OLR review, the truth of what actually transpires.
I do hope it is not too presumptuous to have decided to enlighten you from a perspective that you may not have in regard to the abominable OLR sentence but feel as I have been investigating this matter for 5 years, it could prove to be advantageous for all concerned. I state this not to be considered impetuous but rather due to what unfolded in my own case and subsequently what I discovered thereafter by obtaining and reviewing the following items
1.14 RAR’S prepared for the SCTS
2. 9 RAR’s prepared for defence agents
3. 4 Critiques of the RAR prepared for defence agents.
The reason for this shall be elucidated upon proceeding to quantify the veracity of what should be disclosed.
I must inform one that I have also obtained, reviewed and digested the following items:
4.MacLean Committee Report
5. White Paper – serious violent and sexual offenders – 2000
6. Meeting of Parliament minutes for 18th September 20002 /19th February 2003 /20th February 2003
7. 2nd Justice Committee 8th report 2002
8. RMA – Standards and Guidelines for Risk Assessment
9. Risk Assessment and Minimisation (accredited scheme) order 2006
Case Law:
10. Ferguson v HMA 2014 HCJAC19 item
11. T O’Leary v HMA 2014 HCJAC45
12. James, Wells and Lee v UK, Application numbers 25119/09 57715/09 and 57877/09 – 18 September 2012
13. BS v Scottish ministers 2024 CSOH 47
14. Brown V Scottish ministers 2022 CSIH48
Other:
15. UNHR – UK UN torture expert calls for urgent review of IPP sentencing scheme 30th of August 2023
16. UNHR – On Life Imprisonment
Psychological:
17. Journal of Aggressive and Violent Behaviour, 2015
18. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 2011 Professor Jeremy Coid.
Consider the headline: ‘Manipulation, Deception and Corruption’.
Psychologists have and continue to pay themselves considerable sums to concoct spurious risk assessment reports in order to ensure a citizen is given an OLR then hold the citizens hostage for life to ensure a continuation of payment as they then return to their full-time positions as Heads of Psychology at the SPS by order of Parliament. The headline statement is true and easily evidenced. This will become clear, however this is not a dissertation on the law or legislative principles but rather a ‘layman’s’ perspective using reason and sanity. This particular piece of legislation is a tool for oppression and persecution and as will be elucidated upon, there exists realistically no manner of recourse for these caught up in this web, the bureaucracy to release is far too difficult to overcome, OLR ‘s shall never reach the community. The RMA’s own data shall evidence this fact, this is one of the most corrupted pieces of legislation in the history of a Scottish parliament.
Is it probable that at last common sense and reason shall prevail as this is critical in a democratic society as is the independence of the Judiciary. A scandal such as has been created here harms the administration of justice. Systems of hypothesis by the use of sophistry and illusion have no place in law and sentence practices.
That which is not founded on fact should be excluded as it is not ‘falsifiable’, more critical however is that when the objective facts are spurious and this has been proven to be so, then these facts at the very least should be removed and a reformulation of the assesses opinion should then commence. This is not the case however, rather over harsh and arbitrary punishment is the reality. A person’s punishment should be in proportion to the degree of their offence in line with a policy of punishment, reform and rehabilitation.
Of the 14 RAR’s prepared for SCTS that I obtained and reviewed, 9 of these had spurious objective facts contained within. Most of these had been very serious accusations and allegations. From a psychologist’s perspective, these can be defined as ‘objective historical’ facts and they have an overwhelming impact on the overall risk level. The other is ‘subjective clinical’, of course, one is based on deduction and the other induction.
Indeed my own contained 17 spurious objective facts, the imaginings of the assessor, this is however far from anomalous. Equally concerning is that the RAR commissioned by the defence will contain the very same spurious objective facts. Of the 9 I found to be spurious as above, 7 prepared for the defence evidenced this anomaly. In most cases this can be evidenced by the use of the alleged ‘supporting evidence’, that is of course when there is such evidence provided with the report as in most cases there is none, such as in my own.
Is this the regular evidence based risk assessment alluded to by Parliament?
It would seem so.
There exists also a violation of the 1995 Act S210C (4). I therefore contend that if the objective fact is spurious then follows that the subjective comment derived from the fact is likewise. That would be the rational and reasonable conclusion, this however is not the case, at least according to those Psychologists and all other parties concerned, including PBS.
A second option as opposed to the defence obtaining a second report is a critique of the report prepared for the court. The critique should establish whether there are any methodological, structural or investigative flaws within the report. I chose this option as I believe the RAR would be invalidated, refuted. I drafted a list of spurious objective facts within the report and also obtained supporting documentary evidence from official sources such as CJSW and SCTS. As stated, there had been no supporting evidence attached to the report sent to the court.
When I received the response to the critique, it was found that there was no issues. I was in a state of belief disbelief, on a more personable note, be under no illusion as this can all be evidenced with what is in existence today, it is not a matter of ‘if’ but ‘when’.
The other critique I reviewed showed the same anomaly, although, they had not been prepared or rather provided with the same exactitude.
The third and final option is to lodge a ‘notice of objection’ in terms of the 1995 Act S210C (7) in which you list all of your objections. These will then be put to an assessor at a hearing. My own contain 27 such objections, the assessor response was ‘I must have been mistaken but my opinion is the same’. This can be evidenced.
Further, the spurious objective facts are still taken to be true and form the Risk Management Plan (RMP), although the lodging of a notice of objection is an option. Of the 23 individuals I have assisted thus far, none had done this. They also did not receive a copy of their RAR prior to sentencing or understand its importance. This is not uncommon. Whether it is a Clerk of the Court’s duty to ensure this is completed or the defence agents is debatable.
It may indeed be beneficial for the SHRC to conduct a survey of OLR’s. It must further be noted that if an assessor rigidly adheres to ‘my opinion is the same’ despite the absurdity, the court is then bound legislatively to impose the sentence.
Custody:
Once this has all been completed, the individual then has an RMP prepared. This is completed every 12 to 18 months, however the RMP is simply the initial RAR copied, pasted and retitled. It’s not complex, this remains the same for the duration. As an example, despite his tariff being 18 months, one such individual’s RMP has remained the same for 11 years. This is not uncommon.
I have four RMPs and the same can be shown. This is despite my attempts to have the spurious content removed using official document evidence (DPA Act 2018, S46–47) Those concerned refuse as it is their opinion that the RAR has been approved by the court or alternatively it is the RMA’s problem. The same The same applies to all those who are subject to the sentence, it creates a paradoxical situation.
A prime example of the spurious facts alluded to come from my own report, however in the case of Mr A.R. I had discovered upon review that there had been 12 spurious facts. One of these had been that there were 14 offences attributed to him which were not his own. The people, 2 of, did however have the same surname and it seems odd that the report commissioned by the defence had the exact same spurious facts. I must reiterate that this is inherent with a large percentage of reports.
Add to this the spurious subjective facts and it becomes difficult to quantify or convey in writing. This is being done on a large scale to falsely increase the risk level of those assessed and as the RAR is then copied, pasted and retitled as a RMP, all those individuals cannot be rehabilitated, their risk cannot reduce and therefore they can’t be released.
Why this is being done will be made clear, however a further problem is that reports are identical in their opinions formed, a template rather, I compared my own with 2 others by the same assessor and they were a carbon copy.
The RMA:
I had personally prepared and submitted to the RMA 5 complaints, 2 for myself and ones for 3 others. I submitted the complaints highlighted the spurious content along with official documentary evidence from institutions refuting that they had given the assessor this information (CJSW, SCTS) and all cases the response was the same: ‘Your complaint relates to the professional or professional opinion of the assessor and is not upheld’.
If this is doubted I suggest anonymously submitting a complaint on someone’s behalf. The criminal appeal court is not interested as I have attempted this. That then leaves the civil court, that would involve taking a self-employed assessor to court using third-party rights in private law contracts or alternatively taking the Scottish ministers or RMA to court. This is not easy with no capital or resources. This is not an option for a number of factors which I shall elucidate upon here.
Follow the money:
The problem is what is termed ‘unjustified enrichment’ as those involved control all the processes from start to finish.
The assessor in my case for a 4 1/2 hour consultation with myself billed the SCTS £10,800 for spurious report. For a critique, £2400. After I submitted a freedom of information or SAR rather to the legal aid board for 7 others, I discovered that for an identical spurious report commissioned for the defence they had claimed between £7800 and £11,700 invariably for around 3 to 5 hours consultation with the individual being assessed. This can also be evidenced.
It’s a gold rush of taxpayers money with no oversight, add to this a quango, well-funded with unlimited resources, and on the opposing side an individual who has been convicted, barely able to comprehend what has happened with no resources or capital. Forget legal aid as at first you must find an agent willing to do the work. Bonnie Scotland indeed. They operate within a hermetically sealed bubble beyond reproach.
As of 17th of May 2023, the RMA deceptively contend that 17 people have been released, a diffuse term I presume as 8 of these have been released to a mental hospital, they have snapped and lost their minds. I know why.
A further 4 on compassionate grounds end of life and knowing the SPS which I surely do, these individuals had a matter of weeks, if not days to live. That then leaves 5. How many have been recalled to custody?
Custodial terms: People I have helped:-
Prisoner A – 9 months tariff, served 12 years, still in custody, rehabilitative work completed 7 yrs ago.
Prisoner B – 18 month tariff, served 11 years, currently undergoing rehabilitation work, still in custody
Prisoner C – 23 month tariff, served 11 years, qualified from ‘not yet ready’ list, awaiting rehabilitation courses.
Prisoner D – 3 years tariff, served 12 years, qualified from ‘not yet ready’ 2 years ago, awaiting access to courses.
The ‘not yet ready’ lists are for those who cannot account for spurious objective facts.
