27 Mar 2014
Lord
Dholakia (LD): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley,
for this debate. I also thank a number of noble Lords who have been drawing
attention to the injustice suffered by IPP prisoners. These prisoners have
passed their tariff expiry date but their release has been delayed, often for
years after their tariff has expired, by a combination of delays. These delays
include the time that prisoners spend on waiting lists before they can start
offending behaviour programmes such as sex offender treatment programmes,
healthy relationships programmes for domestic violence offenders, self-change
and resolve programmes for violent offenders, thinking skills programmes for
impulsive offenders, victim awareness programmes, and drug and alcohol
rehabilitation programmes.
We welcome such programmes but the prisons’ capacity to deliver in time
is questionable. The delays are unacceptable. These delays also include the
time spent waiting for psychological and psychiatric assessments to assess what
work or treatment prisoners need to undertake to address their mental health
problems or cognitive deficits. Then there are delays in getting a transfer to
another prison when a prisoner’s current establishment does not run a programme
considered necessary to reduce his or her risk and waiting for parole hearings
to be listed.
Until recently the Parole Board was making commendable progress in
reducing the backlog of cases awaiting a parole hearing. However, the backlog
is now rising again as a result of last year’s Supreme Court decision in the
case of Osborn, Booth and Reilly—mentioned earlier—which has required more
cases of recalled prisoners to be referred to oral hearings. The combination of
all these delays means that prisoners who were given short tariffs by
sentencing courts can end up spending many years in custody after the tariff
period the sentencing judge considered appropriate to punish the offender for
his or her crime.
There are four main reasons why the Government should take prompt action
to end this indefensible state of affairs. First, the coalition Government have
commendably acted to end this injustice for offenders being sentenced now and
in the future. Noble Lords
on all sides of the House welcome this initiative. They have done so by
abolishing the IPP sentence, for which they deserve great credit.
However, it is surely illogical to recognise the need to avoid the
injustice of IPP sentences for current and future offenders but to refuse to
remedy the same injustice which is being suffered by IPP prisoners who are
already in the system. What is the justification for this course? We have had a
number of meetings with the Minister of Justice, but to date no acceptable
reasons have been advanced.
The second reason is that the failure to release these prisoners on
licence is storing up serious problems for the prison system. The IPP sentence
has been the main contributory factor to the astonishing increase in the
proportion of prisoners serving indeterminate sentences, which rose from 9% of
the prison population in 1993 to 19% in 2012. This is simply unacceptable. The
longer that existing IPP prisoners remain in prison, the greater the pressure
of numbers in the prison system and the worse the delays in the system are
likely to become.
The third reason is that there is no tenable principled objection,
either legal or moral, to retrospective legislation in this situation. I am
aware that the Government have argued that it is wrong to interfere with
sentences which have been passed by the courts, but Governments of all
persuasions have repeatedly done so over the years, for example, by altering
the rules on eligibility for parole, by increasing or reducing remission, by
introducing early release with electronic monitoring and in a range of other
ways, so why not in the case of IPP prisoners? Retrospective legislation is
objectionable when it interferes with existing sentences in a way which puts
prisoners in a worse position than the sentencing court intended. However, I
can see no objection to retrospective legislation which puts existing prisoners
in a better position in order to avoid the anomaly of treating them worse than
more recent offenders who have committed identical crimes but are now being
given determinate sentences.
The fourth reason is that the necessary changes can be introduced in a
way which does not unacceptably increase risk to the public, a point which is
often stated by the Minister. Most offenders who would previously have received
IPP sentences are now given extended sentences. These sentences include a
determinate custodial term followed by an extended period of supervision. If
the Government are not attracted by the idea of substituting simple determinate
sentences for existing short-tariff IPP sentences, they could legislate to
replace them with a form of extended sentence. This could provide for the
prisoner to be released after a period equal to double the tariff followed by
an extended licence period. This licence period could last for 10 years or even
for an indefinite period. During the licence period, the offender could be
recalled to prison if he or she breached licence conditions, reverted to drug
or alcohol misuse, failed to engage with offending behaviour programmes or
engaged in risky behaviour which indicated that his or her risk was increasing.
If they wanted, the Government could provide for exceptions to be made. For
example, IPP prisoners could be released on licence after double their tariff
period,
unless the Parole Board identified exceptional circumstances indicating
that the offender presented a particularly high risk to the public.
For all these reasons, I hope that the Government, who have acted so
courageously to prevent the injustice of IPP sentences being imposed on
offenders sentenced in the future, will not close their mind to the need to end
the identical injustice being undergone by IPP prisoners who are already in the
system. It brings the criminal justice system into disrepute if different
standards are adopted for those who can benefit now as against those who were
previously sentenced and fell into the IPP category. I hope that the Minister
will be more positive on this than the previous Minister.
Lord
Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB): My Lords, I am grateful to
the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for providing the opportunity to say a few words
on this topic, which is close to my heart.
A little over six years ago, when delivering the judgment in the Court
of Appeal in the appeals of Walker and James, I commented that the Secretary of
State had not provided the resources needed to give IPP prisoners a fair chance
to demonstrate to the Parole Board, once the time for review arrived, that they
were no longer dangerous. I added that the consequence of that was that a
proportion of IPP prisoners would, avoidably, be kept in prison for longer than
necessary either for punishment or for the protection of the public. Since
then, Parliament has repealed the provisions for the imposition of IPP
sentences. However, as predicted, a significant body of prisoners remain
incarcerated because they have been denied the opportunity to take the steps
necessary to demonstrate that their release will not pose an unacceptable risk
to the public.
There are at least three reasons why that state of affairs should not be
tolerated. The first is that indefinite detention of that kind infringes
Article 5.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That possibility was
one to which we drew attention in Walker although we, and the Appellate
Committee of this House, presided over by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope
of Craighead, did not consider that that point had been reached in the instant
case. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, pointed out, Strasbourg did not
agree, holding in the case of James and two other applicants that their
detention after the expiry of their tariff periods and until the provision of
the appropriate rehabilitative courses was arbitrary and a breach of Article
5.1. Not all may be in sympathy with that decision, but indefinite detention
for want of resources is manifestly objectionable.
The second reason why the current state of affairs should not be
tolerated is that it is unjust. Defendants sentenced before the IPP regime was
introduced or after its repeal, whose offending and past criminal records are
not distinguishable from those sentenced to IPP, are being released from prison
while the IPP prisoners remain detained. It is hard to understand why the
change in penal policy that led to the abolition of the IPP sentence should not
apply equally to those subjected to it.
The third reason why the current state of affairs should not be
tolerated is that it is economically absurd. We pay some £40,000 per head to
keep detained prisoners who will then become entitled to substantial
compensation for their detention.
What, then, should be done? One can readily appreciate the objection to
the wholesale release of all IPP prisoners who have served the tariff period.
However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, will make some
balanced and principled proposals for the release of some of those prisoners,
which have my support. I shall leave him to explain them to the House. There
will, of course, be a risk that prisoners released will reoffend, but that is
an inevitable consequence of release from custody, and one that has rightly
concerned the Minister for Justice and his predecessors, not merely in the
context of potentially dangerous offenders.
Three years ago Kenneth Clarke, when Justice Secretary, declared that
prison was a waste of money and emphasised his intention to curb reoffending.
Earlier this week Chris Grayling, the current Justice Secretary, was reported
as saying that our rehabilitation system was flawed because of lack of support
for those discharged from prison. That is the positive point that I wish to
make.
Rehabilitation courses in prison are, of course, important. However,
perhaps even more important are the steps that should be taken outside prison,
in the community, to prevent young people who are at risk from entering the
criminal justice system and to help those who have been discharged from prison
from being sucked back into it. Rehabilitation can sometimes be provided more
effectively in the community after discharge from prison than within the prison
system. James was himself ultimately released on licence on the directions of
the Parole Board in reliance of the fact that arrangements had been made for
his accommodation in a hostel and for him to take part in rehabilitation
courses in the community.
I should declare my involvement with three different organisations in
the private sector whose work is relevant in this context: Endeavour Training,
Youth at Risk, and the St Giles Trust. The first two aim to give young people
who are vulnerable the self-respect that leads to respect for others and to
integration within rather than outside society. The third, the St Giles Trust,
trains ex-offenders to help others, both within and outside prison. I understand
that it is government policy to rely heavily on the help of such organisations
to prevent reoffending and that funding will be made available to those with a
proven success rate. It is easier to demonstrate this for organisations that
cater for those who have served prison sentences rather than those whose goal
is to ensure that vulnerable young people do not enter the system in the first
place, but I hope that the Government will bear it in mind that resources
provided to both are likely to save money in the long term. I suggest that this
is the lesson to be learnt from the IPP debacle.
The huge cost of keeping people in prison competes for resources with
the cost of trying to keep them out of prison. The former always appears the
more urgent. But whether offenders are potentially violent or not, society will
be best served, and valuable resources will ultimately be saved, if we do not
skimp in funding the
steps that are needed to address the individual problems and
inadequacies that are the root causes of the majority of offending and
reoffending.
The Lord
Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, I am most grateful
to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for his initiative and to the noble Lord, Lord
Dholakia, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, for their very helpful
introductions.
As a general principle, it is accepted in this country that people
should be sent to prison because they have been convicted of an offence rather
than because of the risk that they will offend. Indeterminate tariffs are even
now available for the most serious offences, in the form of life sentences, and
extended sentences now provide a way to manage and contain risk in relation to
those convicted of serious violent and sexual offences which do not call for a
life sentence.
As we have heard, the IPP sentences were brought in with the intention
of applying them to just a few hundred prisoners. Things went wrong, and, after
some attempts to deal with their unintended effects, they were abolished. It is
neither here nor there that this chain of events spread across successive
Governments. A number of options were tried: some worked, and this one did not.
Even though IPP has now been abolished, approximately 5,500 IPP prisoners
remain within the system, nearly two-thirds of them past their tariff. At the
current release rate of about 400 a year, it could take nine years to clear the
backlog.
I spent some time recently with an intelligent and engaging Somali
prisoner who has taught himself near perfect English. This man was given an
18-month tariff, but last Christmas was his ninth in prison. What an injustice,
and what a huge expense. One prison officer spoke to me of,
“a game of tag between the Immigration Services and the Parole Board
which has produced deadlock for years”.
Two significant factors cause delay in release when the tariff has been
served: programmes and process. Up to now the dependence on a particular kind
of offending behaviour programme, on cognitive behavioural principles, as an
important key to reducing risk, has caused quite a lot of problems—in
particular, the shortage of supply of such courses, the complicated transport
system between centres, and the exclusion criteria, which mean that those
without certain educational skills or attainments, and some with learning
difficulties or mental health problems, cannot enrol on these courses.
Effective as the programmes doubtless are, for those eligible for them, as a
criterion of reduction in risk they are only a proxy for a more complex and
dynamic process of learning and change. A large body of recent research on
desistance from crime supports the view that reduction in risk is a much
broader process, engaging the whole person and their understanding of their own
life and values, than has sometimes been thought. Indeed, mainstream research
has shown that faith can be a significant factor for many.
Secondly, on the process for determining how far risk has been reduced,
the Parole Board is under enormous pressure, which has grown greatly following
a recent judgment requiring oral hearings in many more cases than
before. I welcome the sensible suggestion made by the Prison Reform Trust, that
the decision on a move to open prison conditions should be made by the prison
governor, as already happens with those on determinate sentences, rather than
the Parole Board. If that is not done, then there is a strong case for
reinstating the recently removed right to legal aid for IPP prisoners in
relation to their recategorisation decisions.
The challenges that remain from the IPP experiment are obviously
complex. Many of these prisoners have committed crimes which have victims, and
the risk of further offending is not to be taken lightly. Many other well
informed suggestions have been made towards resolving these issues, but if we
attend to the two elements which I have mentioned—the programmes and the
process—I believe that we shall be moving in the right direction towards a just
and safe resolution of these difficulties. It is surprising that a manifest
injustice like this has not attracted more attention.
Lord Lloyd
of Berwick (CB): My Lords, I do not intend to go into the
background of the IPP sentence, which was so well described by the noble Lord,
Lord Wigley, to whom we are all grateful for initiating this debate, but
propose to concentrate instead on a particular group of prisoners who were
given a tariff of less than two years before Section 225 of the 2003 Act was
amended in 2007, of whom there are 773.
I start by giving the House a breakdown of that figure. These figures
were given to me by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in a letter he wrote to me on
24 August 2013. I suggest that they ought to be on the record. Thirty-seven
offenders were given tariffs of six months or less. Of these, 11 are now more
than four years over tariff. The remaining 26 of that group are five years over
tariff—in other words, 10 times the tariff they were originally given. One
hundred and eight were given tariffs of six to 12 months. Of these, 46 are four
years over tariff and 59 are five years over tariff. Two hundred and eighty
were given tariffs of between 12 and 18 months; 110 are four years over tariff and
98 are five years over tariff. Three hundred and forty-eight were given tariffs
of between 18 and 24 months. Of these, 124 are four years over tariff and 92
are five years over tariff. I suggest that these figures speak for
themselves—something very serious has gone wrong.
There are two reasons why there are so many IPP prisoners with short or
very short tariffs. In the first place, there was no minimum tariff, as there
should have been. That was a grievous mistake. Secondly, until 2008, the
sentence was, in effect, compulsory. Provided certain conditions were
fulfilled, the judge had no discretion. Therefore, an offender who would in the
normal way have been given between two and four years for a robbery, burglary
or simple arson, was given an IPP sentence not because he was particularly
dangerous but because, until 2008, the sentence was mandatory, as I say.
When Section 225 was repealed by the LASPO Act in 2012, very few IPP
prisoners had been released, partly, of course, because courses were not
available
for them but also because the release test which the Parole Board had to
apply was exactly the same for them as for those serving life sentences for
much more serious crimes. Therefore, it is not surprising that a large backlog
of these short and very short tariff prisoners had built up. Parliament was
well aware of this backlog, and of the reason for it. It was clear that
something had to be done. By Section 128 of LASPO, Parliament provided the
solution. It gave the Secretary of State the power to modify the existing
release test, with a view, obviously, to speeding up the rate of release.
Section 128 paved the way for the Secretary of State to take action. He could
require the Parole Board to direct release if it was satisfied that certain
conditions existed. It was, or would have been, as simple as that. There is
nothing in Section 128, whether expressly or by implication, that requires the
new release test to be based on an assessment of risk.
The first question is: should the Secretary of State exercise the power
he has been given by Parliament? The second question is: if so, what should the
new test be. As to the first question, the answer is very clear. Of course he
should exercise the power he has been given. There are many reasons why he
should do so, but the most convincing to me is the one given by the noble Lord,
Lord Wigley. If these 773 prisoners, with whom alone I am concerned, had
committed exactly the same offences but after 2008, instead of before, they
could not have been given an IPP sentence; they could have been given only a
determinate sentence. We know what that determinate sentence would have
been—namely, twice the tariff they were given. They would all have been out by
2010 at the latest. Instead, they are all still in prison.
Prisoners, like everyone else, have a strong sense of just desserts. I
know of no sentence that has created such a strong sense of injustice as the
IPP sentence. I know that because of the many letters that I and others have
received from prisoners and their families, and from a recent meeting that I
had with their families, some of whom expressed the views that I have just
tried to describe.
What reason, then, has the Secretary of State given for not exercising
this power? Only that it would not be appropriate to alter sentences lawfully
imposed by the court. The short answer to that is that if Parliament had not
thought it appropriate, it would not have enacted Section 128.
I come to the second question. What should the new release test be? I
wrote to the Secretary of State on 13 March, inviting him to consider
converting the sentence of these 773 prisoners into determinate sentences equal
to twice their tariffs. This would be fair because they would be the sentences
that we know the prisoners would have received if the IPP sentence had not been
available when they were sentenced. In his reply on 19 March, the Secretary of
State said:
“It would be inconceivable and indeed irresponsible for the Government
to release individuals that the independent Parole Board … assess as continuing
to pose risks”.
What this seems to overlook is
that these very same people, if sentenced after 2008 for exactly the same
offences, would necessarily have been given a determinate
sentence and would have posed exactly the same risk when released before
2010 as they would have done if released today.
Finally, I suggest that so far from it being irresponsible for the
Secretary of State to exercise the power he has been given, it would be
irresponsible of him not to do so. Indeed, it is his duty to do so in the
interests of justice, for all the reasons I have given. In doing so, he would
be righting a grievous wrong that these 773 prisoners have suffered—a wrong for
which the Government ought to take responsibility.
Lord Marks
of Henley-on-Thames (LD): My Lords, in 2008 the
previous Administration recognised the difficulties that the mandatory
imposition of IPPs had caused when they made the changes to increase judicial
discretion and remove short-tariff sentences for sentences passed after July
2008. Yet there remain in prison many who were sentenced to IPPs before that
date and whose short-tariff sentences were completed long ago, as the noble and
learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has just pointed out. He gave us the numbers and they
are truly shocking. I pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord for his
sustained and impressive campaigning on this issue over a long time.
In 2010, through the then Prisons Minister, my honourable friend Crispin
Blunt, the Government publicly recognised that the present position was
indefensible because it was clear that many IPP prisoners were being held well
beyond their tariff dates for no better reason than that the Prison Service was
unable to provide the courses necessary for them to satisfy the Parole Board of
their suitability for release. Then, in 2012 this Government, to their credit,
recognised the injustice of IPP sentences when they abolished them in the LASPO
Act. Also in 2012, as has been pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord
Phillips, the European Court of Human Rights recognised the injustice when it
decided the case of James, Wells and Lee v the United Kingdom, broadly on the
ground that, given the lack of the rehabilitation courses necessary to
establish suitability for release, the continued detention of the applicants in
that case amounted to the arbitrary deprivation of their liberty, contrary to
Article 5(1).
Neither the changes introduced by the Criminal Justice and Immigration
Act 2008 nor the abolition of IPP sentences by the LASPO Act had any
retrospective effect. The result is that we are now left, as the noble Lord,
Lord Wigley, pointed out in his extremely helpful and informative introduction
to this debate, with an impossible and indefensible injustice.
The current position is that on the one hand there are in prison many
who are serving indeterminate terms well after their tariff sentences have been
fully served, often with short-tariff sentences imposed before the two-year
restriction was introduced. Many of those prisoners see, and have, no hope of
early release because the necessary resources to secure their release are still
not being provided in sufficient quantity or at sufficient speed. The system is
still overwhelmed by its inability to cope with the stresses placed upon it. On
the other hand, many of those sentenced to similar tariff terms more
recently—after abolition—who would
have received an IPP sentence before abolition have now been, and are
being, released after serving their determinate sentences in full, well before
those who are still held on IPPs, having been sentenced earlier.
What should the Government do? As the noble and learned Lord, Lord
Lloyd, pointed out, the LASPO Act, by Section 128, specifically gives the
Secretary of State wide powers to deal with the injustice of existing IPPs. The
first power is to provide by order that, following a referral, the Parole Board
must direct release if certain conditions are met; the second is the
converse—that he may provide that the Parole Board must direct release unless
certain conditions are met. The careful use of either power would enable the
Secretary of State to put an end to the injustice highlighted in this debate
that now disgraces our criminal justice system, while ensuring that prisoners
whose release would genuinely present a serious danger to the public are kept
in prison until their release is judged safe. Yet, despite the power contained
in and legislated for in Section 128, the Government have so far resisted
retrospectively altering sentences on the basis that those were sentences
passed by judges acting in accordance with the law as it was at the date of
sentencing.
Your Lordships’ House is very familiar with the arguments against
retrospective legislation but, as my noble friend Lord Dholakia pointed out,
they are generally deployed to avoid doing injustice to persons who were
unaffected by restrictions before the passage of legislation. I have never
heard them deployed in favour of continuing an injustice to those currently
affected by unfair and oppressive legislation.
There is a further answer to the argument that bringing forward release
dates now would overturn decisions of judges made according to the law in force
at the time of passing the sentences. Many of the IPPs imposed were imposed
because the judge’s hands were tied, often by judges acting through gritted
teeth in compliance with what they regarded as, and what was a bad law. That is
no ground for demanding respect for those sentences now.
Whether the best solution is to treat all existing prisoners on the
basis on which they would have been treated had they been sentenced after 2012,
or to give them the option to be so treated, as the noble and learned Lord,
Lord Lloyd of Berwick, suggests, or whether it would be best simply to
introduce a presumption in favour of release unless continuing incarceration
can be clearly justified, under the second limb of Section 128, the present
injustice cannot in conscience be permitted to continue. If my noble friend’s
response to this debate goes no further than saying that the Government will
simply try a little harder to speed up the rate of release of prisoners caught
by IPPs, that will not, I suggest, be a response that goes anywhere near
meeting the need for a genuine solution. Tinkering around the edges of the old
system will not be a solution.
It is important to remember that there is a special feature of IPPs.
They were sentences imposed not for crimes that had been committed but for fear
of crimes that might be committed in the future. It is clear that your
Lordships recognise, as we all must, that public
protection is an important function of punishment. However, it is also
important that those involved with the criminal justice system and the public
at large have the confidence that our system of justice is indeed fair and
just. Where that system perpetrates and then maintains an obvious injustice,
long after it has become recognisable and has in fact been recognised as such,
our system cannot and does not deserve to command that confidence. We who
support this Government have been proud of the rehabilitation revolution that
we have introduced. The continued detention on IPPs of prisoners long beyond
their tariff dates is the antithesis of that rehabilitation revolution, and we
should end it.
Lord
Ramsbotham (CB): My Lords, I apologise to the House for not
being in my place when the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, started his speech, but I
was unavoidably detained on the telephone. I therefore seek the indulgence of
the House to continue with the remarks that I intended to make. I congratulate
the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on securing this important debate, and, as the
noble Lord, Lord Marks, has done, salute my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd
who for years has tirelessly pursued the injustices and other issues connected
with this sentence. I absolutely agree with every word of what he suggested and
has put forward to the Secretary of State for consideration.
Rather than look at the legal side, which has been so well covered by
other noble Lords, I shall focus a little more on some of the practical issues,
particularly those that show a tremendous need for improvement within the
National Offender Management Service. In doing so, I would like to refer to two
reports which were published in 2008—longer than the length of World War 2 ago.
One is by the Chief Inspectors of Prisons and of Probation and one is by the
Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health, as it was then called, of which I am
currently a vice-president and was formerly an adviser. I do so because one of
the things that worries me in the reports of two inquests—one of which I
reported to the House in June 2012 and one which took place last month—is that
they disclose failures in the National Offender Management Service which ought
to be eliminated.
In June 2012 I reported to the House the case of Shaun Beasley, who had
been awarded a two year 145 day tariff IPP in 2007. The Parole Board said that
he needed to do a course, so he was sent from Littlehey prison to Parc prison
in Wales, where he was told that the course he required was not available and
would not be for two to three years. This was in early August and on 24 August
he rang his family and said that he could not cope any more. His family
immediately rang the prison; nothing was done; and he was found hanging in his
cell shortly after midnight.
On 28 February this year, the inquest took place of Kieron Dowdall who,
as an 18 year-old, was given a three and a half year IPP tariff in 2006. In
October 2010 he was sent to North Sea Camp open prison as part of his release
plan. By early January 2012, when nothing had happened, his mood and mental
wellbeing significantly deteriorated. He absconded and was picked
up, having said that he was trying to kill himself. He was moved to
Lincoln prison and suddenly from there, without warning, was moved to Stafford.
When he got to Stafford he telephoned his family several times, saying that he
had a feeling of hopelessness, and his family tried repeatedly to ring the
staff at Stafford but were told to put their concerns in writing. He was found
hanging in his cell on 27 January, shortly after which it was discovered that
there had been an incomplete form on his potential suicide waiting in Lincoln
prison which had not been forwarded to Stafford.
I mention those cases because in the report in 2008 put forward by the
Chief Inspectors of Prisons and of Probation, they said that one of the main
problems with the management of IPP prisoners was that there was no clarity
over who had overall responsibility for them, and they recommended the
appointment of a senior lead to look after their interests and their
programming. I have bored the House many times over this because it has always
struck me that one of the failings of our Prison Service is not to have someone,
some named person, responsible and accountable for each type of prisoner and
for seeing that what happens to them is consistent and is exactly the same all
over the country. Any manager or Minister who wants something done, sends for
the person responsible and tells them to do it. If you do not have someone,
nothing gets done. Nothing has been done with IPP prisoners. No one is
responsible or accountable. It is no good managing these sort of people, with
all their various needs, by committee.
They went on to say that the National Offender Management Service should
do two things. First, it should collate and make publicly available up-to-date
management information about IPP prisoners, including tariff length, ethnicity,
location, assessments completed, needs identified, interventions required and
progression. Those are not available. If you ask what these people need,
whatever it may be, you cannot get an answer. Secondly, it should carry out an
intervention needs analysis of those sentenced to IPP and an assessment of the
resources required and available to meet those needs in a sufficient number of
prisons at appropriate levels of security across the country.
Other noble Lords have already mentioned that one of the problems of the
IPP prisoner is that, as happened with one of the prisoners I have talked
about, Mr Beasley, when they arrive at the place they have been sent to for a
course, it is not available. That is simply not good enough and will not do.
Unless and until the Prison Service and the National Offender Management
Service get their act together and put someone in charge who is responsible for
evaluating these things, nothing will happen. The nine years to clear the
backlog will go on and on because more people will not have completed their
journey through the revolving door.
If I have one other wish, it is that the burden of proof, as it is
sometimes called, should be re-examined in order to ease the pressure. The
noble Lord, Lord Marks, hinted at that in his remarks. I think it would be
irresponsible of the Secretary of State not to ease the pressure on the
overstretched Prison Service by requiring the state to produce evidence that
someone still represents a risk rather than the person having to
prove that he does not. Until drastic action is taken, this wretched
problem is going to go on and on because the resources will not increase, and
without those, we will never correct this dreadful misjudgment.
Lord Hope of
Craighead (CB): My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble
Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and I join him and others in thanking the noble Lord,
Lord Wigley, for initiating this debate. I spent some time this morning reading
the report in Hansard of the debates held during the Committee stage of
the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill on 9 February 2012.
They ended with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, the then Minister, moving that
what is now Section 128 of the Act should stand part of the Bill. Having read
those debates, I appreciate that several noble and noble and learned Lords who
have spoken this afternoon took part in those debates too. They really are
veterans of this campaign. Tributes have rightly been paid to the noble and
learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who stands out as a leader on this issue.
This is a sustained and admirable campaign to which I have introduced myself as
a relative newcomer.
However, the issue itself is not entirely new to me. As the noble and
learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, pointed out, I sat on the
appeals to this House against the decisions of the Court of Appeal in the cases
of Walker and James, and had the great advantage of sitting with the noble and
learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, who was in his place earlier,
and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who was then the Lord Chief
Justice. It gave us no pleasure to have to dismiss those appeals on the ground
that the sentences that had been passed against the appellants could not be
said to have been unlawful. Fortunately, our decision that their Article 5
convention rights had not been infringed was not followed when they took their
cases to Strasbourg, so it is now clear that these prisoners will have claims
by way of damages. However, that makes the situation even worse for the
Government than we thought it was when we heard those appeals. There will be a
large bill to pay for this mistake, in addition to the costs of incarceration,
and it is growing day by day and hour by hour as we speak.
We all know that the way the IPP sentences were introduced was
regrettable. The statutory scheme itself was ill conceived. As the noble Lord,
Lord Marks, pointed out, it was overly prescriptive and left no room for the
exercise of any judicial discretion. As a result, far too many prisoners were
sucked into it. There is a warning here for this Government too. I need only
mention the debate that is still going on about the wording of some of the
provisions in Clause 14 of the Immigration Bill, with which the Minister will
be familiar, to make the point. It is most unwise to leave judges with no room
for manoeuvre. Legislation by its very nature is a blunt instrument. It cannot
foresee everything that may happen in the future. Facts vary from case to case.
It should be left to the judges to fine-tune what the Government seek to
achieve. They can be relied on to follow the guidance and can make it fit the
facts. There was no need to spell out in Section 229 and Schedule 15 what was
required for them to assess dangerousness and it was
entirely misguided for the then Government to insist on doing so. We all
know, too, that the system was comprehensively underresourced. I need not go
over the details, which have been so well rehearsed by noble Lords who have
spoken before me. All I can say is that the situation they have described is
one that everyone knows has no place in a decent society.
That all having been said—one can of course pile objection upon
objection in looking at the situation we now have—the real point of this
debate, as I see it, is to focus attention on what can be done to put an end to
the situation. The most interesting part will therefore be what the Minister
can tell us in his reply. It was his Government who, very commendably, provided
an opportunity to find a way out when they introduced Section 128 of the LASPO
Act. As the headnote puts it, that section gives the Secretary of State power,
exercisable by order, to change the test for the release of, among others, an
IPP prisoner. However, that provision came into effect as long ago now as 3
December 2012, yet here we are, more than a year later, and nothing has been
done to put it into effect: no order has yet been made, nor has there been any
announcement of when we can expect one.
On 9 February 2012, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, refused to be drawn
when he was asked to say when an order under that section could be expected to
be made. He said that time was needed to see how the probation rules could be
adjusted in the light of the argument to which he had been listening. The Committee
was told that a new system of offender management was to take effect as from
April of that year and that it was expected to “result in improved targeting”.
So the first question I have for the Minister is whether he could tell us what
the result has been of the exercise which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, told
the Committee about.
Looked at from the prisoners’ point of view, there has been no obvious
improvement in their situation at all. Why, then, have no steps been taken to
give effect to Section 128? Having asked that question, I have to say with all
honesty that I entirely understand the view that the Secretary of State has
taken, which is that he has to respect the rule of law. It is not open to him,
with great respect, to alter the terms of these indeterminate sentences; nor is
it open to him to alter the system that Section 239 lays down for the
performance of its functions by the Parole Board. As the House made clear in
its judgment in the case of James in 2009, the detention of these prisoners is,
and will remain, lawful until the Parole Board gives a direction for their
release. The default position—which is the position they are regrettably now
in—is that, until the Parole Board gives that direction, protection of the
public requires that they should be confined.
Moreover, Section 239(6) of the 2003 Act was not repealed. As a result,
when he is giving directions to the Parole Board under that Section 128 of the
2012 Act, and indeed under Section 239, the Secretary of State is required to
have regard to,
and the need to secure “their
rehabilitation”. I cannot see an escape from that situation as the legislation
stands at present—that is what the law requires. One
simply cannot assume, without looking at the facts of each case, that
all those in a given category are fit for release immediately.
However, the situation is not beyond repair. Section 128 of the 2012 Act
requires the Secretary of State to steer a narrow course. As the noble and
learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, it is his duty to exercise the power which
Parliament gave to him. There are no short cuts but I cannot understand why he
is unable to find a way to exercise that power in the way that Parliament
contemplated. The headnote talks about changing the test for release. Can the
Minister tell the House what the current tests are, what steps are being taken
to see why they are not fit for purpose—as they obviously are not—and what
thought has been given to changing them so that they are? I do not see that as
changing the terms of the sentences; it is all about changing the test to be
applied by the Parole Board. There is great force in the point already made
that the power under Section 128(1)(b) should be used, which inverts the onus
and requires the Parole Board to direct release unless the Prison Service can
satisfy the board that the prisoner should not be released.
There is one further point that I should like to make. There are other
things that could be done. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, drew attention to
them in the debate on 9 February 2012. He said then, as he did this afternoon,
that there was a need for someone to be,
Official Report
, 9/2/12; col. 437.]
Having looked at the idea,
there is much to be said for that proposal. Again I ask the Minister: what
thoughts have been given to the proposal that was made in that debate in 2012?
If it is difficult for him to answer the question immediately, will he be kind
enough to write to us to explain what the answer is to the various questions
that have been put?
Lord Judge
(CB): My Lords, this debate has highlighted the malign contribution to the
problem that we are discussing today of Section 229(3) of the Criminal Justice
Act 2003. The court is obliged to make an assumption of dangerousness on the
basis of one conviction, which might of course be something dreadful such as
rape or murder, where the dangerousness speaks for itself, but might also
include, among the more than 100 cases that my noble friend Lord Wigley
identified, a voyeur—that is, a peeping tom; exposure—that is, a flasher; or indeed,
and I do not make this point facetiously but to underline the absurdity of the
legislation, somebody who has sexual intercourse with a corpse, who might be
somebody who needs rather a lot of assistance and psychiatric help.
The lesson that the legislation should show us is the absurdity of
anything that seeks to bind a sentencing judge to make a decision that is based
not on evidence but on diktat. An evidence-based decision about what an
appropriate sentence should be is the only way in which justice can be done.
This legislation has been put right and we are all grateful that it has. The
court still has to assess dangerousness. There are still occasions
when the court will decide that an individual defendant should never be
released because he—or, very rarely, she—represents such a serious continuing
danger.
I do not think that the judiciary would be deeply concerned about any
interference with constitutional principle if we had a look at all the cases of
those who are still subject to imprisonment for public protection, when the
transcript will show that the judge made the order because he was in effect
compelled, or felt that he was compelled, to do so, or by the application of
the powers that have been given under Section 128 of the recent legislation.
Lord Kennedy
of Southwark (Lab): My Lords, as other noble Lords have done, I
thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for putting this Question down for debate.
He has raised an important issue for your Lordships’ House to debate this
afternoon.
Imprisonment for public protection was introduced by the previous Labour
Government in 2005. It was designed to ensure that dangerous, violent and
sexual offenders stayed in custody for as long as they presented a risk to
society. When Labour introduced IPP in 2005, it was for a very good reason:
protection of the public, with sentences put in place to keep the most violent,
persistent offenders off our streets. If a judge felt that offenders were a
risk to society, they could hand down an IPP, which meant that the offenders
had to prove to the Parole Board that they were ready to rejoin society by
completing rehabilitation programmes. Punishment and reform went hand in hand.
I accept entirely that there were problems with the introduction and in
2008 changes were introduced to deal with some of the issues we have heard
about today. Labour made changes to the administration of the scheme and
proposed a new “seriousness threshold” that would have to be satisfied before
the court could impose the sentence. This was to make sure that the sentence
was reserved for very serious and violent offenders—those who are the biggest
risk to the public. As a result of these changes, the number of offenders
serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection dropped, but serious
offenders were released from prison only when it was deemed safe to do so.
Evidence shows that there is a low rate of reoffending by prisoners released
having served a sentence of imprisonment for public protection.
Instead, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, the Government’s new
regime introduces a “two strikes” policy so that a mandatory life sentence will
be given to anyone convicted of a second serious sexual or violent crime. Where
is the public protection here? Effectively, the policy says, “We won’t make the
mistake a second time”. Does the Minister believe that the new complicated
system of extensions and parole for different sentences will keep the public
safe?
Imprisonment for public protection was criticised for contributing to
prison overcrowding, but what will the effect of this new policy be? Does the
Minister know? Our prisons have serious problems; overcrowding is a real issue.
I share the astonishment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, at the Justice
Secretary seeking to limit prisoners’ access to books, as has recently been
announced.
Under this Government, 17 local prisons have been closed, with 5,000
places lost in the prison system in the last year alone, leaving remaining
prisons close to bursting point. Does the Minister agree that overcrowding in
the prison system—pushed to breaking point by the Justice Secretary, with
prison places lost before anything is built to replace them—is making it harder
effectively to rehabilitate those still serving a sentence of imprisonment for
public protection.
To work effectively, the Government’s new sentencing regime needs
investment in the Parole Board. Lack of investment in the Parole Board and the
shortage of courses for rehabilitation have caused, and are still causing, a
backlog. Without proper investment, the Government’s new plan will face the
same problems. What resources are the Government putting in place to ensure
that these offenders are properly rehabilitated before they are released back
into the community?
We are hearing reports that courses and activities are being cancelled,
or that prisoners cannot attend courses, due to there not being enough prison
officers to escort prisoners from the wing to the classroom. Now that
imprisonment for public protection has been abolished, what is the plan for dealing
with prisoners who remain within the system over their tariff? There is not
one. The Government’s new policy will not avoid the criticisms levied against
the previous system that it seeks to replace. It offers no solution to deal
with those prisoners still in the system over their tariff. Let us be clear:
the chances of being rehabilitated in prison are now lower than ever.
We cannot have offenders who come out of prison just as or more likely
to offend as when they went in. We must also do all we can to make sure that
the first crime is the last crime. To make a real difference, rehabilitation
requires investment. We need investment in drugs and alcohol programmes and
mental health services. We need rehabilitation courses to be available in all
prisons and a more effective and joined-up approach to reducing reoffending in
the long term.
What is most worrying is that a recent report from the National Audit
Office found that fewer sex offender treatment programmes are being provided in
prisons. In February this year, the BBC reported that, in 2012-13, there were
around 11,000 sex offenders in prison in England and Wales but that only 1,092
treatment programmes were completed, while sex offenders in jails in England
now make up 15% of the prison population. There are more sex offenders in
prisons, but fewer treatment programmes.
The Government have been playing catch-up ever since they abolished
imprisonment for public protection. Serious, violent individuals must not pose
a risk to the public and proper due process must be followed before their
release. They should be supported by courses and programmes and an effectively
resourced Parole Board to allow rehabilitation to take place.
Judges need the all the tools at their disposal to sentence people in
the right way so that they are punished and reformed. The public will want
reassurance that there are enough prison places over the coming years to keep
safely behind bars those found guilty of serious crimes and that enough is
being done to rehabilitate and reform prisoners to stop them reoffending.
The new regime needs the same investment in parole hearings and
rehabilitation courses to make it work as was needed by imprisonment for public
protection. There is no solution for thousands of prisoners over their tariff;
the same problems remain. This is indicative of the fact that the revolution in
rehabilitation promised by the Government in their review is nowhere to be
seen. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for bringing this Question
before the House.
The Minister
of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con): My Lords, I
thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for securing this debate. The issue of how
to manage those prisoners who are still serving indeterminate sentences of
imprisonment for public protection is important and one that has generated
considerable interest, not least in this House.
Indeed, our IPP prisoners could hardly have more effective advocates
than the noble and learned Lords who have spoken this evening. Nor has their
interest and concern been recent; it has been sustained and tenacious. At a
recent meeting convened by the Bingham Centre, where the noble and learned
Lord, Lord Lloyd, spoke, those issues were thoroughly discussed. Although I was
unable to attend myself because of parliamentary duties, he was good enough to
send me a copy of his remarks there, so the Government do not pretend to be
unaware of the full range of anxiety that has been expressed about the issue.
Much has been said about the history of IPP sentences. Briefly, to
remind the House, the IPP sentence was first brought into effect in 2005, by
the Criminal Justice Act 2003, to target those offenders likely to pose a risk
of serious harm to the public. Imposition of the sentence was mandatory in
certain circumstances. More IPP sentences were imposed than were originally
anticipated—that is something of an understatement. The noble Lord, Lord
Kennedy, said that there were problems with introduction. That, too, is
something of an understatement. I understood him to be rather unrepentant about
the sentence as a whole, but be that as it may. It was not until the reforms
introduced by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 that a minimum
tariff of two years was imposed, barring exceptional circumstances. Further,
the mandatory requirement for imposition of the sentence in certain
circumstances was removed—a “may” for a “must”. On 3 December 2012, the
sentence was abolished by the LASPO Act. However, abolition was not made
retrospective, so those prisoners already serving IPP sentences continue to do
so until the independent Parole Board finds their assessed risks to have been
reduced enough to be manageable in the community.
Although this Government have abolished the IPP sentence, it would not
be right or appropriate in our view retrospectively to alter sentences that had
been lawfully imposed prior to their abolition. When the LASPO Bill was being
debated, a number of amendments were proposed in this House that would have
changed retrospectively the sentences imposed by courts. However, none of those
resulted in a change to the legislation to the effect to which some arguments
have been directed this evening. That is usual—it is generally the case that
when changes are made to the sentencing framework, they do not impact on
current prisoners, and changes will not be made to sentences that were lawfully
passed at the time they were imposed. One reason for that is because a court
will have had regard to the range of sentences then available when imposing a
sentence, so it will not necessarily be clear what sentence would have been
imposed under a different statutory regime. Indeed, it would be quite wrong to
assume in any individual case what sentence a court would have imposed under
such a different regime.
On IPPs, at the higher end there will be IPP sentences that have been
imposed where a life sentence might otherwise be available. At the lower end,
given that the courts had found risk, it is not clear whether an extended
sentence or a standard determinate sentence would have been imposed. Versions
of the extended sentence are available under more than one recent statutory
framework, but other considerations then arise: would the various thresholds
for these sentences have been reached under different statutory frameworks?
What would the length of the extended licence have been?
I hope I have said enough to demonstrate the complexity of trying to
translate sentences imposed under one regime to another. In this case, the
courts were specifically enjoined by the law to give priority to the
consideration of risk. It would make it a particularly sensitive exercise
retrospectively to change these sentences, which is what the conversion process
would involve.
The Government also do not believe that it would be responsible or
sensible, given the high risk levels presented by many of the IPP prisoners who
remain in prison post-tariff. We do well to remember that many offenders who
received IPP sentences, including those who remain in custody today post-tariff
expiry, did so for serious crimes—notwithstanding the observations of the noble
and learned Lord, Lord Judge—including attempted murder, manslaughter, rape and
sexual assault of children. Any move to release those prisoners without due
consideration of the risk they pose to the public would be wrong.
I know that many noble Lords have particular concerns about those
offenders with short tariffs, of less than two years imposed before the 2008
Act abolished such short tariffs except where there was serious previous
offending. However, internal management information suggests that the clear
majority of IPP offenders currently remaining in custody with tariffs of less
than two years are there because they are assessed as posing a high, or very
high, risk of serious harm to the public. This means that a serious offence
could take place at any time. It would not be safe or appropriate to release
these offenders on licence without due consideration of the risk which they present
at the current time.
No one would claim that there have not been significant problems with
IPP sentences. That is why we abolished the sentence and replaced it with the
extended determinate sentence. There were practical issues arising from the
number of IPP sentences with short tariffs that were imposed. The sentence did
not command public confidence and led to apparent inconsistencies of
sentencing. It meant that victims, the public, and offenders and their
families were unclear about when an offender might be released.
However, we also have a clear duty to the public not to release IPP
prisoners who continue to pose an unacceptable risk. It was never the intention
of the sentence that offenders past their tariff should all be released, but
only those who can be effectively managed in the community. It is for the
independent Parole Board to determine whether an IPP prisoner has reduced their
risk sufficiently to achieve release. The board does not, of course, take these
decisions lightly: it examines reports from prison and probation and from
psychologists where appropriate—and of course the prison governor provides
information in the dossier—and decides whether the risk to the public remains
too high to release an offender. All IPP offenders who have completed their
tariff have the right to attend the regular parole review oral hearings, where
release is considered. The Government consider that this is the best system for
balancing the rights of the offender with our duty to protect the public.
I want to mention the NOMS work to improve the position of IPP
prisoners, because this is clearly an important consideration. No prisoner
should be left without opportunities to demonstrate to the Parole Board that
their risk has reduced. I would also like to speak about the important work
that has been undertaken to improve the prospects of progression for those IPP
offenders who choose to engage with the opportunities presented to them.
Examples of this work include: the streamlining of assessment, targeting and
management processes, to ensure that IPP prisoners’ risks and objectives are
identified as early as possible; reducing waiting times for transferring IPP
offenders to open prisons, from over eight months to an average of two months;
the refining of our commissioning strategies to maximise resources and focus
investment on those interventions proven to be effective; and publication of
guidance for those managing the sentences of IPP prisoners to ensure that the
focus of sentence planning is on reducing risk in a planned and sequenced
manner, and not solely on completing specific offending behaviour programmes.
The indeterminate sentence prisoners co-ordination group was established
in 2010 to oversee the strategic management of all offenders serving
indeterminate sentences, including both those serving IPP and life sentences.
The group is led at director level within NOMS, with membership from senior
representatives across NOMS. The group’s work has a particular focus on
improving, wherever possible, the progression of these offenders through
custody and then, should the Parole Board so direct, into the community. It
achieves this by developing and promoting the most effective means of managing
those serving indeterminate sentences and ensuring that resources are directed
appropriately. This includes informing the development and co-ordination of
strategies relating to offender assessment, sentence planning and delivery,
access to interventions, parole processes, prison capacity issues and offender
management in the community following release. I could give a number of
examples of work that the group has delivered, but time does not permit me to
do so.
As to interventions, it is a common misconception that IPP offenders
must complete offending behaviour programmes in order to achieve release.
Equally, it is a misconception that the completion of courses is a sufficient
condition to secure release. Neither of these is the case. The Parole Board is
under a general obligation to consider the offender’s risk level, which can be
demonstrated in a variety of ways. In so doing, the board will take an holistic
view and consider all available evidence. The completion of a number of courses
is just one of a range of factors that the Parole Board will take into account.
In 2011, the Ministry of Justice carried out a research study into
Parole Board decision-making in IPP cases. A summary of that research was
published in 2012 and can be found on the Government’s website. There are
points arising from that research that it is important to make. It suggests
that programmes are far from the only relevant factor in release decisions.
Release is to some extent related to the completion of programmes, but this is
not a simple relationship. The research shows that the parole process is
targeted on the individual and that only programmes specified to the
individual’s needs, successfully completed and showing some impact on the
prisoner, are likely to be taken as evidence of sentence progression. A number
of other factors were important. The Parole Board members interviewed for this
study thought that indeterminately sentenced prisoners benefit greatly from
spending time in an open prison, for example.
Lord Lloyd
of Berwick: My Lords, I can see that the Minister’s time is nearly up. I wonder
whether he could deal with one or two of the arguments which have actually been
advanced in the House this afternoon, in particular regarding Section 128. What
did Parliament have in mind when that power was conferred on the Secretary of
State?
Lord Faulks: It is of course a matter of statutory instruction what it had in mind.
The Secretary of State is aware of the obligation placed on him to consider the
matter. The noble and learned Lord has recently been in correspondence with the
Secretary of State and I have endeavoured to give the Secretary of State’s
reasons for the position that he has so far adopted in that respect. The
question is whether the Secretary of State should exercise that power in the
way that the noble and learned Lord and other noble Lords think appropriate
and, if not, what steps are being taken to ensure that IPP prisoners are having
the opportunity to obtain release via hearings from the Parole Board. On that
and other matters, I will write to noble Lords because I have not sufficient
time to deal with all the questions raised.
Reference was made to the European Court of Human Rights and the case of
James, Wells and Lee and others. That is a decision which is not without
difficulty and which has been considered by the Supreme Court in a number of
contexts. I should declare an interest as an advocate in one of those cases.
The decision by the European Court of Human Rights was indeed that there was an
arbitrary detention because
of the lack of provision of courses, and therefore a violation of
Article 5(1), but it did not decide that the sentence was per se unlawful.
There are of course further cases going through the courts and sometimes the
facts do not quite fit the allegations. However, the Government are well aware
of the consequences of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, as ever made some useful observations
about offender management. We do not deny that offender management problems
exist in custody and we accept the recommendations of the latest inspectorate
report on the improvements that need to be made. Some improvements have been
made but more needs to be done, including a full review of offender management
in custody which will commence next year. As the noble Lord and other noble Lords
will know, an inquiry has been set up into deaths in custody. That was
announced recently in answer to a Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord
Ramsbotham, himself. I hope that that matter will inform decision-making in
that respect.
Finally, regarding the Parole Board, there is liaison with it as a
result of the Osborn decision. Increased resources have been made available to
the Parole Board and there is regular communication between it and the Ministry
of Justice to ensure that its resources are appropriately deployed to increase
the possibility of hearings taking place.
The sentence itself was clearly ill conceived and its impact was wholly
underestimated. The Government recognised that by abolishing it in the Act. The
Secretary of State has not considered it so far appropriate to exercise the
power given to him by the LASPO Act, on which there have been a number of
arguments. However, the Government are extremely aware of the importance of
IPP-sentenced prisoners having the opportunity for their release to be
considered and to have the opportunity of proving whether they are no longer a
danger. That is a matter of which the Government are painfully aware.
All the observations made by noble Lords this evening in this valuable
and helpful debate will be taken back to the Secretary of State and if there
are any matters that I have not fully dealt with in the course of it, I will
endeavour to deal with them in writing.
Post by "IPP "Petition.Thank you for your support
.https://www.facebook.com/events/515410345246082/?ref_newsfeed_story_type=regular
https://www.facebook.com/groups/katherinegleeson17/
.https://www.facebook.com/events/515410345246082/?ref_newsfeed_story_type=regular
https://www.facebook.com/groups/katherinegleeson17/
Katherine Gleeson
