Total Pageviews

Saturday, 28 March 2015

Make a diffrence to an IPP prisoner.

I often notice solicitor firms advertising the injustice of the IPP sentence but what more could they be doing,what more could you do?
Take a little time to write a letter and  make a difference to the life,s of others.

Chris Grayling the Queen -  Her Majesty's prisons after all.......


Wednesday, 18 March 2015

EX343 - I want to complain - - Ministry of Justice

Unhappy about the service you have received from members of staff working in:

• a County Court;
• a Crown Court;
• a Magistrates’ Court;
• the Probate Service;
• the Royal Courts of Justice;
• the Court of Protection;
•an Area Directors Office;
•the Customer Service Unit.


IPP March, 11th March 2015


                               IPP Prisoners Campaign  London, Ministry of Justice,                                   


Tuesday, 10 March 2015

London campaign tomorrow
Ipp family,s are  holding a day of action to help support IPP prisoners.
Jodie Prin facebook
The more noise we make the more we can rattle their cage so please feel free to show your support on the day. We will be outside ministry of justice at 11am on the 11th of March. We will have t shirts printed, placards, banners and a loud halo to make as much noise as possible.102 petty France, London, sw1. Some of us will be meeting in the morning outside Victoria coach station at 10:30.see you there...
What did the church of England say post date!

Thursday, 16 October 2014

IPP, and all prisoners

Should   Chris Grayling step down? Many say he is  on a  destructive path. Many on social net working sites  say  enough is enough what do you think?
Personally I feel I have to go along with them, prisoners can ill afford a book ,  if I can give a book to a prisoner   I know it would  increase creativity and  give some form of education. I don't want a one-way fit all education .

I know  longer want a one-way education or know way.

Tuesday, 7 October 2014


          My name is Suzanne Attrill,
    My partner is Paul Masters,  IPP prisoner currently on recall for breach of license. 

    Mr partner was released in June 2013 and recalled in October 2013 for not returning to the hostel.  The only reason he did not return was because his father was ill and then passed away.  Probation and the hostel staff were aware of this.  Mr Masters had a parole hearing on the 29th August 2014 and was told he was not to be released because of his risk.  Prison probation, hampshire probation and the psychologist all recomended his release to the hostel.  He has not committed any offences, his risk is the same as last year.  The parole board decided to refer to psychology report from 2011 and kept referring to his past.  Mr Masters is being kept in custody because of crimes he ‘might’ commit.  My concern is how can someone be released in 2013 with a board satified and be denied in 2014 with no crimes committed and clearly an emotional reason to breach his license.  How is this fair when the risk is the same.  The parole board were only concerned about his past and I feel he is being punished yet again, despite all positive recommendations up to date, Psychological report the parole board looked past that and judged him on his past.  How is this allowed and how can in this day someone be kept in custody for things that ‘could’ happen.  I was on the parole board and found it disgusting that the whole reason for him being back to prison was overlooked.  He was targeted and ridiculd for his past.  He has not re-offended and his risk is the same as his release last year.  The parole board looked for an excuse to keep him in custody and could only do so on his past.

    Please can you help with this blatent unjust in human piece of reasoning.  It is surely in human to keep someone in prison incase they offend when clearly he has not.  I hope to hear from you, thankyou.  I do not know how this could make a difference but am willing to try anything for the right reasons. 

    Suzanne Attrill


Free the Ipp prisoners 38 Degree petition the biggest petition site for people power, and change.

David Blunkett's Criminal Justice Act That allowed prisoners
to be detained indefinitely requiring judges to pass life sentences on
low-level offenders. The first was that offences did not have to be very
serious to trigger an IPP. What Lord Lloyd described as
"run-of-the-mill" crimes such as burglary, robbery or arson.
Offenders would serve the periodthey would be expecting for an offence two or three years on average, but sometimes much less – and then find themselves still in prison with little
prospect of release. If anything, that makes things worse for prisoners still
serving IPPs. If they had been sentenced after December 2012, when the
provisions were repealed, they could look forward to serving their time and
being released. The same would apply if they had been convicted before April
2005, when section 225 of the 2003 Act came into effect.

Blunkett has admitted that his policy caused injustice,we say now write your wrong. It is time Chris grayling stoped being  ignorant and put an end to this injustice and it is  now
time he opens up to humanity.

Thank you for taking the time to sign  38 Degrees people power change the biggest petition site

Wednesday, 10 September 2014


IPP A view from the landings.

From an  Prison officers point of view this is a nightmare situation. Give a prisoner a life sentence with a low tariff (often under two years) and almost no way of securing a route out of prison. Add to this the propensity of IPP prisoners to have mental health issues or “personality disorders” and the fact that nearly all IPP prisoners drift wildly over tariff, the result is conflict. Lashings of it.
I have acted as personal officer to a number of IPP prisoners but I’ve only seen one move on. He had no discernible mental health issues, he found out what he needed to do, got his head down and got it done. He was released near tariff. This strategy is wildly out of reach for most IPP prisoners.
Being blunt about IPP sentences it seems that a persons mental health issue will reflect itself in their crime. Levels of violence will be excessive or bizarre, crimes themselves will be unusual or odd. A feature of the IPP prisoners I have dealt with is how very few crimes have a profit or monetary gain ambition. Most prisoners tell of very dramatic situations, fake guns, fire, hostages, churches, fear and attention. Very few speak of robbery or theft or money.
You can’t speak of IPP sentences without mentioning Joseph Hellers book, Catch22. I am reminded of one particular incident in the book that relates so closely to IPP.
“If you want to see the base Major you may wait in his waiting room only when he is not in his office. When the Major is in his office you may not wait in his waiting room to see him.”
The Catch22 for IPP prisoners runs something like this;
“You will be considered for release when you have completed certain courses and shown acceptable behaviour. The courses don’t run anymore and the secret behaviour passwords are Not Mentally Ill Anymore”

By prisonscrew.

IPP Petition. We have another opportunity to go back to parliament.I want the parents of all ipp Family and supporters to be there this time. To stand up and fight back !!!

The email is a response to my letter sent last month. We have another opportunity to go back to parliament to see what more can be done, we must seek to move forward . I have worked hard to get us this opportunity. A date is yet to be set and when it is I expect all the familys to be there this time, and know accuses. Please don't say your going but have know intention oat  lather, there is nothing worse. If your Ipp is important to you and you want to see them home do something about it. If you all thought the same some one else will go which happened last time very few bothered to turn up, how sad is that.The way i see it If you cant be bothered well frankly why should I.

When the group began, the aim was to encourage each other and individuals to work together represent the Ipp’s, that we can work together to raise awareness to take positive action . To work with others in the aim to bring about change I'm hopeful that we can make this happen together.      IPP Petition

 RE: Your email from Kelvin Hopkins 9th September 

Dear Katherine,

I am looking to see how we can best assist you from here.

Would you like me to book a room for you and other families? If you know of other families whose Member of Parliament was involved in setting up this EDM last time around, it may be worth asking them to lobby their MP to table a new EDM. As I’d said before, Gavin isn’t in a position to be able to do this unfortunately.

Equally, if you would like Gavin to raise queries directly with the relevant Home Office Minister, he would be happy to do that.

Kind regards,

Amy O'Callaghan
Office of Gavin Shuker MP
Labour MP for Luton South and Shadow International Development Minister

The Forgotten Lifers

The Forgotten Lifers

Following the decision in Osborn and the unprecedented increase in Parole Board reviews, a considerable amount of interest has been generated in the national media regarding IPP sentences.
Of course, this interest must be applauded and any pressure which can be applied to finally curtail this monstrous piece of legislation should be welcomed. However, there are other prisoners in the estate who to a significant degree can find themselves understandably frustrated by the spotlight being set on IPP and at the same time leaving them in the shadows. They are those imposed an automatic life sentence between 1997 and April 2005, essentially for a second offence for one of 11 very serious offences, commonly referred to as the 'two strikes and you're out' sentence.
The history of such punitive periods for lifers started when life sentences were introduced in 1983 by the then Conservative administration. This was amongst other things as a result of the policy of "Three Strikes system" in the United States. However, the philosophy of US penal policy is somewhat different from that in the European Continent. The ideology and driver behind the US "Three Strikes system" is in my belief based upon the fundamental US premise that 'rehabilitation doesn't work', which means lock criminals up forever or kill them; both options are ridiculously expensive.
However, the European ideology is essentially one of working toward rehabilitation. The UK wants to go down the US system but realises it is too expensive, (even with the savings it can make with contracts to the private sector) and at the same time it has to contend with the European Courts and therefore it is limited from going the whole way.
In short, although in recent months the public and media attention has been focused that IPPs are a bad idea and the implementation of them was ill thought out, the reality is that the fundamental model of sentencing policy is not fit for the purpose of what one would hope is a modern enlightened and pragmatic penal system. Sadly, the current administration would appear to have contempt for the whole issue of prisons in relegating the minister in charge to an unpaid role, I am given to understand. There is a saying, if you pay peanuts you get monkeys ... what happens when you are not paying anything at all?
There are two ways to stop recidivism, lock up offenders forever or have a programme of proper rehabilitation, with proper access to the resources to enable that rehabilitation. The current position is an ill-conceived adhoc 'compromise' of the two. The concerns highlighted with IPP sentences recently are equally valid for life sentences. The Parole Board and the Prison Service need a full time paid minister with a full grasp of the issues to implement a dramatic review of automatic lifers. Sadly, given the current 'demotion' in status, I have to conclude the will is not there on their part to do so.
Simon Rollason is a Solicitor Advocate and Prison Law Specialist at GC Law Ltd in Hereford. Simon has represented inmates on Death Row in The State of Texas.

Comments about this article

8/9/2014 MARTINA
It's not only the prisoners with no release date that suffer, it's the supporting families that go through it with them too. Mental Torture not having a release date. When is the justice system going to REALLY do something about this mess, if at all?

Tuesday, 1 July 2014

Lord Lloyd’s reference to the IPPs sitting and latest proceedings report.

30 JUNE 2014 Parliament

Lord Lloyd of Berwick (CB): My Lords, we have
just listened to two very powerful speeches, which have
covered the whole scope of the Bill. For my part, I
shall concentrate only on Part 1, in which there is
much to criticise in detail when we come to Committee.
Taken as a whole, I find Part 1 profoundly depressing.
We have 28 new clauses full of new offences and
increased penalties at a time when, as the noble Lord,
Lord Marks, demonstrated, and as we all agree, crime
is actually falling and the prisons are full.
When I became a judge, not so very long ago, there
was a prison population of 35,000. It is now 85,350.
How can such an increase be explained, let alone
justified? Mr Grayling says that there is no crisis
because he has 1,000 spare prison places. However, the
story fromindividual prisons is very different:Wandsworth
is currently operating at 169% of capacitywhile Durham,
which was built for just under 600 prisoners, currently
accommodates 940. Mr Grayling says that there has
been an unexpected increase in the demand for places
and has suggested that one reason might be the number
of recent convictions for historic sex offences. I would
like to suggest a much more likely reason. Home
Secretaries, as we have seen, have an itch for taking a
hand in sentencing—and now, to Home Secretaries of
the past, we have to add the Lord Chancellor.
I will give an example of what I know from my own
experience. In the old days, the tariff in murder cases
was fixed, or I should say recommended, by the trial
judge, and the Lord Chief Justice would add his
comments. Sometimes, the Home Secretary would
will be nine years before the backlog is cleared. That is
the position in general, but I am particularly concerned
about a group of 773 prisoners who were given tariffs
of two years or less in 2007 before Section 225 was
amended. If they had been sentenced in 2008 instead
of 2007, they could not have been given IPP sentences,
so they would by now be out of prison: indeed, they
would have been out of prison long ago. Yet they are
still in prison.
Some 275 of them are five years or more over tariff;
some as long as eight years over tariff, including
37 where the tariff was less than six months. Can
nothing be done for these people to speed up their
release? The answer the Minister should give is, “Yes,
something can be done”. When Parliament repealed
Section 225 in 2012, it was well aware of the backlog
that had been created and of the need to so something
about it. So Kenneth Clarke introduced a new clause
giving the Lord Chancellor the power to alter the
release test in the case of IPP prisoners. It need no
longer be the same for other lifers, as it had been and
as indeed it still is; nor need it even depend on an
assessment of risk.
This new power is contained in Section 128 of the
2012 Act. It is obvious that it was included in the Act
for one purpose only: to speed up the release. I have no
reason to doubt that if Kenneth Clarke were still Lord
Chancellor, hewould have exercised the power contained
in that provision. He had already described the existing
state of affairs as unfair and unjust, for the very
reasons that I have mentioned.
Some time—very soon—after Mr Grayling became
Lord Chancellor, I asked him whether he intended to
exercise the powers that he had been given by Parliament
to deal with the backlog. He said that he had no such
intention. The only reason he has ever given is that it
would not be right or appropriate to interfere with the
sentences lawfully imposed by the judges. However, in
the case of the 773 prisoners given sentences of two
years or less, that reason will not hold. In their case,
the judges had no discretion one way or the other; they
were bound to assume dangerousness until Section 225
was amended in 2007.
Mr Grayling must surely find some better reason
for not exercising the power he has been given in
relation to those prisoners. Nobody is suggesting that
he should release prisoners who are “dangerous” in
the ordinary sense of the word, but he should find
some way of dealing with those with tariffs of two
years or less under the powers which he has been given
for that very purpose. With tariffs as short as that,
they cannot have been among the most serious offenders.
In the case of 37 prisoners with tariffs of six months
or less, we now know that 24 of them have a low risk
of reoffending—yet they are still in prison. The matter
cannot be put better than it was in a leader in the
Times on 25 March. It made this point:
“The scandal Mr Grayling should address is that a process set
in law”,
should be “followed in life”. I hope that Mr Grayling
will do just that—not just, as the Times said, to save
some £40,000 a year for every prisoner released or to
reduce overcrowding but to restore to these prisoners
some sense that they are being fairly and justly treated
that it is legitimate to use physical constraint on a
child only in order to prevent harm to the child or
others. A Bill which insists on the presumption of a
custodial sentence for anyone, including a child, carrying
a knife might by the same token be expected to keep to
a minimum the use of physical force on children by the
state’s own officers.
The other important theme to which I draw attention
is access to justice and the ability to hold the Executive
to account for their actions. The impact of the proposed
changes to judicial review has to be seen in the context
of a cumulative series of changes relating to legal aid
and judicial review from the time of the Legal Aid,
Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012
onwards. Judicial review is a vital element in our
system of democracy and in ensuring that elected
authorities act in accordance with the law. The executive
power at every level must be subject to law. In the
pages of scripture, in Deuteronomy, the King of Israel
is told that he must not consider himself better than
his fellow Israelites or turn from the law to the right or
to the left. The same applies to all public authorities at
all times.
The 2012 Act reduced the eligibility threshold for
legal aid and cut legal aid across many areas without
affecting the funding of judicial review. Eight days
after the 2012 regime came into force, the Ministry of
Justice published proposals for further changes in
legal aid funding for judicial review, including the
introduction of a residence test. In addition, new rules
on time limits may well further limit access to justice.
It is disturbing when the Bar Council says that when
combined with other recent government measures for
changing the law of judicial review, these changes, if
enacted in their current form, will immunise government
and other public authorities fromeffective legal challenge.
Where there has been a case for the overuse of
judicial review, in planning or immigration matters,
for example, changes have already been made. It is no
longer possible to sustain the claim that there has been
massive expansion in judicial review cases requiring
urgent action. Nor is there evidence that the permission
stage in judicial review has become too lax, letting
through groundless claims.
It is important that the system strikes a balance
between the interest of claimants and defendants so
that justice is done. The proposals in the Bill risk
tilting that balance too far in the direction of the
defendant. The charge that judicial review has become
a campaigning tool for pressure groups does not seem
to be recognised by those who know the field well. The
Bill’s proposals would raise the threshold for bringing
a case, and in various ways would increase the financial
risk for those bringing a case and for charities and
other bodies wishing to intervene in a case. It seems
inevitable that it will be the individuals and groups
with a sufficient financial base that will be able to risk
losses and enter into the judicial review process.
Many other aspects of the Bill will merit close
examination. For example, we may need to consider
the extra burdens to be placed on the already hard-pressed
Parole Board, as has already been mentioned. The
fixed-term recall for some others is another issue. At
this stage, however, it is the proper care of troubled

oversaw the cases they supported or intervened in. I
know how important those cases were: for example,
the decision that a local authority’s blanket ban on
manual lifting and handling,which deprived two seriously
disabled sisters of any control over their lives, was
unlawful. That ruling has had a life-changing impact
on the practice and procedures of all local authorities.
Although we are not here to discuss legal aid today,
the proposals in Part 4 of the Bill must be considered
in that context. The legal aid changes will make it
harder for people to secure advice and representation.
Increased fees already make it more difficult for those
without means to access judicial review. Part 4 will
introduce further barriers, and may restrict judges’
discretion to act fairly in cases that should be heard in
the public interest.
I have questions to put to the Minister in two areas
of these proposals. The first relates to the “no difference”
test. Clause 64 will require judges to refuse judicial
review where, even if a local authority acted unlawfully,
the outcome would be “highly likely” to have been no
different. Consider a failure by a local authority to
consult the community in its decision to withdraw a
service. Are the Government really asking a judge to
“guesstimate” what the outcome of that consultation
might have been and what disabled people might have
said in response? Will he then guess how the local
authority might have responded? Is second-guessing
part of the judge’s role?
The second area for the Minister relates to the
disclosure of financial information. Under Clauses 65
and 66, judicial review claimants will have to provide
information on their financial resources before their
claim can proceed. The Government say that they
want to stop claimants being used as “human shields”
by unscrupulous persons trying to avoid court costs.
That really does not ring true to me.
Of concern is the worrying effect of these measures
on poorer claimants and those who are willing to
support them if they cannot get legal aid. If my cousin
gives me £5,000 to help me challenge a decision about
my support, will that open up the spectre of an order
for court costs, putting her home at risk? What about
lawyers volunteering their services pro bono? Would
their gifts in kind put them at similar risk? If not,
where is the reassurance in the Bill? I hope that the
Minister will clarify this.
The Joint Committee onHumanRights has published
a powerful critique of these proposals. I had the
privilege of serving on that committee and I know
how hard it works to reach a cross-party consensus on
politically contentious cases. I wholeheartedly endorse
its conclusion that the case for change is not made and
that Part 4, if not heavily amended in Committee,
should be rejected. But I am heartened today by the
Minister’s comments that having listened to concerns
raised on this in the other place, he may consider
amendments in Committee. I look forward to holding
the Minister to this when he returns in Committee,
and I will be back too.
Disabled people, more than any other group, have
experienced the cumulative burden of myriad government
reforms in recent years. Please let us not make access
to justice the final injustice.

Posted by veronica Cooke, (filed and posted) Katherine Gleeson