Total Pageviews

Monday, 8 February 2016

IPP prisoner,s Demonstration /March come and join us . House of Lords -parliament) time 11am -2pm and from 2pm we March a short distance to the Ministry of justice ending at 3pm.




MONDAY 23 May 2016 ! PLENTY OF TIME TO BUY YOUR LORDS COSTUME, WHY NOT PRINTED ON THEM: IPP INJUSTICE, FREE IPP, IPP MOTHER, ANYTHING TO GET YOU NOTICED !http://www.ebay.co.uk/bhp/mens-tudor-costume

life sentence for minor crimes.
The IPP was formed in 2003 though not applied until 2005. The early generation' IPPs had a minimum tariff of months, rather than years. Judges did not fully realize the natur...e of the sentence. Some prisoners received very short tariffs of months whom years later are still struggling with the unjust nature of the IPP sentence. Numbers have finished there sentence and are trapped in the system and others face a further dilemma maintaining their innocence both effectively blocked from progressing towards release by the Parole Board. None of these prisoners serving an IPP sentence has committed murder; these offences today would not attract sentences longer than a few years or less. Prisoners serving time for the same crimes today might serve two years. IPP prisoners are rarely achieve release as it is effectively impossible to 'prove' reduced risk.
The IPP has been one of the biggest messes in British


Insperation
Everyday that passes brings us closer to victory & justice, everyday that passes would be one day less of his sentence, and one day closer to FREEDOM, Prisoners release is unknown, today is closer than yesterday, and tomorrow will be closer still, Our day will come, Release all serving IPP, post tariff never give up hope when hope is all you have never give up giving up when love keeps you going Never give up that one day soon ALL serving IPP prisoners will one day be FREE keep up the fight you are the Voice for every serving IPP prisoner they are counting on you to fight there fight they can take away are Freedom but will never ever silence. By Conrad Asquith .
THOSE ATTENDING IF YOUR INCLUDING FLYERS OR LEAFLETS ADD OUR LINK SO THAT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN  READ ABOUT THE IPP FURTHER . IVE ENCLUDED OUR LINKS WHICH HAVE  A LOT OF INFO AND FILES .

* WEB SITE IPP Prisoners Familys Campaign http://ippfanilycampaign.blogspot.co.uk/

*FACEBOOK "IPP "Petition.Thank you for your support.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/katherinegleeson17/






heart emoticon
It really puts things into perspective,
When your cousins on an IPP.
An indeterminate sentence,
He don't know when he'll leave.
No clear time span
No date for release.
I know people make mistakes
But when will he be free?
The concurring question
That perplexes me.
Vex's me.
Tests me.
Mentally.
Because strategically
Thinking, what will that achieve
Are we led to believe,
That isn't extreme?
Its someone freedom.
If you see what I mean.
To not know, but they know
Makes them reign supreme.
A political infrastrature
That holds the key.
Making their own rules and regulations,
So theres no guarantee.
Of the day that he leaves Hmp.
But theres light at the end of the tunnel.
A light that we see.
See 'Blair' our cousin is a dope Mc.
So talented lyrically,
hes a creative machine.
Poetically
Speaking
He writes what he sees.
And thats what adds to the motive,
Adds to the dream.
To see Jay on stage one day.
To just see him breath.
On a track, take it back
So effortlessly.
It adds drive to the motive.
Its all part of the dream.
Zara x




Monday, 1 February 2016

Fighting the IPP Why use a barrister and not solicitors?


""If you feel your solicitor is ill trained for the job  have your case notes to someone who will get things done.""

Expertise: Barristers are equivalent to consultants in healthcare. Barristers are experts in their chosen
areas of law. They will provide answers to your problems, letting you know where you stand and what your options are.

Efficiency of service: barristers are skilled at working out solutions to legal problems quickly and telling their clients. You won’t have to keep chasing them to deal with your issue.
Skilled advocates: using a barrister doesn't mean you have to go to Court.
However, if you do need to go to Court, they are skilled advocates, who will present your case better than anyone else.search for your barrister here.   0330 333 3791,contact@.mybarrister.co.uk/‎                                                                                  http://www.mybarrister.co.uk/barrister/find/135/0/ipp%2Bprisoner

   

Barrister Joel Bennathan QC 

2012 EWCA Crim 27 appeal against IPP sentence, arson, IPP quashed;  Led by Joel Bennathan QC.
His barrister Joel Bennathan QC told the court that open-ended sentences of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) are a 'draconian' punishment.

 Chambers and Partners 2015 commented "Joel is a first-class lawyer and ..Kathy Thorne Doughty Chambers
 Grand Chamber considers whole life sentences and Article 3 ECHR
 21.10.15 |Joel Bennathan QC, Katy Thorne, Martha Spurrier
Following Vinter v United Kingdom  decided in June 2013, whole life sentenced prisoners must be able to access a clear and foreseeable review mechanism so that their life sentence can be reviewed and its continuing penological justification scrutinised. If there is no such review mechanism then the life sentence will be "irreducible", which is a breach of Article 3 ECHR.  In Hutchinson the applicant is arguing that the UK government has failed to put in place an Article 3 compliant review mechanism because the only way that a whole life sentenced prisoner can be released is if there are exceptional, compassionate circumstances.  In fact there have been no releases of whole life prisoners.
http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=hearings&c=#n1357300199863_pointer
Read more:
 http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/violent-sunderland-criminal-jailed-indefinitely-after-attempted-carjacking-launches-freedom-bid-1-7617761#ixzz3yumjrK4T

Tel: Work 020 7404 1313 Email j.bennathan@doughtystreet.co.uk.53-54 DOUGHTY STREET, LONDON, WC1N 2LS, ENGLAND.


Paul Taylor 

specialises in criminal appeals. expertise in cases involving fresh evidence, homicide and mentally disordered offenders. He regularly represents appellants before the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) (being instructed at the appellate stage), and has also appeared as junior counsel before the House of Lords (in Graham Coutts) and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (in capital cases from the Caribbean). He has extensive experience in drafting submissions to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and representations in relation to the judicial setting of tariffs in murder cases under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.his cases  include:

  • Colborne [2014] EWCA Crim 286 [Sentence, IPP, substitution of hospital order, fresh psychiatric evidence]
  • Ahad [2011] EWCA Crim 2736 (Murder; joint enterprise; substitution of manslaughter; sentence)
  • H (K) [2011] EWCA Crim (Extended sentences)
  • Qerkini [2015] EWCA Crim (Sentence, industrial scale drug conspiracies, street values of £100's million.
  •  Gill and Eccles [2012] 1 W.L.R. 1441  [2012] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 26   (Murder; mandatory lifers; exceptional progress as a mitigating factor in setting the minimum term.)
  • Baker [2012] EWCA Crim 2843 (Murder, diminished responsibility; jury directions)
  • Petrolini [2012] EWCA Crim 2055; [2012] MHLR 308 (murder conviction; diminished responsibility)
  • Jones (aka Malik) [2012] (Murder, judge’s duty to leave self-defence.)

  • Lewis [2010] EWCA Crim 151 (Manslaughter; foreseeability; jury directions)
  • Hill [2008] EWCA Crim 76 (Murder, diminished responsibility, provocation, fresh psychiatric and neurological evidence.)
  •  
Phillippa Ellis

Represented clients wanting to appeal conviction, sentence or ancillary orders, and assisted in applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. She also has experience of prison law matters including representing clients at parole and recall hearings.

Phillippa Ellis

Represented clients wanting to appeal conviction, sentence or ancillary orders, and assisted in applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. She also has experience of prison law matters including representing clients at parole and recall hearings.

Tahir Khan QC

He specialises in serious crime, including serious and complex drugs prosecutions, terrorism cases, complex frauds and the most serious cases of violence.


Barrister Joel Bennathan QC 

2012 EWCA Crim 27 appeal against IPP sentence, arson, IPP quashed;  Led by Joel Bennathan QC.
His barrister Joel Bennathan QC told the court that open-ended sentences of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) are a 'draconian' punishment.Read more:Tel: Work 020 7404 1313 Email j.bennathan@doughtystreet.co.uk.53-54 DOUGHTY STREET, LONDON, WC1N 2LS, ENGLAND.
 http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/violent-sunderland-criminal-jailed-indefinitely-after-attempted-carjacking-launches-freedom-bid-1-7617761#ixzz3yumjrK4T
 Chambers and Partners 2015 commented "Joel is a first-class lawyer and ..Kathy Thorne Doughty Chambers
 Grand Chamber considers whole life sentences and Article 3 ECHR
21.10.15 |Joel Bennathan QC, Katy Thorne, Martha Spurrier
Following Vinter v United Kingdom  decided in June 2013, whole life sentenced prisoners must be able to access a clear and foreseeable review mechanism so that their life sentence can be reviewed and its continuing penological justification scrutinised. If there is no such review mechanism then the life sentence will be "irreducible", which is a breach of Article 3 ECHR.  In Hutchinson the applicant is arguing that the UK government has failed to put in place an Article 3 compliant review mechanism because the only way that a whole life sentenced prisoner can be released is if there are exceptional, compassionate circumstances.  In fact there have been no releases of whole life prisoners.
http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=hearings&c=#n1357300199863_pointer


Jennifer Oborne

Has  experience in the full spectrum of offences. Frequently instructed in case of serious violence, sexual offences, organised crime and drugs matters and large scale fraud. Experienced at representing defendants in post-conviction confiscation proceedings and contested applications for Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, Sexual Offences

Elizabeth Nartey

regularly provides written advice on appeals against conviction and/or sentence and as a result has a wealth of experience in arguing technical points of law in the Court of Appeal.


You may  not be aware 

IPP case,s are being heard by the nation’s top judge lord chief justice Lord Thomasthe lord chief justice Lord Thomas, alongside 12 others address there is know reason you cant write.

The Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd - the Head of the Judiciary of England and Wales and the President of the Courts of England and Wales.

Judicial Office
11th floor, Thomas More Building
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL

OR

Royal Courts of Justice
London
WC2A 2LL
Tel: 020 7947 6776
E-mail: thelordchiefjustice@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk


Michael Gove, Minister for Justice               
Parliamentary
House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA
Tel: 020 7219 6804
Email: michael.gove.mp@parliament.uk
Website: www.michaelgove.com/in...     


 http://www.mybarrister.co.uk/?gclid=Cj0KEQiAoby1BRDA-fPXtITt3f0BEiQAPCkqQWF3GcPyTxcs9iaeO2A1HZw-FXwiv5vuiJ6mbBJJbNoaAtwr8P8HAQ

Wednesday, 27 January 2016

Mr Gove was criticised by a former law lord last week for continuing to detain 4,500 IPP prisoners About 3,500 of these IPP prisoners have already served the minimum punishment periods set by the courts.

Gove's actions 'give hope' for justice policy

  • 25 January 2016
  •  
  • From the sectionUK
Michael GoveImage copyrightReuters
Image captionMichael Gove replaced Chris Grayling as Justice Secretary, in May 2015
A debate on prison policy in the House of Lords last week "showed how much goodwill there is for the new justice secretary", according to the Conservative backbench peer who initiated the discussion.
Lord Fowler said policies being introduced by Michael Gove, who also holds the post of Lord Chancellor, "give more hope for advance in prison policy than anything I have heard for many years".
From the Labour front bench, Lord Beecham said: "It would be churlish not to welcome Mr Gove's appointment as Lord Chancellor, although almost anyone would have been an improvement on his predecessor".
Chris Grayling was Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor from September 2012 to May 2015, the first non-lawyer to hold the post for more than four centuries.
As such, he was never going to have an easy ride from the legal profession in his first cabinet post.
He was also required to save large sums of money from the Ministry of Justice budget, leading to cuts in legal aid and colourful protest meetings by lawyers.
Some lawyers also objected to his planned human rights changes, although in this he was merely seeking to do the prime minister's bidding and these were never implemented.
But some of Mr Grayling's less well-known policies, such as restructuring of the courts in England and Wales, are being carried through by his successor.

Pragmatism before ideology

One reason Mr Gove has earned the respect of his political opponents is his willingness to reverse many of Mr Grayling's least effective decisions.
Chris GraylingImage copyrightReuters
Image captionChris Grayling was the first non-lawyer to be Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor
There is speculation the next policy to be abandoned will involve the award of criminal legal aid duty contracts.
These contracts, under which solicitors agree to cover police stations and magistrates' courts in England and Wales, are the gateway to legal aid work for law firms.
To make up for cutting solicitors' fees by 17.5% over two years, the number of contracts was to be reduced from 1,600 to 527 - making each contract much more valuable.
But the Ministry of Justice had to postpone the new contracts - which were meant to take effect this month - after solicitors launched legal action alleging the allocation process had been unlawful.
If Mr Gove does decide to put pragmatism ahead of ideology, it won't be the first time.
A couple of months after his appointment last May, the former education secretary lifted restrictions on the number of books that prisoners could keep in their cells.
Also last July, Mr Gove scrapped plans to spend an estimated £85m building a huge prison in Leicestershire for 320 young offenders.

Judges' pay rise

Risking a clash with the Foreign Office, the justice secretary pulled out of a £5.9m prisons deal with Saudi Arabia.
This had been set up under a commercial arm of the Ministry of Justice established by Mr Grayling and scrapped by Mr Gove.
High court judges
Image captionMr Gove has established better relations with the judiciary than Mr Grayling was able to
Last month, the justice secretary abolished the much-criticised criminal courts charge, which Mr Grayling had insisted would make criminals "pay their way".
And, this month, Mr Gove supported a 3% pay rise for high court judges, to be funded by increasing salaries for the most junior judges by less than the 1% they would otherwise have received.
One reason, he said, was it had not been possible to fill a vacancy in the high court family division last year - at a time when Mr Grayling was insisting that implementing changes recommended four years earlier would have increased the total pay bill by an unacceptable 2%.

Improved relations

Despite praise for his prison policy, Mr Gove was criticised by a former law lord last week for continuing to detain 4,500 prisoners given indefinite terms of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) under a schemed abolished in 2012.
About 3,500 of these IPP prisoners have already served the minimum punishment periods set by the courts.
But the biggest difference between the two secretaries of state is the one that is the least obvious: Mr Gove has managed to establish much better relations than Mr Grayling ever had with what the Ministry of Justice regards as its stakeholder groups, notably the judiciary.
While well aware they can no longer rely on the lord chancellor being a lawyer, the judges are relieved to find the minister responsible for the legal system in England and Wales is now someone they can do business with.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35399272

Saturday, 23 January 2016

Even so, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Haywood, a former justice of the Supreme Court, described IPPs as a "form of preventive detention - bring this terrible scourge to an end".

Ipp sentencing challenge
But his hands are tied because politicians cannot tell judges what sentences to pass in individual cases. What the justice secretary can do is to seek changes in the law if he thinks it is operating unfairly.

Prison population (England and Wales)
200779,734
200883,194
200983,454
201085,002
201185,374
201286,048
201383,842
201485,509
201585,884
2020 ?90,200
Source: The Ministry of Justice
A law that has come in for a great deal of criticism is the former sentence of imprisonment for public protection, known as IPP.
Offenders were given a notional minimum term, known as the tariff, but they could be detained indefinitely after that term had expired.
The sentence was introduced under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 when Lord Blunkett was Labour's home secretary, and abolished at the end of 2012, when Kenneth Clarke was the Conservative minister responsible for sentencing policy.
But abolition was not retrospective. In June this year, more than 4,600 prisoners were still serving IPPs.
By September, more than three-quarters had completed their minimum term and 392 IPP prisoners had served more than five times their tariff.
The government's policy is that IPP prisoners should continue to be detained until they can persuade the Parole Board, at a hearing, that the risks they pose to the public are safely manageable in the community.

'Terrible scourge'

But the Parole Board has a backlog of cases waiting to be heard - although that was reduced by 18% during the first 10 months of 2015 as a result of increased funding.


Even so, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Haywood, a former justice of the Supreme Court, described IPPs as a "form of preventive detention - internment - entirely alien to our traditional criminal justice approach".
He called on the justice secretary to "bring this terrible scourge to an end".
                           
Image caption Lord Brown has been highly critical of IPPs
Although Michael Gove could do that, if he was persuaded to, he cannot issue sentencing guidelines for particular types of crime.
That's the job of the Sentencing Council, which was set up by Parliament to promote consistency in sentencing while maintaining the independence of the judiciary.
It recommends sentences according to the relative seriousness of different offences and the seriousness of the offender's behaviour relative to that of others convicted of the same offence.
Sometimes the council's guidelines are likely to result in shorter sentences (than they would have received before the guidelines were issued) and so the prison population will go down.
Some middle-ranking cases can be tried either by magistrates or by judge and jury.

From March 2016, magistrates will be encouraged not to send cases for trial in the Crown Court if they can be heard by the magistrates themselves.
Magistrates have more limited sentencing powers although, if necessary, they can send a convicted defendant to be sentenced in the Crown Court.
 
Sentencers will also be reminded to give a full one-third discount to those who plead guilty at the earliest opportunity, even if the evidence against the defendant is overwhelming.

Sometimes Sentencing Council guidelines that attempt to get the courts to pass shorter sentences may backfire and produce the opposite result.
The council's chairman, Lord Justice Treacy, recently admitted that new guidelines for serious assaults had led to longer sentences, despite predictions that punishments would be less severe. The guidelines will now be revised.

Confusion

And sometimes offenders fail to grasp how long they will spend behind bars.
Anybody convicted of murder can expect to spend 15 years in prison, or 25 years if the accused was carrying a knife or other weapon.

It is not widely understood that offenders sentenced to life imprisonment must serve their tariffs in full before being considered for release on licence, unlike other offenders who are likely to be released after serving less than half their sentences.



Prison population (England and Wales) 200779,734 200883,194 200983,454 201085,002 201185,374


 
 


Thursday, 21 January 2016

Ipp prisoners, for some of those stuck in that system the uncertainty becomes too much, 16 IPP deaths in just over 3 years, something needs to be done urgent! We need every Organisations to help, read injutice, write justice!


Last year the number of IPPs reported as self-harming was equivalent to 42 percent of the total IPP population. Some go further. Recently VICE News found that since the sentences were abolished in 2012, at least 16 IPP prisoners have killed themselves while in jail. IPP prisoners are now more likely to die by suicide than prisoners with fixed release dates.

There were a total of 250 deaths in 201...4–15, 11 (5%) more than the year before. The increase was predominantly among adult male prisoners.

Six people a week recallIn some cases it was found IPP prisoners being recalled for minor infractions of their probation terms. One man received an IPP sentence after being charged with sexual assault for grabbing a woman's behind in the line at the post office. After he was released he was recalled to prison after returning one night to his hostel drunk. He stayed in jail for a further 17 months until he could finally see the Parole Board and was released again.

4,614 people are held on the now abolished indeterminate IPP sentences, of whom 3,532 (77 per cent) have passed their tariff expiry date http://www.howardleague.org/weekly-prison-watch/
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/…/Prison%20the%20facts%…
Vice news on the IPP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldILWJ5BVWM


David Blunkett's Criminal Justice Act That allowed prisonersto be detained indefinitely requiring judges to pass life sentences on low-level offenders. The first was that offences did not have to be veryserious to trigger an IPP. "run-of-the-mill" crimes such as burglary, robbery or arson.
Offenders would serve the period they 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 stillserving IPPs. If they had been sentenced after December 2012, when theprovisions 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.we need to put an end  to this injustice and it is  now time he opens up to humanity.
 
We need more of your support, organisation  Tv  etc......
 
 

Friday, 15 January 2016

RECALL, AND EARLEY RELEASE FOR LOW RISK..

I would like to alert your readers to a significant legal case to be heard on the 9th of February 2016, R (Stellato) v The Parole Board. Currently the courts have been following the Lords decision in (West) that if you are recalled illegally or adjustably you are still legally held in prison. The House of Lords resigned from that the position in (West) at Para 74 in R (Black) v Secretary of State for Justice (2009). Lord Brown asserted that ‘It would not be lawful to recall a prisoner unless he had breached his license conditions’.

My case should clearly establish that everyone recalled has been assessed with the incorrect test as Article 5(4) gives you the right to challenge your detention and the test has to be wide enough to cover the breach. If you have not breached your license conditions then you are entitled to compensation. If successful, it will mean that everyone who has been recalled is a victim of violation of Article 5(4) if it can be shown that the court which laid down the statutory test was made per incurium. The logic and reason is with me, I conducted the research myself, and although that is only one of my grounds it may significantly alter the recall landscape.

I am further advancing vis-a-vis D cat, that a governor cannot change your categorisation if you have been released as a D cat as everyone who is recalled is presumed in law to be innocent or not to have breached their license until the State has proven it was breached and if you have to wait for an oral hearing or proceeding to Judicial Review it would be subjudice. So, not only are you not precluded from D cat on recall (PSI 40/2011: sec 5.3) but also the governor cannot claim that you did breach your license.

After I win my case on the 9th of February you should seek a new hearing before the Parole Board, or sue for damages for breach of Article 5(4) because you couldn’t effectively challenge your detention so claim damages for false imprisonment. The level of financial damages for 6 months is roughly £35,000, but with a diminishing amount thereafter – see Evans, para 7 {R (PB) – v – SSHD (2008).








Early Release Scheme

Justice Minister David Ford’s Early Release Scheme introduced on June 1st 2015, seems to have been heralded as a success with the recent release of 13 prisoners serving what constitutes as a ‘Lesser Offence’. The scheme is indeed a milestone towards the reform of the prison system in reducing overcrowding. Mr Ford, however, stated that sex offenders, terrorists and life sentenced prisoners would be excluded from the scheme. What a sweeping statement to make! Is it right that the scheme should be limited to those serving a prison term of a ‘lesser offence’ should only be considered?
Any offence that warrants a prison sentence is obviously going to be of a serious nature to facilitate the incarceration of the guilty person. Figures show that 58% of adult prisoners serving shorter sentences for ‘lesser offences’ reoffend within one year of release. It is not only those convicted of ‘lesser offences’ that can be assessed as ‘presenting a low risk of reoffending’ but also those convicted of categories not contained within the realm of a ‘lesser offence’.

Mr Ford unfairly tars, for example, all sex offenders with the same brush. My level of risk reoffending is 1.1% over two years, reducing to 0.8% over four years, yet even with a low risk of reoffending Mr Ford is excluding people like myself from being included in this scheme
.
Justice Secretary Mr Gove, on 17th of July 2015, made a speech on prison reform and confirmed the plans concerning early release for prisoners. His comments were targeted at prisoners that were motivated to working towards qualifications. He stated – ‘I am attracted to the idea of earned release for those offenders who make a commitment to serious educational activity, who show by their changed attitude that they wish to contribute to society and who work hard to acquire proper qualifications, which are externally validated and respected by employers’.

Mr Gove does not appear to endorse Mr Ford’s determination to exclude other offenders from the scheme, as it is likely to apply to most of the 86,000 prisoners serving fixed-term sentences. The scheme should encompass every prisoner within the system so that each can be judged on their individual merit, risk of reoffending, behaviour and compliance, instead of being brushed aside and labelled unworthy purely due to the ‘category’ of their conviction.

INSIDE TIMESa-signi-cant-paradigm-shift/