Total Pageviews

Wednesday 9 October 2024

How many more need to die before we finally dismantle prisons and redirect resources. Relatives of offenders serving the now-abolished IPP prison sentence demand a parliamentary investigation into mental health provision for their loved ones. prisoner serving an endless IPP sentence and 132 deaths.


Saria Hart Inquest said : 

“Saria’s Hart last words to prison staff in a written note were: “I am done not being listened to anymore”. Her words which were ignored during her last hours be heard now by the government, parliamentarians and policy makers? 

 Jury finds serious failings and that staff contributed to her death

Before HM Senior Coroner Peter NietoDerby Coroner’s Court 25 September – 3 October 2024

Saria Hart, 26, died in hospital on 13 October 2019 after ligaturing at HMP Foston Hall nine days earlier. She had been remanded to custody only seven weeks before. Now an inquest found that serious failings by prison staff contributed to her death.

Saria was born in Tamworth, the third of seven children. Her family describe her as a sociable person with a big heart who loved being around people.

She had a long history of anxiety, depression and self-harm.

On 14 August 2019, Saria was arrested. During her arrest, she threatened to self-harm and take her own life whilst holding a knife. Saria who  was subsequently remanded to Foston Hall on 16 August 2019.

Before Saria arrived at the prison, the prison was informed that there was a self-harm alert for Saria. Her medical record, available to the prison, also detailed her history of self-harm and ligaturing in prison previously, including at HMP Foston Hall.

Despite this, following an initial screening and health assessment, no safety plan for prisoners at risk of suicide or self-harm (known as an ACCT) was put in place.

On 3 October, Saria was restrained by a number of prison officers following an incident on the wing in which she was allegedly abusive towards staff.

As a result of this, she was suspended from her job as a wing cleaner, was placed on a basic regime losing access to certain privileges, and was placed in segregation pending an adjudication.

The Custodial Manager involved in this incident gave evidence at the inquest and stated that “there was absolutely no need to segregate Saria”.

Later that day, Saria passed a handwritten note to a prison officer detailing her intent to take her own life if she lost her job. In response to this note, an ACCT was put in place which detailed that Saria was to be observed twice an hour by prison staff.

On 4 October, during Saria’s ACCT assessment she disclosed that she wanted to die and that she had plans to end her life and refused to hand over razor blades in her room to staff. This information was not passed on to staff responsible for reviewing the assessment and devising a plan to manage Saria’s risk.

 

At the inquest, none of the staff conducting the ACCT assessment or review could be sure that they had seen Saria’s note, which had prompted the opening of the ACCT in the first place.

No steps were taken to remove high risk items from Saria’s room, no referral was made to the mental health team, and her observation level remained at two per hour.

Giving evidence at the inquest, one member of staff suggested that there was a blasé attitude towards notes from prisoners “threatening” self-harm or suicide, and that these notes were not taken as seriously as they should be.

Saria was taken straight from the review to an adjudication for the altercation which took place on the previous day. She was found guilty and was further punished, including by losing 50% of her earnings.

At 3.40pm, Saria passed a second note to staff expressing her distress and further detailing her intent to take her own life. No action was taken in relation to this note.

Shortly afterwards, at 4.45pm, Saria was found ligatured in her cell by the same member of staff that she had passed her second note to. An emergency ‘Code Blue’ was called and Saria was taken to Royal Derby Hospital where she passed away nine days later, on 13 October 2019.

The jury concluded that Saria died by suicide.  They found a number of serious failings by the prison staff contributed to her death, including that:

All relevant information / previous history was not available to be considered in the first ACCT review;

After the adjudication, no further ACCT case reviews was implemented and no adequate immediate response was given to Saria’s note;

All previous self-harm / suicide attempt history attempt history was not considered at the first ACCT assessment review;

ACCT assessment interview did not appropriately identify Saria’s triggers and risks.

The jury also considered that the absence of Saria’s suicide note and ACCT document during the ACCT review and adjudication on 4 October meant that key information regarding her mental health and her risks was not considered and missed by staff.

Karen Brown, Saria’s mother said:“Saria, our riri, was a bubbly, cheeky girl who loved being around people. We had our good days and our bad days like any other family, but she meant so much to all of us. We all miss her dearly and still think about her every day.

We are still so hurt and angry that Saria died in circumstances where she was clearly begging for help and nobody took any notice.

Five years on from Saria’s passing, the jury has confirmed what we have always known – that more should have been done to prevent Saria’s death.”

Erica San, of Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, said: “A number of preventative and risk reducing measures were available to the prison staff to manage Saria’s risk: a safer cell with fewer ligature points, constant observations, removal of certain dangerous items from her cell. Instead, prison staff ignored and dismissed Saria’s cries for help.

The most recent HMIP inspection found that the response to women in crisis was ‘too reactive, uncaring and often punitive’. This was all too clear from the evidence heard at Saria’s inquest, and there is no evidence that the attitudes of the prison officers who remain at HMP Foston Hall have changed.”

Selen Cavcav, Senior Caseworker at INQUEST, said: “Saria’s last words to prison staff in a written note were: “I am done not being listened to anymore”. Will her words which were ignored during her last hours be heard now by the government, parliamentarians and policy makers?   

Too many women like Saria have been ignored, disciplined, segregated and punished instead of being given the care they need and deserve.

Since Saria’s death, 38 people have died in women’s prisons in the UK. Yet despite the long catalogue of failures and warnings from inquests and investigations, we continue to lock women up to die.

How many more women need to die before we finally dismantle prisons and redirect resources to holistic, gender responsive community services?”

For further information or to note your interest, please contact Leila Hagmannon leilahagmann@inquest.org.uk.Saria’s family are represented by Inquest Lawyers Group members Erica San of Bhatt Murphy Solicitors and Matthew Turner of Doughty Street Chambers.


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


Relatives of offenders serving the now-abolished IPP prison sentence demand a parliamentary investigation into mental health provision for their loved ones.

Families have called for an inquiry into mental health provision for offenders languishing on indefinite jail terms - saying it could "save lives".

Relatives of offenders still serving a now-abolished open-ended jail term, known as imprisonment for public protection (IPP), believe resources are so "starved" that the remaining prisoners now have "life-long mental health issues".

They have written to parliament's Justice Select Committee urging it to hold an inquiry now a new government is power.

In letters to the committee seen by Sky News, family members directly attribute the deterioration of their loved ones' mental health to the prison sentence which has no release date and has been described as a form of "psychological torture" by human rights experts.

There has been 132 deaths of those given an IPP sentence

Numbers raise concerns over IPP indefinite jail terms after deaths .Matthew Price took his own life while on licence under an imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentence 10 years after his release from jail.John Hobson said Mr Price's mental health "had been adversely affected" by the continuing impact of the sentence. Coroner raises concern over indefinite jail terms after man's death - BBC News

Clara White, whose brother Thomas White has served 12 and a half years in prison for stealing a mobile phone, told the MPs on the committee - which is yet to be formally set up following the general election - that her brother now lives with psychosis as a result of the IPP sentence.

"From the year 2016 Thomas has been displaying religious hallucinations, religious delusions and unusual ways of thinking," she wrote.

"The prison environment and long 12-and-a-half-year incarceration is the reason Thomas now lives with paranoid schizophrenia."

"The purpose of my letter is to ask will you consider opening an inquiry into mental health provision," she added.

"I am certain this would save lives in custody."

What are IPP sentences?

IPP sentences were a type of sentence the courts could impose from 2005 until they were abolished in 2012.

They were intended for serious violent and sexual offenders who posed a significant risk of serious harm to the public but whose crimes did not warrant a life term.

Although the government's stated aim was public protection, concerns quickly grew that IPP sentences were being applied too broadly and catching more minor offenders, who often ended up serving years beyond their initial term.

The coalition government scrapped the sentence in 2012, but the change was not applied retrospectively, meaning nearly 3,000 prisoners remain behind bars - including about 1,200 who have never been released.

To date, 90 people serving IPP sentences have taken their own lives in prison.

In light of the overcrowding crisis that has engulfed UK prisons, the Ministry of Justice is under pressure from campaigners to consider a resentencing exercise for IPP prisoners, which could result in them being given a release date for the first time.

IPP has destroyed us as a family'

Cherrie Nichol's brother Aaron Graham was 26 years old when he was sentenced to two years and 124 days for committing grievous bodily harm in 2005. He remains in prison 18 years later.

In her letter to the committee, Ms Nichol said her brother was now a "shadow of his former self" and had suffered "catastrophic" mental health problems as a result of his IPP sentence.

"Not knowing where his life is going and when he may be released has painfully destroyed him and us as a family," she wrote.


She said she did not believe the prison service has been "properly equipped to deal with the backlash of the abolished IPP", leaving many "languishing with no hope and no future and professionals coming and going and not being able to make decisions".

"We are desperate as family members and campaigners to really push for you to acknowledge the mental health issues caused by the IPP," she added.

Prisoners 'must not be forgotten'

In a recent interview with Sky News, Andy Slaughter, the chair-elect of the Justice Select Committee, warned that remaining IPP prisoners must not be "forgotten" by the government.

The Labour MP for Hammersmith and Chiswick and former solicitor said it had been over a decade since IPPs were repealed "but we still have this situation where over 1,000 people have never been released from prison".

"Everyone admits this is wrong, everyone thinks a solution should be found for serving prisoners, but there is this fear that resentencing will include dangerous people," he said.

Mr Slaughter said a resentencing exercise - which was also demanded by Bob Neill, the former Conservative chair of the justice committee - "would allow each individual case to be assessed in a transparent and professional way.

"It means that it's not a quick and dirty solution, it's a proper solution that might take up to two years to implement.

"Wholesale change like resentencing is for the government to make a decision on - but these are forgotten people in prison and I hope it is something that will be high up the agenda."

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: "It is right that IPP sentences were abolished. We are significantly shortening licence periods for rehabilitated offenders to give them the chance to move on with their lives.

"With public protection as the number one priority, the lord chancellor is working with organisations and campaign groups to ensure appropriate action is taken to support those still serving these sentences."

Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK. In the US, call the Samaritans branch in your area or 1 (800) 273-TALK.

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


 6th October 2024

Britain’s first IPP prisoner “lost” and fears he will never be be released.

Nicholas Bidar was left broken and “humiliated” when a Parole Board panel refused to recommend his release or move to open conditions earlier this year.

The 36-year-old was handed a IPP SENTENCE and to do an eight-year minimum aged just 20 in 2008.

But 16 years later, he is still being held in a Category A prison with no release date.

To raise awareness of his plight, he applied to be the first IPP prisoner to have his parole hearing held in public after new laws came into force to increase transparency around parole decisions.

head of the landmark hearing in March.

 Mr Bidar told The Independent how the reality of his uncertain sentence has impacted him, adding: “Every day feels like torture. I struggle daily to get through the day.”

He insisted his status has left him a “political prisoner” after a 2021 parole review had recommended him for progression to open conditions, but this was blocked by the secretary of state for justice, who refused to downgrade him.

In their latest refusal, the Parole Board admitted his Category A status was “interfering” with his progress in prison and urgently called for this to be reviewed. But six months later, no such review has taken place.

Now his family says he has completely lost the person he was and he is losing hope of ever being freed from maximum security HMP Long Lartin in Worcestershire.

“He has taken a massive step back,” a family spokesperson told The Independent, adding there has been

“no progress” regarding his categorisation.

“He’s gone from a state of thinking, ‘I am going to be home at some point’, and now he says he’s never coming home. It’s not happening. That’s his mindset – no one is going to help.

“He called us the other day, we had a prison video call. He just said what is the point in my waking up anymore.

“It’s so difficult to hear that.

“It’s so difficult when he’s seeing people walk out of the door. Some of these people have committed sexual crimes or potentially murdered someone, and he’s there for a crime he committed when he was 20.”

IPP jail terms were introduced under New Labour in 2005 and saw offenders given a minimum tariff but no maximum. They were scrapped in 2012 amid human rights concerns, but not for those already detained.

Of 2,734 remaining IPP prisoners with no release date, more than 700 have served more than 10 years longer than their minimum tariff.

Know fault of their own.

The government is facing growing pressure to resentence them after at least 132 inmates have taken their own lives under the jail term, which has been branded “psychological torture” by the UN.

But he insisted he had completed his sentence plan and told the parole board members: “I’m not that person anymore.”

Mr Bidar’s family fears that without hope of being released, he will only decline in prison. They also backed a private members bill tabled last month for all outstanding IPP prisoners to be resentenced.

“If he stays in until he’s 40 or 45 things are not going to get better,” they added. “He’s not going to learn any more lessons.

“He’s just going to deteriorate. Keeping him in now doesn’t achieve anything.

It’s causing IPP prisoners like him mental health problems.”

The family said conditions inside the maximum-security prison were squalid – with Mr Bidar spending 23 hours a day in a cell with only a bucket to use as a toilet. A recent water contamination issue left him vomiting into the same bucket for weeks, they added.

“What he did was a long time ago,” they said. “He was a young, stupid kid. But he just made the wrong choice and I just think he needs one chance.”

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “It is right that IPP sentences were abolished. We are significantly shortening licence periods for some rehabilitated offenders and supporting those still serving these sentences.


HOWARD  LEAGUE  ARGUE THERE NOT GETTING THE SUPPORT

Sentence planning and progression 

Sentence plans should form the basis of how time in prison is spent, comprising (of) a bespoke set of goals tailored to a prisoner’s rehabilitative needs. A well-designed plan will incrementally reduce risk so that the subject is released back into society in a better position than when they arrived in prison. Yet with staffing shortages, overcrowding, and excessive time spent in cells, these plans are often lacking in detail, or absent altogether.  

Without a sentence plan, rehabilitative work fails to happen, and time is wasted. Yet even those with sentence plans can struggle, particularly if they are directed to complete courses which are not available at their prison. 

1.“Having been incarcerated four-plus years, I still have not received a final sentence plan. My last meeting with a Probation Offender Manager was November 2023, unannounced, no file evident in their presence and no knowledge what I have achieved.” – Christian 

2.“The panel at my 2023 hearing directed me to complete a ‘domestic violence’ course. However, all establishments that I had been referred to have rejected my case due to not suitable or don’t fit the criteria. Due to this I am back to square one and as of 2024, I have not been accepted…Lack of courses available and a huge lack of efficiency.” – Mohammed / Mumdy

3.“Lack of progression to category C conditions due to population pressure and therefore access to courses, and ultimately category D, followed by potential knock back at parole. Whilst I have only been at Cat C for seven months, some have been waiting 18 to 36 months for a move.” – Dan

4“Let prisoners take their programs earlier on in their sentence so they can progress, freeing up spaces in closed prisons for more deserving prisoners. Also expand the amount of classes per year. At Swinfen Hall most of the programs run once a year. There is no way everyone will do their program here before they get released.” – Anonymous

Bureaucracy 

The issues with sentence planning touch upon some of the wider bureaucratic issues faced by people in prison. The archaic paper-based systems in place were highlighted frequently in the responses that we received, which are felt to erode trust and accountability.  

5.“Since coming here, it took almost 2 years before I saw an Offender Manager…My last jail you had a sentence plan meeting each year and had regular contact with OMU. 

A better communication would work well here. Easier Complaint procedures and more openness on issues when dealt with.” – Brian 

4.“All applications and complaints should be at least “Duplicate”. Video cameras should be worn by all staff on landings at the first sign of an altercation, turned on. Failure to do so should be punished. Real accountability. Not just platitudes and inaction as well get rid of obfuscation.” – Alphonso

5.“Make report writers accountable for misleading information, compelling them to be clear, accurate, and tell the truth.” – Simon

6.“Poor internal communication, the intranet is used only a fraction of what it could be used for…Open up technology access.” – Stephen

Staff 

7.Good staff can be the difference between a productive prison and a chaotic, pernicious custodial environment. But members wrote to us about staff shortages, high turnover and inexperience on the landings.  

8.“Prisons all appear to be short staffed and many staff are new with no real life experience, they know nothing about our sentences and seem to think issuing written warnings or adjudications is how to deal with minor issues. Regime activities get cancelled last minute and we never know what our day will be. It’s very frustrating and causes behaviour problems.” – James / Honest Irish

9.“There is never money for anything, consistent high turnover of staff, the use of teenagers straight from college as officers with little or no life experiences. The lack of investment over decades, the increase of prisoner population and lengths of sentences and the lack of rehabilitation has created a prison system which is broken.” – Tahir

10“In all prisons we are hearing of prison staff shortage. In some places it is blatantly seen that staff are changing routinely shifts and openly abusing the system…prison officers tend to lock prisoners down during association times, evening and at disrupting prisoners free time.” – George

11“Even here at a relatively relaxed prison with little of the drugs and violence of other establishments, insufficient staff, lack of purposeful activity and no rehabilitative culture leads to a community that results in a mainly apathetic and cynical population – not a preparation for a positive crime-free life on release.” – Bruce

Cost of living 

Like those outside prison, people living in prison have been hit by the cost-of-living crisis. Wages are low and inconsistent, and the provisions of food and phone credit are limited. Issues like these have an immediate effect on prison life, but also lead to debt, bullying, and further crime. At the same time, members have noticed that some services in prison have been affected by funding pressures. 

“[L]ow wages, rising canteen prices and declining food variety and quality impact prisoners’ daily lives.” – Bruce

“Prison wages is obviously a main point for everybody. Prisoners in debt a big issue nationwide … DHL have the monopoly with their ‘canteen’ prices. Way too expensive and lots of price increases and the prisoners wage stays the same.” – Matthew

“Not being paid a decent wage, its slave labour and a job done in prison made me £2 per day making settees chairs for council packs…This creates debt bullying, self harm, depression, and I personally turned to drugs…Value prisoners who work, give 75% wage to victims of crime (Charities) and 10% in prisoner savings for release and 15% to spend in prison, pay us hourly wages even 5 an hour, what a change this would make as victims deserve it, and prisoners also deserve an average wage for work.” – Steven.  

 Our next blogpost will look at members’ observations on issues in the wider criminal justice system, beyond prisons. 

Charlie Poyser says: 27/24. I really don’t need to add anything to what’s already been said in this blog post. Having been released in July, I can recognise all these comments as a realistic appraisal of the state of the prison estate.

The Howard League | What the government should be focusing on, according to Howard League members in prison

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


12 August 2024

IPP prisoner.  Alexander McColl and Alexa Thompson succeed in quashing Parole Board failure to hold an oral hearing

Mr Taylor was a recalled IPP prisoner who sought re-release and applied for an oral hearing before the Parole Board in order to present his case. On 29th June 2023, the Parole Board decided on the papers that there should be no direction for re-release and that an oral hearing could not be convened due to there being outstanding risk reduction work to be completed. Further submissions were made on behalf of the Claimant as to why the case should proceed to an oral hearing. In a further decision on 4th July 2023 an oral hearing was again refused, this time on the basis that the Claimant’s representations raised no new matters that had not already been taken into account in the original decision and there were therefore no grounds for overturning that decision.

The Claimant challenged the decisions by judicial review, arguing that:

The refusal to convene an oral hearing was procedurally unfair;

The Defendant failed to give adequate reasons for its decision; and

In its second decision, the Defendant erroneously treated the application for an oral hearing as a review of the original decision, rather than focusing on whether an oral hearing should take place.

Recorder Wright KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, applying the Osborn principles, found that procedural fairness required an oral hearing in order to facilitate an effective assessment of risk. An oral hearing would have given the Claimant the opportunity to demonstrate his ability to comply with licence conditions, particularly as he had spent several years on licence in the community since his initial release. An oral hearing would have also facilitated a better assessment of risk, particularly in view of an absence of evidence from a Prison Offender Manager.

On the second ground, it was held that the reasoning of the Parole Board in the first decision failed to provide sufficient detail to enable the Claimant to understand why the decision to deny him an oral hearing had been made. The second decision similarly was found to contain inadequate reasoning as ‘[t]hey did not engage in any meaningful sense with the arguments that had been raised’.

Finally, it was decided that the Parole Board in its second decision erred in its approach by approaching its task as a review of the first decision, rather than focusing on the question of whether fairness required an oral hearing. The High Court quashed the decisions of the Parole Board and directed that an oral hearing should take place.


Alexander McColl drafted the Detailed Statement of Grounds and Claimant’s Skeleton Argument. Alexa Thompson conducted the substantive hearing in the High Court. Instructed by Matthew Bellusci of Duncan Lewis Solicitors.has established a prison law practice. She regularly represents prisoners before the Parole Board in applications for release and moves to open conditions on behalf of lifers, IPP, and determinate sentence prisoners. She also has experience of public law challenges and recently appeared before the High Court in a successful judicial review concerning the Parole Board’s failure to convene an oral hearing in R (Taylor) v Parole Board and Secretary of State for Justice [2024] EWHC 1363 (Admin).



The judgment of the High Court can be found here.

                                                                               B e f o r e :

Richard Wright KC Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court
____________________

Between:

The King (On the Application of Ezekel Taylor)

Claimant

- and -

The Parole Board for England and Wales

Defendant

- and -

Secretary of State for Justice

Interested Party

____________________

Alexa Thompson (instructed by Duncan Lewis Solicitors) for the Claimant
The Defendant and Interested Party did not attend and were not represented

Hearing date: 30th May 2024
____________________

HTML VERSION OF APPROVED JUDGMENT

____________________


Richard Wright KC: 

The Claimant Ezekel Taylor is a recalled IPP prisoner. He challenges the decisions of the Parole Board taken on 19th June 2023 and 4th July 2023 refusing to grant him an oral hearing. The decision that there should be no oral hearing became final on 25th July 2023. I granted permission to bring this claim on 12th April 2024. The other parties have remained neutral and taken no active part in the proceedings.

The Facts

On 25th June 2007, the Claimant was made the subject of a sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection. The sentence comprised a custodial term of 5 years and 185 days for offences of wounding with intent and possession of a firearm. He was on the same occasion sentenced to an extended sentence of 12 months' imprisonment with a 12-month extended licence for an offence of affray, and further concurrent sentence of 4 months imprisonment in respect of an offence related to the possession of drugs.

The Claimant's tariff expired on 27th December 2012 and he was released on licence on 16th January 2018. He remained on licence until 5th September 2022 until he was recalled to custody having been charged with new offences of intentional strangulation and assault by beating. The Claimant was in due course convicted of those new offences and sentenced to 9 months imprisonment on 5 May 2023. His conditional release date from that new sentence was the 18th September 2023.

Section 32 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 gives the Defendant power to direct the release of recalled prisoners. In accordance with that provision and following the expiry of the custodial element of his new sentence on the 15th September 2022 the Interested Party referred the Claimant to the Defendant via the Public Protection Casework Section.

On 16th June 2023 a written application for an oral hearing was submitted to the Defendant on behalf of the Claimant by his solicitors. On 19th June 2023 the Defendant determined that there should be no direction for release in the Claimant's case. That decision was made on the papers without an oral hearing. The Defendant provided the following written explanation for its decision not to hold an oral hearing in the Claimant's case:

"In making this decision the panel has considered this case against the principles set out in the case of Osborn, Booth & Reilly [2013] UKSC 61 concerning oral hearings.

The panel does not find that there are any reasons for an oral hearing. However, if it is believed that this case should proceed to an oral hearing, further representations should be submitted to the Parole Board within 28 days of receipt of this decision outlining why it should proceed to a hearing."

The decision went on:

"An oral hearing cannot be justified in the absence of offence-focussed work to address the areas of risk that arise out of the new conviction."

On 19th June 2023 the Claimant's solicitors made written representations as to why his case should proceed to an oral hearing. On 4th July the Defendant refused the Claimants request for an oral hearing in these terms:

"The MCA Duty Member saw a dossier of 236 pages including a 'no release' decision by an MCA member dated 19 June 2023. The dossier includes legal representations dated 16 June 2023 which were considered by the MCA member in reaching their decision.

Further representations dated 19 June 2023 have now been made. The MCA duty Member has carefully considered those further representations and concluded that they do not raise any issues which were not included in the representations in the dossier dated 16 June 2023 and which were taken into account in making the 'no release' decision. The MCA Duty Member therefore does not find any grounds for overturning the 'no release' decision." [HB/271]

No application for reconsideration was submitted by the Claimant and in accordance with the Parole Board Rules 2019, and in particular with Rule 20(6)(a), the decision of the Defendant became final on 25 July 2023.

The Claim

The Claimant advances three grounds of challenge to the decision of the Defendant, these were helpfully set out in the focused skeleton argument prepared by Alexander McColl and ably amplified during the hearing by Miss Thompson.

Ground One is that the Defendant's refusal on 19 June 2023 and 4 July 2023 to grant the Claimant an oral hearing before refusing his application for release was procedurally unfair contrary to the Claimant's:

(i) common law rights; and

(ii) his rights under Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights ('ECHR');

Ground Two is that the Defendant, on 19 June 2023 and 4 July 2023, unlawfully failed to give any or any adequate reasons for its decision to refuse the Claimant's application for release without an oral hearing;

Ground Three is that the Defendant's refusal on 4 July 2023 to grant the Claimant an oral hearing was procedurally unfair and/or irrational in that it erroneously treated the application for an oral hearing as a review of the 19 June 2023 decision, where it should have assessed the necessity of an oral hearing.

Although the Claim relates to two decisions (those of 19th June and 4th July, becoming final on 25th July), I treat the Claim as being in effect against one overall decision taken by the Defendant, namely, to direct 'no release' without convening an oral hearing.

The Law

In R (Osborn) v The Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61the Supreme Court reviewed the relevant principles to be applied in relation to oral hearings. Lord Reed gave the following general guidance at Paragraph 2 of his Judgement:

2. It may be helpful to summarise at the outset the conclusions which I have reached.

i) In order to comply with common law standards of procedural fairness, the board should hold an oral hearing before determining an application for release, or for a transfer to open conditions, whenever fairness to the prisoner requires such a hearing in the light of the facts of the case and the importance of what is at stake. By doing so the board will also fulfil its duty under section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 to act compatibly with article 5(4) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in circumstances where that article is engaged.

ii) It is impossible to define exhaustively the circumstances in which an oral hearing will be necessary, but such circumstances will often include the following:

a) Where facts which appear to the board to be important are in dispute, or where a significant explanation or mitigation is advanced which needs to be heard orally in order fairly to determine its credibility. The board should guard against any tendency to underestimate the importance of issues of fact which may be disputed or open to explanation or mitigation.

b) Where the board cannot otherwise properly or fairly make an independent assessment of risk, or of the means by which it should be managed and addressed. That is likely to be the position in cases where such an assessment may depend upon the view formed by the board (including its members with expertise in psychology or psychiatry) of characteristics of the prisoner which can best be judged by seeing or questioning him in person, or where a psychological assessment produced by the Ministry of Justice is disputed on tenable grounds, or where the board may be materially assisted by hearing evidence, for example from a psychologist or psychiatrist. Cases concerning prisoners who have spent many years in custody are likely to fall into the first of these categories.

c) Where it is maintained on tenable grounds that a face to face encounter with the board, or the questioning of those who have dealt with the prisoner, is necessary in order to enable him or his representatives to put their case effectively or to test the views of those who have dealt with him.

d) Where, in the light of the representations made by or on behalf of the prisoner, it would be unfair for a "paper" decision made by a single member panel of the board to become final without allowing an oral hearing: for example, if the representations raise issues which place in serious question anything in the paper decision which may in practice have a significant impact on the prisoner's future management in prison or on future reviews.

iii) In order to act fairly, the board should consider whether its independent assessment of risk, and of the means by which it should be managed and addressed, may benefit from the closer examination which an oral hearing can provide.

iv) The board should also bear in mind that the purpose of holding an oral hearing is not only to assist it in its decision-making, but also to reflect the prisoner's legitimate interest in being able to participate in a decision with important implications for him, where he has something useful to contribute.

v) The question whether fairness requires a prisoner to be given an oral hearing is different from the question whether he has a particular likelihood of being released or transferred to open conditions and cannot be answered by assessing that likelihood.

vi) When dealing with cases concerning recalled prisoners, the board should bear in mind that the prisoner has been deprived of his freedom, albeit conditional. When dealing with cases concerning post-tariff indeterminate sentence prisoners, it should scrutinise ever more anxiously whether the level of risk is unacceptable, the longer the time the prisoner has spent in prison following the expiry of his tariff.

vii) The board must be, and appear to be, independent and impartial. It should not be predisposed to favour the official account of events, or official assessments of risk, over the case advanced by the prisoner.

viii) The board should guard against any temptation to refuse oral hearings as a means of saving time, trouble and expense.

ix) The board's decision, for the purposes of this guidance, is not confined to its determination of whether or not to recommend the prisoner's release or transfer to open conditions, but includes any other aspects of its decision (such as comments or advice in relation to the prisoner's treatment needs or the offending behaviour work which is required) which will in practice have a significant impact on his management in prison or on future reviews.

x) "Paper" decisions made by single member panels of the board are provisional. The right of the prisoner to request an oral hearing is not correctly characterised as a right of appeal. In order to justify the holding of an oral hearing, the prisoner does not have to demonstrate that the paper decision was wrong, or even that it may have been wrong: what he has to persuade the board is that an oral hearing is appropriate.

xi) In applying this guidance, it will be prudent for the board to allow an oral hearing if it is in doubt whether to do so or not.

xii) The common law duty to act fairly, as it applies in this context, is influenced by the requirements of article 5(4) as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights. Compliance with the common law duty should result in compliance also with the requirements of article 5(4) in relation to procedural fairness.

xiii) A breach of the requirements of procedural fairness under article 5(4) will not normally result in an award of damages under section 8 of the Human Rights Act unless the prisoner has suffered a consequent deprivation of liberty.

In the course of her submissions before me Miss Thompson referred to the decisions of the Administrative Court in R (Stubbs) v The Parole Board [2021] EWHC 605 (Admin), R (Dich and Murphy) v The Parole Board [2023] EWHC 945 (Admin) and R (Garmson) v The Parole Board [2024] EWHC 1106 (Admin). Each of those cases exemplifies the application of the Osborn principles to the individual facts of each case. These are all necessarily fact specific decisions and no point of general principle can be derived from them.

As regards the duty upon the Defendant to give reasons for its decision the obligation was clearly articulated by Lord Brown of Eaton-Under-Heywood in South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953, at para 36:

"The reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be adequate. They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the "principal important controversial issues", disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved. Reasons can be briefly stated, the degree of particularity required depending entirely on the nature of the issues falling for decision. The reasoning must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decision-maker erred in law, for example by misunderstanding some relevant policy or some other important matter or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant ground."

Submissions

Ground One – Procedural Unfairness

As to the first Ground Miss Thompson submitted that fairness to the Claimant dictated that his case required an oral hearing. She amplified that broad statement by reference to six factors:

(i) That there was a clear dispute arising from the Risk Management Plan as to whether the Claimant's risk could be adequately managed in thecommunity.

(ii) The Claimant's Community Offender Manager had concluded that he had a demonstrable ability to comply with a further period of licence conditions. A face-to-face hearing would have enabled the Claimant to put his case effectively and demonstrate his ability to comply.

(iii) The Claimant had not been allocated a Prison Offender Manager during his recall to custody. The Defendant was therefore in possession of incomplete information and that could be rectified at an oral hearing.

(iv) The Claimant had previously demonstrated an ability to comply with licence conditions between 2017 and 2021.

(v) Without a further opportunity to consider whether he could again comply at an oral hearing no fair conclusion could be reached in this regard.

(vi) The Claimant had indicated an intention to appeal against his conviction for the offence that had resulted in his recall. The Defendant could not proceed on the basis that there was a reasonable prospect of the appeal being allowed but equally it was wrong to treat his denial as false absent an oral hearing.

In support of this final proposition Miss Thompson relied upon the observation by Lord Bingham in R (Oyston) [2000] EWCA Crim 3552 that:

"In almost any case the Board would be quite wrong to treat the prisoner's denial as irrelevant, but also quite wrong to treat a prisoner's denial as necessarily conclusive against the grant of parole."

Miss Thompson submitted that the only reason given for refusing an oral hearing, namely that 'An oral hearing cannot be justified in the absence of offence-focussed work to address the areas of risk that arise out of the new conviction' simply could not be sustained if fairly balanced against the six factors that she had advanced in favour of such a hearing. She submitted that fairness dictated that the Claimant should have an opportunity at an oral hearing to demonstrate that such risk reduction work could be carried out in the community.

Ground Two – Duty to Give Reasons

Miss Thompson submitted that the reasons that were given in the 19th June decision were in the form of standard wording drawn from the Defendant's Member Assessment Guidance from October 2022 and in particular from Paragraph 6.9 of that Guidance:

It is strongly recommended that the standard form of words is used to refer to the judgment in each case. This is because the text is comprehensive and is based on legal advice and is, therefore, less open to challenge. It is easy to insert this prepared standard wording in the paper decision template, saving the member time in paraphrasing.

The panel has considered the principles set out in the case of Osborn, Booth and Reilly (2013) UKSC 61 concerning oral hearings. It has not found that there are any reasons to hold an oral hearing. [but note whether any representations have been submitted]. Therefore, this case is not being directed to an oral hearing.

Although the following Paragraph of the Guidance provides (Paragraph 6.10) that 'This wording should be expanded to suit particular circumstances', there was no expansion in the Claimant's case. It was submitted to me that it was necessary to give expanded reasons in a case where the Claimant had requested an oral hearing and set out reasons for doing so. It was argued that absent further reasons the Claimant could not engage with the Defendant's application of the Osborn factors in his own case. Finally, it was said that the Defendant's own Guidance envisaged that further reasons should be given in a case such as this one.

As regards the decision of the 4th July it was submitted that these merely parrot the earlier decision. Moreover, they reject the submissions made in writing on behalf of the Claimant without setting out any reasoning for doing so. Thus, it was argued these reasons were themselves deficient.

In support of this ground Miss Thompson submitted that the 4th July decision was irrational in that it failed to apply the correct test, namely whether fairness required there to be an oral hearing. In a linked point it was argued that 4th July assessment was approached as if it were merely review of the 19th June decision.

This approach runs contrary to the decision is Osborn, and in particular Paragraph 95 of the Judgement:

95. The unfairness which results from the board's treatment of the request for an oral hearing as an appeal is illustrated by the case of the appellant Booth, in which the ICM assessor identified the critical question as being "whether the grounds of the appeal are justified and if an oral hearing would make any material difference to the paper decision". The request for an oral hearing was thus, decided on the basis that the earlier decision was presumptively correct. This is to put the cart before the horse. If fairness requires an oral hearing, then a decision arrived at without such a hearing is unfair and cannot stand. The question whether an oral hearing is required cannot therefore be decided on the basis of a presumption that a decision taken without such a hearing is correct.

Decision

Ground One – Procedural Unfairness

As the Supreme Court made clear at Paragraph 65 of its Judgement in Osborn it is for this Court to determine for itself whether or not it considers that a fair approach was followed by the Defendant:

"[the Court's] function [when considering whether a fair procedure was followed by a decision-making body such as the Parole Board] is not merely to review the reasonableness of the decision-maker's judgment of what fairness required.".

I have examined that question applying the general principles that were set out in Paragraph 2 of the Judgement in that case.

In doing so I have come to the clear conclusion that procedural fairness in this case required there to have been an oral hearing. The Claimant had previously been released from his sentence on licence and his risk had, for several years been successfully managed in the community. An oral hearing would have afforded the Claimant an opportunity to demonstrate that he could once again be successfully managed in the community and that he was capable of complying with licence conditions. An oral hearing would also have enabled the views of the Claimant's manager to have been explored and tested. It is of course not the role of the Defendant to punish an offender but rather to consider whether the risk that he may pose might be managed on release in the community. An oral hearing would in my Judgement have better enabled that assessment to take place, particularly in the light of the absence of evidence from a Prison Offender Manager.

For all of these reasons and finding that all of the arguments advanced by Miss Thompson (See Paragraph 17 above) in favour of fairness requiring an oral hearing were equally well made out, I am satisfied that the Claim succeeds in respect of Ground One.

Ground Two – Duty to Give Reasons

Through his solicitors the Claimant had set out in writing on 16th June a number of cogent reasons why he argued an oral hearing should take place. Following the decision on the 19th June further detailed written submissions were provided on his behalf. In my Judgement the reasons provided by the Defendant, both on the 19th June and the 4th July were wholly inadequate. Whilst the Defendant was not obliged to accept the arguments that had been advanced in writing it was at least required to demonstrate its engagement with them at some stage of its decision making.

The written reasons given on 19th June adopted the standard wording from the Defendant's own guidance, but that standard wording did no more than set out the test that had to be applied. There was no expansion of the reasoning that would have enabled the Claimant to understand (See Paragraph 16 above) 'why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the "principal important controversial issues", disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved'.

The reasons given for the 4th July decision were in my judgement similarly inadequate. They did not engage in any meaningful sense with the arguments that had been raised in writing, either on 16th June or following the 19th June decision. It follows that when viewed as a whole the decision that became final on 25th July was one in respect of which the Defendant had failed to provide adequate reasons at any stage.

Ground Three – 4th July Decision Procedurally unfair / Irrational

It is clear to me that the criticism of the 4th July decision made by Miss Thompson is properly made out on the facts of this case. The principal matter for consideration was whether fairness to the Claimant dictated that there should be an oral hearing and yet that did not feature in the decision that was communicated to the Claimant. Rather it is clear to me that the decision maker fell into the error identified at Paragraph 95 in Osborn (above) and approached the review of the 19th June decision on the presumption that it was correct and had not been displaced. That was to fall into procedural error and arrive at an irrational decision. This approach to also had the effect of compounding the unfairness that arose from the failure to give adequate reasons for the original 19th June decision.

Conclusion

For the reasons that I have set out above I quash the decisions of the Parole Board of 19th June and 4th July (which became final on 25th July) directing no release without an oral hearing. I direct that there is to be an oral hearing before the Parole Board.BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII

URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2024/1363.html

October 2024

More calls for action from our members in prison
Last week, we shared the thoughts of our members in prison on the day-to-day issues behind bars that the government ought to focus on.

This blogpost looks at what their responses tell us about wider issues, including the work of the probation service, maintaining family ties, and sentencing, particularly sentences of imprisonment for public protection (IPP).

It closes with some reflections on the need for reform of the entire criminal justice system.

Probation 

When we canvassed our members in prison earlier this year, we received more complaints about the probation service than observations on any other topic. And this was before the announcement of the SDS40 early release scheme, which has added to probation caseloads. Members offered some suggestions for how the service could be improved. 

“My Probation Offender Manager has a caseload of 80. That is unsustainable. I have spent my sentence trying to engage with my sentence plan and Offender Manager only to be ignored and rebuffed because I’m not in my release window.” – Simon 

“(Probation) are too risk averse and restrictive: this being at fear of reprisals for themselves instead of focus on victims and prisoners. This often causes log jams in the system. Although they are very busy they ignore prisoner communications and regularly cancel appointments.” – Darren 

“To deliver a better service to the whole community, the focus should be on reducing re-offending, through improved probation & rehabilitation … Meaningful education & training so that those released can earn a living and most importantly, effective support from a well-resourced probation service to deliver quality resettlement provision and re-integration into the community, which would protect the general public better and be seen to be a good use of public funds.” – Bruce 

“A major uplift in probation recruitment and retention. This would probably mean more funding, i.e. to increase wages.” – Charlie 

“A large percentage of people in prison have been recalled by Probation without following the rules as laid down by a parole board I faced. Any one, or all 4 to be followed. 1. A verbal warning. 2. A written warning. 3. A final written warning. 4. A last-chance-saloon type of interview with the probation officer and Head of Probation Services. Probation regularly skip these options, and they get away with it.” – John 

Family

Many members wrote to us about the importance of maintaining family ties, which can help to prevent reoffending. 

Despite a government policy in support of increasing family contact, prisoners are often left wanting. Many are in prisons many miles from their families, making visits difficult and often prohibitively expensive.  

“Focus more on the maintaining of prisoners’ family ties instead of sending people 3+ hours way from their children!” – Lewis 

“I am too far from home and I want to be closer to family. I no longer have any care or enthusiasm to jump hoops for Parole panel/probation etc. I only care about seeing my family/daughter. Only god knows how long I have to live, so long as I have regular visits, I’ll be happy.” – Mohammed / Mumdy 

“I would look at investing in some sort of travel service for prisoners’ families to access prison visits. I would have lots of literature around the hall in regards to LGBTQ+ topics & also about mental health and stop it being a taboo subject.”  – Ryan 

IPP 

The IPP sentence remains a contentious issue. Although the sentence was abolished in 2012, almost 3,000 people who were given it remain in prison today. Members wrote to tell us how this injustice affects not only people serving the sentence, but prisons as a whole.  

“The fact that I, and others are still serving sentences that are illegal is enough to affect us all. We should not be here and one cannot blame the prison staff, but it should be said, the rules in this establishment are changing for the worse.” – Anonymous 

“It’s the not knowing of when I’ll get released. I do not want to die in prison. I suffer from depression and I have done since I was a child. The new governor has implemented a new regime which is very unsettling for all the prisoners here.” – Dan 

“Persecuted by an obsolete law that was abolished 12 years ago, so that it’s legal for me to be scooped up like a fish in a net, dumped into prison, and just left there, until I can be dealt with. The ‘toxic legacy’ of IPP.”  – John 

“Not being able to access many of the services that are for IPP prisoners. The units are too small, 20 by 10 spaces on two units. IPP prisoners are there for a long time, which prevents others taking part. There needs to be a larger unit utilized for all life sentence prisoners, with the correct support in all jails.” – Robert 

“Using judge’s remarks, re-sentence all IPPs to the determinant sentence, which would have been passed, making this exercise easier as it is already documented.” – Simon 

“Well, I feel that us IPP’s have had a rotten deal. And the recent IPP awareness week, you may recall, boiled down to nothing really, just lip service. I’m now convinced that nothing short of a full root and branch reform will make a difference. Anything else is just sticking plaster really.” – Brent 

 

Wider reform 

The comment above was one of several we received from members calling for far-reaching reform of the criminal justice system. I will finish this blogpost with some more of those calls for action.  

“Stop playing to the red-top tabloids with the ‘tough on crime’ mantra aimed squarely at locking up more people for longer with no support and no rehabilitation in deteriorating and under-funded conditions.” – Simon 

“Take politics out of the entire process. Put minimum standards of service into law with associated budget provisions. Listen to and use the experience of the countries that are doing it vastly more successfully, for example, Norway. Dissolve the not fit for purpose IOPC [Independent Office for Police Conduct], IPCI [Independent Prisoner Complaint Investigations], and CCRC [Criminal Cases Review Commission] and start again with independent bodies with teeth, integrity and backbone.” – Geoff 

“There needs to be a smarter use of prison as not all those in prison need the restrictions. Home Detention. GPS tags are useful alternatives. ‘Unpoliticise’ the criminal justice system. A full-time body, not politically affiliated, press or media pressured, or vote driven. Justice systems not affected by general election. Consistency.” – Darren 

“An increase in the funding, quality and range of activities within the mental health services. Give everyone a personal counsellor and you’ll see a significant improvement in behaviour, stability and reoffending. Relationships matter!” – Charlie 

“There’s simply not enough space to write what needs to be done. It is a total overhaul of everything from community structures to rehabilitating offenders …  An unimaginable financial investment to catch up with decades of neglect.” –  Tahir  

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


IST OCTOBER 2024

A Prisoner hoped suicide would change IPP policy

A prisoner serving an endless IPP sentence took his own life in his cell – leaving a note saying that he saw no chance of ever being released.

Sean Davies, 30, died at Swaleside prison in Kent, in February 2023 – a fortnight after the then-Conservative government rejected a call by a committee of MPs for all IPP prisoners to be resentenced.

Davies was issued with an IPP sentence for an offence of violence in November 2012, just a month before they were abolished. His minimum term was five years, meaning he was eligible for parole in 2017, but he was repeatedly turned down for release.

In 2021 he transferred to Swaleside to join the psychologically informed planned environment (PIPE) unit. In April 2022 he was assessed as suitable for transfer to a category C prison, but this was revoked that October after unprescribed medication was found in his cell. Following this, he expressed feelings of hopelessness. 

In September 2022, the House of Commons Justice Select Committee issued a report calling for the resentencing of all IPP prisoners. On 10 February, 2023, Davies was informed that then-justice secretary Dominic Raab had rejected this recommendation. He took his own life in the early hours of February 25.

His inquest

 in August concluded that insufficient welfare checks and a lack of communication between staff played a part in his death. A report by Patricia Harding, senior coroner for mid Kent and Medway, stated: “Mr Davies left a note stating that he had taken his own life because of the IPP sentence.

 He expressed frustration at the slow progress of his sentence, re-categorisation, and concerns about how the Parole Board would view this and his past behaviour. He saw no chance of being released. 

"He went on to say he hoped that his death would contribute to changing the laws of the IPP sentence.”

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


IPP licence reform takes effect in November

A change in the law which will help people on Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences to move on with their lives will take effect in November.

The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 was passed by Parliament in May, days after the general election was called. It includes major reforms to the way IPP licences can be terminated, but these cannot take effect until the new Government sets a commencement date.

Last week, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood told the House of Commons that the changes would be implemented in phases. ‘Phase 1’ will start on November 1, when sections 66 and 67 of the 2024 Act will come into force, followed by ‘Phase 2’ on February 1, 2025.

More than 8,000 IPP sentences were handed down between 2005, when they were introduced, and 2012, when they were abolished. People on IPP sentences must serve a minimum custodial period, or tariff, but then remain in custody until the Parole Board deems them safe to release. When they leave prison they do so under a ‘lifelong’ licence, allowing them to be recalled at any time – until the licence is terminated.

At the moment, termination of an IPP licence can only be granted by the Parole Board after the ‘qualifying period’ has passed. Currently, the qualifying period is 10 years after a person has first been released. Once the 10-year point has passed, people should be automatically referred to the Parole Board every year for consideration.

From November, anyone serving an IPP will be eligible for a termination review by the Parole Board three years after their first release, instead of 10 years. Anyone who was sentenced when they were under 18, and therefore received a Detention for Public Protection sentence, will be eligible after just two years.

Everyone on IPP or DPP sentences will also benefit from a new ‘sunset clause’, which means that their licence will automatically end if it has remained in force for two years continuously in the community after their new qualifying period has ended. If a person is recalled within the two-year period, ordinarily it will ‘reset the clock’ and they will have to wait another two years until the licence expires.

From February, when Phase 2 commences, the qualifying period for all other purposes, including when the Secretary of State must refer a DPP or IPP licence to the Parole Board for consideration of licence termination, will be two and three years respectively.


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

8th October 2024

SDS40 – The impacts on your liberty 

Its a slap in the face” to IPP prisoners, languishing inprison

 early release scheme has seen around 1,700 prisoners released under measures reducing the length of time some inmates must serve in jail from 50 to 40 per cent of their sentence.

By the end of October, the total is expected to reach around 5,500, as more walk free from jails in England and Wales to free up prison cells.“Meanwhile, the scheme was branded a “slap in the face” to almost  languishing on abolished sentences, despite more than 700 having served at least 10 16 years longer than their sentence . Releasing IPP prisoners would empty up to four entire prisons.

...The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Requisite and Minimum Custodial Periods) Order 2024, commonly known as SDS40, was approved on 29 July 2024.  provides that prisoners will be automatically released on licence after having served 40% of their sentence instead of 50%. applies to standard determinate sentences only and excludes EDS, IPP and Life sentences.

SDS40 will be implemented in two phases: namely 10 September 2024 for eligible sentences of under five years, and 22 October 2024 for eligible sentences of over five years. It is very important to note that this is a temporary measure to address prison overpopulation which will be reviewed in 18 months. Therefore people who are currently eligible and their SDS40 release date falls after 18 months, should appreciate that SDS40 may no longer apply at that time. The continued operation of SDS40 will be dictated by prison capacity at that time.

SDS40 would only apply to:

1. Someone serving an eligible standard determinate sentence.

2. Someone currently in prison and has not been released.

3. The sentence is not expressly excluded (like sexual offences, domestic abuse offences, breach of non-molestation order, national security offences, and violent offences with a sentence of over 4 years).

It is important to note that unlike HDC, the prison service has no discretion for SDS40 and have to release the eligible prisoner by law. Eligibility is solely dependent on the index offence for which he is imprisoned, and any previous offences are irrelevant. For example, someone who had a previous sexual offence but is currently in prison for a theft would be eligible, as the sexual offence is irrelevant for SDS40.

It would be very important to note that if someone is recalled on SDS40, they will return to prison to serve the remaining 60% of their sentence unless they are released by the Parole Board or by Executive release. There will not be another release at the 50% point as is sometimes the case with some HDC recalls.

As licence periods are increased, people should be careful as the chances of being recalled will also be higher. It is very important that people do not get complacent about this and make sure that they have a very robust release plan in place. As probation and other support agencies will be under a lot of pressure, it would be advisable to do your best to ensure that you have a robust plan to reduce the possibility of recall.

SDS40 also has an impact on people who have been recalled previously and have been sentenced to a further concurrent offence as it would bring forward the date when they will be reviewed by the Parole Board. For example, if a recalled IPP prisoner has been sentenced to a concurrent 40 months for a further offence of burglary, he would become eligible for parole after 16 months under SDS40 and not 20 months.

The criteria and procedure for HDC and SDS40 are completely different and should not be confused. A prisoner might be eligible for both HDC and SDS40, which in the majority of cases will bring forward their HDC Eligibility Date (HDCED). We anticipate that some prisons would get these calculations wrong and would therefore advise that you request your sentence calculation sheet at the outset to check whether the prison have not made any mistake. After the implementation dates, sentence calculation sheets should be amended to reflect the new CRD and the new HDCED. In case of any discrepancies, we would advise that you contact a prison law specialist who would be able to assess the information and advise you accordingly.

SDS40 does not apply to civil terms of imprisonment; defaults of fines; confiscation orders; terms for contempt; as they are not sentences.

Therefore it could be concluded that SDS40 could bring your release closer, which can be quite significant for people serving long determinate sentences and recalled prisoners serving a concurrent eligible determinate sentence. There can be significant periods of time at stake, and we would advise that you seek legal advice from Reeds Solicitors in case of any doubt about this policy or indeed any other areas of law. We can offer a fixed fee for dealing with such matters.

Dary Makoona is a Prison Law Solicitor & Nicola Maynard is Head of Prison Law/Partner at Reeds Solicitors

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


Links 

Saria Hart: Jury finds serious failings by staff at HMP Foston Hall contributed to self-inflicted death | Inquest

Man sentenced to two years in prison 'destroyed' after serving 18 years - as families call for inquiry | Politics News | Sky News






Britain faced ‘total breakdown of law and order’ without early release of prisoners, minister claims | The Independent

Posted by at No comments:

Friday 17 May 2024

House of Lords to vote on crucial IPP amendments: tackling decades of injustice. The upcoming vote occurs amid mounting pressure on the Secretary of State for Justice, Alex Chalk, to urgently address the IPP issue. Various stakeholders, including the Head of the Prison Governors' Association and UN torture chief Dr. Alice Edwards, have condemned IPPs as inhumane and indefensible.The proposed amendments aim to rectify the flaws in the IPP system, offering a glimmer of hope to thousands of individuals trapped in a legal quagmire.




Update on IPP amendment tabled for the Victims and Prisoners Bill -May 2024

House of Lords proposed several amendments to the Victims and Prisoners Bill, which were debated on 12th March 2024 .These amendments are in addition to Clause 48—the amendment on IPP licensee form which was proposed by the Government. The addition amendments are intended to strengthen Clause 48; and make changes for unreleased people serving IPP

Since the debate, a revised set to amendments have been out forward for  vote at the next stage of the bill. This is likely to be in Mid-May. The government has put forward. Two new amendments, ann the other have been proposed by members of the House of Lords. Some of them. Some of the previous proposed amendments have been dropped.

What is Clause 48?

Clause 48 would drop the period people must wait for review of their licence for 10 years after first release to 3 years.  The year point is known as the qualifying period. It would also introduce automatic ending of an IPP sentence for people who avoid recall for 2 years after the start of the qualifying period. This is known as the sunset clause. Sunset clause, what does sunset clause mean - Search (bing.com)


What are the new revised amendments?

Amendments proposed by the Government.

Power for the Secretary of State to release recalled IPP prisoners with that reference to the parole board, if they believe it is safe to do so.

This power used to be known as Executive Release. It is known now called Risk Assess Recall Review. Under current law, the only applies to people serving in determinant. Sentence is.Tabled by. Lord Bellamy representative in the house of lords. 

Power off the Secretary of State to dismiss an IPP recall for purposes of termination of an IPP licence.

This power would allow the SOS. To disregard a recall which would otherwise. Affect the sunset clause., in cases where the person has been “executively rereleased or released by the parole board. It is not yet clear under what circumstances this power would be invoked. Tabled by: Lord Bellamy (Government representative in the House of Lords. 

A legal the Secretary of State to lay an annual report before parliament stating what has been done to progress IPP prisoners towards release or licence termination. The report must have particular regard to DPP prisoners, and to women IPPs.


Revised amendments relating to licence termination and the sunset clause.

Amendments

134,135,136: Provision for a prisoner to apply to the Parole Board  for a licence termination review following expiry of the qualifying period on an annual basis(rather than just once). Tabled by:  Lord Thomas Lord Garnier Lord Blunkett Baroness Burt

Government's response during the debate

The Government was not convinced on these amendments but they were open to hearing further evidence on them.

Amendments

134,138: Provisions to ensure the sunset clause will still apply where the recall has been rescinded by the Secretary of State and where there has been an inappropriate recall and the person has been released. Tabled by:  Load Carter, Lord Garnier, Lord Blunkett, Baroness Burt, Lord Thomas.

These amendments might be addressed by the amendments they have tabled give the SOS additional discretionary powers in the case of recalls.

Amendment

139: Amendments to stop the Government being able to extend the length of the qualifying period without the consent of parliament.Tabled by:  Lord Thomas, Lord Garnier, Lord Blunkett, Baroness Burt.

Government's response during the debate

The Government stated that they would come back with a position on this at next stage of the Bill once they have heard further evidence.



Revised amendments relating to recall and executive lease.

Amendment

146: Additional power of executive release of recalled IPP prisoners. Executive release (now known as Risk Assessed Recall Review) is when the Secretary of State  gives permission for a recalled  prisoner to  be released  without a parole hearing. It currently only applies to people serving a determinate sentence. Tabled by: Lord Carter Lord Garnier Lord Blunkett Baroness Burt

Government's response during the debate

The Government has proposed their own amendment, broadly similar to  this one, indicating that they are supportive.

Amendment, New amendment added at report stage.

148: New mandatory requirement for the Secretary of State to refer recalled IPP prisoners to the Parole Board within 28 days of recall. This currently only applies to people serving a determinate sentence. Tabled by: Lord Carter Lord Moylan Baroness Burt Baroness Fox.

Government's response during the debate

This amendment has been added since the last debate. The Government has not yet commented.



Revised amendments relating to progression.

Amendment

141: Place the IPP action plan on statutory basis with stated purposes and annual progress report to parliament. This means HMPPS would be legally obliged to carry out the plan. Tabled by: Lord Blunkett Baroness Burt Lord Garnier Lord Hope

Government's response during the debate

The Government said they can see the benefit of this amendment. Shofar, they  have proposed their own amendment requiring annual  progress report

Amendment

142: Establish an independent scrutiny panel on IPP, with oversight of the IPP action plan. Tabled by: Lord Blunkett Baroness Burt Lord Garnier Lord Hope

Government's response during the debate

The Government said they can see the benefit of this amendment.

Amendment

140: An additional after care duty to IPP prisoners who have become  stuck in the  system for three or  more years after their tariff has expired. The aftercare package would be modelled on the care offered to people leaving secure hospital, which includes practical and health-related support. Tabled by:  Baroness Burt Lord Moylan Lord Bishop of Gloucester Baroness Fox.

Government's response during the debate

The Government was not convinced on this amendment, but they are open to hearing further evidence.

Amendment

147: Appointment of persons to represent IPP prisoners’ interests. Tabled by: Lord Garnier Baroness Burt Baroness Fox 



Revised amendments relating to the release test and re sentencing.

Amendment

145: Amending the release test for IPP prisoners 10 or more years beyond tariff, or who have served the maximum equivalent determinate sentence for their offence. This means placing an increased burden of proof on the State that the person serving IPP would present a serious risk of harm if released. Tabled by: Lord Moylan Lord Blunkett Lord Hope Baroness Burt.

Government's response during the debate:

The Government is not convinced on this amendment.



Revised amendments relating to Detention for Public Protection.

Amendment

138a: Amendment to shorten the qualifying period for people serving a DPP sentence from 3 years to18months.Tabled by: Lord Blunkett Baroness Chakrabarti Lord Bishop of Gloucester Lord Hodgson.

Government's response during the debate

The Government does not support this amendment.

Amendment

144: Amendment on annual referrals to the Parole Board for people on DPPs. Tabled by: Lord Blunkett Baroness Chakrabarti Lord Bishop of Gloucester Lord Hodgson.

Government's response during the debate

The Government stated that the new Parole Board policy giving priority to those serving DPP was sufficient, and annual Parole reviews were not needed.

Amendment

143: Amendment on twice-yearly sentence planning reviews for those serving DPP, who have not been released. Tabled by: Lord Blunkett Baroness Chakrabarti Lord Bishop of Gloucester Lord Hodgson.


Government's response during the debate

The Government agreed with the general spirit of the amendment (enhanced support of DPP prisoners) but did not agree that increasing sentence planning reviews was the answer. They indicated that they were open to a revised amendment mandating priority of DPP prisoners.

Which amendments are not being taken forward? The main amendment that has not been taken forward at this stage is resentencing. The next House of Lords debate on these amendments is likely to happen in early to mid-May….. There will then be a vote on which ones to include in the Bill. The Bill will then have to clear another passage through the House of Commons before it becomes law. This is the first Bill since IPP’s abolition.   

Ipp prisoners total in Prison: 2,796. Unreleased - under tariff: 13. Unreleased, over tariff: 1,166. On recall: 1,616 as of March 2024

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

10 April 2024

Coroner calls for review of all IPP sentences.

A senior coroner has condemned the “inhumane” and “indefensible” treatment of a man who killed himself 17 years into a sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP).

Tom Osborne, senior coroner for Milton Keynes, has written to Prisons’ Minister Edward Argar calling for a review of all prisoners serving the sentence.

Scott Rider had been convicted of grievous bodily harm in 2005 with a minimum term of 23 months, but had IPP added so had no fixed end date. The Coroner heard that he had given up all hope of release before he took his own life at HMP Woodhill in June 2022, aged 45. Just days before he died, he told a prison worker that he had lost hope he would ever be freed. He said it was “disgusting” he was still locked up, his crime had not warranted a never-ending punishment, and IPP had ruined his life.

In a prevention of future deaths report, sent to the Prisons Minister, the coroner warned that without urgent action more people could die. He said he had been told by the governor of Woodhill that she believed IPPs were “indefensible” and that she and her fellow governors would welcome an intervention.

“One has to conclude his treatment was inhumane and indefensible, and that if action is not taken to review all prisoners sentenced to IPP then there is a risk of further deaths,” the coroner wrote.

Mr Rider’s sister Michelle Mahon  he deserved to be punished but he didn’t deserve,” adding IPP robbed her brother “of the chance to have a family and turn his life around”. In 2003, he was jailed for assaulting their father and, when released, went on to clean up his life and find a girlfriend.

debate on the Victims and Prisoners Bill when amendments calling for fundamental changes in the sentence will be proposed.

Prevention of Future Death Reports (Regulation 28)

After an inquest, the coroner can write a ‘Prevention of Future Death’ or ‘Regulation 28’ report.

This happens especially where the coroner has heard evidence that further avoidable deaths could happen if preventative action is not taken. The report is sent to the person or authority who have the power to make the changes that are suggested. They have to respond to these within 56 days showing how they have made changes according to the coroner’s recommendations, or how they intend to. All Prevention of Future Death reports and responses are sent to the Chief Coroner and are usually published on the 

During your loved one’s inquest, your lawyer might want to ask the coroner to consider making a Prevention of Future Death report. You can ask your lawyer if they think this might be possible.

Total deaths who were given an Ipp sentence 90. ‘Indefensible’: UK prisoner jailed for 23 months killed himself after being held for 17 years | Sentencing | The Guardian


The Coroner

The government are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report, namely by March 15, 2022. I, the coroner, may extend the period. Your response must contain details of action taken or proposed to be taken, setting out the timetable for action.

 Otherwise you must explain why no action is proposed. 8 COPIES and PUBLICATION I have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following Interested Persons; Mr Radford’s family HM Prison and Probation Service Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (Prison mental health care providers) Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust The Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police The Chief Constable of Derbyshire Police The victims of conduct on 19 April 2019 (who have expressed an interest in receiving this report)

I have also sent it to The Governor of HMP Ranby The Independent Monitoring Board for HMP Ranby Prison and Probation Ombudsman HM Inspectorate of Probation, Chief Inspector, Care Quality Commission who may find it useful or of interest.

 I am also under a duty to send a copy of your response to the Chief Coroner and all interested persons who in my opinion should receive it. I may also send a copy of your response to any person who I believe may find it useful or of interest. 

The Chief Coroner may publish either or both in a complete or redacted or summary form. He may send a copy of this report to any person who he believes may find it useful or of interest. 

You may make representations to me, the coroner, at the time of your response about the release or the publication of your response by the Chief Coroner.  Miss Laurinda Bower HM Assistant Coroner.   

link:  https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Terance-Radford-Prevention-of-future-deaths-report-2022-0014_Published-1.pdf

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

Apr 15

Irredeemably flawed? The IPP prisoner scandal, the death of Matthew Price

Warning – this article contains distressing content. I have used Matthew’s own words because he wrote publicly, and he wanted people to understand the pain of the IPP sentence.

My name is Emma McClure. I am a solicitor and I represent people before the Parole Board of England and Wales. I used to say I represent prisoners but these days not everyone I represent is in prison; some people who the Parole Board deal with are in the community with you and I. I am going to tell you about one of them: my client, Matthew.

This is a story about how you try to keep going and keep motivated when things seem to be going backwards or look bleak.

It is also a story about what happens when you fail to listen to evidence, and the unintended consequences that can arise when policy decisions are poorly thought out or institutions refuse to change their mind.

In relation to Matthew, I had new experience of being on the other side of a court proceeding. I am used to being the advocate, asking questions of witnesses and making submissions in hearings. But back in January, I was the one being questioned as I gave evidence at the inquest into Matthew’s death.

Coroner’s courts are courts which investigate unnatural deaths. They are inquiries, rather than criminal or civil trials, with a judge - known as the coroner - who will investigate a matter and arrive at a conclusion about the circumstances of a death.

They aren’t designed to apportion blame – though criminal proceedings can be instigated as a result of a coroner’s findings. A famous example of that would be the, ultimately unsuccessful, prosecutions that followed the inquests into the Hillsborough disaster in 2016.

An article about Matthew from 28 February 2024 on the BBC website includes this summary:

A coroner has raised concerns about the mental health of offenders serving indefinite sentences after a man died.

Matthew Price took his own life while on licence under an imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentence 10 years after his release from jail.

Mr Price, 48, who spent three years in jail after being convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, died on 16 June 2023.

The article goes on to mention how Matthew died which I am choosing to omit.

IPP sentences are a type of life sentence given out between 2005 and 2012, originally part of Labour’s attempts to appear tough on crime in the late 90s and 00s. They were given out for a very wide range of offences, and often had tariffs measured in months or even days.

The tariff is the minimum period someone has to serve before the Parole Board considers whether the person is safe to be released. Life sentences used to be designed for the most serious of offences, like murder. For IPPs, these were for offences less serious than murder, and it was envisaged by the law-makers that they would apply to a few hundred people; a small but persistent group of serious offenders. During sentencing, the judge had to first decide if the conduct warranted a standard life sentence and if it didn’t, they would go on to consider an IPP.

IPP sentences were given out for 153 different kinds of criminal offence. Initially, judges used no discretion as to when they were given out. A lot of these offences were comparatively minor and weren’t necessarily violent. If a person ticked the right offence boxes, they automatically got an IPP. Instead of the anticipated hundreds of IPPs, judges gave out thousands. More than 8,000 were given out over 7 years.

This was a real problem, because there was no corresponding increase in resource in prisons to enable these prisoners to address the reasons for their offending. Many prisoners got stuck. Many are still stuck, well over a decade later. There are still around 1,200 IPP prisoners who have never been released. It is now 19 years since IPP sentences began. A large proportion of IPP prisoners had tariffs of less than two years; some were measured in months or days. Even those who were given longer tariffs have served at least twice as long as those terms.

IPP sentences were deemed unlawful in 2012, and were therefore abolished, but this abolition was not retrospective. Everyone who received an IPP sentence still had one.

There have been growing calls since then to get rid of the sentence entirely. Successive governments, and Justice Secretaries - including David Blunkett, who was instrumental in introducing the sentence - have recognised it as a stain on the justice system. But, once out of office, they are no longer able to do anything about it other than to express regret or call for action from their successors.

There has been a lot of focus on those who have found themselves stuck in prison, or in the revolving door of recall to prison. They must “prove” they are safe before being released, but the lack of resources devoted to supporting them has resulted in people losing hope and in many cases losing their minds. Many have become intensely frustrated and have acted out, which, in turn, damaged their chances of release. They have got stuck in a cycle of hopelessness. Many, many of them have at this point taken their own lives in despair. There is a report by the Independent Monitoring Board which captures this painful cycle.

If an IPP prisoner does manage to get released, they remain on licence, where the slightest perceived infraction can result in being recalled to prison.

It is possible for an IPP prisoner to apply for their licence to be terminated 10 years after their first release. The right to apply became an automatic right in 2022.

There was a Justice Select Committee report completed in September 2022 – a cross party report that looked at 17 years of evidence about this sentence. This declared the sentence to be ‘irredeemably flawed’ and recommended that all IPP prisoners should be resentenced. This was rejected by the government and Justice Secretary Dominic Raab in February 2023. The select committee also recommended that the 10 year period before IPP prisoners could apply for the termination of their licence should be cut to 5. This was also rejected by the government.

So back to my client, Matthew. He had one of these sentences. Unlike many, he had been out of prison for a very long time. Very nearly the 10 years required before being able to apply for termination. He was in the community. He was working; he hadn’t committed any further offences. So, what happened? Why has the coroner linked Matthew’s IPP sentence with his death?

I could explain what happened, but I would actually prefer to let Matthew do that in his own words – he sent this message several weeks before he died, and it is how I came to be his solicitor and to help him with his application to terminate his licence. It is edited slightly for length:

“Back in 2010, at the age of 35, I committed a Section 18 wounding on my friend.

There was no justification whatsoever for my actions and my friend should never have been subjected to that whatever the circumstances. I still feel bad to this day for the impact my actions had on my friend and my family and others.

After pleading guilty, I was sentenced to prison for the first and only time in my life on a IPP sentence with a 3 year tariff.

I my time in custody, I never really did any accredited offending behaviour courses… this was because I was below the required risk threshold to meet the criteria for such courses but spent my time doing other positive activities instead, including gaining employment… and was released in November 2013.

I continued to make good progress in the community and had the supervision element of my licence suspended in August 2019.”

I will just note here that this means that he didn’t have to keep in touch with probation anymore – he could still be recalled to prison, but he wasn’t being closely supervised.

“The never-ending nature of when or if my sentence will ever come to an end eventually took its toll on my mental health and after trying to throw myself off a bridge in March 2020 before being talked down by police. (Even the police didn't appear to be familiar with the sentence I said I was under and it was as if they thought I was imagining that I was under a sentence that couldn't be true).”

I note here that the police officer who called me to ask if I knew why Matthew may have taken his own life was surprised to hear that these sentences were still a thing.

“Following this, I spent 3 months in a mental health hospital, had my medication restarted, and had the supervision element of my licence reinstated. On being discharged from hospital, I received support from community mental health nurses. Their support and medication helped me greatly but in the greater scheme of things, I knew being under mental health treatment was going to impact greatly on the chances of my sentence ever been brought to an end.”

I want to flag that as a result of his mental health crisis, Matthew was put back on supervision. He was essentially punished for having poor mental health.

“Eventually I came off medication gradually and discharged myself from this support that was helping me because I knew I had to try and find a way to pretend I didn't still have mental health issues when really I did.

Since August 2022, I've had to pretend that losing my father hasn't affected me as much as it really has, as well as pretend I don't have mental health issues when I do, and not to go back on medication because seeking mental health support and being on medication can be classed as poor coping and behaviour by HM Prison & Probation Service in assessments.”

And it was – I have seen those assessments.

“The only way I can keep my risks LOW is to live this pretence that everything is ok when I know it's not.

The truth is, I need mental health support and I feel I need to be back on medication to be able to cope with this sentence but I'm too scared to ask for it because doing so will go against my chances of ever bringing my sentence to an end.

…I'm stuck in a never-ending cycle of which suicide is quite possibly really the only way out. Asking for help will go against me, not asking for help will most likely kill me.

I've never denied my offending and taken full responsibility.

Of course I needed to go to prison as a result of my actions but how can it be right that I'm being expected to cope on a irredeemably flawed sentence, that's inhumane and was abolished in 2012 and also be on a potentially lifelong licence that might never end, and feel fearful to ask for mental health support help.

…The fact is the never-ending and never knowing nature of this sentence feeds poor mental health.

Even those on whole life orders or on any other sentence at least have a sentence that brings clarity for both victims and offenders of the sentence that's being served.

Even if they'd hung me there would have been a definite ending.

The truth is that this long abolished IPP sentence has proved to be capital punishment through the back door in many cases with those who have seen taking their own lives as the only way out growing rapidly recently.

This is a cry for help because this never-ending sentence and the not knowing has crushed and broken me and I don't know what to do for the best anymore.

I've now been released from prison for almost 10 years, yet I'm no nearer knowing when or if this nightmare will ever end.”

Matthew died four weeks after sending that email to a large number of people, including the current Justice Secretary, Alex Chalk; members of the JSC; his probation officer; and several law firms - including mine, which is how he became my client.

Gven I had been representing Matthew, he had messaged people with my details prior to his death, and as I was the last person to speak to him, I was asked by the coroner to provide a witness statement. I wanted to give the best evidence I could, and so I provided the coroner with the email above, the Justice Select Committee report, and a recent report of the Independent Monitoring Board of prisons which had examined the welfare of IPP prisoners.

I also had a response from the Ministry of Justice to an email sent by my boss, to all of the recipients of Matthew’s original email, informing them that he had died. Matthew had received encouraging responses from many of the JSC and peers from the House of Lords but nothing from the Secretary of State or his officials. The response from the Ministry of Justice was generic, and wrongly assumed Matthew had been in prison when he died.

I was told that I wasn’t needed for the inquest hearing itself, but I felt it was important for me to go anyway - for Matthew, for his family and maybe for all the other IPP prisoners out there. I felt it was important to show up. Matthew may have died, but there are still thousands of other Matthews still out there.

I’m very glad I did, because the coroner had a lot of questions for me about my statement, and about other aspects of the evidence he was considering. I did my best to answer and to explain the wider background about the IPP sentence. I could not have done this had I decided not to attend the inquest.

The result of the inquest was that the coroner issued what is known as a Regulation 28, or Prevention of Future Deaths report. This is something that a coroner can issue when the evidence they have been presented gives rise to concern that there could be future deaths unless action is taken by the body that the report is directed to. In this case, the SSJ.

 

The report included this:

The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows. It was apparent from the evidence that I heard and read at the inquest that there are serious concerns about the welfare of individuals who remain subject to IPP sentences. For example, the Independent Monitoring Boards (‘IMB’) completed a report with key findings entitled ‘The impact of IPP sentences on prisoners’ wellbeing’ in May 2023. This report was written following the rejection by the government of the recent Justice Select Committee’s recommendation for a re-sentencing exercise to take place for anyone serving an IPP sentence.

Whilst the key findings of the IMB report are focused upon the impact upon serving prisoners and the prevention of recall, I was deeply concerned about the evidence I heard in relation to the clear impact that the on-going IPP sentence had had on Mr Price. He had served a three year tariff and at the time of his death, he had been released back into the community for nearly ten years

Mr Price was anxious about the ever-present potential for recall to prison. Furthermore, he had conveyed in communications to others that he felt that seeking help with his mental health by way of support and medication might count against him when seeking to be successful in discharging the IPP. Whilst Mr Price was engaged with legal support in navigating the review process, the on-going impact of uncertainty of being on an IPP sentence was clearly apparent.

As a consequence of undertaking Mr Price’s inquest, the on-going wellbeing of those serving IPP sentences, be that in prison estate or in the community, is a matter of concern to me as a coroner.

The Ministry of Justice is fully apprised of the IPP context and whilst matters have been raised by the IMB, I am concerned that specific focus upon the welfare of individuals living in the community should be appraised by those who may be able to take appropriate steps to further support an evidently vulnerable section of society.

 

The Secretary of State is required to respond to the coroner. He doesn’t necessarily have to do anything, but he does have to respond. At the time of writing, there has been no official response, but an MOJ spokesperson has responded to the BBC article about Matthew’s death:

“Our thoughts remain with the friends and family of Matthew Price. We have taken decisive action to curtail licence periods to give rehabilitated people the opportunity to move on with their lives and have mental health support in place for IPP offenders living in the community who are at risk of self-harm or suicide."

That is a reference to the recent announcement, following Matthew’s death, that the government are proposing to change the licence period rules. There is an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill that is currently crawling through parliament, which will reduce the period before the IPP licence can be terminated from 10 years to 3 years. If the Parole Board reject the application, the person under licence needs to avoid being recalled for a further 2 years for their licence to be terminated automatically.

Matthew’s IPP sentence would have been terminated in 2018 under the proposed new rules. The announcement of this proposed change came a couple of weeks before Matthew’s inquest; by that time, the Ministry of Justice were already aware of his death.

The first sentence of the MOJ response to the BBC article says that their thoughts are with Matthew’s friends and family. Matthew didn’t have any friends. His offence had been against a friend, and so he deliberately avoided making friends for fear that something would happen to lead him to be returned to prison. His fear of returning to prison was so strong that he was condemned to a lonely, seemingly-endless period of supervision in the community, under constant threat of being pulled back to prison - on a sentence that had been abolished before he was even released from prison.

Progress on righting this irredeemably flawed policy is very slow and painful. I am not going to presume that my assisting with Matthew’s inquest has moved the dial, but it is important that we do what we can, when we can, to move it - however slowly, however painfully. Even where things seem to be going backwards, or we lose people.

I am aware of other community IPP death since Matthew’s. We need to keep showing up, even at the darkest points.

Matthew wanted me to tell people what had happened to him and why. I hope I have done an adequate job.

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

When life is difficult, Samaritans are on call – day or night, 365 days a year. You can call them for free on 116 123, email them at jo@samaritans.org or visit samaritans.org to find your nearest branch.

 


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



INQUEST into death of IPP sentenced prisoner Lewis Powter

The below media release is reshared from Bhatt Murphy solicitors. The inquest concluded with critical findings, see media coverage. 

18 July 2022

The inquest into the death of Lewis Powter is to be heard before HM Assistant Coroner Lorna Skinner at Cambridge and Peterborough Coroner’s Court in Huntingdon on 18 – 19 July 2022. Lewis Powter was 36 years old when he died on 10 May 2020 at his home in Sawston.

Background
When he was 23 years old Lewis was given an indefinite sentence for public protection for GBH; his minimum term was set at just two years. Despite his tariff expiring in 2009 Lewis was not released until 2011. He was released and then recalled five times prior to his death.

Lewis had epilepsy and complex mental health needs including EUPD, PTSD, substance misuse and anxiety. In prison he was assessed as high risk of death by misadventure. On 18 January 2017 Lewis was assaulted by three Sodexo officers at HMP Peterborough. Those officers were subject to disciplinary proceedings leading to the dismissal of one officer, another officer receiving a final warning and a third officer receiving a warning. Since the assault Lewis experienced PTSD symptoms including hypervigilance.

In June 2019 Lewis was recalled after being out in the community for four days following being late back for his curfew due to cancelled public transport. The National Probation Service in a report stated that the recall was “inappropriate” but despite this Lewis was not released until November 2019. Upon his release he experienced extreme anxiety and fear about being recalled to prison.

In 2008 HM Prisons published a thematic report into IPP sentences which highlighted the impact of serving an IPP sentence on prisoners’ emotional and mental health, including self-harm. In 2008 the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health also published a report which highlighted the negative impact that serving an indeterminate sentence had on prisoners’ mental health and wellbeing. In 2012 the IPP sentence was abolished; but for those IPP prisoner like Lewis there was no change to their sentence.

Leah Biamonti, Lewis's mother, said: "The IPP sentence my son was serving at the time of his death was insufferable both for him but also the family who supported him, taking a great toll. His two children, growing up without him, were confused by his multiple recalls to prison.

Although released from prison for the first time in 2011, it felt as if it was just the beginning , never given the opportunity to adjust to anything that could be recognised as a semblance of a ‘normal’ life, before being recalled for rule breaking, to start the protracted cycle again of working towards another potential release. Each release characterised by a lack of practical support and , in my view, especially with early release’s, a lack of understanding of the extent to which the IPP sentence impacted on the mental and emotional health of individuals, extreme feelings of uncertainty, hopelessness, depression , and as we know now high rates of suicide in the IPP population, and in my sons case extreme and immobilising anxiety.

In our experience there are insufficient support systems in place to support those with complex needs as a result of, or exacerbated by an IPP sentence, relying heavily on family to help rebuild a future in the community. Although it no longer exists , the IPP sentence remains in place for many who are utterly stuck within a sick and broken system.

Release from prison is not the end, it is a time when knowledge and understanding of the impact of this inhumane sentence matters, and when the most intensive support is needed to aid both practical and psychological readjustment to life outside prison, and to support the prevention of what is currently an almost inevitable recall to prison."


Lucy McKay, spokesperson for the charity INQUEST, said: “The evidence on the harmful impacts of unlawful indefinite prison sentences is clear and well founded. Yet thousands of people are still languishing in prison with IPP sentences, or living in the community with the endless threat of recall for the most minor slip ups. IPP sentences were rightly abolished in 2012, so why in 2020 was Lewis still forced to live with this unjust sentence on his shoulders? We hope this inquest offers necessary scrutiny of the circumstances of his death, and considers ongoing issues for those in a similar position”.

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

 links

University of Huddersfield research with the help of family's

https://pure.hud.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/14009510/McConnell_and_Raikes_FINAL.pdf

Decades long of injustice 

https://howardleague.org/blog/the-decades-long-injustice-of-ipps-needs-to-end/

IPP and their families. sentences were ruled a violation of human rights. 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/660bec9b38f66c001e84a8f6/Annex_C_Observer_Guidance_IPP_Families. 

https://insidetime.org/comment/requiem-for-ipps-and-their-families/

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2017/08/im-blame-blunketts-indefinite-prison-sentences-and-thousands-still-locked

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2017/08/im-blame-blunketts-indefinite-prison-sentences-and-thousands-still-locked
https://pure.hud.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/14009510/McConnell_and_Raikes_FINAL.pdf
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)