Last week (28 February 2017) the National Audit Office published its report on an investigation into the backlog of outstanding cases at the parole board.
The parole board has been in a mess for some time and last year (January 2016) Nick Hardwick, previously a much respected Chief Inspector of Prisons, was appointed its chair to try to unravel it. The graphic below from the NAO shows the extent of the backlog:
What is the parole board?
The parole board is an independent body which risk assesses prisoners to decide whether they can safely be released into the community. 115 staff plan and co-ordinate the activities of 215 independent parole board members. The decisions they make are obviously critical both to prisoners and their families and to victims and their families. Making safe parole decisions equally obviously has a significant impact on the numbers in prison.
Why is there such a backlog?
The parole board has had a backlog for many years but the situation was aggravated when the Board had to increase the number of oral hearings it must carry out following the Supreme Court’s Osborn, Booth and Reilly judgment in October 2013 (the Osborn ruling). This ruling followed appeals to the Court from three prisoners, each of whom had been refused oral hearings. It broadened the circumstances in which the law requires the Board to hold an oral hearing, with fairness to the prisoner being the overriding factor. The Board can no longer refuse to carry out an oral hearing because it considers that the hearing is unlikely to make a difference or in order to save time, trouble or expense. The number of outstanding cases increased by more than 140% following the Osborn ruling.
Another graphic from the NAO report shows the impact of the backlog:
In addition to the heartache and stress caused to prisoners spending longer in custody than they should, the parole board has paid out over £1 million since 2011 in compensation claims as a result of delayed hearings.
Tackling the backlog
As you can see from yet another graphic below (the NAO is rather good at them), the parole board has been working hard to try to tackle the backlog by introducing new governance and performance management arrangements as well as recruiting 104 new members:
IPPS
END UNNECESSARY CAPTURE OF RECALL
The situation is aggravated by the ongoing debacle of the IPP situation – prisoners on indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for public protection. Despite being abolished in 2012, 2t December 2016, there were 3,081 prisoners on IPP beyond their tariff expiry date. IPP prisoners can only be released if the Board considers that they are no longer a risk to the public, even if they have reached the end of their tariff. IPP prisoners have on average made up around half of the cases waiting more than 90 days for a hearing. Of the 3,683 IPP prisoners still in custody in December 2016, 84% (3,081) were beyond their tariff expiry date. Of these, 48% had been in prison five or more years beyond their tariff and 11% were eight years or more beyond their tariff.
In July 2016, the Board announced its intention to reduce the number of IPP prisoners in prison to 1,500 by 2020 which seems to me to be a rather pathetic target.
Worst figures on record
At the end of last month (27 April 2017) the Ministry of Justice and Office of National Statistics published the latest Safety in Custody Statistics Bulletin, covering deaths in prison custody up to March 2017 and assaults and self-harm to December 2016.
The key findings continue to be shocking, although there is a slight downward dip in the number of assaults in the last quarter:
Deaths
The number and rate of deaths for the most recent year (up to March 2017) are the second highest recorded. Deaths in the most recent quarter are down from the 12 months ending December 2016 but are still the fourth highest on record.
Self-harm
The number of self-harm incidents and those requiring hospital attendance are both the highest recorded. In the most recent quarter, from October to December 2016, self-harm levels were the highest on record, with 10,246 incidents of self-harm and 734 incidents requiring hospital attendance.
Assaults
The most recent quarter saw a decrease in all types of assaults compared to the three-month period from July to September 2016, when all types of assaults were at their highest levels on record. Total assaults fell by 4% across this period while prisoner-on-prisoner and assaults on staff fell by 5%. This is the first quarter that total assaults have decreased since October to December 2014, but should be considered with caution due to potential seasonal effects.
Conclusion
The speed at which prison safety has deteriorated is a cause for major concern with the annual numbers of deaths, suicides, incidents of self-harm and assaults all the highest on record.
http://www.russellwebster.com/parole-board-backlog/?utm_source=ReviveOldPost&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ReviveOldPost http://www.russellwebster.com/latest-prison-safety-figures-still-shocking/ Image by http://www.russellwebster.com/end-ipp-nightmare/
Action for Prisoners' and Offenders' Families
Part of Family Lives
April 2017
News
Relatives of prisoners at HMP Woodhill who have taken their own lives
are to bring a legal challenge against the institution’s governor and
the justice secretary Liz Truss for allegedly failing to introduce basic
safety measures. Eighteen prisoners have killed themselves at the jail
in Milton Keynes since early 2013, despite repeated recommendations and
guidance from coroners’ reports and official bodies that investigate
deaths in custody.
Deaths in custody reached a record high in England and Wales last
year. In 2016, there were 119 self-inflicted deaths; the previous year
there were 89. Read the full story on the Guardian website.
"They've saved me and I can't thank them enough"- Inside Time special report
With a single punch, a promising young life was brought to an end. Now,
with the help of the victim’s family, the man who killed their son is
building a new life.
Failing complaints system allows discrimination against prisoners to go unchecked, finds report
Only one in 100 prisoners who made an allegation of discrimination
against prison staff had their case upheld by the prison. By contrast,
three in four staff (76%) reports of alleged discrimination by a
prisoner were upheld, an in-depth research report by the Zahid Mubarek
Trust and the Prison Reform Trust reveals.
The report finds that the system for handling discrimination
complaints in prisons is neither fair nor impartial, does not have the
confidence of prisoners, and is failing to provide prisons with the
opportunity to learn and provide more equitable treatment. As prisons
struggle to cope with increasing violence and fewer officers, equality
has slipped down the priority list.
Yearly checks needed for people within the criminal justice system who experience mental health problems, say NICE
Up to 90% of people in prison are thought to have some form of mental
health problem. And a report by the Ministry of Justice found nearly
200 suicides occurred in UK prisons last year.
New final guidance from NICE (National Institute for Health and Care
Excellence) aims to address the gaps in how mental health is diagnosed
and treated within the criminal justice system.
The guidance says everyone working in the criminal justice system
should work more closely together to provide the best care possible.
Ad-hoc mental health checks need to be carried out when an offender
experiences a major life event, such as a difficult court case or
transfer to a different custodial setting, the guidance says. Read more on the NICE website
Prisoner legal aid cuts appeal succeeds
A Court of Appeal ruling over cuts to legal aid for prisoners in England
and Wales has been hailed as a "ground-breaking victory".
The Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prisoners' Advice Service
challenged the removal in 2013 of certain categories of prison law from
the scope of criminal legal aid. They said removing legal aid from some
of the most vulnerable people in society was unfair. Three judges ruled
in their favour.
Lord Justice Beatson, sitting with Lady Justice Gloster and Lord Justice
Patten, said they had focused on "vulnerable prisoners, such as those
with learning disabilities and mental illness".
Why the old Holloway Prison should become a new women's building
In the words of one inmate, at the time of the Holloway prison's
closure: "Wouldn't it be a good place to provide housing for women who
have lost everything through coming to prison? Who are leaving and
trying to piece their life back together but usually have nowhere to go.
And wouldn't it be a good idea to build a women's centre to support
women to move forward?"
Hidden Sentence training
Hidden Sentence raises awareness of the issues faced by prisoners'
families and is suitable for all professionals who will come into
contact with prisoners' families.
Olliers
Solicitors’ has a Face book site run on a voluntary basis to help
provide general information, education and communication concerning
issues affecting prisoners, their rights and entitlements, their
privileges, and on all aspects of prison life, including prisoner
progression, sentence planning, discipline, recall, parole, category
reviews. This list is not exhaustive.
Olliers Solicitors
authorise the administrators to offer legal advice and assistance to
members on these topics, including advice and assistance in relation to
appeals against conviction and sentence and to promote and encourage
communication between prisoners loved ones and families.
Olliers Solicitors are not responsible for any legal advice and
assistance offered and relied upon by anyone other than an official
administrator. Furthermore, Olliers Solicitors are not responsible for
any personal opinion expressed or material posted by any single
individual member. The administrators do their best together with
Olliers
We will always try to respond at the earliest opportunity and we are
only too happy to help when we are able to. However, please respect that
this is not always possible out of office hours. In the event that you
do not receive a response please feel free to remind us but this is a
service provided on a voluntary basis.The Olliers Prison Law Team.
We Need To Talk To And About Kevin
Kevin
is serving a sentence at a prison in the South of England. He is
on the autistic spectrum and has significant learning disabilities. He
has a parole hearingcoming up next month. The hearing will be over two years late.
Kevin was convicted of an serious offence over seventeen
years ago. He has a ‘tariff’ (minimum term) of fifteen years which
ended over two years ago. At that point he was entitled to try to
persuade the Parole Board that they should release him on licence.
Kevin does not understand what parole means. Until he met a lawyer,
he believed that he needed to complete the Maths and English courses he
was doing in prison, then give his certificates to the judge who
sentenced him. At that point he would be released to his old flat.
Over two years ago he received some paperwork he did not understand.
Someone at the prison suggested that he talk to a lawyer. He was
fortunate to find one who regularly visited the prison he was in. She
read the paperwork he had been given. She discovered that he had spent
ten years at the same establishment, most of the time alone in his cell
and had not come to the attention of staff. It was obvious to her within
minutes of meeting Kevin that he had learning difficulties. No formal
assessments had been carried out and he had not completed any of the
interventions that would be expected of a prisoner serving a life
sentence.
The lawyer explained to Kevin that the paperwork he had been given
was a set of directions made by the Parole Board for his case and that
there would be an oral hearing at the prison. She told him what a
‘minimum term’ meant and tried to explain how a parole hearing worked.
Kevin did not understand many of the words his lawyer used but he put
his trust in her. She set about the laborious task of trying to get a
meaningful parole hearing for him.
There are quite a lot of people like Kevin in prison. Some of them
do not have a lawyer. Some have lawyers who do not approach their cases
like Kevin’s lawyer. That might be because they do not have the
expertise they need. It might be because the swingeing legal aid cuts
imposed in 2013 act as a huge disincentive to spend the kind of time
that these cases need.
In the criminal and family courts, there has been some recognition
that steps need to be taken to safeguard the rights and interests of
vulnerable witnesses and defendants. This development has not yet been
mirrored in the closed world of prisons and parole.
What responsibility does the Parole Board and Her Majesty’s
Prison and Probation Service have towards people like Kevin? What would
it take for Kevin to have a fair parole hearing?
In the second part of this article I will set out what we might do to ensure we talk to as well as about Kevin.
Andrew Sperling
is a Consultant Solicitor-Advocate with Olliers Solicitors. He worked
at the Parole Board on governance and stakeholder projects between 2014
and 2015. ‘Kevin’ is a real person with a different name.
Postdate you may remember my invite by Nick Hardwick and Martin Jones. In hand 25000 plus signatures and hundreds of your letters you sent to me via and this was tabled and on the 1st November 2016 Parole Board Rules came into force. "Your voice matters, you matter, keep us informed be heard . These rules empowered the Parole Board to release prisoners serving a sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection on the papers without lengthy delays and more .... . You can read further on those changes tabled in the blog Archive on right side of page.
Hine Solicitors firm Quoted Inside times
That they have secured the release of an IPP prisoner on the papers. Our client had spent a significant period in the community before being recalled after being charged with an offence of common assault. He was convicted of the common assault and recalled to custody. We managed to secure his release without the need for an Oral Hearing.
This rule change has the potential to allow those IPP prisoners who remain in custody the ability to obtain their release without having to endure the lengthy delays currently being experienced in obtaining an Oral Hearing. Given the number of hearings being conducted by the Parole Board, prisoners are waiting several months for their hearing to be listed.
What about Open Conditions?
Following the above rule change, the Parole Board Management committee have agreed two further policy changes to assist IPP prisoners to progress through the prison system. One of those changes is the ability to recommend a transfer to open conditions for those serving an IPP sentence on the papers without the need for an Oral Hearing.
What does this mean for IPP Prisoners?
Previously the power available to the Parole Board in relation to Open Conditions was limited. Whilst under the Board’s previous policy such prisoners could be recommended for open conditions at Member Case Assessment (MCA), such recommendations would only take place in exceptional circumstances and would require the approval of the Parole Board Chair. In the vast majority of cases any application for Open Conditions would be determined following oral evidence at an Oral Hearing.
The Parole Board, as they did with the ability to grant release on the papers, continue to offer IPP prisoners a route to progression which aims to limit the possibility for delay. The ability to progress prisoners to open conditions on the papers will further reduce the number of cases being heard by the Parole Board at Oral Hearings speeding up the process for everyone subject to Parole.
As a result, if the Panel considering your case at the MCA stage feel that your risk is manageable in less stringent conditions, they can make a recommendation for open conditions. You must remember that the Board can only provide a recommendation which the Secretary of State will need to ratify. Should this be done then you will ultimately be transferred to open conditions without the need to wait a lengthy period for an Oral Hearing.
Will I always get a hearing?
In addition to the above change, the Parole Board will no longer automatically send IPP recall cases to an Oral Hearing. Previously all IPP prisoners subject to recall would automatically be granted an Oral Hearing, no matter the circumstances. The only circumstances in which a hearing would not be granted would be where the prisoner specifically opted out of the Parole process.
Panel members will now have the ability to decide whether it is necessary to have an Oral Hearing or whether a negative decision should be made on the papers. A negative decision at the paper stage will result in the review concluding at which point the Secretary of State will then consider the issues in the case before setting the next review. The length of the next review will be dependent on the circumstances of the case and what needs to be achieved to reduce risk prior to the next review.
This change is an important one. Prisoners without support for a progressive move from their Offender Manager or Offender Supervisor will need to ensure that representations are submitted should they seek a progressive move. Without a positive application by the prisoner there is now the possibility that the Board will issue a negative decision on the papers.
We often deal with cases where prisoners have no support from the professionals in their case but because of oral arguments at the hearing, the Board issue a positive decision. Obtaining of an Oral Hearing is now even more important than it was before for those IPP prisoners subject to recall.
Do these rule changes apply to Lifers?
Unfortunately, these changes only apply to IPP prisoners. There is no provision for a progressive move on the papers for Life sentence prisoners; the Parole Board have no power to direct release or to recommend open conditions without oral evidence being taken. In addition, such prisoners remain entitled to an Oral Hearing unless they specifically request to not have one. As a result, life sentence prisoners subject to recall will automatically be granted an Oral Hearing for the Board to consider their case.
” A prisoner could wait several months to appear before the Board to give evidence only to have their application for release refused “
Should I seek Open Conditions on the Papers?
Given the nature of the change, it is highly likely that the Parole Board will only recommend progressive moves to prisoners who have the support of their Offender Manager and Offender Supervisor. Prisoners may find themselves in a situation where they seek release into the community but the professionals in the case feel that Open Conditions are more appropriate. In these circumstances, careful consideration should be given to the application being made to the Board.
A prisoner could wait several months to appear before the Board to give evidence only to have their application for release refused. The Board at the hearing could recommend open conditions which was potentially something they would have done back at MCA stage given the support of the professionals.
In these circumstances a prisoner would have lost out on a significant period waiting for the hearing to take place which could have been spent progressing in open conditions, had they have originally made an application for open conditions on the papers. Expert advice should be taken before making your application before the Board, taking into account the prospects of your application being successful and the practicalities of securing an Oral Hearing.
What can we do to help you?
We would encourage all IPP prisoners approaching the commencement of their reviews to contact us. Once we have taken your instructions we can draft and submit representations on your behalf to ensure your application has the best chance of success. We can consider your options and ensure you understand the impacts of these new changes; ensuring that any delays in obtaining a decision are kept to a minimum.
Any changes for determinate sentence recalls?
There have also been changes to the way in which the Parole Board deal with the recall of determinate sentence prisoners. The Parole Board recently ran a pilot which meant that prisoners subject to recall with less than 24 weeks remaining on their sentence would not be granted an Oral Hearing. Again, this was an attempt at reducing the number of hearings faced by the Board. This change has now been put on hold and as a result the current guidance for the Board is that cases where the prisoner has less than 12 weeks remaining on licence following recall will not be given an Oral Hearing.
This is not a blanket ban and should a prisoner have less than 12 weeks remaining on licence, arguments can still be made that an Oral Hearing be granted. The prisoner will need to show exceptional circumstances when seeking an Oral Hearing. Assistance from a specialist prison law lawyer can assist in making sure that such cases are considered carefully by the Parole Board.
Should you require any assistance with a Prison Law issue please contact our Prison Law department at Hine Solicitors on 01865 518971 or FREEPOST – RTHU – LEKE – HAZR Hine Solicitors, Seymour House, 285
Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 7JF.
Comments
CorriganThanks Jules unfortunately there is still no help to those maintaining their innocence
Jez In
my opinion the changes made are only nips and tucks around the edges.
They do nothing to stem the real misery being suffered by the people
that are behind a locked door with no end date on their incarceration.
The test for release MUST be changed. As s
it stands if they don't get on with their probation officer they are
stuck. Torture is alive and well in her majesty's prison service. Human
Rights in this country are only for those deemed worthy by her majesty's
government. That's telling people they are less than human and that is
torture!!
That's the biggest hurdle anyone can have with an ipp. That's why its even more important that the test for release is changed. That will than make a difference which will significantly help people who are innocent.
11 yrs next month into it an it's only now
things have started to look up for my son they have finally started to
help him an get things moving like placing him on courses an giving him
work but it has taken 10 yrs for his so called
probation to pick up his file in her office an then has the cheek to
tell him to ask me NOT to fone her is she for real if she'd done her job
in the 1st place I wouldn't need to b on her case same as the so called
solicitor .
UmmBabes
it's so draining all this like it's make me mad how they treat our
ipps.... It's very unfair.... But we will see what parole say I doubt he
will get paper review now... 💔💔💔..but
got to wait September for his oral hearing.... So far away I just don't
think he will be home this year I just lost hope in this system...Just
how they make lies up to justify that he is a risk which in fact he
isn't.. ...the shit that they have come out with made, me so mad upset
and drained all in one...... How can theses ppl sleep at night knowing
they are keeping a man inside when on
his recall he was, found not guilty..... They are full of bull shit it
really is, low what they said just one day it will be over but until
then I will be his, rock... ❤100% right it's all twisted the whole system is a joke.And
his brother... Just to justify keeping him inside as they don't have
nothing else to keep him in this is why they have done it... But it's ok
as the solicitors that I found for him are very good he gonna do a
video link to talk bout his doisser and the lies they put in it..... But
one day it will be over with.
RobinsonI
myself experienced this inhumane sentence and wouldn't wish it on my
worst enemy, however every nightmare ends which brings a beautiful
future with fresh beginnings. Just hang on in there it will sure be
worth it!
GingeTo
prove your not a risk in a system that is full of high risks, staffing
issues,cutbacks,being locked in a cell for countless hours.... who
decides how long a risk lasts for anyway? I find the whole thing a
twisted horror tale almost like the brother grim them selfs wrote out
laws.
i think parole boards should be called pre-crime units, and their members
BodenJustice
Sub-Committee. Update. Parliament was prorogued on 27 April 2017 and
formally dissolved on 3 May. The effect of the dissolution of Parliament
is that all committees cease to exist, unless and until they are
reappointed at the start of the new Parliament following the general
election. House of Lords committees are likely to be reappointed in late
June or early July 2017.
No justice here for me, no help, no
one cares enough. I am one of 8,000 lost souls. I pray to my maker to
help me in my suffering and show me that there is light at the end of
this journey. Six-years of my life ‘lost at sea’, no positivity, a
distraught feeling has taken over my wellbeing. The sentence handed down
was three-years and seven-months – I have now served ten-years.
Adrian G – HMP Leyhill
Level playing field?
I am British born and bred, serving a 13-year sentence on
which I will be released at the halfway point, to serve the remainder on
license under Probation. I was informed that the time on license is
part of my sentence. My question is, why do foreign nationals (who may
have committed the exact same crime as me) get returned to their
countries, with no license conditions, at the halfway point of their
sentence? I have witnessed foreign national IPP’s and lifers sent home
once they reach their tariff, while UK-born prisoners are left to rot in
the system. I feel that British prisoners are being discriminated
against for having been born here. Where is the equality?
Mr MD – HMP Buckley Hall
Outrageous damage
I’d like to highlight my own plight, and that of the many prisoners I have met over the years. The injustice I have experienced and witnessed has been done by "prison-based psychologists". The damage they cause is outrageous. I have seen some of my friends take their own lives when they have lost all hope. Why are weinflicted with these charlatans?
Tom SW – HMP Northumberland
Beggingfor rehabilitation
I have been here for 8-months and I
have yet to see one person in authority who is here to rehabilitate me
or even talk to me about why I am here and what they can do to help. It
has actually got to the point where I am chasing my OMU worker. I have
submitted 7 apps and never had a single reply. I hear all those toffs in Parliament saying that prison is to punish and rehabilitate – I’m getting the punishment bit, but where the hell is my rehabilitation?
James L – HMP HighpointStop
fiddling around the edges
Recently, The Sun on Sunday published an exclusive interview with Justice Secretary, Liz Truss, in which she drones on about reoffending, violence,
lack of staff, etc… and her plan to combat this? ‘English and maths
lessons to help offenders find work on release…’ I’ve got news for Ms
Truss, basic English and maths do not get you a job, and nor does
learning basic computer skills. She should know this, as should anybody
with a bit of common sense.
Mr C – HMP Bure
Give and take
The trouble with prisons of late, or at least one of the
problems, is some unconsidered political decisions have been made by all
involved. The ‘new measures’ from Justice Minister Liz Truss do not
seem to be any better. Poor ideas, very poorly thought out. The smoking
ban has caused a lot of stress and anger. Decisions affecting thousands
of prisoners should be very carefully considered, as should their
implementation. Perhaps it is time to start giving a little bit, instead
of taking, taking, taking for years on end.
Samuel M – HMP Wandsworth Victorian values
The mailbag, ‘Give me shelter’ (March issue) rang a bell with me as I too was released to live on the streets on license. Even though part of my license
was for NOMS/Probation to know where I sleep every night. They didn’t
care. I lived on the streets for 3 months before being recalled to
prison for apparently ‘not staying at a suitable address’, even though they knew I was sleeping
in a shop-doorway a few doors away from Twickenham police station. For
some reason, they allowed me to sleep rough for 3 months before
recalling me. There is even a section on the license that says the
released prisoner must have ‘a suitable address that is approved by Probation’.
What is the point of that claptrap? When will the system grasp the
nettle, and admit that homelessness leads to reoffending? This needs to
be properly addressed by those in power. It is 2017 and we are still operating like the Victorians.
Cuts to legal aid for people in prison ruled unlawful by Court of Appeal “Common law came to the rescue of a marginalised and often forgotten sector of our society.”Deborah Russo, Prisoners’ Advice Service
“Evidence about prison staffing levels, the current
state of prisons, and the workload of the Parole Board suggests that the
system is under considerable pressure.” Lord Justice Beatson delivering judgement
Government cuts to legal aid for prisoners, instigated by
Chris Grayling in 2013 when he was Justice Secretary, were ruled
unlawful because they are inherently unfair, the Court
of Appeal ruled last month. The judgement came as a result of a
challenge brought by the Prisoners’ Advice Service (PAS) and the Howard
League for Penal Reform.
The ruling is an important step forward in making sure
that people in prison move through the system more safely and more
efficiently. Since cuts to legal aid for prisoners came into force in
December 2013, violence and self-injury in prisons have risen to record
levels and more prisoners than ever before have called the Howard League
and PAS to seek help. Calls to the two charities’ advice lines have
increased by almost 50 per cent since the cuts were imposed.
The legal challenge by the Howard League and PAS began in
2013. At that time, prisoners were completely shut out from any
possibility of getting legal aid for a wide range of problems. In the
time between then and the cases coming before the Court of Appeal in
January and February this year, the government conceded on four areas of
concern. This left five key problems for the Court of Appeal to consider and, in three of the five, judges found the cuts to be inherently unfair.
“This decision will make the public safer. It vindicates our concerns that cuts imposed by the former Lord Chancellor, Chris Grayling, in 2013 presented a grave risk that prisoners would become stuck in a broken system,” said Frances Crook, Chief Executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, adding, “This sends a clear message that important decisions about prisoners cannot be made efficiently or fairlyin the face of these cuts. We look forward to hearing from the Lord Chancellor with her plans to give effect to the judgment.”
Court of Appeal rules Government’s policy of legal aid cuts for prisoners ‘Unlawful’
Ministers insist they are not obliged immediately to act on the ruling following the ‘unprecedented and groundbreaking’ judgment
In R (Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prisoners’ Advice Service) v the Lord Chancellor,
the Court of Appeal considered five areas of prison law where the
Ministry of Justice removed criminal legal aid eligibility in December
2013.
The court ruled that the high threshold required for a
finding of inherent or systemic unfairness was satisfied in the case of
pre-tariff reviews by the parole board, Category A reviews (those whose
escape would be highly dangerous), and decisions regarding placement in
close supervision centres.
The threshold was not satisfied in relation to decisions
about offending behaviour programmes and courses, and disciplinary
proceedings where no additional days of imprisonment or detention can be
awarded.
Following the judgment, a spokesperson for the ministry
said: “We note the Court of Appeal’s judgment on changes made to legal
aid regulations – introduced in 2013 – and will consider whether to
appeal.”
Eligibility for criminal legal aid in certain prison law
matters was removed in December 2013. Deborah Russo, joint managing
solicitor of the Prisoners’ Advice Service, said the ruling was an
“unprecedented and groundbreaking legal victory in which the
vulnerability of the prison population is fully recognised as a key
factor in its limited ability to access justice”.
She added: “Common law
came to the rescue of a marginalised and often forgotten sector of our
society.”
According to the Howard League for Penal Reform, almost
300 people have taken their own lives since cuts to legal aid for
prisoners were introduced. Calls to the Howard League for Penal Reform
and the Prisoners’ Advice Service have increased by nearly 50%.
Frances Crook, chief executive of the Howard League, said:
“This decision will make the public safer. It vindicates our concerns
that cuts imposed by the former Lord Chancellor, Chris Grayling, in 2013
presented a grave risk that prisoners would become stuck in a broken
system. This sends a clear message that important decisions about
prisoners cannot be made efficiently or fairly in the face of these
cuts.”
However, the ministry stressed that the judgment does not
mean the government must immediately reinstate legal aid in the three
areas where the threshold for inherent or systemic unfairness was
satisfied, noting that this is one option.
Cuts were political
Workload increased dramatically after legal aid cuts Prisoners Advice Service tells Inside Time
Since 2013 when Chris Grayling brought in the cuts we saw a
stark increase in the number of prisoners approaching us with telephone
calls; increasing almost 50% in the last year alone to 25,000. Our
workload increased massively. Because of the fact that legal aid was not
available it made telephone calls longer because, instead of small
queries, it was quite complicated issues. Because of mental health
issues in prison it would mean, more often than not, we’d have to
intervene by contacting governors urgently to ensure prisoners’ well
being is looked after and respected. It had a huge impact on our
capacity to take cases because we deal with so many pro bono cases now.
It could be that some prisoners are serving longer in
prison because of the cuts.
Mainly in the case of pre-tariff prisoners
who might not have assistance which is quite crucial so that they can
look forwards to a move to open conditions. Because of the cuts and lack
of representation it could affect the length of time they end up
serving post-tariff.
“It would cost more to keep them in prison longer so it was not an economical decision, it was a political one”
The judgement says that in the three areas of pre-tariff
reviews, category ‘A’ reviews and placement if CSC (Close supervision)
units the cuts are inherently unfair particularly if prisoners have
mental health issues Legal Aid will have to be reinstated.
Now we are at
the stage where we will have to negotiate with the Government as to the
extent of the Legal Aid which will have to be reinstated. We will do
our best to ensure it is as comprehensive as possible.Deborah Russo – Deborah Russo is joint managing solicitor at the Prisoners Advice
Everyone deserves justice
Cuts that form the focus of the judgment “just the tip of the iceberg”
Many prisoners were affected by the legal aid cuts. The
Howard League works for less crime, safer communities and few people in
prison. Individuals being able to achieve justice is central to
achieving these objectives. The Howard League decided to bring the case
in our own name, along with PAS, because the removal of legal aid was
wrong. It shifted the use of law away from what it is meant to be:
something that is available to everyone to achieve justice. We also run a
legal service for children and young people under 21, many of whom were
directly affected by the cuts.
We run a free and confidential legal advice line for
people under the age of 21. Our legal workload increased by around 50
per cent since the cuts came in. But it was not just that the number of
calls increased: the amount of additional work we did for free went up
because there was simply nobody else who could afford to do it. Many
other lawyers such as the brilliant lawyers who represented us, Bhatt
Murphy, in the legal aid community also stepped in. One of the nicest
things about the judgment is the annex which sets out all the lawyers
that provided statements of support for the case, many of whom
represented clients for free due to the cuts.
Large numbers of prisoners are serving longer in prison
because of the cuts. The cuts that form the focus of the judgment are
just the tip of the iceberg. Our lawyer, Simon Creighton, has calculated
that through the litigation around 85 per cent of the original cuts
have been either declared unlawful or conceded. The issues, which range
from pre-tariff reviews to licence conditions, all touch on liberty in
one way or another.
The Howard League would like to see the Lord Chancellor
accept the Court of Appeal’s ruling and bring these areas back into the
scope of legal aid. It is possible the government will appeal the
ruling, but I would hope that the Government takes heed of the careful
and thoughtful judgment and does the right thing.– Dr Laura Janes is the Legal Director and solicitor at the Howard League for Penal Reform.
The F Word
“Prisoners want and are entitled to fair hearings”
Four years is a long time. Chris Grayling’s Ministry of
Justice announced sweeping cuts to legal aid in April 2013 in a document
called Transforming Legal Aid. Grayling’s idea of transformation
differed from most.
He ignored several thousand consultation responses
which pointed out the risks and unfairness of his proposals. Legal aid
was removed from a raft of areas, leaving courts overwhelmed by
unrepresented prisoners and arguably denying many people on low or no
incomes from access to justice.
Grayling declared himself ideologically
opposed to legal aid for prisoners and promised that the prisons
complaints system would do just as good a job.
The Prisoners Advice Service and the Howard League began
their challenge to the legal aid cuts in the autumn of 2013. The wheels
of justice can be painfully slow. This case has taken a huge amount of
persistence on the part of the two charities and their lawyers. It is
not an easy task to persuade a Court that government policy is unlawful.
The High Court refused permission for the challenge in 2014, the Court
of Appeal overturned this decision in 2015 (allowing the challenge to
proceed to a full hearing) and the case was heard at the start of 2017.
What did the case decide?
The Court of Appeal were persuaded that there was
‘inherent and systemic unfairness’ in the decision to remove legal aid
for all prisoners in 3 categories of cases – pre-tariff reviews by the
Parole Board, category A reviews, and decisions to place prisoners in
Close Supervision Centres.
The key reason for this finding was that the
Court was not satisfied that there were alternative means in place to
ensure prisoners could participate effectively in these decision-making
processes, particularly for vulnerable prisoners including those with
learning difficulties or mental health problems.
Does this mean that prisoners can now get legal aid in these areas?
At the moment, the answer to that is no. At the time of
writing this article, the Ministry of Justice has not confirmed whether
or not they will appeal. If they do decide to appeal, it is likely to
drag the case out for at least another year. I suspect that they will
not appeal against the decision but I am afraid this does not mean that
they will take prompt steps to restore legal aid in these areas.
The Ministry’s response to the judgment was not
encouraging. They appear to have latched on to comments in the Court of
Appeal’s judgment recognising that “there may be safeguards other than
legal aid”.
Do not expect any announcement any time soon. The
political world is obsessed with Brexit and now with another General
Election. Politics will soon go into purdah – a period in which no new
policy is decided, a kind of political hibernation. This will end when a
new government is appointed. New governments usually mean new
ministerial appointments, even if the same government is elected. A
department which is traditionally slow to implement change is likely to
be even more tortoise-like in these circumstances. Restoring legal aid
to prisoners is unlikely to be high on the agenda, even with a Court of
Appeal judgment declaring a policy to be unlawful.
The quickest, fairest and probably cheapest option would
be to make a simple change to legal aid regulations. One alternative to
this would be to shunt these areas into the world of ‘exceptional
funding’. Legal aid practitioners are familiar with what exceptional
funding means. The clue is in the name. There is a long-winded,
labyrinthine process which puts many people off from applying for it.
Legal aid practitioners have already had to find ways of absorbing a
nearly 10% cut in the payment rates for their work.
It is asking a lot
to expect them to spend valuable time for which they will be paid
nothing in the hope that a small amount of funding will be granted for
them to take on a relatively complex case. The Ministry are likely to be
attracted by an option which puts the onus on the prisoner to show why
they are exceptional – for example that they cannot read, understand
basic concepts or have a communication disability. The irony of
expecting such prisoners to complete a lengthy form applying for
exceptional funding should be obvious to anyone.
Long grass
Another alternative would be The Long Grass Response. This
is the process by which the Ministry of Justice announces that it is
exploring options, consulting stakeholders and piloting alternatives.
They might think about trying to tap into the largesse of well-meaning
charities or pro bono groups which develop to fill gaps in need. Such
organisations should give some thought to what they are getting into if
they are approached to fill this gap.
Providing meaningful assistance to
prisoners for pre-tariff, category A and CSC reviews is not easy. It
requires the development of expertise. Good advocates will need to
understand the legal and procedural framework for the different types of
decision-making. They will need to have methods of communicating
effectively with prisoners in closed prisons, many of whom may have
mental health or learning difficulties. Their clients may be challenging
and might not agree with them. They may need to commission expert
reports. Psychologists and psychiatrists do not often work for free.
Organisations who are approached to fill this unfairness
gap may also want to reflect upon whether their desire to support
prisoners or to provide learning experience for students or budding
lawyers might cloud their judgment. The Ministry has demonstrated an
eagerness to take advantage of such groups. In the Court of Appeal case,
they argued that the Prisoners Advice Service – one of their opponents
in the case – could cure any unfairness by providing free advice and
help to prisoners who could not get legal aid.
Presenting a case well is a skill. You need to know how to
analyse evidence, to question witnesses, to apply the law, to
appreciate which are good arguments to make and which are pointless or
counter-productive. Good prison lawyers have spent years learning and
perfecting these skills. That is why prisoners instruct them.Andrew Sperling – Andrew Sperling
is a Consultant Solicitor-Advocate with Olliers Solicitors. He is a
former Chair of the Association of Prison Lawyers and was commissioned
to work on projects for the Parole Board between 2014 and 2015.
System could not ensure fairness
But may be some time before legal aid restored
The Court of Appeal’s judgment on the availability of
legal aid for prisoners was given on 10 April 2017. Simon Creighton of
Bhatt Murphy Solicitors acted for the two charities who brought the case
and explains what the case was about and what this decision will mean
in practice.
What was the case about?
In December 2013, the Government limited legal aid for
prisoners to a very small category of cases. These were parole reviews
when the Parole Board has the power to direct release, adjudications
before the Independent Adjudicator or where a governor has allowed
representation under the Tarrant criteria and sentence calculation
cases.
The Howard League and PAS argued that by removing legal aid for
all other areas, prisoners would run the risk of unfairness when
important decisions were made that could affect their liberty or their
fundamental rights. The areas they specifically challenged were: (1)
Parole hearings where the Parole Board is advising on open conditions
(or ‘pre-tariff reviews’); (2) Category A reviews; (3) Segregation and
CSC decisions; (4) Mother and Baby unit cases; (5) Resettlement cases;
(6) Licence conditions; (7) All governors’ adjudications; (8) Sentence
planning.
What did the Court decide?
Before the case even reached a hearing, the Government
accepted that some form of legal aid should be available for a number of
these areas. They agreed that those areas which have the potential to
engage rights under the Human Rights Act, such as the right to a private
and family life, should have legal aid available. This meant that a
form of legal aid called ‘exceptional case funding’ was extended to
cover cases concerning segregation, Mother and Baby units, resettlement
and licence conditions. Exceptional case funding is not automatic and an
individual application has to be made showing how your rights have been
infringed and why legal representation is necessary to ensure you are
treated fairly.
“Access to legal advice for prisoners makes prisons
fairer, safer and better at rehabilitating prisoners. This was first
recognised in the Woolf Report a quarter of a century ago and this
judgment underlines that it is still true today.”
At the hearing, the judges decided that the decision to
remove legal aid combined with the deterioration in prison conditions
meant that the system could not ensure fairness for prisoners when
important decisions are made about them. The Court was particularly
concerned that prisoners who are vulnerable, including children, those
with mental health problems or those who cannot read or write could not
participate properly in decision making.
They said that removing legal
aid for parole cases, CSC cases and category A reviews was unlawful.
However, they said that the prison system could deal fairly with
sentence planning cases and governors’ adjudications without legal aid.
Does this mean that legal aid will now be restored?
It is still too early to know what the final outcome will
be. The Government might try and appeal the decision. If they do not
appeal, legal aid will still only be available once they amend the
current law. If you need advice on one of the areas where the Court has
said that removing legal aid was unlawful or where the Government
accepted that exceptional case funding should be available, it is worth
contacting a solicitor but it might still be some time before it is
clear whether legal aid will actually be restored.Simon Creighton – Simon Creighton is a partner at Bhatt Murphy Solicitors
Focus Retriever
Vulnerable adults acquire appreciate specialist adult,s when attending court, police stations, and solicitors .
A vulnerable adult is described as a person aged 18 years or over, who is in receipt of or may by reason of mental or hidden disability, age or illness.
A person is a vulnerable adult if, having attained the age of 18, s/he is in residential accommodation,or
receives a welfare service of a prescribed description,
receives any service or participates in any activity provided specifically for persons who has particular needs because of his age, has any form of disability or has a prescribed physical or mental problem. (Dyslexia, dyscalculia and dyspraxia are excluded disabilities),
has payments made to him/her or to an accepted representative in pursuance of arrangements under Health and Social Care Act 2012, and/or
requires assistance in the conduct of own affairs. continued
The new service to replace the National Offender
Management Service (NOMS) will be Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation
Service (HMPPS)
The effective abolition of NOMS, (christened
Nightmare on Marsham Street in its early days due to the confusion it
created) – follows the Prison Safety and Reform White Paper published
last November. From 1st April 2017 Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation
Service (HMPPS) will have full responsibility for the operational
management of people in custody and the community, including
strengthening security in prisons, tackling extremism and building
intelligence about criminal gangs. The paper outlined an overhaul of the
prisons estate with the forthcoming Prison and Courts Bill due to make
rehabilitation for people in prison a key duty of prisons for the first
time ever. There will be new leadership and promotion programmes for
prison and probation officers to “further professionalise and build
pride” in the service and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) will be taking
on responsibility for overall future policy direction, setting
standards, scrutinising prison performance and commissioning services.
New service will be responsible for rolling out government’s reform programme
New leadership programme and new promotion opportunities for staff
New role of Director with specific responsibility for women across the whole system
“Creating HMPPS will bring clarity to managing our prisons
and probation services while further professionalising staff and
building pride in their work,” said Justice Secretary Liz Truss. “Our
prison and probation officers do a vital job and they deserve to work in
a world-class organisation which supports them in reforming offenders
and keeping the public safe,” she added. CEO of the new service Michael
Spurr was cautiously optimistic about his new role. “There is a great
deal to do,” he said, “but I am confident that with the additional
resources the government are providing, we can transform the system and
deliver the high quality of service the public deserve.”
No chance of succeeding, the POA’s primary role is to create
recidivists, more prisons, more screws, more power. Until this vile
organization is outlawed, classed a threat to the public and national
security, prisons will remain Hate Factories, churning out dehumanized
recidivists to keep POA members employed. No screw wants to see
rehabilitation succeed and prisons close. There will never be pride in
working in HM Hate Factories/Human Warehouses, prisons are staffed with
no-hopers, the dross end of the dole queue. Until penal policy is
independent of self-serving, demagogic, parasitic politicians, and any
organization with vested interests in recidivism, prisons will continue
to fail the public, and serve the parasite that feeds off the less
fortunate in society.
Chris Grayling's only concern was to see justice done quickly: justice delayed is justice denied. By giving prison gove…
Barnet
This guy is spot on, the POA are an organisation whose methodology
is nowadays sophisticated but remains collusive and subversive with the
sole purpose of undermining any government or management initiative
which will reduce the requirement for so many people to be incarcerated.
they are a scurge on our society. inside times news paper.
Mike
I find this extremely worrying, as a potential employer will already
know I have a conviction before they even meet me. Regardless if the
conviction in no way affects my ability to work in said position and
regardless of how long ago my conviction was, with no other offences?
