On 20 December 2017, my client Mark Edwards was released from prison on license (which was due to expire in June 2020).
Upon release, Mark was supervised by a Probation Officer, ‘Nina’ employed by the London Community Rehabilitation Community. Mark maintained contact via telephone and personal attendance with his probation officer and did everything required of him.
Mark had concerns as regards the hotel in Croyden which was his first post release accommodation (owing to the proximity it put him in regards to other ex-offenders, who might try and tempt him off the ‘straight and narrow’), and therefore with the assistance and full knowledge of Nina obtained a transfer to a new address in Wembley in April 2018. Nina was obviously well aware of this relocation and Mark’s new address.
Mark was now living a significant distance from the Lewisham Probation Office, where Nina was based. Nina advised that there were difficulties in transferring Mark to a more local Probation Office. In the circumstances, Nina advised Mark that from hereon, future contact with her would be by phone only (and not face to face). Accordingly, Mark then kept in contact via phone and kept Nina fully updated as regards any changes in his circumstances (i.e. employment).
On 13 December 2019 Mark was subjected to a random stop and search by Police Officers. To his shock, when he provided his personal details to the Police Officers searching him, he was advised that he was wanted for recall to prison, and, indeed, that he had been “at large” for 2 ½ months.
Mark was accordingly arrested and taken to Brixton Police Station; the next day he was brought before Camberwell Magistrates’ Court and from here transferred to HMP Thameside.
Whilst in custody, on or about 17 December 2019, Mark contacted Lewisham Probation to protest about his recall. His complaints fell on deaf ears, however, and Mark was obliged to serve a full 28 days in prison.
Following his release on 9 January 2020, Mark received documents from Lewisham Probation Service regarding his licence arrangements. In these documents, Mark noticed that in August 2019, Nina had purportedly written to Mark at his previous address in Croydon, inviting him to attend an appointment on 19 August 2019. By this time, of course, Mark was living in Wembley (and had been for over a year). He had never, of course, received that letter from Nina.
In light of Mark’s (innocent) non-attendance, further correspondence was then sent to him on 19 August, 21 August and 28 August 2019, all letters going to his old address.
London Community Rehabilitation Company then notified the ‘Post Release’ Sector that Mark had, in effect, ‘gone AWOL’ which then led to his arrest and subsequent incarceration.
Mark had never received any of this incorrectly addressed correspondence. Yet further, Nina had apparently made no effort to contact Mark by phone (his number remained the same) nor his emergency contact (whose number also remained the same).
It was clear that something had gone badly wrong, and when Mark instructed me I immediately suspected that shoddy record keeping, which was a hallmark of the now gladly defunct private probation companies would prove to be responsible.
This was indeed the case; the recall report prepared by London CRC in September 2019 (completely unbeknownst to Mark) contained the following ‘information’ –
- Mr Edwards was last seen at probation on the 16/01/19. Attempts have been made to re-engage with Mr Edwards after the re-allocation of his case to a different officer. However, Mr Edwards has failed to respond or update the Probation Services as to his whereabouts.
- The recall report left Section 6 (“last recorded address where s/he may be contacted. This must be provided …….”) blank
- The recall report also stated “Any other possible address: No.”
Yet further, the recall report stated:
Mr Edwards has failed to report as instructed on his licence. There has been gaps in his being instructed on his licence prior to his case being re-allocated to the current OM. He has since been offered a number of appointments which he has failed to attend. He has not made any contact with probation which he would be fully aware he is required to do so. In view of his continued non-compliance with the conditions of his licence, this has placed him in breach of licence condition 5.iii . On this basis, I endorse recall.
Further investigations revealed that (as expected) Mark’s original supervisor, Nina had failed to update his new address on her company’s case management computer system and had likewise failed to record Mark’s telephone number thereon.
I pursued civil proceedings on behalf of Mark.
Mark had suffered severely as a result of the probation company’s errors, and not only in regards to the ‘lost Christmas’ which he had to spend in jail because of the Recall notice. Mark had been getting on with his life, had secured an enjoyable job as a football coach and was actually on his way to a Christmas lunch with a work colleague when he was wrongfully arrested. He was proud at what he had managed to achieve since coming out of prison and couldn’t believe he was being denigrated and labelled as a criminal again, in his words – “By force I had been put back into a life I didn’t want to lead anymore and had put behind me.” He was deeply upset at the thought of what his family would think of him, particularly his mother. Although he had been in prison for a much longer time before his initial release, Mark found the 28 days incarceration agonising as he knew every minute of it was wrong and unjust, and was potentially undoing all the good work he had done on reshaping his life over the previous 2 years.
Mark got his liberty back when he was released in January 2020, but not his job, nor his mental health. He started to suffer anxiety attacks, he felt he had lost stability in his life and struggled to sleep; a psychiatrist diagnosed Mark as suffering from an Adjustment Disorder and a prolonged depressive reaction (which was sadly understandable in the circumstances).
Following the institution of court proceedings, I secured a financial settlement of £10,000 plus legal fees for Mark.
All names changed.
Also read: Recall notice: why it’s right that time is up for private probation companies
