An Academic Said She Was Bullied At The Ministry Of Justice After Revealing It Was Running A Programme That Made Sex Offenders More Likely To Reoffend

[EweSurname]

Kathryn Hopkins’ study of the controversial Sex Offender Treatment Programme, believed to be attended by rapist John Worboys among others, found it made prisoners more likely to offend again.

www.buzzfeed.com/emilydugan/kathryn-hopkins-moj-sotp-john-worboys

How bizarre. Perhaps they just don't have enough evidence? I can't imagine why they wouldn't prosecute, otherwise.

I suppose we might never know, unless the Liverpool Echo decides to do some digging.

I assume the fact that all the original news articles about this have been deleted indicates that either there is an ongoing case which can't be reported on or that there was a serious error in the original reports.

Based on the judgement we can be sure it's the same person

What does it say in that judgment that indicates that it's definitely the same person? (Sorry if I've missed something obvious again.)

It's not conclusive but there's a strong indication from the case against HMRC:

8. On 15 August 2018, the Claimant was arrested by Merseyside Police. The four offences for which she was arrested are identified in a letter dated 3 September 2018 sent by Merseyside Police to HMRC. It is unnecessary to set out the details of the alleged offences, and as no charges have (at least, as yet) been brought I shall refrain from doing so, save to say that all four offences are serious and they include an allegation of the commission of a serious sexual offence.

Is that a reply to me nauticant? If so, I can't see how this indicates that the person arrested in Merseyside the same person as the MoJ whistleblower.

@OldCrone

Is that a reply to me nauticant? If so, I can't see how this indicates that the person arrested in Merseyside the same person as the MoJ whistleblower.

You are right. It is definitely possible that there are two people called Kathryn Hopkins involved, it is hardly an uncommon name.

There are coincidences that lead one to suppose that they are the same person, but perhaps they are not?

Perhaps the Liverpool Echo merely assumed that they were one and the same person?

Gastonia - "Email the reporter at the Liverpool Echo. It looks like he's still there. I expect he knows a lot more."

That's a good idea! I will do that 👍

In the meantime, assuming that they are two different people:

According to press reports in 2019 about the MoJ case and the Judgement in the 2020 case:

• both were employed by HMRC in 2018

(I have not checked whether there is anything in the 2019 Judgement to confirm that, at the time of taking the case, Hopkins was employed by HMRC. However, IIRC the precise date of starting with HMRC is given in the 2020 Judgement.)

According to the judgements in both the 2019 and 2020 cases:

• both represented themselves in complex court proceedings about Employment Law (not conclusive but one hell of a coincidence)

======

I will report back after contacting the reporter at the Liverpool Echo, Jonathan Humphries. Even if it is to say that I had no reply.

=======

ps. OldCrone - I have to admit that I was getting a bit pissed off, not just with you, that I had bothered to provide legit links to back up every single thing that I stated in my first post, yet there were several responses completely ignoring this and casting shade by reporting they could only find "dodgy links" when they had searched for corroborating evidence to "fact check".

My fingers were itching to reply RTFT!!! to all of them. You copped the sarky comment from me only because you were the last to reply in that vein - and I still managed to refrain from RTFT!!

The thing about her being involved in the sex offenders study etc is iffy because if she is s sex offender it could benefit her.

I don't see how that follows. Pushing to get it recognised that it made the offenders worse, how would that benefit her?

Whole thing is very strange. 2 years and no charge? Police still investigating? Something very strange there.

@CheeseMmmm

The thing about her being involved in the sex offenders study etc is iffy because if she is s sex offender it could benefit her.

I don't see how that follows. Pushing to get it recognised that it made the offenders worse, how would that benefit her?

Whole thing is very strange. 2 years and no charge? Police still investigating? Something very strange there.

Or you could describe it as pushing to get the program thrown out, which certainly could benefit an offender who didn’t want to go through it.

Or you could describe it as pushing to get the program thrown out, which certainly could benefit an offender who didn’t want to go through it.

It wouldn't apply to her because the programme is for male offenders only.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/623876/sotp-report-web-.pdf

And even if it did apply, it would be quite an odd thing to do to risk sabotaging your own career by whistleblowing in order to avoid a treatment programme that you might have to participate in should you get caught committing an offence of this nature some years in the future. According to the link in the OP, she first raised concerns in 2012 and the alleged offences were in 2018.

Blimey. I missed the reporting of the ET in 2019 (and it feels close to the bone - also a G7 researcher in the CS, and know a few of the people mentioned). Very difficult to know what to make of the more recent development.

I'd be utterly astounded if her research was conducted with that intention in mind. A further three years, respecifying and rerunning the analysis, on an ever-growing dataset and eventually by an entirely new project team, with MoJ and NOMS clearly desperate for more encouraging findings? Odds of her findings being inaccurate are vanishingly small, and the odds of deliberately misleading analysis not being picked up through all that (actually excessive) scrutiny just as unlikely.

@OldCrone

Or you could describe it as pushing to get the program thrown out, which certainly could benefit an offender who didn’t want to go through it.

It wouldn't apply to her because the programme is for male offenders only.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/623876/sotp-report-web-.pdf

And even if it did apply, it would be quite an odd thing to do to risk sabotaging your own career by whistleblowing in order to avoid a treatment programme that you might have to participate in should you get caught committing an offence of this nature some years in the future. According to the link in the OP, she first raised concerns in 2012 and the alleged offences were in 2018.

I think the conflict of interest is really clear here. Most people I know have ethical training at work which covers in detail how important it is if something could even APPEAR to have a conflict of interest then it needs avoiding/ declaring/escalating depending on what it is. There is absolutely no question that this is well beyond potentially appearing like a conflict of interest.

That said, if the research has been reperformed to the same conclusion then those conclusions should be acted on.

I don't think I follow you, @timeisnotaline

In 2012 KH's research found that the SOTP was having the opposite effect to that intended (ie was increasing reopening rates).
NOMS were horrified, lots of back and forth trying to make sure this was robust / hush it up (take your pick). Two years of this with KH finding the same results repeatedly and butting heads with senior stakeholders repeatedly.
By 2015 the project is in the hands of a new team of analysts, still finding adverse outcomes, and at this point the evaluation is published and MoJ retires SOTP, replacing it with different programmes (think one is Horizon, I forget the name of the other).

KH is arrested for a number of offences, including paying a child for sex, in 2018.

The ET re: her whistleblowing at MoJ takes place in 2019. At this point no info regarding her arrest is in the public eye.

I don't see how KH's research in 2012-14, closely peer reviewed and subject to extraordinary levels of challenge, has a 'conflict of interest' with her alleged actions years later.

I also TBH don't see that SOTP is something a cunning sex offender would seek to get rid of for their own purposes. I don't think a spot of group therapy once you're in prison anyway is such a hardship, actually I rather suspect the opposite.

Sorry, 2017 for the eventual publication of the evaluation, not 2015. But still predating KH's arrest (and it's KH's work 2012-14 that is relevant to her subsequent arrest really, not what MoJ did after moving her off the project).

I think the conflict of interest is really clear here. Most people I know have ethical training at work which covers in detail how important it is if something could even APPEAR to have a conflict of interest then it needs avoiding/ declaring/escalating depending on what it is. There is absolutely no question that this is well beyond potentially appearing like a conflict of interest.

I'm afraid the conflict of interest isn't at all clear to me.

She worked on the review of the SOTP from 2012 (or earlier) until 2016. The report was published in 2017.

In 2018 she was arrested in connection with sex offences.

What do you think she should have declared?

I also TBH don't see that SOTP is something a cunning sex offender would seek to get rid of for their own purposes. I don't think a spot of group therapy once you're in prison anyway is such a hardship, actually I rather suspect the opposite.

And she wouldn't have been eligible for it anyway, because it was a programme for male sex offenders in men's prisons.

(As an aside, I'm not sure if this is the programme that has been discussed on here before as excluding males who identify as women. If it actually makes reoffending more likely for some of them, that might actually have been a good thing.)

@OldCrone

I also TBH don't see that SOTP is something a cunning sex offender would seek to get rid of for their own purposes. I don't think a spot of group therapy once you're in prison anyway is such a hardship, actually I rather suspect the opposite.

And she wouldn't have been eligible for it anyway, because it was a programme for male sex offenders in men's prisons.

(As an aside, I'm not sure if this is the programme that has been discussed on here before as excluding males who identify as women. If it actually makes reoffending more likely for some of them, that might actually have been a good thing.)

Agreed, @OldCrone, but I chose not to repeat that point you'd made so clearly already

This is all very bizarre and I hope that @BoskyBosky gets a response from the Liverpool Echo.

@OldCrone

I think the conflict of interest is really clear here. Most people I know have ethical training at work which covers in detail how important it is if something could even APPEAR to have a conflict of interest then it needs avoiding/ declaring/escalating depending on what it is. There is absolutely no question that this is well beyond potentially appearing like a conflict of interest.

I'm afraid the conflict of interest isn't at all clear to me.

She worked on the review of the SOTP from 2012 (or earlier) until 2016. The report was published in 2017.

In 2018 she was arrested in connection with sex offences.

What do you think she should have declared?

It’s not that she should have declared anything, that was a general comment about workplace views on even potential conflicts. It’s not even about what happened then, but that now, in hindsight, she is too close to the offences to be relied on to carry out research. The only way her meticulous findings can be relied on is by drawing on the reperformance. I agree the work seems meticulous, but need the secondary validation to be confident. Ideally the 2 year gap and continued no information mean there’s some reason the charges are overstated and she won’t be convicted, but if they are valid and this were a man, who on this board would say oh hmm 2018, she definitely wasn’t a child sex offender before then so fine to carry out detailed research in the area with no intrinsic bias? Intrinsic bias is subtle. And if it were a man, most of this board would be saying tip of the iceberg, he will have been offending for a long time. That’s who he is. And re the actions at the time people on this board would say that people involved would have probably known or suspected a little of his other tendencies and that probably drove the pushback on his research.

As I said, I think the research should be acted on since it’s been shown to be robust. And my own intrinsic bias is showing in that I hope she isn’t actually guilty. But I do see the conflict present here.

This is really... Just iffy. No idea if she guilty or not. Who knows.

Given with blokes it's innocent till proven guilty.

And off the top of head. Things like-
Vaz lead of a govt group looking into prostitution.

Coming out paid for sex, and was cool with coke being around.

Including the, to me, awful exchange about the 2 men for that evening were new to this work, and he said something about breaking them in...

Result.
No conflict of interest with group looking into prostitution.
Didn't want coke personally (think said happy to pay for theirs) so no problem.
Personal life not relevant.
No conflict of interest with the prostitution thing.

What???!!!

Here woman studied sex offender thing and said it's shit.

Not right answer, not interested. Soz, go away.
She said nope, (can't remember details) and got results out.
Whistle blower/ not prepared to leave it.

Moj whoever pissed off.

Somewhere in this.

Got nicked with stoned 15yo boy driving.
And.. ???

Result. Charged with 4 serious sex offences including paying for sex with s 13-15 boy.

And then... Nothing. 2 years later police say yeah we're still looking into it.

Serious sex offences? At least two victims they know who they are? Sex offences against children?

That is... Very very odd. Iffy.

Whistleblower nicked for those crimes?
And then... Nothing?

Conflict of interest. Can't see that. Program is for men. Is data study sound? If so then...
She got no reason to lie.
She would not back down.
Authorities v pissed off.
Important findings, v important.
Nothing in it for her to manufacture results etc.

And totally my opinion, being honest.

• Charged for that, 2 years later police still investigating. Something really wrong there. Stich up to discredit?

• Was it reported nationally? News outlets love a female sex offender story. And this one, paying for sex with child? Doing work on sex offenders? Govt paid?

Dead cert front page. I don't remember that happening. That's... Very very strange indeed. Like, bizarre.

• Paying for sex with 13-15 yo boy?

Yes of course could happen. Given the other weirdness though. This is surely very unusual. Women seem to groom generally. Different dynamic. On the whole. Yes anything could happen.

Questions though. Important ones.

-Is there an underground trade in boys being sold to women? If so. Needs looking into asap surely. Exploiting children. Massive issue.

• she surely didn't groom, because paying for sex not in accord with grooming. Totally different.

• so how did she find him? She procured a 13-15 yo boy for sex. Who was controlling him? Is it a network? Again. Huge problem, not on radar, what's going on? Did she approach him (where?) or he approached her? Either way. Really? Very very risky behaviour. As surely middle aged women/ boys are vanishingly unlikely to be receptive...

It's just fucking weird.

And. Double standards- she's not been to court.

If vaz was ok, and given constant innocent etc said by some men. Then she should be considered the same.

IMO.