‘Failings from the top down in probation’ – murdered teen’s mum
THE mum of a murdered teenager claims there are failings “from the top down” in the probation service.
Nadine Marshall spoke out after figures showed there had been a rise in the number of people on probation being charged with serious crimes.
Her 18-year-old son Conner was killed by a man who was on probation for a string of offences – his family say opportunities were missed to prevent Conner’s death.
He was beaten to death in a brutal attack at Trecco Bay Caravan Park, Porthcawl, in March 2015.
The number of offenders under statutory probation supervision being charged with crimes such as murder, manslaughter, rape or other serious violent or sexual offences has gone up by 26.4% since the system was overhauled, according to Plaid Cymru.
Justice Minister Sam Gyimah told Plaid’s Westminster leader Liz Saville Roberts that a total of 517 reviews were triggered in 2016-17 after an offender was charged.
He added there were 507 such reviews in 2015-16 across England and Wales compared to 429 in 2013-14, 409 in 2012-13 and 441 in 2011-12.
Ms Saville Roberts has called on the Government to admit it was wrong to part-privatise the probation service in 2014.
She said she has leaked documents which show that Ministers were warned that privatisation could lead to issues.
“The British Government needs to admit it was wrong and commit to re-nationalising the probation service,” she said on Wednesday.
Mrs Marshall said that the figures were “disappointing” but did not surprise her.
“I don’t think that any lessons have been learnt unfortunately because the transforming rehabilitation programme is still in place.
“Ministers were warned before it was implemented that there were grave concerns about it and those have become a reality.
“The Ministry of Justice is obviously reluctant to mark changes because it then shows that they made a huge mistake.
“I would support re-nationalisation or for powers to be given at a more local level, like police commissioners.”
She said in her family’s case, seeking answers or lessons from the probation service has been “an absolute washout”.
Since her son’s killer was sentenced, the family have had to fight for answers and for information to be released to them.
Twice they had to appeal for the results from the internal review to be released to them.
David Braddon had missed eight appointments with probation.
“We believe that was over a few months and no risk assessments were made. You are allowed one authorised absence, he had eight and three warning letters were sent to him saying he would be recalled if he didn’t appear again but they never followed that through.”
She said the family were given a summary report about Braddon’s background in August 2015.
“That meant we had to go through the whole thing again. To find out via a dripping tap that there were all these things, it was unbelievable.
“All this information had been stored and not acted on. No disciplinary action happened and we’re being told lessons are being learned. It’s totally hollow.”
She said the stance that public protection is being put first “isn’t the reality”.
She said that risk assessments aren’t being carried out on low or medium risk offenders.
“David Braddon became a high risk offender. Had those appointments been made and A, B or C been done, the likelihood is that he wouldn’t have been in Porthcawl that evening”.
She says she remains hopeful that politicians will make changes to the probation system.
“I have to be hopeful for other families and for the legacy of Conner”.
A Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said: “In 2014, we reformed our approach to probation so that for the first time ever, all offenders given a custodial sentence receive probation support and supervision on release.
“It is, therefore, misleading to compare the number of serious further offences prior to our reforms with subsequent figures, as the number of people on probation is now significantly higher than before.
“A thorough investigation is always carried out when someone commits a serious further offence to see whether anything could have been done differently.”