On the 30th January I posted briefly about a report in the Mail which stated that David Chaytor had been moved to an open prison with what was described as 'indecent haste'. I have today received a response (in two parts) from Steve Gorman, Head of Briefing & Casework Unit, National Offender Management Service at the Ministry of Justice and needless to say the old excuse of disproportionate cost is given by the MoJ for lack of information provided in answer to the questions posed.
With hindsight I now realise there were other questions I could and should have raised - but no doubt these too would have invoked the 'disproportionate cost' response.
I reproduce the text of both letters below for reader's interest:
Letter 1:
"Thank you for your email of 30 January in which you asked for the following information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ):
The Mail on Sunday today reports that David Chaytor has been transferred from Wandsworth Prison (Category B) to Spring Hill Prison (Category D) in Buckinghamshire and that according to a source of the newspaper Chaytor "was treated like a celebrity and processed with astonishing speed".
I would be grateful if you would advise:
(i) For what 'area' does Spring Hill prison cater - or does it accept prisoner transfers from any prison in Great Britain?
(ii) Was Chaytor treated any differently from other prisoners, in any manner whatsoever, during his time in Wandsworth?
(iii) Was Chaytor's transfer expedited and if so for what reason(s)?
(iv) How many prisoners were eligible for transfer to Spring Hill prison and on which decisions had been taken, but no transfer made, at the time of Chaytor's move.
(v) The newspaper stated that prior to transfer to an open prison prisoners have to undergo extensive assessments. What are these assessments, how many subjects are considered and the nature of their content; what is the normal timescale of these assessments from start to finish?
(vi) Did Chaytor undergo every stage of the assessment process, or were some omitted - and if so, for what reason(s)?
As I have explained in my other letter to you, section 84 of the Act states that in order for a request for information to be handled as a Freedom of Information request, it must be for recorded information. I have assessed your correspondence and since questions (i), (ii), (iii) and (vi) ask more general questions, they have not been handled under the Act on this occasion. I shall instead address these questions below.
(i) Spring Hill is a category D open prison with a resettlement regime. Its purpose is to prepare prisoners for release by addressing, accommodation, employment, vocational training and offending behaviour needs. The prison accepts category D prisoners from anywhere within the England and Wales prison estate but primarily those who are looking to resettle in the immediate Thames Valley area.
(ii) A key principle of the Data Protection Act 1998 is that personal data must not be disclosed to other parties without the consent of the individual whom it is about, unless there is legislation or other overriding legitimate reason to share the information (for example, the prevention or detection of crime). I therefore cannot comment on any individual prisoner’s circumstances, though I can reply in general terms. Prison staff are absolutely committed to treating all those in their care decently, humanely and with respect. In addition, the Prison Service is committed to treating all prisoners equally irrespective of their background, race, religion, sexual orientation etc. Wandsworth does have a ‘high profile prisoner protocol’ which does differentiate high profile media related prisoners from others but this does not mean that they are treated differently – in essence it simply means that senior management within the establishment are informed of these individuals’ presence within the prison to ensure that all media-related issues are dealt with appropriately.
(iii) It is important to understand that, as a local prison, Wandsworth has a responsibility to re-categorise convicted prisoners as quickly as possible and move them into suitable accommodation. In addition to this, the Prison Service has a responsibility to place prisoners in the lowest security category consistent with the needs of security and control. Again, though I cannot comment on the specifics of this case, what I can say is that all prisoner transfers are dealt with fairly and objectively by means of an assessment based upon offence-related issues.
(vi) For the reasons that I have explained above, it would not be appropriate to go into detail about what assessments individual prisoners have or have not had, other than to stress that all prisoners moved to open conditions must have been assessed as suitable for a category D prison.
I hope the above is helpful and reassures you that Wandsworth and Spring Hill prisons and indeed the Prison Service more generally is committed to treating all prisoners equally and in accordance with both the law and established procedures.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gorman"
Letter 2:
"Thank you for your email of 30 January in which you asked for the following information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ):
The Mail on Sunday today reports that David Chaytor has been transferred from Wandsworth Prison (Category B) to Spring Hill Prison (Category D) in Buckinghamshire and that according to a source of the newspaper Chaytor "was treated like a celebrity and processed with astonishing speed".
I would be grateful if you would advise:
(i) For what 'area' does Spring Hill prison cater - or does it accept prisoner transfers from any prison in Great Britain?
(ii) Was Chaytor treated any differently from other prisoners, in any manner whatsoever, during his time in Wandsworth?
(iii) Was Chaytor's transfer expedited and if so for what reason(s)?
(iv) How many prisoners were eligible for transfer to Spring Hill prison and on which decisions had been taken, but no transfer made, at the time of Chaytor's move.
(v) The newspaper stated that prior to transfer to an open prison prisoners have to undergo extensive assessments. What are these assessments, how many subjects are considered and the nature of their content; what is the normal timescale of these assessments from start to finish?
(vi) Did Chaytor undergo every stage of the assessment process, or were some omitted - and if so, for what reason(s)?
I should explain that section 84 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA) states that in order for a request for information to be handled as a Freedom of Information request, it must be for recorded information. For example, a Freedom of Information request would be for a copy of an human resources (HR) policy, rather than an explanation as to why we have that policy in place. On occasion, the department receives requests for information that do not ask for a copy of recorded information, but ask more general questions about, for example, a policy or a decision. I have assessed your correspondence and since questions (i), (ii), (iii) and (vi) were of that nature, they have not been handled under the Act on this occasion. Consequently I shall address those questions under separate cover.
Turning to the questions which do fall under the Act (iv and v), which is for recorded information, your request for this information has been handled under the FoIA and passed to me because I have responsibility for answering requests that relate to individual prisoners and prison establishments in England and Wales.
With regard to question (iv), you asked how many prisoners were eligible for transfer to Spring Hill prison and on which decisions had been taken, but no transfer made, at the time of Mr Chaytor's move. I can confirm that the MoJ holds the information you have requested. However, it is exempt by virtue of section 12 as it would be too costly to provide this information to you.
To provide you with the exact details of how many prisoners were eligible for transfer to Spring Hill prison and on which decisions had been taken, but no transfer made, at the time you stipulated would far exceed the £600 limit under section 12 of the FOIA. Section 12 (1) of the FOIA makes provision for public authorities to refuse requests for information where the cost of dealing with them would exceed the appropriate limit, which for central government is set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3.5 days in locating, retrieving and extracting the information.
Question (iv) of your request does not specify a location for those prisoners eligible for transfer to Spring Hill but, given the nature of the remainder of your request, it is assumed that you are seeking these details solely in respect of those held at Wandsworth prison. However, as this information is not held centrally, to provide it even in respect of only those held at Wandsworth would require the establishment to check the individual records of all prisoners there who had a re-categorisation review. For the last year, this would involve recovering and checking each of 1257 prisoner files, which it is estimated would incur disproportionate costs.
I am sorry but on this occasion I am unable to advise you as to how to narrow your request to bring it within the cost limit.
However, outside of the Act, I am pleased to provide you with the following information in response to question (v) of your request. You have asked about the assessments undertaken prior to a prisoner being transferred to open conditions. Prisoners may only be transferred to open prisons once they have been assessed as suitable for category D security status; that is, the categorisation process has deemed them to be someone who can be reasonably trusted in open conditions.
There is no specified timescale for the initial categorisation of adult male prisoners, since each prisoner’s case will be different and will require the consideration of documentation and reports relevant to that individual. However, the initial categorisation process must completed as soon after they have been sentenced as is practical using the ICA1 (Initial Categorisation Assessment 1) form. The categorisation section consists of an algorithm, using as its database brief details of the current offence, sentence, previous convictions and custodial sentences (especially for sexual offences and/or violence) and previous escapes, escape attempts or absconds. Once completed the algorithm will indicate a provisional security category. Prison staff must then either indicate that the provisional security category applies, or recommend that it be overridden as a result of control considerations or other factors. These reasons could relate either to matters not covered by the algorithm (e.g. a previous sentence successfully served in an open prison, or a known tendency to violence by an apparently minor offender), or to an unusual combination of factors which produces an obviously unreasonable result from the algorithm.
Categorisation and allocation of prisoners is a critical task. Effectively assigning prisoners to the correct security category and allocating them to an appropriate prison helps to ensure that they do not present a risk of harm to the public, or of escape or abscond, or threaten the control of establishments. It also means that prisoners are not held in conditions of security higher than are necessary. Categorisation, re-categorisation and allocation are also vital to the sentence management of prisoners. The correct categorisation and allocation, balancing security issues and the needs of the prisoner, helps prisoners to use their sentences constructively, to tackle their offending behaviour and to prepare for release.
With the passage of time or changes in circumstances, prisoners may become more or less of a risk to the public and/or more or less likely to escape. Therefore, in addition to prisoners’ initial categorisation, regular reviews of prisoners’ security categorisation take place to help ensure that prisoners continue to be held in conditions commensurate with the risks they pose. These reviews should take place at regular intervals or whenever there is a significant change in their circumstances. The matters which are relevant to a re-categorisation review are the same as those for an initial categorisation. The aim of the re-categorisation review is to use this information to establish whether there has been any clear change in the risk the prisoner poses. The review of a prisoner’s security category must take place on a Re-categorisation Form (RC1) and the panel, board or governor undertaking the review must consult the prisoner’s custodial file, warrants and any pre-sentence reports, sentence planning documentation form where available, any security information held on the individual, and any end of course reports completed after offending behaviour programmes.
The allocation of prisoners to training establishments following conviction forms a process distinct from categorisation, though the two procedures often take place on the same day. While the main factor to be considered in determining a prisoner’s allocation must always be his security category, and a prisoner who has been assigned to a particular security category should initially be considered for allocation to a prison designed for that category, account must also be taken of: his suitability for particular types of accommodation (factors such as vulnerability, age, etc); his medical and/or psychiatric needs that may require a particular type of level or care; his need for identified offence related behavioural programmes to confront assessed risk; his home area, or that of his likely visitors; his educational or training needs or potential; and the published allocation criteria for individual establishments’ resettlement needs. The decision reached must be justifiable and must be recorded on the prisoner’s ICA1/RC1.
As part of our obligations under the FOIA, the MoJ has an independent review process. If you are dissatisfied with the information provided, you may write to request an internal review. The internal review will be carried out by someone who did not provide the original material, and they will re-assess how the Department handled the original request.
If you wish to request an internal review, please write to the Data Access and Compliance Unit within two months of the date of this letter, at the following address:
Data Access and Compliance Unit
Information Directorate
Ministry of Justice
6th Floor
Zone B
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
Should you remain dissatisfied following an internal review decision, you have the right to apply to the Information Commissioner’s Office under Section 50 of the FOIA for a decision. You can contact the Information Commissioner’s Office at the following address:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gorman"
