to progressing him towards release.
Here is a summary of the events that have led up to this momentous news.
Recent events
-
Parole Board Mandatory Lifer Panel - Oral Hearing May 26th 2011
The process for this Parole Board hearing was started in December 2009 (!) and an oral hearing was requested which duly took place on May 26th. The Parole Board had invited all the major players to attend as witnesses, namely:
- The prison psychologist who had assessed Frank's risk over several lengthy interviews
- The probation officer who has been Frank's "Offender Manager" since April 2007
- An independent forensic psychologist who had also assessed Frank's risk
- A member of the prison's Offender Management Unit who is Frank's "Offender Supervisor"
All except Frank's "Offender Supervisor" (who was apparently on leave) were able to attend, as was I, having been invited as an observer.
The Parole Board panel itself comprised a judge (who acted as chair), a clinical psychologist and an independent member.
I was enormously impressed with the way proceedings were conducted and with the honest professionalism of the contributions. Above all, I admired the way the panel chair managed to create a human arena in which all involved joined in determining what was the right thing to do with Frank.
-
Parole Board Mandatory Lifer Panel - Decision Letter June 9th 2011
This letter was a lengthy and detailed summary of the panel meeting itself and of the rationale for the decision reached. The decsision itself was contained in the final paragraph:
The panel...has decided to recommend that you should be transferred to open conditions. We are satisfied that there is a low risk of your absconding and we consider, on weighty evidence, that your risk has reduced to a level where you can now be safely held in open conditions while the durability and genuineness of your apparent behavioural changes can be tested further and a workable and secure risk management and release plan can be developed.
This recommendation was then considered by the Secretary of State - that is, in reality, by the Public Protection Casework Section of the National Offender Management Service.
-
Prison Challenge to Parole Board Recommendation - June 13th 2011
After some uncertainty, and a period of disruption to Frank's mail, both into and out of the prison, it emerged that the Offender Management Unit at Long Lartin had lodged a challenge, through the Governor, to the Parole Board recommendation on the following grounds:
-
Mr Wilkinson was a Category A prisoner until July 1st 2009.
Who knows how this is meant to be a ground for challenge?
-
Mr Wilkinson's category was reviewed by the Director of High Security Prisons on May 21st 2011 and he concluded that Mr Wilkinson should remain a Category B prisoner but to be located outside of the high security estate in a Category B prison. The Director did not consider that Mr Wilkinson was suitable for Category C.
As Frank's solicitor points out in a letter to the Public Protection Casework Section of NOMS in response to this challenge, the categorisation review process and the parole process are entirely distinct and have no bearing on each other.
-
The regime and level of security which Mr Wilkinson is used to, and has been party to for his whole sentence (24 years), does not in any way allow those who regularly supervise him, let alone a one day Parole Board Hearing, assess or conclude that he is a low risk of abscond. There is no evidence that this has even been assessed. We would never routinely move a man from high security conditions to open conditions.
This is almost contradictory - he can't be transferred to open conditions because we don't know the risk of his absconding and we don't know the risk of his absconding because he is not in open conditions. The real ground here seems to be that such a transfer is not routine.
-
I have concerns over the welfare of Mr Wilkinson and the pressures that a transfer from a life of control and order to an environment where he has to effectively manage himself will bring, with nothing in between. This is dangerous and irresponsible.
Obadiah Slope himself could not have bettered this fake tone of concern for Frank's welfare.
-
Page 7 of the Oral Hearing letter describes Mr Wilkinson as being firm willed but able to challenge the views of others appropriately if he disaggrees with them. However, evidence by those in regular contact with him are to the contrary with a view that Mr Wilkinson simply chooses to ignore or disengage with people who have a different point of view. This being evidenced by reports submitted by [his Offender Supervisor] and wing officers as noted in his case history notes. It is unclear from the Oral Hearing letter whether these facts have been taken into account. This is particularly relevant when recommending that Mr Wilkinson should move to open conditions.
And here we seem to have the root of the challenge - Frank will have nothing to do with his Offender Supervisor because his experience has been that she is untrustworthy. The Oral Hearing went into this matter in some detail and the prison psychologist's description of Frank as being "able to challenge the views of others appropriately" is a description of his relationship with his Offender Supervisor.
-
As previously raised by email...the report states "There is no update from [his Offender Supervisor] despite the Directions of the ICM member". The Offender Manager was provided with a short report completed by [his Offender Supervisor] immediately prior to the hearing and in accordance with the ICM directions.
The Parole Board panel's response to the views of Frank's Offender Supervisor in general is summarised in the following sentence from the decision letter: "We have commented...on the differing view of [the Offender Supervisor] but the panel is satisfied that the overwhelming weight of reliable evidence is in favour of your being transferred to open conditions" [my emphasis].
-
It is unusual for me to challenge a decision or recommendation of the Parole Board, however, I do believe that exposing Mr Wilkinson directly to open conditions potentially places the public and Mr Wilkinson at risk.
Obadiah Slope rides again...
-
Response to Prison's Challenge from Frank's Solicitor - July 12th 2011
Having received a copy of the prison's challenge from the Public Protection Casework Team at NOMS, Frank's solicitor sent a response pointing out the weaknesses and mistakes in argument it contains - a week later Frank received the news that the Secretary of State had agreed with the Parole Board's recommendation.
The future
-
Transfer to Open Conditions
We expect Frank to be transferred in the near future, though it is difficult to tell how quickly Long Lartin will react to the decision from the Secretary of State. HMP North Sea Camp in Lincolnshire has been mentioned as a possible destination.
-
Next Parole Board Hearing
The letter bringing the Secretary of State's decision notes that the next Parole review process will commence in April 2012 - "To allow time for a transfer to open conditions and to include an appropriate resettlement period, including testing of your outstanding risk factors" - with the aim of holding an Oral Hearing in September 2012.
The letter also sets out the "targets" for Frank to meet ahead of the next Parole Board Oral Hearing:
-
To further develop the progress made to date and demonstrate the reduction in your risk.
-
Consolidate your learning and skills learned to date.
-
In open conditions, you should develop and test a robust release plan, which should include suitable accommodation, employment/training, education and engaging with relevant support networks.
Of these, it looks pretty obvious that the last is going to be the focus of attention. Frank's probation officer is already working on this. We'll keep you posted.