Total Pageviews

Sunday, 19 February 2017

No sentence will bring back those we have lost . No apology will end the parents’ grief so, now we must ACT, rise up together .


JUSTICE Secretary Liz Truss and prison service head Michael Spurr should be sacked for incompetence following the latest damning government statistics on understaffing, the Prison Officers Association said yesterday.


Front-line prison officer numbers fell by more than 300 last year, official figures show, triggering fresh scrutiny of staffing levels as jails tackle a safety crisis

Latest statistics from the National Offender Management Service (Noms) reveal a loss of 366 staff, many of them experienced officers, last year and 133 over the last quarter.

Leaving rates are calculated as the percentage of permanent staff who left for reasons other than voluntary early departure schemes and redundancy

Shrinking staffing levels have come under the spotlight in recent months as assaults and suicides behind bars hit record levels

However, the pledged recruitment drive, which was supposed to provide thousands more officers, has met with a lukewarm response at best, the POA said.

General secretary Steve Gillan told the Star: “If I was prime minister, I would sack Liz Truss and the head of Noms (Michael Spurr) for incompetence.

“There needs to be an independent root-and-branch inquiry into the way the service is being run.

We warned them years ago not to get rid of older, experienced staff, but they didn’t listen.

He said the union had warned the government time and time again that the system was in crisis, but “all they seemed interested in was saving money.

Shadow prisons minister Yasmin Qureshi said: “It’s no wonder ministers tried to sneak this out during the parliamentary recess.

“It would appear Liz Truss’s flagship recruitment drive is failing and front-line officers are still leaving the service

“We need urgent action to tackle the understaffing which is contributing to the Tories’ prisons crisis.

In a statement to the Star, the Ministry of Justice said the government was on track to recruit 400 more front-line officers by next month as it works towards its goal of taking on an extra 2,500 in total.

We need your support to keep running. If you like what you read please donate by clicking here
https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/support
further on Liz Truss out of her depth for sure http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/769243/Liz-Truss-Justice-Secretary-Andrew-Marr-Prisons

Barrister Philip Rule explains the importance of appealing

Barrister Philip Rule, of Number 5 Chambers, was successful in an appeal against an unlawful indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP), over eight years after imposition.

On 17 February the Lord Chief Justice, presiding over a hearing at the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), allowed the appeal against an IPP imposed in 2006 in the case of R v James-Davis. The offence had been committed in a period from late 2004 to early 2005 so prior to the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 on 4 April 2005. Consequently an IPP was simply not available as a matter of law.

What is most unusual, and worrying about this case is that the fact the sentence was unlawful was not noticed by the defence or prosecution representatives at the time, the sentencing judge, or any staff involved in the offender’s case in prison since, and not even by the Parole Board on several occasions after tariff-expiry.

 It was not until the case was finally brought to Mr Rule and his instructing solicitor that the error was spotted.

The Court of Appeal also accepted it is not an option for the Court of Appeal to replace an unlawful IPP by a life sentence, due to the operation of the rule that prevents the Court sub- stituting any sentence that would result in dealing with the offender more severely on appeal than he was dealt with at the Crown Court.

The Court had been considering whether to increase the sentence so as to impose a longer term of imprisonment than the notional sentence from which the minimum term had been calculated under the IPP, but was persuaded not to do so.

The Court quashed the unlawful IPP, and in its place imposed the sentence of twelve years’ imprisonment with an extended 10-year period of licence and a sexual offences prevention order as additional public protection measures. The appellant was entitled to immediate release on conditions of licence.Nor is this the only example of this kind of failure.

In R v G in late 2014

A similar appeal was allowed (although there the maximum sentence in law for the offence had not extended to life imprisonment). The offender had a very serious previous conviction, and was assessed to be a very dangerous offender indeed ([5], [7]).

The Court however had no doubt that the sentence was an unlawful one as a consequence of the date of the offences, despite the danger that offender plainly represented [11].

 There was no power to impose an IPP and the sentence had to be quashed.

 In its place was imposed a sentence of imprisonment reflecting the calculation made by the sentencing judge of the notional determinate term, and added to that was an extended licence period.

This is unlikely to represent the end of unlawful sentences being brought belatedly to the Court of Appeal where it takes many years before someone spots such a mistake.

It is an almost inevitable consequence of the strain placed on the criminal justice system by an ever-increasing volume of complex sentencing provisions, in tandem with constant legal aid cuts devaluing representation before the criminal courts, that unlawful sentences are sometimes passed.

In the case of the IPP such a mistake can mean years of detention that could or should not lawfully have been imposed at all. It is an unacceptable state of affairs in any mature democracy that liberties are so carelessly safe- guarded by the state’s system for justice.

If you feel you may have been subjected to an unlawful sentence you may be able to seek help from a solicitor AND BARRISTER. Do not apply direct to Philip Rule as enquiries to Philip Rule that are thought to be eligible for funding will automatically be directed to an appropriate solicitor unless a specific request is made.


Philip Rule is a barrister at Number 5 Chambers, LondonPhilip he  is listed as a leading junior barrister practising in Crime in London, is said to have ability to form the most complex legal arguments is outstanding.
 http://www.no5.com/barristers/barrister-cvs/philip-rule-crime-/http://www.no5.com/cms/documents/R%20v%20Roberts%20and%20others%20FINAL.pdf


Stephenson's, Grounds for appeal  IPP sentence,

Have successfully appealed IPP sentences on clients behalf and have had indeterminate sentences replaced with determinate sentences for advice call us on 0333 323 1610  ask for a call back

Section 225 Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides for the imposition of imprisonment for public protection where a person is aged 18 or over and is convicted of a serious offence if the Court is of the opinion that there is significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission of further specified offences.
Serious harm is defined at section 224(3) as “death or serious personal injury, whether physical or psychological”.

In the case of R v Lang [2006] 2 Cr.App.R.(S) 3, the Court of Appeal considered the approach sentencing Courts should take when considering whether to impose an IPP.

Before a sentence of life imprisonment or imprisonment for public protection can be imposed a significant risk must be shown in relation to two matters;

first, the commission of further specified (but not necessarily serious) offences,
Secondly, the causing of serious harm to members of the public. This is often described as “dangerousness”.
There must be a “significant risk” in relation to both these matters
The Court stated that in assessing significant risk, it should be borne in mind that "significant" is a higher threshold than mere possibility of occurrence and it can be taken to mean "noteworthy, of considerable... importance".
In assessing the risk of further specified offences being committed, the Court should take into account the nature and circumstances of the current offence,
the offender's history of offending
(including kind of offence, its circumstances, sentence passed,
whether offending demonstrates any pattern),
 social and economic factors in relation to the offender (including accommodation, employability, education, associates, relationships and drug and alcohol abuse), and the offender's thinking/attitude towards offending and supervision and emotional state.
The Court stated that such information most readily, though not exclusively, should come from antecedents and the pre-sentence report; in relation to such reports, the court will be guided, but not bound, by any assessment of risk. 
In assessing the risk of serious harm
Courts must guard against assuming there to be a significant risk of serious harm merely because the foreseen specified offence is serious.
 Where the foreseen specified offence is not serious, there will be comparatively few cases in which a risk of serious harm will properly be regarded as significant.
Serious harm
Section 224 defines serious harm as “death or serious personal injury, whether physical or psychological”.
As to the significance of the offender not having caused any harm when committing the index, or any prior, offence, this, the court said, may be advantageous to the offender, but it may be entirely fortuitous.
The Court may wish to reflect on the likely response of the offender, if his victim, instead of surrendering, resolutely defended himself
It does not, therefore, follow from the absence of actual harm caused by the offender to date, that the risk that he will cause serious harm in the future is negligible.
If serious harm has been caused in the index offence this is obviously something that the Court can take into account.
Reasons
The Court in Lang said that sentencers should usually give reasons (briefly identifying the information which they have taken into account) for all their conclusions, particularly as to whether there is or is not a significant risk of further offences or serious harm, and also for not imposing an extended sentence under section 227 and 228 where this is available.

In giving of reasons for an indeterminate sentence, the Court said that there is a requirement that the sentencing remarks should explain the reasons which have led the court to its conclusion.
The Court of Appeal will not normally interfere with the conclusions reached by a sentencer who has accurately identified the relevant principles, and applied his mind to the relevant facts.
The case of Pedley Martin and Hamadi 2010 1 Cr App R (s) 24  has introduced an overall proportionality test where the degree or level of risk has now  to be balanced against the nature of the risk or the nature of the harm.
Proportionality requires that only a relatively high risk of some lesser harm would be sufficient to justify preventative detention
Our solicitors have successfully appealed sentences for public protection on the following grounds:
That the Judges have not adhered to the guidance as set out in Lang
Alternative sentences have not been considered
Full reasons have not been stated
 criteria has not been met to impose such a Draconian sentence

They said the inadequate resources, "appeared to be the consequence of the introduction of draconian measures for indeterminate detention without the necessary planning and without realistic consideration of the impact of the measures".

'Draconian measures 'The European judges said: "It is clear that the delays were the result of a lack of resources."They said the inadequate resources, "appeared to be the consequence of the introduction of draconian measures for indeterminate detention without the necessary planning and without realistic consideration of the impact of the measures". detention without https://www.stephensons.co.uk/site/individuals/srvcriminal/appeal_solicitors/ipp_sentences/ http://www.justice.gov.uk/offenders/types-of-offender/life


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



Examples Barristers

 Grand Chamber considers whole life sentences and Article 3 ECHR 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.


On the 21st October 2015, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights considered the appeal .  Joel Bennathan QC and Katy Thorne represented Mr Hutchinson, whose complaint is that his whole life sentence is incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention. Mr

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.

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 joint enterprise; substitution of manslaughter; sentence)

H (K) [2011] EWCA Crim (Extended sentences)

 Gill and Eccles [2012] 1 W.L.R. 1441  [2012] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 26   mandatory lifers; exceptional progress as a mitigating factor in setting the minimum term.)

Baker [2012] EWCA Crim 2843 (Murder, diminished responsibility; jury directions)

Jones (aka Malik) [2012] (Murder, judge’s duty to leave self-defence.)

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 On 21st October 2015, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights considered the appeal of Hutchinson v United Kingdom.  Joel Bennathan QC and Katy Thorne represented Mr Hutchinson, whose complaint is that his whole life sentence is incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention. Mr

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 prisonershttp://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.



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


Lord Justice Davis quashed an IPP sentence

Open-ended sentence has now been quashed at London’s Criminal Appeal Court and replaced with a conventional jail term of three years,15 August 2012 Lord Justice Davis was among the judges who were anxious about the outcome
judges said that, while they were deeply anxious about the outcome, the law on indeterminate sentences laid down by Parliament left them with ‘no alternative’ but to quash Crisp’s IPP.The decision means that, instead of remaining behind bars until the Parole Board concludes it is safe to release him, Crisp will now be automatically released after serving half of the three-year term.A probation report concluded Crisp was a danger to the public and there was a real threat that   would result in him reoffending.Sentencing him, the crown court judge said a five-year sentence would have been appropriate for the offences, but that he was ‘dangerous’ and should therefore be locked up indefinitely.Crisp’s lawyers argued the five-year ‘notional term’ was too long, saying the crown court judge didn’t take enough account of the overall sentence or the level of his offending.London's Court of Appeal heard how Crisp’s computer equipment, including a laptop, webcam and four discs, were seized from his home in September Allowing the appeal, Judge Morris agreed the term was ‘excessive’ and that the IPP must be quashed - as indefinite sentences can only be imposed where the offences would justify a conventional sentence of at least four years.He told the court: 'We consider that the judge’s finding of dangerousness was fully justified on the evidence before him.'But, by reason of this court’s decision to reduce the notional determinate term, a sentence of imprisonment for public protection was not available.'We have great concern as to the outcome. But, as Parliament has laid down that the notional term must be at least four years for an indeterminate sentence to be imposed, we have no alternative but to quash the IPP.http://www.megrahimystory.net/downloads/Summary%20of%20Grounds%20of%20Appeal%201%20&%202.pdf  



COMMENTS

‘I find prison hard to cope with, being trapped in a box. Prison is not fit to accommodate people like me with mental health problems. It’s made me worse. How can I change in a place like this? I wake up every morning scared of what the day may hold.’
James Ward


Shane Another ‘victim’ of the legal system. My friend successfully appealed his sentence through the help of CS Solicitors. They regularly deal with miscarriage of justice, excessive sentences and are experts in Prison law. If you require expert advice on Appeal matters contact CS Solicitors 01952 243 346 or alternatively drop them a email and they will be in touch. IPP – Law

Banks Honestly, why do you believe that nothing has been done yet for all of these IPP prisoners still inside? Is it because they are seen as less than human to the higher ups? My personal theory is that if this is proven to be an injustice that every prisoner will be liable to compensation, which at today's rate should be £90 for each day over tariff (+8% statutory interest?) afterall the majority of our governments decisions do come down to money £££ not sense .  I believe freedom is worth more than just money. I do hope one day this happens. We all know that once that class action suit happens we open the gates for everyone else, that's when the system will feel the repercussions from this injustice. I believe that once we get some IPPs released and adjusted to life on the outside, That we can then help guide them using any resources we have. I myself am currently self representing in court on personal matters, all using information found on the internet and in books. It can be done and we do stand a good chance."That's the only thing holding them back once released, is the lifetime license.  Trying to help from the outside so no I've not done an IPP personally. The actual compensation for being held in prison for too long is £110 per day as per human rights laws, this is if it is successfully proven that all IPP prisoners are being held unlawfully over tariff after it has been abolished. Here is the link to the last mention of any figures http://www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Payouts-inmates-kept-jail... bear in mind that this is just my theory. I'm looking for a solution as to why nothing has been done about the 4000+ prisoners still rotting in jail without hope. I'm as angry  the whole thing, but we have to be diplomatic and fight the system from within.a huge difference to someones life just to have this removed."iI am not  bothered about the cash. The license is a drag too, but nothing better to just have them out here. Living the lives they were supposed to.We have a meeting with the local MP  regarding my brothers IPP, he's about 8-9 years over tariff. What questions shall I put to him and what's the best course of action for us to take moving forward..?  The mental health issue hits home, as my brother is not in the best shape at the minute. There are 4 of us meeting with 3 different MPs from Manchester Stockport and Trafford. Hopefully we will leave today with some kind of action plan.I have since been  with 2 case workers for the local MP. They have agreed that the punishment has been overly harsh and they will be putting our questions to the MP both directly about my brother and indirectly about ALL IPP cases. They are keen to speak to Liz Truss and put forward a list of questions and also to ask why the prisoners are still serving under this inhumane sentence, can we get them switched to determinate sentences, why haven't more resources been provided for the prisoners to do the courses etc. As we should have known, they first need my brothers consent which will take around 15-20 days in total. Finally good to know we are getting somewhere. Myself and his old Barnados youth worker are also going to get support from our local MP's, they cant help my brother but they can also speak with Liz Truss on behalf of all IPP prisoners to ask these crucial questions.

Cooke This is an argument that has been aired and discussed before,  I sincerely hope every over tariff IPP who is or has been released should sue the government. Unfortunately, with the withdrawal of legal aid most won't be able to. The best thing they could do would be to take a class action but it requires a) organisation b) money. One day someone will do this - it's just a case of when...Maybe the key to change is to try and get a class action going - it would need to come from the ex IPPS themselves but we could offer our support. It's food for thought because to my knowledge protests against IPP have been going on since July 2012 and apart from the abolition of the sentence itself, very little else has changed.Any ex IPPs willing to volunteer? I am sure most of those IPPs who are released just want to get their heads down and get on with their lives and who the heck can blame them? Then there's the life licence to think about...I'm happy to be involved in anything that might bring this situation about.Stress the inequity of having no release date and the mental stress it causes; the inequity of people having committed same offences serving their time and being released. The more MPs are aware pf this inhumane sentence the better. I'm contacting my MP to ask him to get Liz Truss to meet us may be able to persuade her ....Its true, my brother has given up on ever achieving an outside life. It no longer seems to be an end goal.  ! Its not easy to watch.

Weeden  My son is IPP and he's now into his 11th year on a 4 year tariff. It's horrendous. I wish you every success  Someone needs to start listening. 7 years over....The IPP sentence breaks them. With no release dates they just give up.My son is in his 11th year on a 4 year tariff. At his last parole hearing his outside probation who he had never met, decided to go for a clinical overide the day before the hearing to make him do the RESOLVE course which he had previously been deemed as unsuitable for. He hadn't done any courses for almost 4 years because he'd already done them all. They deferred his hearing so he could do this course. Now he waits for another hearing.

McGeough  Did you do the sentence? I went two years over Tariff, 8 1/2 rather than 6 1/2 with no adjudications and got fuck all. I fought them through The European Court of human rights; what a load of b......s that was! However, they did pay me £2000 because my review was delayed by six months. Please prove me wrong and fight my case for me. You can have half the money.

Brackenbury what we are all doing, looking for solutions, it's good that people who aren't even an ipp themselves are taking interest, we are all well aware most of our efforts have been in vain, my partner also sued them for delaying his hearing by 5 months he got a few hundred pounds that legal aid chewed up he never saw it, the whole system Is corrupt but nothing is unbreakable I will die trying! I really will, morning noon and night I'm on this now! Sooner or later the cracks will appear and we will make a breakthrough, nobody is unbreakable. I would  ask your MP  to pressure liz truss into changing the sentences to determinate sentences, remind them that the sentence was abolished in 2012 but not for those still serving one which is unfair, I'd also ask for them to enquire somebody higher than liz truss to have a full investigation as to why this is being allowed to continue, ask them to attend the protest  on your behalf, also maybe ask them to enquire for evidence that courses actually reduce reoffending, and maybe ask the relevant people if it is in fact safe to keep him jailed beyond his tariff expiry with the current state of prisons, because if an ipp prisoner is killed by another prisoner I'm sure it will raise concern that someone so severely over tariff should've still been there in the first place! Bring up all the risks of him being there to long, like mental health, loss of family life etc... Hope this helps .

Ireland Apparently theres 2500 unopened letters from ipp families sat on liz truss desk...So apparently theres 2500 unopened letters from ipp families sat on liz truss desk...i am seriously strugglin, im strugglin to get support from his family let alone get anyone else to back it, ive been trying to get mental health protesters to unite and see if i can get them to come to double our numbers, travel is an issue for most but its london! No matter where u are theres always a way to get there and you have time to save to get the money so its no excuse, how are you getting on.Personally i am not arsed about the money, i would much rather just have him out license free, but if theyre doin pay outs they clearly know theyre wrong???? So why not just bloody release them. We just have to keep pushing, yes its tired and we hit roadblocks but then we find a new wayOur priority is getting them home of course it is but it is worth then seeing if theyre entitled to anything, they need all bloody help they can get.

Morris  Liz Truss is  a disgrace,  only way we can get het out is through a vote of no confidence

Umm We should do a petition to get lis Truss  removed from Parliament the lack of common sense from her brain is unreal.  So glad that I ain't waste paper and a stamp on that waste women liz tRSS .. 😠 But I think it's better then having her useless bum ...doing nothing as it is like how long is taking to do anything... It's will be better then having someone that really don't care at all.well it wouldn't shock me to be honest we need a detective to dig out the mug that that Liz truss is..well it wouldn't shock me to be honest we need a detective to dig out the mug that that Liz truss is. What can the mp do for them? As I've contacted the local one and not got much help

Zing lis Truss cant represent anyone if she doesn't read what they want from their "representative" Ford I wrote to lis Truss & was fobbed of with a useless reply from NOMS, but will keep at it to this pitiless, ignorant woman.

Mccarthy When Hanging was Abolished, Did they carry on Hanging ppl ?I Doubt it, so Why they holding our loved ones?, Ipps Abolished, f/king release them, They say it was lawfully imposed by a Judge, Yes I agree, But they done there sentence some of them 2, 3 times over, so nothing would be going against the sentencing judge do they not get it.?,only one word MUPPETS, Soz for the swearing just a bit upset tonight, How we as Families are being punished as well as the ipps,Ive been through everyday of this sentence with my boy, Like many others and who feels it, Knows it, feeling Disgusted, we got to make this year 2017 the year of change, And get our loved ones Home.
Why was Ipp only introduced in England, and wales,? and not Ireland and Scotland, we all in uk?wonder what the difference.Maybe we need to ask Michael Gove to have another word with the Hopeless Liz truss, we need Executive Clemency for All over tariff Ipps, we need it NOW, Its well overdue, if she doesn't do it she needs the sack, And whoever takes her place made to do it, This is a Total injustice,on a corrupt sentence that no longer exsists, we need a Barrister who believes in us and the flawed ipp, to do more, more claims for compensation, for unlawful detention.

Pettit By doing this if possible it would then mean those who have in the past not being able to participate in protests or meetings will have the opportunity to do their bit without compromising their health and their welfare. We can all do our bit to contribute in the hope all IPP,s can get a release date or some other change that helps them and us.. We are all suffering inside and out.That needs to stop.

Cooke Ireland and Scotland have separate legal systems. Northern Ireland has the same as UK.Scotland and Ireland not as evil as England lol

Chaddock Contact your Mp and the Mp of the area the prisons in I did it for my bro he got iPp 1year44 days tarrif he has served 11 he is coming out 6 march keep on at MPs citizen advice they will soon Listin as long as they keep their head down.

Horton The mental health issue is a really important point because the stresses on IPP prisoners mean that the longer they are in, the less likely it is that they will be able to "prove" that they are no longer dangerous, as they will be more likely to kick off. And the fairness issue - many dangerous prisoners are being released because they have determinate sentences, whereas IPPs who are in most cases less dangerous are stuck in prison. I hope you have a good MP.

No comments:

Post a Comment