Probabtion Rules

[kat9]

I'm writing on behalf of my brother who was recalled to prison by the probation service for breaking a term of his parole.

He was recalled for smoking cannabis. His situation is this... he was lead to believe that if he had a problem with either drugs or alcohol he was to approach them and the relevant agencies would get involved in helping him overcome these problems. What he wasn't told was that he would go back to prison if he failed a drugs test.

His question is this... Are the Probation Service allowed to change the terms of his conditions without his prior knowledge, because he says that if he had known the consequences of his actions he wouldn't have smoked in the first place. He was lead to believe that there would be no repercussions for his actions, and of course now he finds that that wasn't the case. Should he have had these conditions in writing?

[boxtops]

If I understand you correctly, there has been no misleading here. He was told that if he needed to start taking drugs or alcohol again, he should tell the authorities. He didn't tell them, he just started using again. He's broken his parole terms. Or am I missing something?

[kat9]

If the probation change the terms of the licence that they gave in writing and was signed for, must they give the new conditions in writing, to sign for again.

[woofgang]

so did the first licence say he could break the law by using cannabis then?

[boxtops]

if the term of his original parole says he wasn't to use drugs, he can't use drugs - he should have advised them that he was having cravings again, that's what you said in your OP. Nothing has changed, it's not new terms and conditions.

[kat9]

two questions I've been asked to ask.

Can the probation office overrule a licence condition given by the Parole Board and then change it without their consent.

If any new conditions have been put in place, can they be applied before you know about them or have signed for them. Can you be recalled to prison for breaching this condition without knowing about it.

[woofgang]

but from what you have told us, neither of those things have been done....

[boxtops]

you need to speak to those ABers who are involved with the law - ask again a bit later on - some on here are better placed to give you informed legal advice.

[woofgang]

sorry, pressed the send too soon. My understanding is that any parole licence is given with the implicit condition that you DO NOT break the law while on parole. Smoking cannabis is breaking the law.....

[woofgang]

http://www.paroleboar...ies/recall_to_prison/

"You can be recalled if
You commit another crime or are charged with another crime; or
You are behaving in a way that leads your Offender Manager to think you might be about to commit another crime. For example, if you start drinking heavily and you often get violent when you are drunk; or
You break the conditions of your licence."

[New Judge]

I think the answers to your two questions (changing the terms and conditions and impsing them without notice) are almost certainly "no".

However, as has been pointed out, I believe those questions are irrelevant. It is incumbent on everybody to stay within the law. Why did your brother believe there would be no consequences following his trangressions? Being on parole he has more incentive to stay within the law than most of us.

[karenmac60]

You seem to be under the impression that drugs and alcohol fall into the same category and are both legal. Smoking cannabis is against the law, therefore he has committed another crime and has been recalled to prison for that act.

[kat9]

To KarenMac60.

Just to let you know that I don't believe drugs and alcohol fall into the same category and are both legal. This question was posed by my brother who is in prison and was dictating to me. From my point of view I think he was stupid to have smoked cannabis in the first place, as are all people who do. I am totally against drugs, I'm not that fond of drunks either. I'm just asking the question as he put it to me. I would have said the same answers. He is trying to be precise about the law, not whether it's right or wrong.