Category A (review)
Following on from my last blogs: I’ve just received my Cat A review folder. This includes reports from various departments, including: Security; Psychology; the Offenders Management Unit (OMU); a wing report; A report from Recovery Services.
Putting to one side the fact that the OMU report was completed by someone who is not ‘my’ Offender Supervisor and has never met me, and that I’ve never been a drug user to Warrant a Recovery Services report, this is a debacle of epic proportions.
Problem 1: Cat A prisoners are meant to get a review every 12 months. I’ve been at HMP Wakefield 6 years come January. I should be on to my 6th review; this is my fourth. The last review was based on so much inaccurate and misleading information from Security and Psychology that, after a meeting I had with the Deputy Governor, it had to be redone. It was too little too late as the information had already been sent to the CART. Some of that false information was included in their decision letter to me; decision to keep me as a Cat A prisoner. It’s always Security and Psychology…
Problem 2: the reports are meant to cover the ‘reporting period’, which is the period leading up to the review. The most recent dated report will be from over 7 months ago by the time of the review. My meeting with Psychology for their report took place on the 1st March 2016! Do the math. What a mess.
Problem 3: yes, Security and Psychology have once again pulled a blinder; an apt phrase. The score stands at 3-3; that is, 3 inaccurate and/or incomplete pieces of information each.
Psychology make this comment in their conclusion:” … there are recorded occasions of engagements with staff that could be potentially concerning. It is important that Mr Coutts reflects on his interpersonal style [don’t laugh] when being challenged and is honest about his motivations for information…” This opinion came out of the 3 file (C-Nomis) entries they referenced. Two of these allegations were later retracted and rectified; the 3rd had a further file entry which filled in the blanks that particular officer had missed out as it reflected negatively on them. Each of these entries were motivated by spite and/or ignorance of the facts; each very damaging to my progression. Yet, here we are again with Psychology pushing lies over the truth…
…speaking of which: Security. The 3 Information Reports (IR s) they reference include 1 which was investigated, after which Security retracted the allegation, one which was an error on my part but something they still label a “concerning behaviour”, and the 3rd was an IR submitted by one of the staff who was involved in the cover up of one of the false allegations that Psychology referenced, which was later retracted and rectified (how ironic). I’ll fill in the detail of each of these supposed “concerning behaviours” and ‘potentially concerning engagements with staff’ over the next few blogs; make up your own mind on the absurdities and pettiness of this environment and the agendas of the staff involved.
Needless to say, I have submitted a complaint requesting that they postpone the Cat A review until such time that they obtain up to date reports which contain accurate information. If they don’t…well, they’ve given me several grounds for a Judicial Review.
Be happy, be safe.
Graham Coutts, 23rd October 2017