大象传媒

"The most disturbing thing for me was the behaviour of the staff in the office." Chief Constable Steve Green

Electronic tagging system

Tagging fears

Electronic tags on criminals are supposed to protect us.

We've been promised that tagging is a cost-effective and safe alternative to prison, even for serious offenders.

But what happens when the system is full of holes?

And what is the impact when no-one's watching the criminals?

Inside Out went undercover at the Nottingham office of the private security firm which is responsible for electronically tagging and monitoring more than 1,000 people across the East Midlands.

Unmonitored offenders

Staff have been suspended as a result of our investigations

For four months our Inside Out reporter worked at Group Four Securicor with the men and women who are supposed to make sure offenders stick to the curfews imposed by the courts.

His undercover work led to five suspensions at the G4S Nottingham office and questions at the Home Office.

The key findings were:

* There were numerous cases of offenders who went unmonitored for weeks, sometimes months.

* Offenders who went unmonitored for days at a time included two men described as sex offenders and one described as a murderer.

* Someone who two members of staff described as a suspected terrorist connected to the 7/7 London tube bombings, was left unmonitored, once for more than 24 hours.

* On Home Office instruction, tags were routinely removed from curfewees the night before their bail hearing.

The 大象传媒 filmed one violent offender out drinking after his tag was removed the night before he was sent to prison for assaulting a former partner.

After we told them of our findings, the Home Office announced this policy is being reviewed.

Unreliable technology?

Our undercover filming revealed concerns about the monitoring procedure for offenders.

This is a conversation between a member of the xx and our reporter:

He says: "It works well for everybody".

Technology was not always reliable in monitoring offenders

Reporter says: "Except the fact that there is a period when it's not monitored."

He says: "Well, it gives us extra money. It gives the subject the chance to do what they want for half a day.

"He can burgle kill, you know 'cause we are not monitoring them. Can't prove it, mate!"

So what is the root of the problem?

* Lack of monitoring could usually be traced to the unreliable mobile phone technology used to keep track of offenders and curfewees.

* When a box lost contact with a tagged curfewee, it could take weeks for staff to visit the house to address the problem.

* When a monitoring box was reinstated, some G4S staff in Nottingham did not keep a record of the curfewee's movements during the time it was not working - instead the box was wiped.

* Staff believed wiping the information broke the contract they have with the Home Office.

The following conversations throw some light on the nature and extent of the problem:

Conversation about "missing" status:

G4S staff member one: "This equipment does not record it - missing status.

"If it's missing status, we are not monitoring them.

"We can never get that information back. We do not know what they've been doing."

...............................

Conversation about retrieving information:

Staff member three: "With Premier we used to know didn't we?"

Staff member one: "They could download it to find out. These lot cannot.

"Some of the missing status - they can go on for days or even weeks.

Staff member four: "I've seen one two months".

Staff member one: "Yeah, all those time it's missing status it isn't recording what they are doing.

"We don't know, we cannot retrieve the information. We don't know what they're doing.

"They could have been in Barbados for a week while it is missing status we wouldn't know. Tell me the kit's not shit!

"Well, I can't argue against that can I?"

Staff member one: "I don't know how the Home Office hasn't cottoned on to it."

Small number of cases?

Ian Ridgley, Operations Director for G4's Justice Services admitted that in what he called a small number of cases the company was not monitoring offenders properly:

"We recognise that the Home Office require us to work to a very high standard and of course we are sorry that in some minor number of instances we may not have operated to those standards."

G4S weren't able to say exactly how many cases or what type of offenders it had not been monitoring.

Boxes were working says G4S in its defence

The company said it would break the terms of their contract with the Government to do so.

But they were adamant that the boxes were able to download information after they'd been reinstated:

"The equipment works effectively, it's been tested by the Home Office.

"It's been tested independently by the National Audit Office and recently the Home Office Scientific Branch has confirmed that we can retrieve all our information; download all our information, regardless of whether a unit's been in missing status聟

"The information about the subject's movements continues to be measured and recorded and we can download that at a later date."

They told us a small group of employees in Nottingham were being retrained because they were apparently unclear about this.

Little faith in the system

Broken curfew - a tagged offender in the pub

We found that staff had little faith in the equipment they were using and believed that curfewees knew when they are not being monitored.

This is an extract from a conversation heard by our reporter:

Male staff member: "I'm working on the pretence now that one out of every seven is going to work. So I think if I've got four installs, if I take 28 boxes, I'm bound to get the job done before I have to come back here."

Female staff member: "It's embarrassing really when you go to someone's house to put them in and the box don't work. And you've got to go out and get another box and that don't work."

Reporter: "Do you think he knows his box isn't working?"

Female staff member: "Of course he does."

Reporter: "Does he? How would he know that?"

Female staff member: "It's word of mouth isn't it. Their network is far more superior than ours. They're unreal some of these lads.

"As soon as something goes wrong they'll pass it on to their mates and pass it on and pass it on. And then they know how the system works."

Reporter: "So they just know how to play it?"

Female staff member: "Yeah, he's obviously tried to phone out on the unit, can't phone out because it's missing status, so he's thinking..."

Reporter: "Oh, that's how they know, because they make the phone call and it doesn't connect, they know that's missing status."

Female staff member: "They're not stupid, they know that it works off a mobile network, don't they?"

We found that some staff at the Nottingham office falsified records in order to meet targets in a practice called "blagging".

On at least one occasion an offender was sent back to prison after a G4S monitoring officer cut corners.

The human cost

Widower Victor Bates has had personal experience of what can happen when the tagging system fails.

Campaigning - widower Victor Bates says that risks are too high

In 2003 his wife Marian was shot dead in a raid on their jewellery shop in Arnold, Nottingham.

When the gunman's accomplice Peter Williams was put on trial for her murder it emerged he should have been wearing a tag.

He'd taken it off sometime before the killing.

The tagging system was then run by a different company, Premier, but when Victor watched our footage he told us our investigation confirmed his fears that little had changed:

"This has just shown the silliness, the sheer incompetence of tagging. But if you're not confident that everything's being done to obviate the risks where do we go, who's next?"

Disturbing evidence

We invited a panel of experts to look at our findings.

Steve Green, Nottinghamshire's Chief Constable told us, "The most disturbing thing for me was the behaviour of the staff in the office.

Tagging an offender with an electronic device

"It didn't appear to be challenged in any way shape or form by management.

"There seemed to be to be an absence of leadership there."

Deborah Bell is a solicitor who has represented offenders for 10 years.

She watched our footage with mounting concern.

"I think from my point of view what's most alarming is the potential for miscarriages of justice."

Harry Fletcher represents 9,000 probation officers in Britain.

He's not convinced tagging should ever be run by private companies:

"I knew that there were problems with tagging but what this programme shows it that the problems with tagging are immensely worse than I thought.

"We have questions of falsifying records, of dishonesty, of faulty equipment and given that this scheme's been around for the best part of 20 years it is both extremely surprising and very shocking."

Action needed

William Higham from the Prison Reform Trust said the film had made some very serious points which he hoped would be followed up:

"But there isn't going to be a 大象传媒 film crew going into every office in the country.

"And so the question remains for the Home Office - ultimately how do they enforce these contracts?"

The Home Office says its policy on de-tagging alleged offenders the night before their bail hearing is under review.

They're also reviewing their contract with G4S and asking some urgent questions about the programme's findings.

Links relating to this story:

The 大象传媒 is not responsible for the content of external websites

大象传媒 Inside Out East Midlands - Wednesday April 3, 2007

听