Recurring concern

Unreliable probation recall processes

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 17 Apr 2015•Latest report 26 Jul 2024

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures of the named probation recall process, including incorrect understanding or application of recall criteria, urgency, requests, notices, processing and related decision controls.

Not included

Excludes generic probation training or supervision deficiencies not specifically tied to the recall process.
Excludes failures in risk assessment, information sharing or placement unless they directly concern a recall decision or request.
Excludes healthcare, product and unrelated patient recall processes.
Excludes release-date calculation failures unless the report explicitly links them to the operation of a probation recall decision.

Reports: 3
Individual concerns: 3
Date range: 2015–2024
Stated actions: 6

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

HM Prison and Probation Service3

Home Office1

Liverpool City Council1

London Borough of Redbridge1

Metropolitan Police Service1

Ministry of Justice1

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

26 Jul2024
East London
Concerns raised1
1. Unclear understanding of when to request emergency recall
This report raised 24 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 2
1. Action
  Implement the revised Offender Management policy incorporating learning and improvements concerning recalls to prison processes.
  Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceStated planned
2. Action
  Remind London probation staff about emergency recalls during normal working hours and repeat the reminder for SDS40 implementation.
  Stated by HM Prison and Probation ServiceStated completed
AI-generated summary

Zara Natasha Aleena · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Zara Natasha Aleena died at the Royal London Hospital on 26 June 2022 after sustaining a severe traumatic brain injury during an unprovoked attack while walking home in Ilford. The report identifies concerns about understaffing, risk assessment, information sharing, supervision, recall procedures and coordination across the Probation Service, police and other agencies, as well as concerns about training and reporting of predatory behaviour.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Unclear understanding of when to request emergency recall
Wider context from the report
“(10) The evidence revealed a difference of opinion and understanding around when an emergency recall should be requested. A senior probation officer and probation services officer erroneously believed that an emergency recall could only be requested out of hours. ”
Source location
Zara Natasha Aleena · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 4 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Implement the revised Offender Management policy incorporating learning and improvements concerning recalls to prison processes.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The findings of the Directorate of Professional Standards (“DPS”) fast time review identified learning, some of which was accepted and was covered in the witness statement of Chief Superintendent ████████ submitted to inquest. In addition to this review, the local East Area Basic Command Unit (“BCU”) also carried out a review and identified a number of additional learning points which were actioned. Importantly, learning and improvements required in relation to “recalls to prison” processes have been shared and informed a revised Offender Management policy, which is due to be implemented later in 2024.”

Source location
Response from Metropolitan Police
Page 2 · response
Published 2 August 2024
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Remind London probation staff about emergency recalls during normal working hours and repeat the reminder for SDS40 implementation.

Verbatim wording from the response
“10.1. We accept that there was an inconsistency in understanding of emergency recall processes in this case. All London Probation staff have been reminded of the availability of the emergency recall process during normal working hours. Another reminder was given to all staff in preparation for SDS40 (the recent changes to standard determinate sentences, announced in July and implemented in September 2024).”

Source location
Response from HMPPS and MoJ
Page 9 · response
Published 2 August 2024
Open published response
29 Mar2017
Liverpool and the Wirral
Concerns raised1
1. Failure to recall offenders to prison or prevent referral to unsuitable supported living accommodation
This report raised 6 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
AI-generated summary

John Clarke Jaundoo · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

John Clarke Jaundoo, aged 24, was found with multiple stab wounds under Garston Bridge in the early hours of 15 April 2010 and died later in hospital. Three men who lived in the same supported living accommodation were subsequently convicted of his murder, and the inquest concluded that he died as a result of unlawful killing. The inquiry identified concerns about the referral and accommodation of high-risk offenders, failures to provide accurate and up-to-date information and review risk assessments, and missed oversight opportunities by Liverpool City Council.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to recall offenders to prison or prevent referral to unsuitable supported living accommodation
Wider context from the report
“In respect of the then Probation Trust (1) Offender 2 should have been recalled to prison and not referred to or accepted into supported living accommodation, it was wholly unsuitable for him and in particular when his behaviour was deteriorating to such an extent in the Approved Premises that his bed was withdrawn. (2) Offender 3 a high risk offender should never have been referred to or admitted to supported living accommodation (upon his release from prison), the only suitable accommodation where the risks that he posed could be appropriately managed being Approved Premises. (3) Timely, accurate and up to date information was not provided in respect of offenders 2 & 3 and; (4) The risk assessment which should have been a dynamic process was not reviewed/revised in particular as it should have been in respect of offender 2 when his behaviour started to deteriorate so substantially and which also included alcohol consumption a known precursor to his offending. In respect of Liverpool City Council (Adult Social Services) (1) Missed a number of significant opportunities to properly exercise their influence and oversight function of both the then supported living accommodation provider and the Probation Trust, they also missed opportunities to perform regular, timely validation visits and to satisfy themselves of the procedures that were in place to ensure the aims of the service were being effectively delivered and that public protection (including of staff and other service users) was the overriding priority. ”
Source location
John Clarke Jaundoo · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 4 · concerns
Open source report
17 Apr2015
Staffordshire South
Concerns raised1
1. Probation staff lacking a correct understanding of the recall process
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 4
1. Action
  Review recall guidance and confirm that its processes are clear.
  Stated by Directorate of Probation in NOMSStated completed
2. Action
  Replace and update the recall guidance governing recall processes.
  Stated by Directorate of Probation in NOMSStated completed
3. Action
  Remind all probation staff of recall procedures through senior-leader communication.
  Stated by Directorate of Probation in NOMSStated planned
1. Action
  Organise recall practitioner forums in each National Probation Service division to discuss recall issues and review practice.
  Stated by Directorate of Probation in NOMSStated planned
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  Existing recall guidance is considered clear and sufficient to ensure recall follows full consideration of relevant facts.
  Stated by Directorate of Probation in NOMSExisting arrangements considered sufficient
AI-generated summary

Mark Groombridge · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Mark Groombridge was in the community on licence from prison when a recall warrant was issued. He was arrested while an inpatient in a psychiatric unit and taken to HMP Dovegate, where he died by suicide on 27 December 2013 after jumping head first from a bed in the prison health care centre. The concerns identified included a lack of direct communication between the local offender manager and the clinician before recall paperwork was issued, and confusion among probation staff about the recall process.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Probation staff lacking a correct understanding of the recall process
Wider context from the report
“(2) There was confusion about the recall process. The local offender manager believed that recall papers could be sent to the central NOMS unit in London and that they could be held there pending further direction. The evidence from London was that this would never happen and all recall requests are processed according to their urgency. Should all probation staff be reminded of what the correct process is? ”
Source location
Mark Groombridge · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Review recall guidance and confirm that its processes are clear.

Verbatim wording from the response
“At the time of Mr Groombridge’s death the relevant guidance concerning the recall of offenders was Probation Instructions 07/2013 (Recall Review & Re-release of Recall Offenders) and 08/2013 (Determinate Sentenced Prisoners transferred under the Mental Health Act 1983). This guidance has been reviewed and the Director of Probation is of the view that the processes to be followed in that guidance were clear. The guidance states that offender managers are required to gather evidence and assemble the relevant facts to support a request for recall and that this will include liaising with anyone directly involved, including medical staff at a hospital at which an offender was a patient.”

Source location
2015-0142-Response-by-NOMS
Page 1 · response
Published 17 April 2015
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Replace and update the recall guidance governing recall processes.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Probation Instruction 07/2013 has now been replaced by Probation Instruction 27/2014, with the same title, which became effective from 1 June 2014. It was updated on 1 February 2015. The Director of Probation is of view that the guidance given on the recall process remains clear, but is asking Deputy Directors to ensure that all probation staff are reminded of the procedures by 31 August. Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS), will be issuing a Senior Leaders Bulletin covering recall actions which will include a reminder of processes for all Probation staff to follow, PPCS will also be organising Recall Practitioner Forums in each National Probation Service (NPS) division at the end of the year. These forums will give staff and managers the opportunity to come together to discuss issues surrounding recall and review practice.”

Source location
2015-0142-Response-by-NOMS
Page 2 · response
Published 17 April 2015
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Remind all probation staff of recall procedures through senior-leader communication.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Probation Instruction 07/2013 has now been replaced by Probation Instruction 27/2014, with the same title, which became effective from 1 June 2014. It was updated on 1 February 2015. The Director of Probation is of view that the guidance given on the recall process remains clear, but is asking Deputy Directors to ensure that all probation staff are reminded of the procedures by 31 August. Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS), will be issuing a Senior Leaders Bulletin covering recall actions which will include a reminder of processes for all Probation staff to follow, PPCS will also be organising Recall Practitioner Forums in each National Probation Service (NPS) division at the end of the year. These forums will give staff and managers the opportunity to come together to discuss issues surrounding recall and review practice.”

Source location
2015-0142-Response-by-NOMS
Page 2 · response
Published 17 April 2015
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Organise recall practitioner forums in each National Probation Service division to discuss recall issues and review practice.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Probation Instruction 07/2013 has now been replaced by Probation Instruction 27/2014, with the same title, which became effective from 1 June 2014. It was updated on 1 February 2015. The Director of Probation is of view that the guidance given on the recall process remains clear, but is asking Deputy Directors to ensure that all probation staff are reminded of the procedures by 31 August. Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS), will be issuing a Senior Leaders Bulletin covering recall actions which will include a reminder of processes for all Probation staff to follow, PPCS will also be organising Recall Practitioner Forums in each National Probation Service (NPS) division at the end of the year. These forums will give staff and managers the opportunity to come together to discuss issues surrounding recall and review practice.”

Source location
2015-0142-Response-by-NOMS
Page 2 · response
Published 17 April 2015
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Existing recall guidance is considered clear and sufficient to ensure recall follows full consideration of relevant facts.

Verbatim wording from the response
“At the time of Mr Groombridge’s death the relevant guidance concerning the recall of offenders was Probation Instructions 07/2013 (Recall Review & Re-release of Recall Offenders) and 08/2013 (Determinate Sentenced Prisoners transferred under the Mental Health Act 1983). This guidance has been reviewed and the Director of Probation is of the view that the processes to be followed in that guidance were clear. The guidance states that offender managers are required to gather evidence and assemble the relevant facts to support a request for recall and that this will include liaising with anyone directly involved, including medical staff at a hospital at which an offender was a patient.”

Source location
2015-0142-Response-by-NOMS
Page 1 · response
Published 17 April 2015
Open published response

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised1

Unclear understanding of when to request emergency recall

Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2

Concerns raised1

Failure to recall offenders to prison or prevent referral to unsuitable supported living accommodation

Concerns raised1

Probation staff lacking a correct understanding of the recall process

Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.4

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

Actions described in response 2

Actions described in response 4

Respondent positions 1