Segovia, Spain Wednesday 27 th Friday 29 th January 2010

Transcription

1 European Union Project Reducing Influences that Radicalise Prisoners Conference on Radicalisation in Prison and Probation Segovia, Spain Wednesday 27 th Friday 29 th January 2010 With the financial support from the Prevention of and Fight against Crime Programme of the European Union European Commission - Directorate-General Home Affairs

2 1

3 European Union Project Reducing Influences that Radicalise Prisoners Conference on Radicalisation in Prison and Probation Segovia, Spain Wednesday 27 th Friday 29 th January 2010 Edited by Nick Lane, National Offender Management Service; Kalpana Kapoor, London Probation Trust; Nick Hammond, London Probation Trust 2

4 3

5 Contents Foreword 5 1 Executive Summary of RIRP Project 7 2 Conference Agenda 9 3 Summary of talks from day one of the conference Wednesday 27 th January Summary of talks from day two of the conference Thursday 28 th January Summary of talks from day three of the conference Friday 29 th January Annex A Key Partners of RIRP Project 40 Annexx BA Power-Point slides from the presentations 42 4

6 1

7 Foreword Alan Weston Project Manager of the Reducing Influences that Radicalise Prisoners project On the 7 th July 2005 while I was driving on the motorway that circles London, suddenly signs began to flash on to roadside screens with the message London Closed. All mobile phone networks were jammed and my car radio only carried vague messages as to the true situation inside the capital. Yet slowly the chilling realisation dawned that there had been a series of coordinated suicide bombings on the London transport system, which bore all the hallmarks of an Al Qaeda inspired assault. This atrocity had a striking resemblance to the 2004 Madrid bombings. Both attacks had focused on essential transport infrastructure and both had killed and injured a great number of innocent people. As the situation clarified it became apparent that these were sophisticated attacks and would have involved a tangled web of many other people. No sooner had the dusts of that day settled than a further attempt was made that same month to kill and harm on an industrial scale, though this attempt failed to repeat the lethal precision of July 7 th. In the aftermath of these attacks Criminal Justice agencies were presented with the situation that a number of the perpetrators would receive prison sentences of no more than a few years before release on licence into the community. In the capital they would be supervised by London Probation Trust, yet how prepared were we for this, what was our knowledge base, and how should we engage with violent offenders whose motivation was both political and religious? In the Reducing Hate Crime in Europe 2 project London Probation had identified specialist organisations in Germany who engaged with young men serving prison sentences for violence inspired by extreme right wing political groups. Links had also been made with London Mosques in a concerted attempt to engage the Muslim community in a search for a lasting solution to violent extremism. The Reducing Influences that Radicalise Prisoners (RIRP) project sought to continue this partnership in Germany and in London to develop a joined up response to engage those convicted of violent extremism while in custody and while on licence once released into the community. Richard Pickering Head of NOMS Security Group conference co-chair I was struck, throughout the conference, at just what an ambitious and challenging agenda this is for prison and probation services. Several challenges were highlighted during the course of our three days in the beautiful city of Segovia: How can offender management systems deal with people who choose not to integrate into, and remain in opposition to, modern European societies? What are we trying to achieve? Is it desistance stopping people from acting on anti-social ideas or is it something more fundamental the term occidentalisation was used at one point. How can we manage the risks presented by terrorist offenders, within the prison walls and to our societies at large, without a robust evidence base? Their numbers are so small we cannot yet say what works. How can we work effectively with non-statutory bodies, and in such a sensitive area? They have a tremendous amount to offer, and we need to get our relationships right. What does the future hold? What might future disruptive activity by our partner agencies look like, and what are the implications of that for criminal justice and offender management systems? Above all, and we returned to this several times over the course of the conference, I was struck by how important it is to get our language right. A loose use of language which conflates concepts such as terrorism and violence with the language of legitimate faith might suggest difficulties in conceptualising what we are trying to achieve. We risk doing the radicalisers work for them, and perpetuating perceptions of hostility to Islam, if prison and probation staff talk loosely about extremism and radicalisation in ways which do not respect religious and cultural diversity, and the proper place of faith and political ideology and activity in pluralist democracies. For me the conference reaffirmed our common aims. Yet we have different offender management systems, and the composition of our terrorist offender populations is varied. Ongoing bilateral dialogue between individual member 5

8 states, where we can share practice and experience of similar situations, is very helpful. I look forward to the next RIRP conference this autumn, and to engaging with an even broader set of European colleagues. In the meantime, we have a range of existing structures and programmes across Europe, where I hope the RIRP project can locate itself, through the remainder of the Spanish Presidency and beyond. Again, I express my thanks to our Spanish hosts, and to all those who organised this conference. Juan Antonio nio Marín Ríos Director of Internal Security and Prison Management, conference co-chair Within the framework of the Spanish Presidency of the European Union, during the 27 th and 29 th of January 2010 a European Conference was held on the topic violent radicalisation within Prison and Probation systems. During these few days, a group of experts from across Europe convened to analyse those factors which are believed to counteract the radicalisation process of offenders. The focus of these discussions was the development, modification, and improvement of current programmes and protocols. The wider strategic aim being to prevent our prison and probation systems becoming places where offenders becoming susceptible to the indoctrination and recruitment of violent religious extremists, becoming gradually more radicalised before joining terrorist groups. Discussion also focused on the design, structure and content of specific treatment programmes, which aim to promote and facilitate the social integration of Muslim prisoners. These are a necessary element in combating the radicalisation process. A further objective of the conference was to discuss proposals to strengthen the coordination and information systems between prison and probation administrations and other non-community administrations. The following proposals were drawn up and submitted by the Spanish Delegation: To create a coordination body in Europe in the area of the IIPP Probation Service, similar to Europol or Eurojust. To prepare a Manual on preventing radicalisation within Prison and Probation systems that is accepted by all countries in the European Union. To establish within the European Union an IIPP officer exchange programme for joint training and exchange of knowledge and professional experience. Commitment of the represented bodies to participate in conferences planned for continuing with the project. Other recommendations were also made during the conference: To establish a good practices catalogue. To increase the exchange of information with Security Forces and Non Governmental Organisations (NGO s). Since the monitoring of terrorist offenders is the task of different bodies (depending on whether they are in prison or on probation) it is absolutely necessary for everyone to share essential information. To develop a common methodological approach to prevent the radicalisation of offenders in Prison and Probation systems. To detect similarities and analogies in relation to this phenomenon in the different countries. To approve European regulations in relation to the Probation Service. I believe that by all measures this conference was a success. There was a high level of participation from a large number of European countries, with the level of professional expertise available to present and debate issues of a very high standard. It was a very productive few days, and I would like to convey my great appreciation and thanks to all those who were involved. Note from the Conference Report editorial team This report seeks to capture the discussions which took place at the Segovia Conference on radicalisation within prison and probation systems between 27 th and 29 th January Detailed notes of all presentations and debates were taken as the conference unfolded, and it is these notes which have formed the basis of this full report. As those who attended the conference will be aware, the type of vocabulary used to describe violent radicalisation is an area of constant debate. Wherever possible we have remained faithful to the original wording or phrasing of each speaker and in this light it is important to note that the language used in the body of this report reflects the views of the speakers and not the editorial team. The editors would like to take the opportunity to thank all those who participated in the Segovia conference. In particular we would like to thank the conference chairs and the presenters as well as the team who provided logistical support and linguistic interpretation. On a final note we would like to thank the Directorate General for Freedom, Security and Justice within the European Commission, who funded the RIRP project. Without this support the project and hence the conference would not have taken place. 6

9 1 Executive Summary of RIRP Project European Union Project - Reducing Influences that Radicalise Prisoners Project Summary To research the key influencing factors that can radicalise prisoners and offenders To train criminal justice staff working in prisons or with prisoners released on licence in the community to be aware of these factors To provide recommendations for improved management and supervision of terrorist related offenders To develop a range of training materials that might be used in other EU countries To transfer information and learning to other EU countries through a network of interested practitioners within the UK, Germany, The Netherlands and other EU countries This EU funded project addresses the training and awareness-raising needs of Criminal Justice staff working in Prisons and in the community with prisoners and ex-prisoners released on licence. It seeks to raise awareness of the features of prison life and community supervision that could be factors or influences in violent radicalisation. The project has designed and is currently piloting staff training programmes for staff who work with prisoners, released prisoners and those on supervision. The training programme and materials are designed from an international standpoint to examine how transferable such training might be across a number of European criminal justice systems. The project uniquely brings together the expertise of an established and respected NGO in Germany, the Violence Prevention Network, with the criminal justice experience of the UK, through London Probation and the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), in delivering expert courses for prison and community based staff. The project is developing a unique "through the gate" high quality training package that can be used by staff working with prisoners in prison or those released on licence. Stockwell Green Community Services in the UK are an experienced NGO dedicated to offering resettlement routes into education and employment for those caught up in or in danger of becoming violent radicals. This combination will ensure that the training delivered to staff will provide sufficient awareness of the issues for staff working with prisoners, licensees or offenders in the community. Project Partners London Probation, UK (lead partner) Secretaría General de Instituciones Penitenciarias (SGIP), Spain National Offender Management Service (NOMS), UK Stockwell Green Community Services, UK CEP The European Organisation for Probation, The Netherlands Violence Prevention Network (VPN), Germany University of Bremen, Germany 7

10 Project Outputs To carry out research on what acts to radicalise prisoners and offenders; current practice and experiences in Europe, with a particular focus on the UK, Germany and the Netherlands; and recommendations for management and supervision of terrorist related offenders. To develop a transferable range of training package and materials for use in the UK, Germany, the Netherlands and possibly wider EU countries to support Criminal Justice staff working with radicalised offenders. 85 Criminal Justice staff trained in the UK and Germany. Expert seminars held in the UK and Germany to highlight issues and share learning of working with violent right-wing extremists and those from a Muslim background. 1 st trans-national Conference held in Spain, January 2010, to inform and develop the training course and to disseminate information. 2 nd trans-national Conference held in the UK, October 2010 (date to be confirmed), to showcase project s training pilots, learning and best practise outline and share research in relation to extremism and radicalisation and look at examples of current practice. Evaluation of training pilots by the University of Bremen. Best practise network of interested practitioners established between partner countries and other EU members states. Timeline Project Start Date: December 2007 Project End Date: December 2010 RIRP Project Management For further information please contact; Ms Kalpana Kapoor, European Projects Officer; or Project Manager, Nick Hammond, Equalities & Community Engagement, euprojects@london.probation.gsi.gov.uk 8

11 2 Conference Agenda European Union Project - Reducing Influences that Radicalise Prisoners (RIRP) Conference on Radicalisation in Prison and Probation Segovia, Spain Wednesday 27 th Friday 29 th January 2010 Agenda Wednesday 27 th January Registration and reception with cocktail lunch Formal opening of the Conference. Mercedes Gallizo Llamas, Secretary General of Penitentiary Institutions Overview on the importance of addressing issues of radicalisation and extremism. Leo Tigges, Secretary General of CEP (European Organisation for Probation) Overview of the Reducing Influences that Radicalise Prisoners project. Alan Weston, Project Manager, UK London Probation Trust. Linda Pizani Williams, European Institute on Social Services. Judy Korn, Project Partner, Violence Prevention Network, Germany Coffee Break Overview of the situation surrounding extremism and radicalisation in UK and Spain. Policies and best practises on radicalisation in the prison and probation service. Virgilio Valero, Director General of Territory Coordination and Open Facilities, SGIP. Rosie Hanna, Head of NOMS Extremism Unit, Short presentations by other EU countries on the challenges posed by extremism and radicalisation in their penitentiary systems. Sweden Martin Hallqvist, advisor to the Swedish Prison Service and Per-Olov Humla, Head of Security Section, Swedish Prison Service. Italy Santi Consolo, Deputy Head of the Department of Penitentiary Administration. Denmark Michael Fønss Gjørup, Head of Security Department, Prison Service Close of the day. 9

12 Thursday 28 th January Conclusions from previous day and overview of day two of the conference. Richard Pickering, Head of NOMS Security Group Overview of the situation surrounding extremism and radicalisation across the European Union and the global context. Peter Neumann, Institute for Countering Radicalisation and Political Violence Workshops: 1. Prison regimes - working with violent extremists. Chaired by:head of Intervention for Special Groups Unit, SGIP. Speaker:Head of Service for Intervention and Monitoring, SGIP. Speaker: Rosie Hanna, Head of NOMS Extremism Unit. Speaker: Marc Cerón Deputy Director General for Reparation and Criminal Enforcement in the Community, Justice Department, Catalonia. 2. Interventions and treatments inside prisons. Chaired by:deputy Director General for Penitentiary Treatment and Regimes, SGIP. Speaker:Psychologist, Penitentiary Institution of Alama, SGIP Speaker: Lindy Maslin, Intervention and Substance Misuse Group, NOMS Speaker: Judy Korn, Violence Prevention Network Coffee Break Workshops: 3. Staff training and offender manager techniques for handling violent extremists. Chaired by: Alan Weston, London Probation Trust Speaker: Juan Antonio Marín Ríos, Coordinator of Security Programmes inside Prisons and Penitentiary Management, SGIP Speaker: Liz Dixon, Hate Crime Co-ordinator for London Probation Trust 4. Offenders on release in the community. Chaired by: Linda Pizani Williams, European Institute of Social Services Speaker: Sara Robinson, Assistant Chief Officer with lead on Extremism, London Probation Trust Speaker: Toaha Qureshi, Stockwell Green Community Services Speakers: Jacco Groeneveld, Regional Manager in Dutch Corrections and Leo Jansen, Project Manager in Dutch Corrections Feedback and conclusions from the morning s workshops. Chaired by: Richard Pickering Feedback and conclusions from: Alan Weston and Linda Pizani Williams Lunch Visit to Segovia Penitentiary Institution and Centre of Social Rehabilitation These prisons hold approximately 480 and 80 male offenders respectively, with the visit providing the opportunity for delegates to talk with prison staff. 10

13 18.00 Close of the day Gala Dinner hosted by Ms. Mercedes Gallizo, Secretary General of the Secretariat General of Penitentiary Institutions, accompanied by Mr. Virgilio Valero, Director General of Territory Coordination and Open Facilities. Friday 29 th January Conclusions from previous day and overview of day three of the conference. Juan Antonio Marín Ríos, Coordinator of Security Programmes inside prison and Penitentiary Management, SGIP Plenary Session: Working with Partners to Combat Extremism The Role of Government Institutions and Community Groups. Head of Security Coordination, Secretariat General of Penitentiary Institutions, Spain. Sara Robinson, Assistant Chief Officer with lead on Extremism, London Probation Trust Hanif Qadir, Active Change Foundation Question and answer panel with: Chaired by:head of Service for Intervention and Monitoring, SGIP Juan Antonio Marín Ríos, Coordinator of Security Programmes inside prison and Penitentiary Management, SGIP Sara Robinson, Assistant Chief Officer with lead on Extremism, London Probation Trust Richard Pickering, Head of NOMS Security Group Ulrich Dovermann, Federal Agency for Civic Education, Germany (on behalf of the Violence Prevention Network). Leo Tigges, Secretary General of CEP (European Organisation for Probation). Toaha Qureshi, CEO of Stockwell Green Community Services. Dr Peter Neumann, Institute for Countering Radicalisation and Political Violence Coffee Break Closing remarks and next steps: - Details of next conference. - Identifying developments to be taken forward at the EU, Bi-lateral, and National level. Chaired by:head of Service for Intervention and Monitoring, SGIP Richard Pickering, Head of NOMS Security Group Antonio Puig Renau, Director General of Resources Management, SGIP Lunch delegates are free to leave when required. 11

14 3 Summary of talks from day one of the conference Wednesday 27 th January 2010 Juan Antonio Marín Ríos conference co-chair Introductory words Welcome everybody and thank you for being here. I have been assigned to chair this first session of the conference a conference organised by the UK National Offender Management Service, the CEP (the European Organisation for Probation) and the Spanish Secretariat General for Penitentiary Institutions (SGIP) - which belongs to the Ministry of the Interior. This work is taking place within the framework of the European Commission funded project Reducing Influences that Radicalise Prisoners. Radicalisation in prison is a growing factor of the jihadist threat to our societies. This is the reason why we need to implement global measures. It is of vital importance to join forces on initiatives and measures in order to build up a common project which can be applied to all prison services in the European Union. After the terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11 th 2004 I accepted the post of the Spanish Secretary General of Penitentiary Institutions. The recent events made evident the need to restructure security in prisons; we needed to restructure it to meet the challenges that Spain was facing: jihadist terrorism and ETA. Therefore, in 2004 we started to work on the design and implementation of measures which would allow us to detect proselytism, recruitment and radicalisation of prisoners and to establish the risk factors associated with this. The papers which are to be presented during this conference aim to summarise the results of the project so far. During these three days we are also going to have 4 workshops, visit two prisons, make a tour of Segovia and enjoy the Spanish and Segovian cuisine. Without further ado, I would like to introduce Ms. Mercedes Gallizo, the Spanish Secretary General for Penitentiary Institutions, who, ever since she was given the job six years ago, has been working tirelessly for the improvement of the prison system. Her work has aimed to enhance mainly three areas: 1. Infrastructure: we have built new prisons and Centros de Inserción Social (Centres for Social Resettlement or open prisons) 2. Treatment: we have developed new intervention programmes, created the Respect Wings (wings managed by prisoners who work in teams or commissions) and have promoted the use of alternative measures to imprisonment. 3. Management: we have introduced new projects and programmes which have led to our prison system becoming more innovative and humanitarian. Ms. Gallizo, the floor is yours. Mercedes Gallizo Secretary General of Penitentiary Institutions Opening speech I would like to welcome you all to Spain and to this the Minister of the Interior and on my own behalf. As has been said before, this conference has been organised by NOMS, London Probation Trust, the CEP and the Spanish SGIP (which is part of the Ministry of the Interior), during this semester of the Spanish presidency of the EU. This conference aims to gather proposals and develop initiatives jointly to face this threat. In Spain, as I said, we opted for analyzing and redesigning our security structures to improve the control and monitoring of prisoners and their activities, which may threaten security both inside and outside prison. In this sense, we concluded that we had to improve our intelligence procedures for gathering and analysing information. Nevertheless, all our activities in security matters need to ensure the following: They need to be entirely respectful towards religious beliefs and prisoners need to feel that. Our work aims are to protect the safety and security of society at large. We need to work hard in assessing risk, since the Spanish government considers the prison system as one of the main pillars of its security policy. All our activities need to be based on the principles of necessity, proportionality, jurisdictional control and respect to constitutional principles. We need to devote resources, both human and economic, to our activities. 12

15 Bearing all this in mind, we set up a project between September 2008 and September 2009 to create staff teams which would monitor prisoners. These staff groups have received very positive assessment and feedback. We are also improving and developing our intervention programmes for these prisoners, which aim to move them away from extremism and integrate them in the prison social structure. Leo Tigges, Secretary General of CEP Overview on the importance of addressing issues of radicalisation and extremism It is a pleasure for me to be here today, because this is a special conference included in the programme of the Spanish presidency of the EU, and thus I would like to congratulate Spain for conducting such an important task. I would also like to thank the Spanish organisers of the conference, and to welcome you all on behalf of the CEP. For us, this conference is also special because it is related to an EU-funded project, which shows the commitment of the EU in this matter. In all our previous CEP conferences we have dealt with issues on probation which applied similarly to all our members (e.g. electronic monitoring), but this topic is different. There are low numbers of prisoners that radicalise and thus it is very difficult to learn from our own experiences in our own countries. This is why we are all gathered here today: to learn from each other s experiences. It is also special because prison and probation have come to work closely together. We have begun to understand that prevention and rehabilitation is truly effective when we work together. In probation we have recently understood that we need both the prison system and the community to be effective. And I mention the community because it is essential to include communities in the process of resocialisation, for they may have a great influence on prisoners. First of all we need to learn how to detect radicalised prisoners or prisoners who are in the process of radicalisation. And, at the same time, we need both to distinguish different kinds of radicalism and to detect their numerous similarities. We need to answer the question of how to manage these prisoners in prisons: should we concentrate them all in two or three prisons so that our monitoring and control can be stronger or should we disperse them? Both models have advantages and disadvantages. We need to find out how to manage de-radicalisation, which is different form re-socialisation. We need to find out proper ways to reach the communities and empower them. But we always need to bear in mind the fact that there are groups in the communities contributing to radicalisation. We need to find best practices in all these matters, which is something I am really looking forward to. Thank you. Virgilio Valero, Director General of Territorial Coordination and Open Facilities: Overview of the situation surrounding extremism and radicalisation in Spain. Virgilio highlighted the how Jihadist terrorism is a major danger and source for concern in many countries and is a phenomenon which has become global. Since the 1998 US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, followed by the 2001 New York attacks and the later Madrid and London bombings, international terrorism has gradually become more and more dangerous. One important feature of this phenomenon is the capacity to recruit new members to the cause. Reports from different countries state that prisons may become convenient places for proselytism and radicalisation. Following the attack in Madrid in 2004 this also became apparent in one of the Spanish Prisons. Virgilio then gave an overview of the penal policies in Spain. The Penal Code and the Penitentiary Act did not include, in their initial provisions, specific rules to regulate terrorism-related offenses and their sentences. It was only after March 11 th 2004 that specific provisions were introduced. A new act was passed which lengthened sentences and introduced the way they were to be served in terrorism cases. For instance, the maximum length of a sentence was increased to 40 years and access to parole for terrorist offenders became subject to one condition: the prisoner must show unmistakeable signs of having abandoned the goals and means of terrorist activities and must have cooperated with the authorities against terrorism. This may be accredited by a public statement by the prisoner condemning terrorism and apologising to the victims together with expert reports on their conduct. The Spanish government has also passed a draft bill (which will need to be passed by the Parliament to become an Act) where provision is made for a security measure to be added to the sentence once it has been served: i.e. to supervise and monitor their freedom. This extra measure can last up to 10 years and may be linked to some restrictions or obligations in the community, such as the prohibition of getting closer than X meters to somebody; or the obligation to live in a certain place; or attend specified treatment programmes. The definition of offences related to terrorism were also modified following the Framework Decision 2008/919, whereby public provocation to commit terrorist offences, recruitment for terrorism and training for terrorism are considered terrorist offences as well. Several measures have been taken in relation to terrorism in Spanish Prisons. There is a difference between the measures taken to deal with jihadist terrorist offenders and those implemented to prevent radicalisation in prisons. The measures taken so far can be summarised as follows: 13

16 They are assigned to a high-security regime except in cases where mental or physical health conditions discourage it. They are dispersed throughout the prison system. They are included in a database so that they can be more easily monitored. There is system to monitor communications and control information. There are also more specific measures for Muslim community as a whole within prisons - Framework Plan for Educational Intervention with Foreign Prisoners. This plan includes 3 programmes: 1. A language and primary education programme. 2. A training programme on multiculturalism and human rights. 3. A programme on values within education and cognitive development (including respect of beliefs, the rule of law, and universal human values). Any willing foreign prisoner can join these programmes, and vulnerable Muslim prisoners are especially encouraged to do so (following the recommendations of the parliamentary committee in charge of studying the March 11 th 2004 bombings). In regard to religious practices, the Spanish government has a Decree which recognises the practice of Islam in prisons. The Decree also requires that Imams are accredited by a religious authority outside the prison. Virigilio ended by saying that the prison system needs to contribute effectively to safeguarding the country s security by fighting against extremist ideologies. All initiatives however need to be undertaken under the umbrella of human rights. Alan Weston Project Manager, London Probation Trust Overview of the Reducing Influences that Radicalise Prisoners project My hope for this meeting is that we develop a network to share positive developments in our field of endeavour. My task is simple today; it is to provide you with some background information on the Reducing Influences that Radicalise Prisoners (RIRP) project. The project started as a reaction to hate crime and the attacks on Madrid and London. Even if the number of victims could be considered small, in relation to the total population of those cities, great numbers of people were deeply impacted by these attacks. On the day of the London bombings, the 7 th July 2005, I was a senior probation officer and was driving into the capital when I saw a sign, London Closed. At that time our only thoughts were to catch those responsible and to imprison them. It is only recently that we have begun to think of when these people will be released into the community. These offenders are not alien to us, they were brought-up in the UK, will remain in the UK post-release and it will be the responsibility of the National Offender Management Service for England and Wales, to manage and supervise them on release. The RIRP project brings together a pool of talents: The University of Bremen, which was already working with London Probation Trust on a project on hate crime The CEP: a unique European probation organisation which we considered essential to work across national barriers and promote best practise Spain, due to their experience in this field London Probation, which had been the lead partner in two previous EU projects The National Offender Management Service, UK Violence Prevention Network (Germany), which had a long tradition of working with right-wing violent offenders, and more recently working with Islamic ones. What we needed was to acquire knowledge about the Muslim community, to understand what it is to be a Muslim and to learn how life is viewed through the eyes of the perpetrators. It is wrong to think that all Muslims are violent and that all non-muslims are not. We needed to be aware of all these aspects in order to start working towards establishing a project which would examine how we work in criminal justice, with violent extremists and those at risk of being involved in violent extremism, to 14

17 prepare for their release, rehabilitation and supervision in the community. As part of the RIRP project, we commissioned and undertook two research papers: one focused on experiences of radicalisation while the other surveyed what was being done in this area across the EU. Through the RIRP project we want to build networks to learn from each other. The more we share, the safer our societies will be. Linda Pizani Williams European Institute of Social Services, UK Overview of the Reducing Influences that Radicalise Prisoners project research I have worked in translational European projects for over fifteen years. My role in this project was to conduct the second stage of the research. Alyas Karmani conducted the first stage research and the final report will include both of our results. Its aim was to understand the process of radicalisation and to consider violent extremism in an EU and global context. these projects was a uniformly complex and difficult area. It is worth mentioning that it appears that prison administrations were the first bodies to undertake research in this field. The UK appears to be the first country to study this issue in the community context examining how engagement with community groups can enhance the management of radicalised prisoners both pre and post release. My research demonstrates that internationally there is much work in progress, especially in finding an effective way to engage with the community in both preventing radicalisation and violent extremism, and in using expertise within the community to assist the management of prisoners, both pre-and post release. Lastly, the issue also arose in my research as to how the media represents the activities of the groups involved. Judy Korn Project Partner Violence Prevention Network, Germany Overview of the Reducing Influences that Radicalise Prisoners project The project research had various stages: 1. Interviews were carried out with men who had been convicted under the Terrorism Act 2006 to understand both their experiences of the Criminal Justice System and what pushed them into carrying out the offence. 2. A questionnaire was sent to EU member states to gain knowledge of what projects or research were being conducted in this field. 3. A literature search to put all the information in a EU and global context In regard to the questionnaires, we have received thirteen responses to date (including three from the Netherlands). There were countries where this issue did not seem very high on the agenda. When asked if it was an issue in the country they answered positively, but when asked if the issue was treated in a targeted manner by the organisation, informants stated that in their opinion it was not. Concerning the literature review, it was interesting to note that those countries which have rising concerns in this area are drawing on the experience from other countries who have responded to terrorist threats such as ETA in Spain and the IRA in the UK. This approach can be useful, but it should be remembered that differences may arise later in addressing violent extremism from other quarters. While undertaking my research, I was surprised at the quantity of work done so far in countries such as Indonesia and Australia. In particular there was good work developing in the Netherlands as well as projects in Scandinavia and Germany. Measuring the success of In these conferences I cannot help but feel a little bit alien, because I am not part of a Prison Administration or any Government Ministry. I created an NGO which works with young and juvenile violent offenders in eleven German states. I feel alien because in these conferences I meet people from Prison Administrations and different Ministries, but that makes me think that we can only succeed if we all work together. The work of our NGO, the Violence Prevention Network (VPN), is two-fold: anti-violence work and civic education. VPN works with juvenile male offenders, regardless of ethnicity or nationality, who have committed biasmotivated/hate crimes, are susceptible to extremist or radical Islamic ideologies and are members of antidemocratic groups and movements. Through our techniques of individual work with prisoners, in groups, with follow-up contact post-release, and through the training of prison staff, we have a record of proven achievement in this area. If we look at the general statistics of recidivism among young offenders in Germany, we will see a rate of 78%, whereas, amongst those young prisoners with whom we work in prison and on their release, that rate is 30%. Why have we joined this RIRP project? Because if you try to de-radicalise and counteract violence (the roots of which include the disintegration and loss of identity), you need to work closely with prison staff who manage these prisoners on a daily basis. We believe that we have much to contribute to this EU project and to learn from our involvement with other project members. Thank you. 15

18 Harald Weilnböck Project Partner, Violence Prevention Network Overview of the Reducing Influences that Radicalise Prisoners project I am a researcher and my aim is to find interventions and treatments that work and to analyse them in relation to hate crime and also in the context of ideologically motivated crime. My function is to undertake in-house research with the Violence Prevention Network, analysing how it works and achieves its undoubted success, through its effective psychodynamic and group dynamic approaches, and to see how this knowledge can be disseminated. This will prove beneficial in our contribution to the RIRP project. Even if we are not experts of the German context, we are going to make a few remarks on Germany from our perspective. We have to deal with two fields: right-wing extremisms and migrational extremism (linked mostly to Muslim groups). Right-wing extremism is embedded in mainstream society. According to some figures, 20-25% of our population support anti-democratic pro-violent activities. And this figure may be similar to that in other countries. There are significant differences between East and West Germany. In the Eastern German states (Länder), where 25% of our national population live, about 50% of all the right-wing extremism offences committed in Germany as a whole take place. In this region being a nationalist is part of mainstream youth culture. It is a national problem, though more important in the East, which is integrated in mainstream society and especially in youth culture. This makes the problem bigger since they are our future. people are killed and injured. There are also particular areas where the population suffers more anxiety and businesses are scared to set up. As far as Islamist violence is concerned, there have not been suicide bombings in Germany. However, the Sauerland group is a new extremism group whose main leading figures were converted to Islam. In terms of figures: 140 people went to training camps in Pakistan and came back to Germany and it is estimated that there are 300 people considered dangerous in our country. Rosie Hanna Head of NOMS Extremism Unit Overview of the situation surrounding extremism and radicalisation in UK Radicalisation has been an issue on all our agendas for some time. Until recently, in Europe we have dealt with different types of terrorism, such as ETA and the IRA, as well as the lone-wolf character, who does not act as a part of group and conducts acts of violent extremism on their own. In the UK we have been struggling to tackle this issue properly, because we are acutely aware that we run the risk of stigmatising people if we label them under an inflexible set of definitions. That is why in the UK we talk about violent extremism and consider only criminal offenders in this category. Since 2000, the UK has passed four pieces of legislation which have criminalised certain activities. We need to clarify that radicalisation is a process which has many different forms and results. It does not necessarily only relate to committing a specific terrorist act but can also mean steering events leading to an attack, and it is essential not to confuse the different kind of radicalised offenders. We also need to make clear what our definition of radicalisation is, and there is much interesting and important work being done in the UK in this area. In the UK, the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), which is the headquarters for both the prison and probation service, there are 140 prisons with 84,000 prisoners and 42 probation areas, supervising 180,000 offenders who have committed a great variety of offenses. Among these huge numbers of offenders and prisoners, there are only a few terrorist offenders: about 130 people who have committed acts of violent extremism or terrorism are being held in our prisons and about 25 who are released and being supervised by our probation services (half of these are in London). There are different violent organisations in Germany involving, on our estimate 50,000 people, who are active at the moment. Even if the numbers involved have decreased, the number of offences has increased and offenders are younger and more violent. As a result, It is very difficult to ascertain what unites these individuals and to identify who we should target. It is easy to identify those who have already committed a terrorism-related offence, but not those at risk of radicalisation or violent extremism. This is why it is so important to train NOMS staff. 16

19 In England and Wales we have a national policy on terrorism called CONTEST, which involves all agencies, because no agency can do it alone: we need to work with the police and our local partners. In fact, this idea is reflected in the fact that prison and probation services in the UK have been united into NOMS, which provides endto-end offender management. The two agencies cannot work separately; they need to share knowledge, information and solutions. Short presentations by other EU countries on the challenges posed by extremism and radicalisation in their penitentiary systems Martin Hallqvist Advisor to the Swedish Prison Service Our last seminar took place in Uppsala during the Swedish presidency. Both there and here we had a double purpose: to discuss a topic of common interest and to decide how to conduct future exchange and cooperation. Until now a lot has been done in the police sector but the prison service has not proved to have much cooperation. It would be interesting to develop the idea of EUROPRIS, similar to the already working EUROPOL and EUROJUST. We tried to include something about prisons in the Stockholm programme and, even if it was not easy, we managed to do so with the help of other countries, such as Italy. Both government agencies and the community need to enhance their efforts to work closely in an attempt to determine which factors encourage this phenomenon. The prison and probation services in particular have important roles to play when it comes to facing those challenges together. Per-Olov Humla, Head of Security Section, Swedish Prison Service International cooperation in the field of radicalisation and violent extremism is increasing and the Swedish would be pleased to explore further the potential benefits of such projects. In fact, I would like to take the liberty of suggesting that we should develop a common agenda to set up measures to send prisoners to their home countries. Radicalisation is certainly not unique to Islam; it should be set in a global context in which greater numbers of people are becoming vulnerable to radicalised activity. This is why we would need to develop early warning systems to minimise this effect. I am thus convinced that the most constructive approach is for all agencies to work together in order to identify and control those who we call senders and to protect the socalled receivers. The latter are an easy target for religious and political subversion, and need to be offered protection and a new group identity. We need to challenge and remove stereotypes which do not assist our work and which only sustain radicalisation. Santi Consolo, Deputy Head of the Department of Penitentiary Administration, Italy The fight against terrorism has been a priority since September 11 th 2001 and it received further impetus after the attacks in Madrid and London. The Italian Prison Service, whose main aim is rehabilitation, ensures that the prison population is divided into homogeneous categories. We conduct scientific observation of prisoner personality types and tailor prison interventions and treatment in order to avoid recidivism. In order to ensure homogeneous separation, we have four different types of prisons: maximum security; high security; common; and low security. Offenders engaged in organised crime are assigned to the high security prisons. This is done to avoid having mafia members and terrorists together with common prisoners so as to prevent intimidation, exploitation and criminal recruitment of the more vulnerable prisoners. A directive in April 2009 restructured the high security circuit. Since then, highly dangerous prisoners assigned to this circuit would be separated into subcircuits. These three subcircuits are located in different sections with no communication between them. For example, offenders convicted for terrorism or acts of violence which subvert the democratic order are assigned to the second subcircuit. At present we have 15,000 prisoners from Islamic countries, many of which are exposed to the risk of radicalisation, which is a problem that we have been unable to solve by separation. According to Jihad, one needs to save and redeem their soul after committing a crime; a crime is considered a good deed if it is to fulfil the objectives of the holy mission. This is why staff training can be a key to understanding and preventing the processes of radicalisation within prisons. However, overcrowding makes it more difficult. Our President has recently announced a national state of emergency in our prisons. This has become a starting point for a national government plan to build new prisons and additional wings in existing prisons, to increase the number of staff members and to promote and enforce alternative measures to imprisonment. In the Italian prison service we are aware that we need to facilitate access to prison interventions for foreign nationals. Presently there are restrictions on this due to their pending deportation, in addition to some other factors. In particular, we need to develop structures to provide housing for foreign nationals and homeless people so that they become eligible for release on prison licences and be engaged in volunteer work. Also, we have 17

20 provisions to speed up deportation procedures for non EUcitizens with sentences shorter than two years. Michael Fønss Gjørup Head of Security Department Danish Prison Service It was six years ago that terrorists started to attack Danish interests. Prisons have become an environment to radicalise young ethnic minorities who feel marginalised and there is a high risk this process will take place. Since the number of young Muslim offenders is increasing, we need to understand their culture while at the same time preventing prisoners dominating others through the abuse of religious authority. Clearly this does not mean that all and only Muslims are problematic. We also have radicalisation risks related to political views held by the extreme left and right. Our Prison and Probation Services and the Security and Intelligence Service (PET) have joined efforts to improve staff training and have used their experience to create a training handbook. We are also about to introduce a new procedure to use accredited Imam s to help us counter radicalisation. We need to have a careful selection procedure for Imams, who can have a powerful impact on inmates. We have also implemented several different measures to counteract radicalisation: Richard Pickering Head of NOMS Security Group conference co-chair We can perceive from these stimulating national presentations, some common themes from different countries, but also significant differences, for example in terms of demographics. We talk about Muslims, about EUcitizens, about foreign national prisoners. Are we conflating race, nationality, religion in an unhelpful way here? We need to be aware of the risk of false positives and of the need to respect human rights. We also need to be aware of the impact of language in assessing and analysing the challenges that face us. Some of the other key issues raised: How do we access intelligence within prisons? What do we do with it? How do we share it to assess risk? How can we do more to share intelligence? It is not the case that one size fits all, but we can share learning & training materials bearing in mind that we do not need pseudo-academic conceptual materials, but clear and concrete guidance for our staff. We avoid large concentrations of particular inmates to avoid problems for all inmates and staff. Prisoners convicted for terrorist offences are not imprisoned together. Information brochures are available in different languages, including Arabic. Monitoring and surveillance. Promoting contact with families. Creating a common understanding of different religions (through cultural events). Enabling possibilities to practice religion. Providing activities and education to all prisoners. Influencing inmates attitude to life through cooperation between prison schools and imams. Enabling more structured Muslim religious services. Conducting special pre-release programmes for young offenders. However, we need to keep sharing experiences and promoting active collaboration at all levels. 18