Home » Dame Anne Owers
Category Archives: Dame Anne Owers
IMB Soap Opera
Is the IMB like liquid soap?
Not the wonderful clear stuff which has a beautiful fragrance and an antibacterial effect on everything it touches.
No, not that.
More like that gawd awful stuff you find in greasy dispensers at motorway service station toilets, where hygiene means tick boxing inspection sheets on the back of the door. Its colour an insipid artificial pink like slime from old boiled sweets left too long in the sun, and its smell nauseous like cat sick.
But it is its opacity that irks me.
Designed to deliberately obfuscate, smother and shroud all that has any proximity to it, you never truly know whether it has any cleansing properties at all.
I neither like nor trust opaque liquid soap.
I happily tolerate the clear stuff, so long as it really is clear and totally free of nasty microbeads, creaming additives and fake foam.
It would have been far better for the IMB if it had been a bar of soap. At least you know where you are with a bar of soap. Visible, tangible, relatable, practical, and likeable. A bar of soap has these and many other qualities about it which reassures me of its fitness for purpose.
From the moment it is unwrapped and placed at the side of the sink, its very presence reassures you. Sitting there unblemished and ready to serve, a fresh bar of soap exudes a sense of personalised attentiveness and an unwillingness to be corrupted by falling into the wrong person’s hands.
I don’t think it is too much to ask that a bar of soap is fresh and that I am the first person to use it. There are some things that are unacceptable to pass around.
Even if we were to believe all they tell us then, at best, IMB would resemble a remnant of used soap, cracked and old. Once so full of purpose, now degraded in the hands of multiple ministers and permanent secretaries. Put on the side, its usefulness expended but its stubborn existence more a token gesture of monitoring rather than an effective part of the hygiene of the justice system.
It is an exhausted specimen of uselessness despite what its National Chair, Secretariat, Management Board would have you believe. They justify their own sense of importance with the sort of job roles that place them on a pedestal. But in reality it all just smacks of self aggrandizement; as they say in Texas – “Big hat, no cattle.”
Where once I bought into this whole parade, now I see it for the parody that it is. Where once I was pleased to serve, now I call out the servitude that the system enforces on those who work within it.
Where once I would write the annual reports, now I challenge the pointlessness of recording observations and making recommendations, an utterly futile exercise because there was never any intention by the Ministry of Justice to do anything about them.
A fresh bar of soap has an impressive versatility about it. It can give you clean hands, yes, but it can go a lot further than that. It can be carved, shaped and fashioned into an object of extraordinary beauty.
Some people serving their time in prison surprise me when they produce such intricate objects crafted from something as humble as a fresh bar of soap; an allegory of their own lives, in some cases I have known. Arguably a work of art to be admired and cherished.
Whereas an old, cracked bar of soap has no such versatility or value, and does not merit being kept.
If you can’t wash your hands with it, you should wash your hands of it.
In its present form, the IMB needs to be replaced.
~
Who watches the Watchdog?
The website for the Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) states:
“Inside every prison, there is an Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) made up of members of the public from all walks of life doing an extraordinary job!
You’ll work as part of a team of IMB volunteers, who are the eyes and ears of the public, appointed by Ministers to perform a vital task: independent monitoring of prisons and places of immigration detention. It’s an opportunity to help make sure that prisoners are being treated fairly and given the opportunity and support to stop reoffending and rebuild their lives.”
Anyone can see this is a huge remit for a group of volunteers.
IMB’s about us page also states:
“Their role is to monitor the day-to-day life in their local prison or removal centre and ensure that prisoners and detainees are treated fairly and humanely”
Another huge remit.
For those who believe they can make a difference, and I have met a few who have, the joining process is quite lengthy.
Once you have completed the online application form, bearing in mind you can only apply to prisons which are running a recruiting campaign (that doesn’t mean to say there are no vacancies in others) the applicant is then invited for an interview and a tour of the prison.
So, what is wrong with that you may ask?
At this point NO security checks have been done, so literally anyone can get a tour of a prison, ask questions, and meet staff and prisoners.
This is surely a red flag.
And then there is the ‘interview’.
Two IMB members from the prison you have applied to and one from another prison take it turn in asking questions. It is basically a ‘tick box exercise’; I know this because I have been involved myself, sitting on both sides of the table.
It is based on scores, so if you are competent in interviews, you will do well. With IMB boards desperate for members it means that as long as your security check comes through as okay, you will have made it on to the IMB board.
However, no references are required to become a prison monitor. NONE.
A red flag too?
One of the main problems I encountered was that if the IMB board member comes from a managerial background they will want to manage. But the IMB role is about monitoring a prison and not managing it. I have seen where members and staff have clashed over this.
Well done, you made it on to the board, what next?
Back to the IMB website:
“You do not need any particular qualifications or experience, as we will provide all necessary training and support you need during a 12-month training and mentoring period”
The first year is the probationary year where you are mentored, accompanied, and trained. To be accompanied for this period is unrealistic, there are insufficient members having neither the time nor resources to get new members up to speed before they start monitoring.
In addition, induction training can be between 3-6 months after joining and can be said it is at best haphazard.
As reported Tuesday by Charles Hymas and others in The Telegraph newspaper, and citing a set-piece statement from the MOJ press office, “a spokesman said that although they had unrestricted access, they were given a comprehensive induction…”
I beg to differ; the induction for IMB board members is hardly comprehensive.
I believe this needs to change.
For such an essential role, basic training must take place before stepping into a prison. Yes, you can learn on the job but as we have seen recently, IMB members are not infallible.
Membership of the IMB is for up to 15 years which leads to culture of “we’ve always done it this way”, a phrase all too often heard, preventing new members from introducing fresh ideas.
What if something goes wrong?
Not all IMB members have a radio or even a whistle or any means of alerting others to a difficult situation or security risk. If for any reason you need support from the IMB Secretariat, don’t hold your breath.
The secretariat is composed of civil servants, MOJ employees, a fluctuating workforce, frequently with no monitoring experience themselves who offer little or no assistance. I know, I’ve been in that place of needing advice and support.
What support I received was pathetic. Even when I was required to attend an inquest in my capacity as a IMB board member no tangible help was provided and I was told that IMB’s so-called ‘care team’ had been disbanded.
From the moment you pick up your keys, you enter a prison environment that is unpredictable, volatile and changeable.
As we have seen this week, an IMB member at HMP Liverpool has been arrested and suspended after a police investigation where they were accused of smuggling drugs and phones into prison.
This is not surprising to me and may be the tip of the iceberg. IMB board members have unrestricted access to prisons and prisoners. As unpaid volunteers they are as susceptible to coercion as paid prison officers.
Radical change needs to be put in place to tighten up scrutiny of, and checks on, members of the IMB when they visit prisons either for their board meetings or their rota visits.
In 4 years of monitoring at HMP/YOI Hollesley Bay I was never searched, and neither was any bag I carried. In over 10 years of visiting prisons, I can count on one hand, with fingers to spare, the number of times I have been searched. When visiting a large scale prison such as HMP Berwyn I only had to show my driving licence and the barriers were opened.
Whilst the situation at HMP Liverpool is an ongoing investigation and whilst the outcome of the investigation is not yet known, I do urge Dame Anne Owers, the IMB’s national Chair, to look urgently at the IMB recruitment process, at the IMB training and at the provision of on-going support for IMB board members.
Complacency has no part in prisons monitoring.
~
The Curious case of APPG’s
By definition, All-Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) are informal cross-party groups that have no official status within Parliament. They are run by and for Members of the Commons and Lords, though many choose to involve individuals and organisations from outside Parliament in their administration and activities.
APPGs cover a multitude of subject matter, from wrestling to surrogacy, digital identity to ceramics and dozens more.
I’m intrigued by them.
They are basically specialist interest groups, with members from both houses of Parliament (Commons and Lords): according to the register of APPGs “They provide a valuable opportunity for parliamentarians to engage with individuals and organisations outside Parliament who share an interest in the subject matter of their Group”.
MP’s and Lords use APPG’s to float ideas, see what resonates and what doesn’t. They also access research and knowledge and specialist advisory without actually paying for it.
- But do they also attract sponsors from wannabe players looking to curry favour with MP’s?
- What do they do?
- What powers do they have?
- What influence if any do they have?
As these questions were going round and round my head, I decided to dig a bit deeper into them, choosing the APPG on Miscarriages of Justice as I had attended the House of Lords back in 2019 when they began their inquiry into the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).
Today, March 5th 2021, the APPG’s long-awaited report has finally been published, entitled ‘In the Interest of Justice: An inquiry into the Criminal Cases Review Commission by The Westminster Commission on Miscarriages of Justice.’ This Commission had a brief to “investigate the ability of the criminal justice system to identify and rectify miscarriages of justice”.
Front cover of the 89-page report
There are six members on the Westminster Commission, including Dame Anne Owers, who was a non-executive director of the CCRC, between 2010 and March 2014. This is surprising and some may say that this report may suffer from confirmation bias as a result of her appointment.
I read an interview (see ‘No quick fixing’ by Ben Leapman. InsideTime, April 2020, p.23 but online here), where she is on record as saying “It has certainly been useful to have a look at where the Criminal Cases Review Commission is. I was particularly interested as I was on the body that recommended the creation of the CCRC, so it is something that has always been very close to me.” This shows clearly a strong emotional attachment to the CCRC as an entity on the part of Dame Anne. Is she marking her own homework?
One of my previous blogs attracted comment from The Lord Garnier, who said: “The fact that Dame Anne was, amongst other things, a CCRC non-executive director between 2010-14 is one of the reasons that Lady Stern and I asked her to join the Commission. Her role as a non-executive director was to challenge and scrutinise its work. We saw that as a positive advantage as it would enable us, and it has, to get a better insight into the work of the CCRC.”
In part of my reply to The Lord Garnier, I said: “You use the words challenge and scrutinise. But in reality, how do we know she will not be scrutinising her scrutiny, now say that out loud and see if it makes any sense to you?”
For context, the CCRC was set up under the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, and is a non-departmental public body, having the power to send or refer a case back to an appeal court if it considers there is a real possibility the court will quash the conviction or in that case reduce the sentence (APPG, 2021, p. 6). And yet, a key recommendation of this report is that this test should change to whether the conviction may be unsafe, the sentence may be manifestly excessive or wrong in the law, or where the CCRC concludes that it is in the interests of justice to make a referral.
In 2015, the House of Commons Justice Select Committee scrutinised the CCRC and concluded that evidence suggests the real possibility test causes the CCRC to be too cautious, leading to a low proportion of cases it refers to the Court of Appeal and high proportion of those cases successful before the court.
Six years later, we find their recommendations have largely not been achieved.
The APPGs 2021 report has recommendations too, although accurate counting of them has been problematic as there are 33 in the body of the report but only 31 in the section ‘Conclusions and Recommendations’. But that aside, its Achilles heel is found as early as the Foreword which tells us “this report contains the conclusions and recommendations only of its six authors” (APPG, 2021, p.4).
My hunch here is that they all claim authorship but some with greater justification.
It is concerning that over a period of 25 years since the CCRC was established there has been a shift in the balance of power. An extra layer of management has reduced commissioners to part-time fee-paid roles. And it appears throughout this report that the CCRC wants its power back even though it struggles to be constitutionally independent of the government.
Can the CCRC fulfill its remit?
If investigation needs improvement and the structure needs strengthening, it will be hard pressed on a budget, funded by the Ministry of Justice of £5.936m.
For a non-government organisation, the CCRC has had government-imposed changes, leadership has been diminished, safeguards have been removed and there has been an undermining of the purpose of the legislation that it is founded on. It makes you question what powers public bodies actually hold.
My sincere hope is that the work performed by this APPG, even though it has no statutory powers, will be effective in some way and not evaporate like a silent conversation that never happened.
But is an APPG the right platform to bring about much needed change from within the CCRC?
~
The Criminal Justice Blog 