Background

Joseph McCann committed multiple violent and sexual offences in April and May 2019. At the time of the crimes, he was under the supervision of the National Probation Service after being released from prison on licence. He was given 33 life sentences in December 2019.

The Lord Chancellor the Rt Hon Robert Buckland QC MP asked HM Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell to conduct an independent review of the case of Joseph McCann. The second part of the review will be published on 18 November 2020 and focuses on the role of probation services in recalling offenders back to prison.

Statement

HM Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell has made this statement:

“In our review of the case of Joseph McCann, we found serious errors in the way that probation staff applied the rules relating to the recall of people to prison. These decisions were taken between 2017 and early 2019, in the context of a national policy that emphasised alternatives to recall should be used whenever it was safe to do so. They meant that McCann remained in the community when he could, and should, have been recalled to prison.

“The Lord Chancellor asked us to review the probation service’s more recent approach to recalling offenders to prison since the McCann case. In the main, we found the poor practice identified in that case was not representative of wider practice. In the inspected cases, practitioners are clear that public protection is the primary concern. The national policy on recalls has been updated and we found staff making recall decisions to protect victims, potential victims and the public.

“The National Probation Service (NPS) and Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) currently have different processes for recalling individuals, and these are applied inconsistently. This is concerning because more than 27,000 decisions were made to recall individuals to prison in 2019-2020. The process must be methodical and fair. Probation services will be unified next summer, and this presents an opportunity to introduce a more consistent system that supports risk management and better protects the public.

“During our inspection, we interviewed staff who expressed concerns about the professional and personal consequences of failing to recall an individual who then goes on to commit a serious further offence. A professional culture needs to be in place to ensure staff have the necessary time and management support to make effective decisions. Practitioners should have confidence that they will be supported if they make considered, defensible decisions and not made a ‘scapegoat’.

“In some cases, probation staff can issue licence warnings to individuals rather than recalling them to prison straight away. We found the current system varies both between and within probation services. In the inspected cases, nearly every individual who received a licence warning went on to be recalled. This raises questions about the impact of this approach and why its effectiveness has not been evaluated properly. The wider alternatives to recall policy has also not been evaluated since its introduction in 2017.

“Decisions about recall and licence warnings are often complex and rely on the judgment of individual practitioners. We recommend greater scrutiny of these decisions to ensure they are fair, consistent and do not show bias against any groups, for example ethnic minorities. We also recommend greater evaluation to ensure recall practice is based on what works.”

 

ENDS

Notes to editor

1. The report will be available on the HM Inspectorate of Probation website on 10 November 2020 00.01.
2. HM Inspectorate of Probation is the independent inspector of youth offending and probation services across England and Wales.
3. The Inspectorate does not typically conduct reviews when people under probation supervision commit serious further offences. Very occasionally – as in this case – the Lord Chancellor makes a direct request for an independent review. The Inspectorate retains complete control over terms of reference, methodology and contents of these reviews. Part one of the independent review of Joseph McCann is available on the HM Inspectorate of Probation website. The Lord Chancellor’s request and a redacted version of the Serious Further Offence review is available on Gov.uk.
4. Probation services are delivered by the National Probation Service and Community Rehabilitation Companies. The government has announced plans to unify probation services next June. Details are on the Gov.uk website. Any enquiries about these reforms should be directed to the Ministry of Justice media team.
5. The Inspectorate looked at cases from four CRCs, five NPS divisions and two central NPS teams. Inspectors also conducted 39 meetings including with probation staff and managers, and reviewed policies and guidance. See Annexe 2 of the report for the full methodology.
6. For media enquiries, please contact Head of Communications Catherine Chan on 07889 405930 or media@hmiprobation.gov.uk (E-mail address)