Owens Review

That HMPPS consider extending the use of body worn video to Operational Support Grade staff in public or prisoner facing roles.

The Ministry of Justice and the Home Office urgently talk with victims, victims' sector and cross-service partners to develop a clear policy and protocol on contact around releases (broadly on releases and, specifically, 'in error'). This should establish: Who is responsible for notifying victims, In what cases victims should be notified, What support will be available to them, When notification should take place, And by what means. It should also address the distinction between cases identified immediately and those discovered at a later stage, and the differing requirements for victim contact that may necessarily be required.

The Ministry of Justice ensures that the findings of this review are carefully and precisely interpreted into the regulations that will accompany the Victims and Courts Bill.

These measures are reviewed by the Ministry of Justice and assessed on whether they have addressed the issues outlined in this review regarding victim contact, or whether the scope of the Victim Contact Scheme needs to be updated.

The Ministry of Justice, HMPPS and Policing (via the NPCC) update their protocol to consider victim notification and broader communication responsibilities.

The Ministry of Justice, in conversation with the judiciary and supported by the Judicial Office, to explore options for agreeing standardisation of days, weeks, months (consistently either 28 days, 30 days or 31 days), and years (52 weeks) with the purpose of simplifying sentence calculations: And/or exploring the feasibility of judges setting out the release date at the point of sentencing, And/or suggesting alternative solutions to simplify sentence calculations.

The Ministry of Justice with HMPPS & HMCTS develop a shared target operating model for working together, including on communicating sentences and sharing critical information, without which I am almost certain it will be impossible to bring the number of releases in error down. This should consider: Information shared about prisoner production and appearance. The modernisation and integration of Offender Management Unit & court working practises to include roles, responsibilities, grading and working hours. Introducing sentence calculation as a specialist operation within each Area Executive Director region, rather than across every prison at a local level. The capacity of one court clerk sitting alone to complete all the tasks required and their ability to resolve inaccuracies or ambiguities, including out of hours. Necessary improvements to Common Platform to reduce additional administrative burdens on court clerks.

This new model of operation should be agreed between the Ministry of Justice, HMPPS and HMCTS and then implemented.

A plan for developing a clear cross agency strategy for the criminal justice system is agreed and driven by Government. This must include a complementary technology and data strategy with specific actions to make substantial and connected changes to the technology provision directly and determinedly creating systems that interact with one another or are overlaid with tools that facilitate this and reduce the need for multiple data entries. This should include a plan for developing an interface that links the court system for recording sentences to the prisons systems. Tools that are currently being tested, and which I outline in further detail in my section on tools and technology (pages 120-129) should be considered for inclusion in this strategy depending on the outcomes of a thorough evaluation. The plan should align with Sir Brian Leveson's recommendation for a single shared vision for the criminal justice system.

That this strategy considers the effectiveness of the current separate Courts, HMPPS and Justice Digital transformation programmes, which may be creating unnecessary and counter-productive system divide. The Ministry of Justice's Permanent Secretary, with system leaders, should examine whether structural changes could aid the ambition to have a joined-up technology approach across the criminal justice system.

Alongside this, the Ministry of Justice and Home Office should develop a plan for the consistent use of biometrics, both in prison and across the whole system. This should allow offenders to be tracked from the point of arrest to release and will be critical to ensuring the correct individual is being released into the community.

That HMPPS and the Ministry of Justice urgently explore and agree a route by which to professionalise the investigation process. The options requiring full exploration by HMPPS and Ministry of Justice are: An extension of the Anti-Corruption Command within HMPPS to create a central Professional Standards function, with professional investigators and led separately from individual prison establishments. An escalation route into either the Prisons Ombudsman (with an extension of their current remit) or the option to refer into an already established independent body (e.g. the Independent Office of Police Conduct) in cases meeting a seriousness criterion.

That HMPPS and the Ministry of Justice examine the balance between the operational model within prison establishments and what resources are based centrally or regionally. The aim should be that to: Not replicate services with the Ministry of Justice (department). To maintain nationally or regionally the HMPPS specialist services that may be best placed there (for the purpose of this review to consider regionalisation of sentence calculation and centralisation of Professional Standards). As above, this should be considered in line with recommendation 15 to review the current Offender Management Unit operating model. To ensure a focus on the frontline resources within a prison to examine and improve supervisory ratios and enabling an investment in the right place.

That a Custodial Managers course is designed, delivered, and made mandatory for all Custodial Managers, and subject to pass/fail assessment before deployment in role. I recognise that staggering of the course may be necessary at initial implementation, but the medium-term objective should be central oversight and sequencing.

HMPPS review their approach to the balance between centralised and localised design, provision and implementation of training.

That the further development or rollout of new tools to plug gaps in current technological capability of the estate are continued only as part of a longer-term and over-arching technology and data strategy as per my recommendation 17. This includes the development of the CRDS tool and any AI solutions that the Ministry of Justice chooses to rollout more widely.

It is my belief that the need for a checklist will diminish if the other recommendations within this report are acted upon at pace. I therefore recommend that, HMPPS establish, with candour, the value of Governor checks. A better use of their time may be to concentrate on developing a 'getting it right first time' culture.

The Ministry of Justice accelerator funding should continue to focus on identifying if AI can provide a temporary solution to the more effective management of unwieldy inboxes in Offender Management Units.

As the current statistics do not adequately reflect the totality of releases in error, the Ministry of Justice, HMPPS and the Office for National Statistics should undertake a wider piece of work on the data on releases in error and come forward with a proposal to ensure that statistics provided to Ministry of Justice seniors, Ministers and the public are reliable and assured. This will need to consider what ongoing investment is required to improve the quality of data collection. Data on unlawful detentions should be included as part of this proposal. In full, this proposal should address: A methodology to quantify the likely "true" rate of release. Transparency: Being clear with the public on any limitations. Data Analysis: How the data is disaggregated to assess the risk. Release Audit: The frequency of this and by whom it is undertaken. Categorisation: I have been clear that there is a distinction between errors that present public risk of harm and errors that could be considered administrative error. Any project should draw formal definitions for each and consult on them, including with the victim sector. Risk to public: The Government should also consider how best and frequently to communicate to the public how many offenders who present a public risk remain at large. Demographic data: to better understand if there is any systemised bias.

Once the Ministry of Justice and HMPPS have agreed a more considered and reliable plan for collecting and using the data on releases in error (as per recommendation 26), the Ministry of Justice should seek to quantify the level of risk that this presents to the public as a result. This should be presented to Ministers, who should agree a 'tolerable' level (both in terms of volume and gravity) of releases in error (and unlawful detentions), and what escalation routes should be utilised if that risk level is approaching or breached. Notably the advice should reflect on the views of victims and communities who may have a likely low tolerance for any risk.

Pending a fuller Criminal Justice System strategy, Government should revisit the performance framework for HMPPS and assure themselves it reflects their current priorities AND that well analysed data products exist to support it.

The Ministry of Justice and HMPPS should review their internal audit capacity to provide assurance including direction against the prison performance framework.

Considering that the lack of CCTV audio impacted the investigation process and that across the prison estate there are varying standards of CCTV equipment I recommend that HMPPS upgrade CCTV across the prison estate to include audio recording.

The Ministry of Justice and HMPPS to consider, with HMIP, whether RIE and unlawful detention should be part of the inspection regime.

That the Ministry of Justice and HMPPS leadership team actively discuss the cultural issues unearthed by this review focussing on their teamwork and collaboration to set the right direction on the highest risk issues.

That HMPPS communicate out to all staff action that has been undertaken as a result of this review, to showcase positive action and encourage improvements.

That HMPPS and MoJ undertake a systematic review of all culture related recommendations (both in this review and others) to assess whether they are delivering the intended improvements. Any actions that are not achieving measurable progress should be refined, strengthened, or escalated.

That HMPPS clarify operational guidance on what a high-profile alert means, when it should be used, what should happen as a result during the release process and/or other prisoner movements and use, triggering a clear sequence of events.

HMPPS should clarify at an operational level when 'Not for Release Markers' should be used and mandate the checking of all 'Not for Release' markers during release and discharge processes.

Introduce a clear process at operational level by which staff can escalate conflicting use of 'Not for Release' markers before a discharge or release is authorised.

HMPPS, with support from the Ministry of Justice, develop a plan for phasing out the use of paper records in prisons during the release process.

The Ministry of Justice and the Home Office develop one, shared policy on the Early Removal Scheme. This should consider: Whether there should be exceptions, and if so what; The process, authority levels and required documentation for the revised Early Removal Scheme; Talk with victims and the victim's sector on the existence and consequences of an early removal policy; and, How Early Release Schemes and the Early Removal Scheme can be differentiated when there is an inevitable reversion to the three-letter acronym.

The Ministry of Justice and HMPPS to review the policy on Release License. The aim should not be to determine retrospectively which interpretation was 'correct,' but to recognise that frontline staff cannot be expected to interpret contradictory or opaque policies, especially where the stakes are high. Operational staff require clear-cut, easily applicable rules. This review should, therefore consider: The loose term of "imminent release"; and Issue explicit guidance that states when a Release License must be produced and when it must not.