Total Pageviews

Tuesday, 31 May 2016

TO STAND ANY CHANCE OF CHALLENGING THE IPP YOU ALL MUST LOBBY YOUR MP's! WE NEED A MAJORITY VOTE TO CHANGE A LAW. IT WANT HAPPEN WITH JUST A FEW HANDFULS OF FAMILIES, WE NEED ALL THE FAMILY'S, SUPPORTERS, PRISONERS, SOLICITORS AND FRIENDS LOBBING.IF YOU DON’T LOBBY YOU HAVE LOST A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE CHANGE AND THOSE THAT HAVE WORKED SO HARD TO GET THE CURRENT NUMBERS OF LOBBY'S WOULD HAVE DONE FOR NOTHING


                                                             TWO TEMPLATES ENCLOSED.


  A  Letter to MP asking him to lobby.

  1)



House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
NAME
ADDRESS
POSTCODE
PHONE NUMBER & MOBILE
E-MAIL


Dear .........................................MP


As one of your constituents I would like TO LOBBY THE IPP  and ask you Table questions to the house regarding the injustice of IPP Sentences. I would be happy to talk to you further about my concerns in person.

I really care about this issue because ADD PERSONAL STORY HERE or add the line this issue has deeply affected my family.


Firstly, many prisoners on IPPs have not committed the kind of crimes for which IPPs were designed, but less serious ones.
Secondly, there was inconsistency in sentencing even for serious crimes – some prisoners who have committed identical crimes are IPP prisoners, some are not. This is clearly unjust.
Thirdly, IPP prisoners have “indeterminate” sentences, which means that they never know exactly when they will be released, unlike normal prisoners. The effect of living under this level of stress and uncertainty means that IPP prisoners are significantly more likely to suffer mental health issues than other prisoners. Research indicates that they may be twice as likely to suffer such issues.

Fourthly, many of the courses which IPP prisoners are required to complete before they have any chance of being released, are not easily available. Not all prisons provide them, and / or there is a long waiting list for many courses. Through no fault of their own, therefore, many IPP prisoners are unable to “prove” that they are no longer a danger.
Fifthly, IPP prisoners, even if released, are on licence for at least 10 years, and can be recalled to prison at any time for even minor offences. They are never allowed to put their crime behind them, because their licence can be extended indefinitely. Their official sentence length is 99 years.

So is anything being done about this?

The government abolished the IPP sentence on December 3rd 2012, so no more could be imposed after that. However, it did nothing at all about the 5-6000 prisoners still serving IPP sentences, and has consistently refused to tackle the problem, saying that more and more IPP prisoners are now being released.
Unfortunately, the Parole Board has such a backlog of cases to be heard that according to the MOJ’s own figures, it will take about 9 years at the present rate, for all IPP prisoners to be released (currently around 4,700 in all) – by then all will be over their tariff.
In 2012 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that indeterminate sentences breached prisoners’ human rights, because of the fact that rehabilitative courses were not being made available even after the tariff had been served, yet still the situation has not improved.
 
What are the alternatives?

·         The Government has the power to change the release test for IPP prisoners, in accordance with section 128 of LASPO 2012*
·         The law already provides for long licence periods for ordinary prisoners who need close monitoring on release, by “extended” sentences**.  These could be applied to IPP prisoners.

This would give a definite release date, to end the injustice 

*Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012
**The judge decides how long the offender should stay in prison and also fixes the extended licence period up to a maximum of eight years. The offender will either be entitled to automatic release at the two thirds point of the custodial sentence or be entitled to apply for parole at that point.
If parole is refused the offender will be released at the expiry of the prison term. Following release, the offender will be subject to the licence where he will remain under the supervision of the National Offender Management Service until the expiry of the extended period.

I further underlined what I would like to see change
·         To request the Secretary of State for Justice to exercise their power to change the release test for the IPP prisoners under Section 128 of the LASPO Act, for an effective system in place that works
·         and the IPP sentences to be converted into extended sentences, as changing the release test will not necessarily get rid of the "99-year-licence" problem. 

·         (the Lord Chief Justice agrees that these are the options available for change)
At the very least, the Government must increase the number of Parole Board members, so that hearings can be held more frequently and reduce the current backlog and delays.
·         To investigate the failure to provide accommodation and aids for those with learning disabilities as a result have may serve longer custodial sentences than others convicted of comparable crimes. Limited supply with long queues for these and for Parole Board reviews. People who are mentally ill, on medication or have learning disabilities are effectively barred from these courses and barred from the only route out of this awful maze, does  not the Disability discrimination Act apply in prison.

I would like your thoughts on "Lex posterior derogat priori".....
"Lex posterior derogat priori"..... more recent law prevails over an inconsistent earlier law. Can this be applied to this situation, where the IPP has been abolished, but the earlier law is still in force for those who received an IPP before it was abolished?Full document https://www.facebook.com/groups/katherinegleeson17/






Look forward to hearing from you soon


Yours sincerely,

Thank you again for your time.

Sincerely,



Name…….




Find out more about the IPP sentence:-




......................................................................................................................................... 






 Thank You Letter to MPs following up on meeting



 2)




(Date) (MP address)
Mr. or Ms., MP for (………………) OR
The Hon. MP for (……………..)
Thank you for taking the time to meet with on day 25TH May 2016 regarding the IPP sentence.

I appreciate the fact that you gave me the opportunity to discuss the issues and I value your perspective on the matter. 

In our meeting I highlighted 

Firstly, many prisoners on IPPs have not committed the kind of crimes for which IPPs were designed, but less serious ones.

Secondly, there was inconsistency in sentencing even for serious crimes – some prisoners who have committed identical crimes are IPP prisoners, some are not. This is clearly unjust.

Thirdly, IPP prisoners have “indeterminate” sentences, which means that they never know exactly when they will be released, unlike normal prisoners. The effect of living under this level of stress and uncertainty means that IPP prisoners are significantly more likely to suffer mental health issues than other prisoners. Research indicates that they may be twice as likely to suffer such issues.

Fourthly, many of the courses which IPP prisoners are required to complete before they have any chance of being released, are not easily available. Not all prisons provide them, and / or there is a long waiting list for many courses. Through no fault of their own, therefore, many IPP prisoners are unable to “prove” that they are no longer a danger.

Fifthly, IPP prisoners, even if released, are on licence for at least 10 years, and can be recalled to prison at any time for even minor offences. They are never allowed to put their crime behind them, because their licence can be extended indefinitely. Their official sentence length is 99 years.

So is anything being done about this?

The government abolished the IPP sentence on December 3rd 2012, so no more could be imposed after that. However, it did nothing at all about the 5-6000 prisoners still serving IPP sentences, and has consistently refused to tackle the problem, saying that more and more IPP prisoners are now being released.
Unfortunately, the Parole Board has such a backlog of cases to be heard that according to the MOJ’s own figures, it will take about 9 years at the present rate, for all IPP prisoners to be released (currently around 4,700 in all) – by then all will be over their tariff.

In 2012 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that indeterminate sentences breached prisoners’ human rights, because of the fact that rehabilitative courses were not being made available even after the tariff had been served, yet still the situation has not improved.

What are the alternatives?
·         The Government has the power to change the release test for IPP prisoners, in accordance with section 128 of LASPO 2012*
·       The law already provides for long licence periods for ordinary prisoners who need close monitoring on release, by “extended” sentences**.  These could be applied to IPP prisoners.

This would give a definite release date, to end the injustice 

*Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012
**The judge decides how long the offender should stay in prison and also fixes the extended licence period up to a maximum of eight years. The offender will either be entitled to automatic release at the two thirds point of the custodial sentence or be entitled to apply for parole at that point.
If parole is refused the offender will be released at the expiry of the prison term. Following release, the offender will be subject to the licence where he will remain under the supervision of the National Offender Management Service until the expiry of the extended period.

I further underlined what I would like to see change
·         To request the Secretary of State for Justice to exercise their power to change the release test for the IPP prisoners under Section 128 of the LASPO Act, for an effective system in place that works
·         and the IPP sentences to be converted into extended sentences, as changing the release test will not necessarily get rid of the "99-year-licence" problem.
·         (the Lord Chief Justice agrees that these are the options available for change)
At the very least, the Government must increase the number of Parole Board members, so that hearings can be held more frequently and reduce the current backlog and delays.
·         To investigate the failure to provide accommodation and aids for those with learning disabilities as a result have may serve longer custodial sentences than others convicted of comparable crimes. Limited supply with long queues for these and for Parole Board reviews. People who are mentally ill, on medication or have learning disabilities are effectively barred from these courses and barred from the only route out of this awful maze, does  not the Disability discrimination Act apply in prison.

I would like your thoughts on "Lex posterior derogat priori".....
"Lex posterior derogat priori"..... more recent law prevails over an inconsistent earlier law. Can this be applied to this situation, where the IPP has been abolished, but the earlier law is still in force for those who received an IPP before it was abolished?













No comments:

Post a Comment