Total Pageviews
Wednesday, 19 June 2013
Growing frustration among prisoners still serving the discredited Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence is damaging staff morale and potentially threatening security, a survey of prison governors indicates today (19 June 2013).
News's and politics' The Economic Voice
The findings, compiled by the Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prison Governors’ Association, suggest prisons have insufficient resources to deliver IPP sentences effectively, often leading to resentment between inmates.
Ninety-two
per cent of governors surveyed said that IPPs decreased job
satisfaction. They said the sentences undermined staff credibility,
caused inmates to be treated unfairly, and often meant officers were
unable to help prisoners progress.
Almost half of respondents reported that institutions holding IPP prisoners saw higher levels of indiscipline. One explained that some prisoners became anxious and resentful because they could see “no chance of release as they struggled to access appropriate courses”.
A large majority of respondents – 86 per cent – reported that IPP prisoners experienced high levels of anxiety. Several noted that IPP prisoners were at increased risk of self-harm.
The survey results are revealed in a Howard League research briefing paper, The never-ending story: Indeterminate sentencing and the prison regime, which calls on the government to bring in a system to enable post-tariff IPP prisoners to be safely managed into the community.
The paper recommends that all short-tariff IPP prisoners should be provided with a clear strategy to manage their safe release into the community before the end of 2013. This could be achieved by converting all IPP sentences with short minimum tariffs into determinate sentences.
The government scrapped IPPs in 2012, but the abolition was not made retrospectively. There are currently more than 5,800 people in prison serving an IPP, including more than 3,500 ‘post-tariff’ prisoners who have passed the date at which they became eligible for parole.
Last year, the European Court of Human Rights found that the detention of post-tariff IPP prisoners was ‘arbitrary and unlawful’. The court heard that the government had failed to give prisoners access to rehabilitative courses they were required to take before they could be released.
Andrew Neilson, Director of Campaigns at the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: “The government has recognised that this sentence is flawed but it hasn’t solved the problem of dealing with the thousands of IPP prisoners who remain stranded in the system.
“Indeed, the situation is likely to get even worse as prison budgets shrink and access to courses becomes more limited. Ministers cannot clap their hands over their ears and hope that this problem disappears.
“The courts have been quite clear that the IPP sentence is unjust, and here senior professionals on the front line are saying that it is damaging to their morale and the safety of prisons.”
Changes to the law in 2008 tightened the eligibility criteria for an IPP, giving judges greater discretion as to whether to hand down the sentence.
The survey found that short-tariff prisoners sentenced before 2008 were at greatest risk of self-harm. Governors said these inmates had particular difficulties with anxiety as they saw others who had been convicted of similar crimes after 2008 serve their sentence and move on while they remained inside.
Eoin McLennan-Murray, President of the Prison Governors’ Association, said: “It is absolutely scandalous that low-tariff IPP prisoners sentenced before 2008 remain incarcerated far beyond their tariff date while offenders who were sentenced after 2008 for like-for-like offences have now served their sentences and been released.
“This blatant injustice needs to be addressed and prison governors are calling on the minister to deal with this toxic legacy quickly.
“Governors and their staff should not be expected to try and defend the indefensible; to do so will undermine the relationships relied on to deliver safe, stable prison regimes.”
Three in four respondents said that the extra demands which IPP prisoners placed on prison resources meant that non-IPP prisoners’ had restricted access to rehabilitative courses. A similar number reported that waiting lists for courses were very long in the prison they worked in.
Many governors felt staff were frustrated and demoralised with their work because of IPPs. One in four linked the difficulties staff faced when working with IPP prisoners to increased security threats and indiscipline.
Almost all respondents – 97 per cent – agreed that changes needed to be made to the current system to enable post-tariff IPP prisoners to be managed and released into the community safely.
Link to article : http://www.economicvoice.com/ipp-prison-sentences-damage-staff-morale-and-threaten-security/50037628#ixzz2WellOGKY
Post-prison supervision plans ‘set people up to fail’
Read more: http://www.economicvoice.com/post-prison-supervision-plans-set-people-up-to-fail/50036887#ixzz2WemZUyK9
The findings, compiled by the Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prison Governors’ Association, suggest prisons have insufficient resources to deliver IPP sentences effectively, often leading to resentment between inmates.
Almost half of respondents reported that institutions holding IPP prisoners saw higher levels of indiscipline. One explained that some prisoners became anxious and resentful because they could see “no chance of release as they struggled to access appropriate courses”.
A large majority of respondents – 86 per cent – reported that IPP prisoners experienced high levels of anxiety. Several noted that IPP prisoners were at increased risk of self-harm.
The survey results are revealed in a Howard League research briefing paper, The never-ending story: Indeterminate sentencing and the prison regime, which calls on the government to bring in a system to enable post-tariff IPP prisoners to be safely managed into the community.
The paper recommends that all short-tariff IPP prisoners should be provided with a clear strategy to manage their safe release into the community before the end of 2013. This could be achieved by converting all IPP sentences with short minimum tariffs into determinate sentences.
The government scrapped IPPs in 2012, but the abolition was not made retrospectively. There are currently more than 5,800 people in prison serving an IPP, including more than 3,500 ‘post-tariff’ prisoners who have passed the date at which they became eligible for parole.
Last year, the European Court of Human Rights found that the detention of post-tariff IPP prisoners was ‘arbitrary and unlawful’. The court heard that the government had failed to give prisoners access to rehabilitative courses they were required to take before they could be released.
Andrew Neilson, Director of Campaigns at the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: “The government has recognised that this sentence is flawed but it hasn’t solved the problem of dealing with the thousands of IPP prisoners who remain stranded in the system.
“Indeed, the situation is likely to get even worse as prison budgets shrink and access to courses becomes more limited. Ministers cannot clap their hands over their ears and hope that this problem disappears.
“The courts have been quite clear that the IPP sentence is unjust, and here senior professionals on the front line are saying that it is damaging to their morale and the safety of prisons.”
Changes to the law in 2008 tightened the eligibility criteria for an IPP, giving judges greater discretion as to whether to hand down the sentence.
The survey found that short-tariff prisoners sentenced before 2008 were at greatest risk of self-harm. Governors said these inmates had particular difficulties with anxiety as they saw others who had been convicted of similar crimes after 2008 serve their sentence and move on while they remained inside.
Eoin McLennan-Murray, President of the Prison Governors’ Association, said: “It is absolutely scandalous that low-tariff IPP prisoners sentenced before 2008 remain incarcerated far beyond their tariff date while offenders who were sentenced after 2008 for like-for-like offences have now served their sentences and been released.
“This blatant injustice needs to be addressed and prison governors are calling on the minister to deal with this toxic legacy quickly.
“Governors and their staff should not be expected to try and defend the indefensible; to do so will undermine the relationships relied on to deliver safe, stable prison regimes.”
Three in four respondents said that the extra demands which IPP prisoners placed on prison resources meant that non-IPP prisoners’ had restricted access to rehabilitative courses. A similar number reported that waiting lists for courses were very long in the prison they worked in.
Many governors felt staff were frustrated and demoralised with their work because of IPPs. One in four linked the difficulties staff faced when working with IPP prisoners to increased security threats and indiscipline.
Almost all respondents – 97 per cent – agreed that changes needed to be made to the current system to enable post-tariff IPP prisoners to be managed and released into the community safely.
Numbers of IPP prisoners sentenced and released each year – click to enlarge
Link to article : http://www.economicvoice.com/ipp-prison-sentences-damage-staff-morale-and-threaten-security/50037628#ixzz2WellOGKY
Post-prison supervision plans ‘set people up to fail’
Read more: http://www.economicvoice.com/post-prison-supervision-plans-set-people-up-to-fail/50036887#ixzz2WemZUyK9
Thursday, 13 June 2013
IPP, Sign the Petition
 The right to petition makes citizens feels involved in decision making and also help in changing certain practices. It is said that several voices are louder than one |
e-petition
IPP Sentence Planning
Responsible department: Ministry of Justice
IPP Petition
WE welcome the abolition of the unjust Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection (IPP) by the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. . Many IPP Prisoners remain in prison long after the expiry of their tariff, due to insufficient courses to assess their suitability for release. In September 2012, 6,020 prisoners were serving an IPP Sentence. 3,253 of these were held over their tariff date. Since 2005 only 502 serving IPP Prisoners have been released from custody.
We call upon the Government
to ensure proper funding for courses for all IPP Prisoners
to set realistic and appropriate targets for the needs of each prisoner
to make the requirements achievable within the set tariff
to Provide extra assistance to IPP Prisoners who have additional needs such as mental health problems, poor literacy, or welfare issues
WE welcome the abolition of the unjust Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection (IPP) by the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. . Many IPP Prisoners remain in prison long after the expiry of their tariff, due to insufficient courses to assess their suitability for release. In September 2012, 6,020 prisoners were serving an IPP Sentence. 3,253 of these were held over their tariff date. Since 2005 only 502 serving IPP Prisoners have been released from custody.
We call upon the Government
to ensure proper funding for courses for all IPP Prisoners
to set realistic and appropriate targets for the needs of each prisoner
to make the requirements achievable within the set tariff
to Provide extra assistance to IPP Prisoners who have additional needs such as mental health problems, poor literacy, or welfare issues
Monday, 18 February 2013
IPP Prisoners Familys Campaign: Ipp major rulings this week involving IPP sentence...
IPP Prisoners Familys Campaign: Ipp major rulings this week involving IPP sentence...: "IPP "Petition.Thank you for your support. ( Files ) · 8 hours ago ... TheOpinionSite.org can report that the UK government ha...
Ipp major rulings this week involving IPP sentences. The government lost both cases, Downing Street has not made a statement and needless to say, the tabloid press have not reported the story.
8 hours ago ... TheOpinionSite.org can report that the UK government has been heavily criticised by the European Court of Human Rights in two major rulings this week involving IPP sentences. The government lost both cases, Downing Street has not made a statement and needless to say, the tabloid press have not reported the story.
ECtHR) in two major rulings this week involving IPP sentences. The government lost both cases, Downing Street has not made a statement and needless to say, the tabloid press have not reported the story.
This follows the Court of Appeal ruling against the government two weeks ago declaring the blanket disclosure of details in CRB checks to be unlawful.
This week, the government lost its appeal against the court’s ruling in Wells, James & Lee v UK, the case which effectively killed off the appalling Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection (IPP). Despite government protestations to the contrary, the government was exposed as being dishonest in not having put sufficient resources in place to enable IPP prisoners to realistically stand any chance of release.
The ECtHR also said that the UK senior judiciary was ‘far too narrow’ in its interpretation of Article 5 of the ECHR which says prisoners cannot be kept in jail indefinitely for purely preventative purposes unless there are mechanisms in place to allow them a realistic chance of release by reducing their risk level.
The second case lost this week by the government is that of Betteridge v UK.
Mr Betteridge had taken all available action through the British courts to speed up his Parole Board (PB) hearing, which was long overdue, only to find that British judges were too weak to award damages for the delay or even to do anything about making the PB hearing available.
Despite admitting and confirming the obvious failings of the government, the judges said they were not prepared to ‘fast-track’ Betteridge over those prisoners who had not bothered to take the issue to the courts and in any case, the government had put measures in place to deal with the problem.
In fact, the government has done no such thing and when the promised PB hearing was cancelled yet again, Betteridge took his case to the ECtHR, the British judges having made it clear that they would not no longer listen to reasoned argument.
This week – and to the government’s great embarrassment – the ECtHR not only awarded monetary damages to Betteridge (something that is very unusual) but also very effectively criticised senior British judges for taking the government’s word that it would solve the problem when in fact, the government had no intention of doing any such thing.
There are currently around 6,000 IPP prisoners in jail, 3,500 of whom are past the date at which release should be considered. The same issue applies to many life-sentenced prisoners of whom there are about 8,000. The Parole Board is hopelessly under-resourced and, for purely political reasons, the Home Office and Ministry of Justice are quite content to leave things that way.
Having IPP prisoners and ‘lifers’ (there is little difference) remain in custody generates thousands of jobs; not just for prison staff but also probation officers, course facilitators and administrative staff.
For the sake of clarity (unlike the Sun newspaper which deliberately misleads people) TheOpinionSite.org should point out for those who do not know, that the ECtHR has nothing at all to do with the “EU” or the “Europe” so hated by Tory MPs.
The court is in fact part of the Council of Europe which is a totally separate body ; the council is subscribed to by 47 countries, including Turkey and the Russian Federation and under International Law, rulings from the ECtHR must be adhered to by all subscribed member states.
The implications of the rulings
These two cases are a monumental blow for the government and especially for the now furious Home Secretary, Theresa may and the equally irate, seemingly anti-gay, anti-freedom Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling. This is why neither are making statements about the judgements.
These latest ECtHR rulings come only a week after the blanket operation of the government’s flagship CRB checking system was found to be unlawful. This time the ruling came not from European judges but by judges in the British Court of Appeal who decided that the ECtHR would also rule against the government.
The Home Secretary, rather predictably, has decided to appeal the ruling to the UK Supreme Court but it is quite likely that the Supreme Court won’t even be prepared to hear the case, let alone find in the government’s favour.
(Read more in our Members Forum. Click Here)
The important connection between the CRB case and the two IPP cases above is that all three cases criticise the methodology use by the British government when formulating public protection policies, especially those supposedly designed to protect children.
For the last 30 years, successive administrations have used anecdotal or ‘hearsay’ evidence and opinion to formulate policies such as the CRB system, the Sex Offenders Register, the various sexual and other types of Prevention Orders as well as IPP sentences.
Not one of these policies, which affect many hundreds of thousands of people in different ways, has been based on independent research or factual reference. Instead, they rely on the ‘opinions’ and ‘professional judgement’ of so-called ‘professionals’, all of whom directly benefit from having such policies in place.
Furthermore, most UK protection policies were imported from the United States and have been further developed to satisfy the demands of the child protection industry and the press, both of which profit from generating public fear, genuine or not.
The Appeal Court and the ECtHR have now both said – and for the first time – that the process by which these policies are made should rely on fact and real independent research; not on a “what if” basis or on a desire to generate popular support from the public or lobby groups and not on research which simply tells ministers what they want to hear.
The rulings therefore are highly significant. They now open the door for the State to be challenged when it locks people up without giving them any real chance of release.
However, the rulings also show that the British courts have been wrong in interpreting Article 5 (which determines whether or not detention is lawful) far too narrowly.
Perhaps most important of all though, the rulings completely undermine the basis on which successive British governments have formulated and applied ‘public protection’ policies that when exposed, seem to be designed solely to give the police whatever they want and to satisfy the tabloids and charities.
TheOpinionSite.org would therefore hope – and suggest – that having now been severely battered by judges who are not afraid of British politicians, ministers will stop making excuses and do something about the 6,500 IPP prisoners still in jail and who have been left completely unaffected by the repeal of the disastrous IPP sentence; a repeal that followed only after the government’s own embarrassment.
We also suggest that in future, ‘knee jerk’ legislation is avoided at all costs. The IPP was such a piece of legislation and it has left the government in a deep and potentially very expensive hole, now with no chance of escape.
We would also hope that British judges will realise that they are not duty bound to interpret the ‘Will of Parliament’ regarding law and order in a manner that is only advantageous to ministers or, to put it another way, their Lordships should accept that contrary to the belief of polite society, ministers lie. And they lie a lot.
Judges should never take the word of any government minister because British governments always lie. They have always lied and probably always will.
If British governments had to be honest, the government would fall apart because politicians would be truly accountable. Policemen would once again have to serve the public instead of the public bowing down to them, prisoners would get real help to reform and money-grabbing children’s charities would be put out of business – after having been convicted for fraud on a grand scale.
Perhaps it is too much to hope for but Cameron and his cronies should take note of these judgements. Failure to do so will only result in more embarrassment, more unjust imprisonment and more government by ‘tabloid and charity’.
It is regrettably a fact that the UK locks up more people than any other country in Europe. It also has more prisoners sentenced to some kind of life imprisonment than all the other EU states put together. It is a country whose so-called ‘Justice’ is based on revenge, not fairness. It punishes the weak whilst hiding and protecting the strong.
Every society gets what it deserves and British society is no exception. Ignorance, selfishness and greed have produced the incompetent and unfair British Criminal Justice System that exists today and those who benefit financially and politically from it don’t want it to change.
However, TheOpinionSite.org believes that after these latest rulings, it may have to change after all – whether those powerful beneficiaries want it to or not.
3 Responses to Government loses more court battles over IPP & CRB checks
http://www.theopinionsite.org/government-loses-more-court-battles-over-ipp-crb-checks/
Wednesday, 16 January 2013
Does the work of other's give's you hope that it will all be done for you .no one fights as hard as you. Pick up your pen and stand up, be counted, fight back for your Ipp. Nothing should get in the way, the hearts of the families and friends will stand on Valentine’s Day, bring your heart, free your IPP'......
Fight for your IPP.
14th February - March again to raise further awareness to the public & get those last signatures in
Monday, 7 January 2013
Thursday, 3 January 2013
14th February - IPP March
|
|
14th
February - IPP March again to raise further awareness to the public
& get those last signatures in - then to finish march to 10 downing
street via a photocopier XXX
UNITED WE STAND - DIVIDED WE FALL |
JOIN THE MARCH https://www.facebook.com/events/395078810577660/
Tuesday, 1 January 2013
How many black or mixed raced people were given an IPP Compared to white people?
what do you think the anser was?http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/how_many_black_or_mixed_raced_pe
Demand answers !!!
Understanding the importance of Licence Conditions.
Emma Davies and
Michaela Henderson-Thynne of Hine Solicitors explain what Licence Conditions
are and the potential impact they may have on prisoners
Understanding the importance of Licence Conditions.
Prisoners who have been sentenced to a custodial sentence
often think being in prison is the difficult and challenging part of their
punishment. However, many prisoners find that it is when they are released that
they start encountering problems. Current legislation and sentencing regime
means that the vast majority of prisoners released from custody will be subject
to a licence period and conditions upon release.
It is important to understand that when prisoners are
released on licence they are effectively still serving their sentence, but in
the community. The aim of any licence is twofold. The first aim is to instil
rules so that a prisoner’s behaviour can continue to be monitored and secondly
to assist in preventing the prisoner from re-offending by helping with their
successful re-integration back into the community.
There are two types of licence conditions, standard
conditions and additional conditions.
Standard licence conditions
All prisoners released on licence will be subject to a standard licence. This will usually contain six standard licence conditions, namely:-
1. To keep in touch with your supervising officer in accordance with any instruction you may be given,
2. If required to receive visits from your supervising officer at your home/place of residence,
3. To reside permanently at an address approved by supervising officer and notify them in advance of any proposed change of address or any proposed stay away from that approved address.
4. To undertake such work (including voluntary work) approved by your supervising officer and notify them in advance of any proposed change.
5. Not to travel outside the United Kingdom unless otherwise permitted by your supervising officer.
6. To be well behaved, and not to commit any offences or do anything which could undermine the purpose of your supervision, which is to protect the public, prevent you from re-offending and help you to re-settle successfully into the community.
All prisoners released on licence will be subject to a standard licence. This will usually contain six standard licence conditions, namely:-
1. To keep in touch with your supervising officer in accordance with any instruction you may be given,
2. If required to receive visits from your supervising officer at your home/place of residence,
3. To reside permanently at an address approved by supervising officer and notify them in advance of any proposed change of address or any proposed stay away from that approved address.
4. To undertake such work (including voluntary work) approved by your supervising officer and notify them in advance of any proposed change.
5. Not to travel outside the United Kingdom unless otherwise permitted by your supervising officer.
6. To be well behaved, and not to commit any offences or do anything which could undermine the purpose of your supervision, which is to protect the public, prevent you from re-offending and help you to re-settle successfully into the community.
Additional licence conditions
These can be imposed if an offender manager believes that the standard conditions are not by them self sufficient. In such cases any licence will explicitly state the additional conditions and their requirements. Detailed information regarding exactly what additional licence conditions can be imposed and the suggested wording of such licence conditions is set out within Annex A and B of Prison Service Instrument (PSI) 34/2011.
These can be imposed if an offender manager believes that the standard conditions are not by them self sufficient. In such cases any licence will explicitly state the additional conditions and their requirements. Detailed information regarding exactly what additional licence conditions can be imposed and the suggested wording of such licence conditions is set out within Annex A and B of Prison Service Instrument (PSI) 34/2011.
If however it is felt that standard or additional licence
conditions are not sufficient to manage a prisoner’s specific risk factors, an
offender manager can make an application to impose ‘bespoke’ conditions that is
believed to be necessary and proportionate to manage a specific risk. In such
cases a formal application needs to be made by the offender manager to the
Licence variation team.
Who imposes additional licence conditions?
A prisoner’s offender manager will initially assess whether there is a need for additional licence conditions. These will be proposed prior to release. For fixed term prisoners, who know their release date, these will be approved by the governor on behalf of the Secretary of State. Prison governors may only approve requests for additional licence requirements and must not insert conditions that have not been recommended by offender managers. In the case of indeterminate sentence prisoners it will be for the Parole Board to decide on the appropriate conditions to be imposed when they make a direction for release.
A prisoner’s offender manager will initially assess whether there is a need for additional licence conditions. These will be proposed prior to release. For fixed term prisoners, who know their release date, these will be approved by the governor on behalf of the Secretary of State. Prison governors may only approve requests for additional licence requirements and must not insert conditions that have not been recommended by offender managers. In the case of indeterminate sentence prisoners it will be for the Parole Board to decide on the appropriate conditions to be imposed when they make a direction for release.
The criteria for imposing licence conditions
Standard and additional licences conditions can only be imposed upon a prisoner if there are deemed lawful. They must therefore be necessary and proportionate in the circumstances. In order for the condition to be necessary there has to be no other means available or appropriate to manage a particular risk. For a condition to be proportionate it has to be the minimum restriction upon a prisoner’s liberty required to manage the risk. The aim licence conditions should not be to punish a prisoner further.
Standard and additional licences conditions can only be imposed upon a prisoner if there are deemed lawful. They must therefore be necessary and proportionate in the circumstances. In order for the condition to be necessary there has to be no other means available or appropriate to manage a particular risk. For a condition to be proportionate it has to be the minimum restriction upon a prisoner’s liberty required to manage the risk. The aim licence conditions should not be to punish a prisoner further.
Issuing of licences and their conditions
A prisoner must be given a copy of licence and its conditions upon release from prison. Additionally prison staff must explain the licence conditions to the prisoners prior to their release from custody, to ensure that they fully understand the conditions imposed.
A prisoner must be given a copy of licence and its conditions upon release from prison. Additionally prison staff must explain the licence conditions to the prisoners prior to their release from custody, to ensure that they fully understand the conditions imposed.
Challenging licence conditions
If a prisoner feels that any licence conditions imposed are not necessary or are disproportionate or most importantly does not understand the conditions being imposed, then they should initially consider speaking to their offender manager or contacting a prison law solicitor for further advice.
What if licence conditions are breached?
Breach of licence conditions will often result in a prisoner’s recall to custody. A licence can be said to have been to have been breached if:-
• A further offence has been alleged to have been committed;
• An offender manager believes that a prisoner’s behavior has deteriorated to such an extent that they are no longer manageable in the community,
• Or there has been a direct breach of the conditions that have been imposed.
The offender manager will consider the case and may in the first instance decide to give the prisoner a warning. However, the ultimate sanction will be that the prisoner’s licence will be revoked and the prisoner will be recalled to custody. This will usually be dependent on the severity of the breach.
If a prisoner feels that any licence conditions imposed are not necessary or are disproportionate or most importantly does not understand the conditions being imposed, then they should initially consider speaking to their offender manager or contacting a prison law solicitor for further advice.
What if licence conditions are breached?
Breach of licence conditions will often result in a prisoner’s recall to custody. A licence can be said to have been to have been breached if:-
• A further offence has been alleged to have been committed;
• An offender manager believes that a prisoner’s behavior has deteriorated to such an extent that they are no longer manageable in the community,
• Or there has been a direct breach of the conditions that have been imposed.
The offender manager will consider the case and may in the first instance decide to give the prisoner a warning. However, the ultimate sanction will be that the prisoner’s licence will be revoked and the prisoner will be recalled to custody. This will usually be dependent on the severity of the breach.
How long can you go back to prison for when licence is
revoked
The length of time a prisoner will spend in custody following recall will be dependent on the type of recall instigated. A recall can be for a fixed period of 28 days, which is known as a Fixed Term recall. However, many prisoners will find that they have been recalled following a Standard recall. This type of recall can result in the prisoners remaining in custody until their sentence expiry date or until the parole board deems that they are suitable for release.
The length of time a prisoner will spend in custody following recall will be dependent on the type of recall instigated. A recall can be for a fixed period of 28 days, which is known as a Fixed Term recall. However, many prisoners will find that they have been recalled following a Standard recall. This type of recall can result in the prisoners remaining in custody until their sentence expiry date or until the parole board deems that they are suitable for release.
If a prisoner has been recalled then they are advised to
seek legal advice as soon as possible as representations can be made to seek
re-release and if re-release is unsuccessful advice and assistance will usually
be required to ensure that a prisoner is able to make successful progression
through the prison system to secure their re- release at the earliest
opportunity.
It is vital prisoners seek legal advice as soon as possible following any recall so that paperwork can be obtained, considered and detailed representations prepared and submitted on behalf of the prisoner outlining why they should be re-released on license once again.
It is vital prisoners seek legal advice as soon as possible following any recall so that paperwork can be obtained, considered and detailed representations prepared and submitted on behalf of the prisoner outlining why they should be re-released on license once again.
Once the Parole Board are in a position to consider a case
they will make a decision based on the papers provided to them including any
representations submitted. The Parole Board will then make one of the following
decisions:
• Order the prisoner’s immediate release back into the community;
• Make no recommendation for release;
• Direct that the matter be listed for an oral hearing so that oral evidence can be considered before they make one of the two decisions above.
• Order the prisoner’s immediate release back into the community;
• Make no recommendation for release;
• Direct that the matter be listed for an oral hearing so that oral evidence can be considered before they make one of the two decisions above.
What lessons can be learnt?
Licence conditions can easily be ignored by prisoners but if they are breached there are serious consequences which can ultimately impact upon a prisoner’s liberty, even following release from custody. The purpose of this article is to highlight the importance of knowing what your licence conditions are, if you are going to be released on licence, so that you can seek advice about challenging them if of course appropriate.
Licence conditions can easily be ignored by prisoners but if they are breached there are serious consequences which can ultimately impact upon a prisoner’s liberty, even following release from custody. The purpose of this article is to highlight the importance of knowing what your licence conditions are, if you are going to be released on licence, so that you can seek advice about challenging them if of course appropriate.
If you need any help or advice with any prison law issues
please contact Emma Davies at Hine Solicitors. FREEPOST - RSTC-URCY-XYZL, Hine
Solicitors, 149-151 Fairview Road, Cheltenham, GL52 2EX.http://www.insidetime.org/articleview.asp?a=1345&c=licence_to_thrill
Solicitor, Shahida Begum examines the delays in transfer's
He climbed until he saw
By Shahida Begum , from insidetime issue 2012
Solicitor, Shahida Begum examines the delays in transfer to
Category D prisons
A transfer to open conditions is a significant step for any
indeterminate sentence prisoner. It is often only when a prisoner is
transferred to open conditions, where he can be more fully tested, that the
Parole Board will recognise his ostensible transformation from ‘caged animal’
to human being. If he is able to evidence the transformation, the Parole Board
is more likely to find him fit for society.
In recent years prolonged delays in transferring prisoners
to open conditions has become widespread. Prisoners have been forced to sit and
wait with their minds having little to contemplate except hopes of eventual
release. As indicated above, any such delay is significant, as an indeterminate
sentence prisoner’s security category has a direct bearing on his prospects of
release.
There have been a number of legal challenges to this delay.
The first of such challenges, and all of the lead claims, were brought by
Michael Purdon solicitors, who have made much of the running on this issue.
Jude Bunting of Tooks Chambers has worked with Michael Purdon solicitors and
other solicitors firms, on this issue.
The two lead claims, Smith and Haines, argued that the
delays in transferring indeterminate sentence prisoners are unlawful, given
that the Secretary of State for Justice is under a public law duty to provide
such prisoners with the systems and resources that prisoners serving those sentences
needed to demonstrate to the Parole Board by the time of the expiry of their
tariff periods, or reasonably soon thereafter, that it was no longer necessary
for the protection of the public that they should remain in detention (see, for
example, R. (Cawser) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA
Civ 1522, Walker v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] 1 W.L.R.
1977, and Wells v Parole Board [2010] 1 A.C. 553).
In Smith and Haines, the Secretary of State has accepted
that there had been an unreasonable delay in transferring the claimants to open
conditions due to there being insufficient places in those prisons, and that
the failure to make sufficient places available so as to enable them to be
transferred within a reasonable period of time amounted to a breach of the
public law duty to do so.
The only outstanding issue, namely the legality of the
Secretary of State’s policy of not transferring pre-tariff prisoners to open conditions
pending the reduction in the overall backlog, will be tested by the Courts in
an upcoming claim, Haney, which is due to be decided in the coming months.
In October 2011, the Secretary of State recognised some of
the problems, and introduced a new prioritisation policy. However, this policy
has so far only affected post-tariff prisoners.
There are few precise figures as to how many indeterminate
sentence prisoners, who have been approved for transfers to open, remain in
closed conditions. The Secretary of State has indicated that the prioritisation
policy has had an effect in clearing the backlog.
It is highly questionable whether the Secretary of State’s
decision to prioritise post-tariff over pre-tariff prisoners for transfer to
open conditions was reasonable. Distinguishing between the status of a prisoner
on the basis that one set is likely to have served a longer period in custody
because the government is still working to improve the efficiency of the prison
service so they get better at managing queues, is arguably unlawful.To that
end, after pressure from various prisoner representatives, the National
Offender Management Service repeatedly suggested that a “review” of the
position of pre- tariff prisoners would take place in “early 2012”. More
recently, the National Offender Management Service has made a further
concession. Indeterminate sentence prisoners who have been approved for
transfer to open conditions but remain in closed conditions will now be
entitled to apply for, and if risk-assessed as suitable, undertake releases on
temporary licence (“ROTLs”). Apparently, a PSI is now due to be published at
the end of June 2012 which will set out the new policy on ROTLs.
During a pre-tariff prisoner’s wait for a delayed transfer
to open conditions, they may use this upcoming PSI and ask for prison governors
in the closed estate to assess them for ROTLs.
An important priority is to ensure that all prisoners
regardless oftheir status are provided with the support and necessary resources
to demonstrate a reduction in risk. It is hoped that the new PSI will ensure
that any proper consideration by the Parole Board will not diminish as a result
of the operation of the current 2011 policy.A refusal to consider indeterminate
sentence prisoners for whom the Secretary of State has approved transfer to
open conditions pursuant to the new policy may well lead to judicial review
proceedings. Shahida Begum is a Criminal Solicitor at Cooper Rollason
solicitors LLP. She is also a member of Midlands Human Rights Lawyers Group,
Human Rights Lawyers Association, and the founder of CEIA a charity
specialising in human rights advocacy.
Back to top
Comments about this article
10/7/2012 B Mills
It is important that those serving indeterminate sentences
are given the chance to prove their readiness to return to society and to be
able to serve their sentence in the knowledge that they will be treated fairly
and in with the same rigour as the law which sentenced them.How can we expect
individuals to respect the system and strive to deliver a level of confidence
to the Parole Board when they constantly see the light at the end of the tunnel
being extinguished?When one see those who have committed acts of terrorism and
extreme violence claiming that their right to a family life exculdes them from
extradition what hope is there that the "lifer" will keep his head
down and get on serving his time with the knowledge that he is unlikely to be
treated faily and in accordance with the law by "The System"?I have
no axe to grind other than to see the law and it's intentions applied fairly ot
everyone.
Elfyn Llwyd MP is leading the debate to abolish Tthe Ipp from those serving it, but he needs the names of your MP that support you in your campaign or is willing too.
Shirley Debono.
I am pleased to tell you have I received email from MP Elfyn Llwyd who has confirmed he will lead the debate to abolish IPP from those serving it, however he needs the names your MP that support, you in your ,
can you give these names asap, thankyou
Re:- If your MP is supporting you can you forward his/her name to me, for those that not sure about whether their MP supports or not give them a ring or go see them, get their views and support, the more MPs behind Elfyn Llwyd will make a difference. If possible can we have all the names by 3rd January or as soon as possible .
Thank you.
KATHERINE GLEESON "IPP "Petition.Thank you for your support.https://www.facebook.com/
Shirley Debono.
I am pleased to tell you have I received email from MP Elfyn Llwyd who has confirmed he will lead the debate to abolish IPP from those serving it, however he needs the names your MP that support, you in your ,
can you give these names asap, thankyou
Re:- If your MP is supporting you can you forward his/her name to me, for those that not sure about whether their MP supports or not give them a ring or go see them, get their views and support, the more MPs behind Elfyn Llwyd will make a difference. If possible can we have all the names by 3rd January or as soon as possible .
KATHERINE GLEESON "IPP "Petition.Thank you for your support.https://www.facebook.com/
‘The disappeared’: the IPP prisoners stuck in the criminal justice system
FEATURE: There are over 6,000 people in prison who arguably shouldn’t be there and have no release date, writes Sophie Barnes. Of this number about half have already served their time and have no release date.
- Pics by decade_null (main) and Jason Nahrung (below) .
- Sophie Barnes is a journalist interested in human rights issues. She recently graduated from the investigative journalism masters course at City University.
- You can read more about IPP sentences on www.thejusticegap.com HERE and HERE.
Sophie Barnes
So invidious are these IPPs, leading former Justice Secretary Ken Clarke to describe them as ‘stain’ on the criminal justice system, that they were recently abolished but not only are people convicted in the past now stuck in the system, the IPPs are still being dished out despite the change in the law.
A stain on the criminal justice system
John Podmore, former governor of HMP Brixton, is horrified. ‘We’re locking them up not for what they’ve done, [but] for what they might do in the future,’ he says. There are currently 6,107 prisoners serving IPPs in the prison system in England and Wales. Prisoners serving these sentences have no idea when they will be released, and over half of these prisoners have gone over their tariff date.
In June the Government passed the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) into law. This included the abolition of IPPs. However, three months down the line the Government has no strategy for dealing with the thousands of prisoners currently trapped in the system, and IPP sentences are still being handed out.
The IPP sentence was meant to demonstrate the Government’s tough approach to serious offenders. If a judge felt that offenders were a risk to society they could hand down an IPP sentence, which meant that after being imprisoned for a set amount of time offenders had to prove to the Parole Board that they were ready to rejoin society by completing certain rehabilitation programmes. The offender could only go in front of the Parole Board for their case to be reviewed once they had reached their tariff. In practice, this was meant to reduce the number of life sentences being handed out, while also demonstrating a tough approach towards dangerous and violent criminals.
However, IPPs became a safe fallback option for judges who were worried about a public backlash should their sentencing be too lenient and result in an offender committing a violent crime upon release. In the first two years of their existence the regulations on what crimes warranted an IPP sentence were so vague as to leave the decision entirely at the judge’s discretion. The previous Labour government noticed the massive numbers of prisoners serving IPPs and toughened up these regulations, but by this point there were already thousands serving IPPs for non-violent crimes.
A quick fix
To former prison officer, Callie Wingfield, the cyclical pattern is clear. ‘IPPs were dished out, but not properly thought out. When they were introduced they were a cop-out, a quick fix for judges to use when they didn’t want to take responsibility for a violent criminal leaving prison and committing another violent act. But there was no system put in place for dealing with people on these sentences. So that left loads of people in prison, which made it harder for them to complete courses because there was no space, which made the problem worse.’
Ben Gummer
However, when questioned about the future of thousands of prisoners still serving these sentences his response is less vehement. ‘People who have got existing sentences need to be given the chance to reduce those sentences,’ he says. When asked how the Government proposes to start implementing this, he talks about access to courses, and streamlining of the parole process but fails to mention specifics.
John Hewitson, ex-Governor of HMP Kirkham, and current Governor at HMP Styal, has experienced this explosion in numbers firsthand. ‘I took over as Governor of HMP Kirkham in 2007 – at that time we had 600 prisoners in total, and no IPPs. By the time I left in 2011 we had 650 prisoners, and there were approximately 160 IPPs.’
John Podmore also outlines the problem with making the completion of rehabilitation programmes mandatory for all IPP prisoners. ‘There are hardly any courses designed for the illiterate or the mentally ill. If you’re illiterate, you’re stuffed. You can get in front of the Parole Board when you reach your tariff and they’ll say “Go back and learn how to read and write”. These courses also aren’t being assessed for effectiveness.’
Not gone yet
The current coalition government declared their intention to scrap IPPs for good as part of the LASPO Bill. This has now passed into law, and IPPs have, in theory, been abolished. However, this part of the Act has not come into force yet and there is no obligation on the Government to work within a timeframe. When a Bill is written into law it does not mean that all parts of the Act will automatically be enforced. When I asked the Ministry of Justice when IPPs would no longer be handed down the answer was vague, with several staff members contradicting each other before they came to the muddled conclusion that different parts of an Act are brought into law at different times depending on the logistics of the new enforcement and there is no deadline. As a result, judges are still handing out IPP sentences seemingly because the retrospective abolition of these sentences would be a logistical headache. In fact, the number of prisoners serving IPP sentences has risen by two per cent since last year.
IPP sentences are served by a wide range of offenders. There are those who have brutally assaulted innocent members of the public, such as a recent case of a young man who beat up an old woman as she waited at a bus stop in Manchester. Clearly, criminals such as these are violent and a risk to society. However, there are also those who have committed a number of minor offences – they get drunk, get into a fight, and find themselves serving an IPP sentence if they have a couple of previous convictions to their name. Wayne is one such example – see below.
‘I felt lost and scared, depressed and suicidal. The thing about not having a release date is that you can’t make a solid plan for the future, all you can do is fantasise, All of the courses have waiting lists so it’s possible that it can take years to get one course completed, then once you finally complete the courses you sit parole hearings every year or two if necessary where it’s your job to convince the Parole Board that you do not pose a risk to the public. Why should the parole board take the risk of releasing someone, because if that person commits a crime then it’s on their heads so it’s easier just to refuse.’Following the abolition of IPPs, the Government is keen to show that they are being proactive in processing the thousands of prisoners still serving these sentences. According to the Parole Board’s latest business plan, there are expected to be 6,000 IPP prisoners facing case review over the next year. This is an increase of 1,500 cases since last year, caused by Government pressure on the Parole Board to deal with the 58 per cent of IPP prisoners who have gone over tariff. The Ministry of Justice claim that the 20 extra Parole Board members they are planning to recruit over the next few months will be enough to adequately deal with the increased workload. However, with a Parole Board that is already stretched following cuts to its budget in 2010 the small steps taken to ease its burden may not prove to be enough.
Wayne
Ticking time bomb
John Podmore believes the reason why the Government hasn’t retrospectively abolished IPPs is because it would create a logistical nightmare. ‘The many thousands that have gone beyond tariff going in front of the Parole Board is logistically nigh on impossible. So they’re locked into this Kafkaesque scenario.’
The term ‘Kafkaesque’ comes up frequently in conversations with criminal justice experts when IPPs are mentioned. Following the abolition of IPP sentences Juliet Lyon, the Director of the Prison Reform Trust talked of the ‘Kafkaesque’ complexity of prison sentencing in this country. Such concerns are shared by former Governor, John Podmore. ‘What you don’t do is give a large number of prisoners a reason to hate the system,’ he says. ‘There’s nothing for them so they’ve got nothing to lose.’
A stain on our justice system
Why are so many IPP prisoners failing to secure release once they have reached their tariff? According to Podmore, the backlog of IPP prisoners trapped in the system is due to the lack of rehabilitation programmes available. These courses are scarce in certain prisons, and often over-subscribed. There is also the issue of prison population management. To tackle the problem of overcrowding in certain prisons many prisoners find themselves moved around regularly from jail to jail. If you are in the process of taking a programme this can hinder or even curtail your progress – many prisons don’t offer certain programmes so if you are moved to a prison with no relevant course you are back to square one when it comes to the crucial Parole Board assessment.
Holding people in prison for an indefinite amount of time, with limited or no access to rehabilitation programmes, not only results in a massive cost to the taxpayer – currently £45,000 per prisoner per year, it also flies in the face of a democratic system where punishment is intended to be redemptive. With no release date to work towards, prisoners become disillusioned and potentially violent. There is also the issue of fair sentencing – if a person has a violent fight in a bar and is sentenced to an IPP with a two year tariff, but then finds himself stuck in the system six years later he has received a punishment three times more severe than the crime he committed in the eyes of the court. With cuts to the Parole Board, and no clear vision from the Government of how they are going to process the 6,107 IPP prisoners still serving time, the ‘stain’ on our justice system, described by Justice Minister Ken Clarke, is yet to be removed.
_______________________________________________
Wayne: ‘I felt lost and scared, depressed and suicidal.’
Having been convicted of a number of minor alcohol-related offences, including shoplifting and bar brawls, Wayne was arrested for GBH and sentenced to a 20 month IPP sentence.
He’d been drinking, got into a fight and
stabbed a man in the leg with a broken bottle. As a result of his
previous drink-related offences, the judge gave him an IPP sentence. The
judge felt he couldn’t accurately assess when Wayne would be safe to
re-join society.
Wayne speaks in a low, hesitant voice about his experience and
appears uneasy about speaking candidly in the busy café where we meet.
He is a big man, but appears smaller because of his hunched posture. ‘I
didn’t know much about the IPP but everyone I met who was doing the
sentence was well over tariff and stuck in a prison that didn’t offer
the courses they had to do to lower their risk.’‘I felt lost and scared, depressed and suicidal,’ he tells me. ‘The thing about not having a release date is that you can’t make a solid plan for the future. All you can do is fantasise. All of the courses have waiting lists so it’s possible that it can take years to get one course completed, then once you finally complete the courses you sit parole hearings every year or two if necessary where it’s your job to convince the Parole Board that you do not pose a risk to the public. Why should the parole board take the risk of releasing someone, because if that person commits a crime then it’s on their heads so it’s easier just to refuse.’
Wayne was luckier than some. A few months after he was sentenced to a 20-month IPP, the Government toughened up the sentencing guidelines, which meant that judges were prevented from giving IPPs of less than two years.
‘The day finally came where I was called to reception to be transferred to another prison,’ he recalls. ‘I was a bit excited as I thought this was progress. The prison I was transferred to was in Cumbria and was five and a half hours away from home and to top it all off they didn’t offer any courses that I needed to complete, I wasted no time in applying to be transferred to other prisons only to be told by the governor that no jail in the country is willing to take IPPs as they’re too much hassle. After 12 months up in Cumbria I shipped out again to a prison in Warrington. I had been locked up for 24 months even though I only got sentenced to 20. My family were still asking me when I was getting out and were still confused by the sentence. They thought that I was misbehaving.’
Wayne continues: ‘I was in that prison [Warrington] for 17 months and I heard of a couple of IPPs getting granted their Cat D [move to open prison] and one that actually got released.’
Wayne heard that he had got parole on the grounds that he complete a six month stint in a rehab centre. ‘I was over the moon but felt guilty as my friend who was with me got a new 12 month tariff — he had done all his courses and never got in trouble and was on his sixth year into the sentence, five years over tariff.’
Wayne believes his time in prison was an unnecessary drain on public resources.
‘It costs about £40,000 to keep a prisoner locked up for 12 months. No wonder the country is broke when the government keeps people incarcerated years beyond their release date, especially when, for people with addictions like me, six months in rehab can be the answer.’
Wayne
- This article was amended on 19 September 2012 to remove quotes not intended for publication.
We want the abolition of the IPP for all currently serving IPP's
- Target: Goverment
- Sponsored by: katherine gleesson
IPP is a life
sentence that you continue to serve after you leave prison. Young men
and woman who had offences that ranged from ABH with intent, burglary
other....These types of offences did not warrant a life sentence, they
did not commit murder. The high Court ruled Indeterminate sentences
breached human rights. The government is to scrap the IPP DECEMBER 3RD
2012.
But abolition, however welcome, is not retrospective: it doesn't affect
those currently serving IPP. Even though they will have scraped the IPP,
it would still exist.
When they abolished slavery it was not on the understanding that existing slaves would be freed, they still had to live as slaves as, it just meant that no new slaves would be created.
The abolishment of the IPP should be for all. What I’m trying to say is that if you abolished hanging would you still hang those still in prison serving the end of their sentence?
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/154/325/838/abolition-the-ipp-for-all-still-serving-the-ipp/
When they abolished slavery it was not on the understanding that existing slaves would be freed, they still had to live as slaves as, it just meant that no new slaves would be created.
The abolishment of the IPP should be for all. What I’m trying to say is that if you abolished hanging would you still hang those still in prison serving the end of their sentence?
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/154/325/838/abolition-the-ipp-for-all-still-serving-the-ipp/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)