Total Pageviews

Wednesday 16 December 2015

IPP,S case,s. Reviewing the position of thousands of prisoners who are still in jail despite having served the minimum jail term laid down by the courts.Get writing about your case to the Lord Chief Thomas, his address

The Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd - the Head of the Judiciary of England and Wales and the President of the Courts of England will be hearing  12 IPP  cases.
Michael Gove  Minister for justice will be reviewing numbers of cases.

 Ipp,s family and friends I would get writing about your case. You could get support from your solicitor, a support letter or ask your Mp to help you.
Family,s you can google how to write to a lord if not well versed and send a template to your IPP further sent them articles so they can  understand what your reading.  Encourage and support them in writing there case if need be. At the bottom of the page ive added the address of Michael Gove Minister for justice .Send a copy to both  of them and keep a copy  thus saving time. Send by signed delivery this way nothing can go amiss.

 

Gavin Shuker, labour and Cooperative MP for Luton South

Dear Katherine

Thank you for calling our constituency office today.

You may find it useful to write formally to:

The Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd - the Head of the Judiciary of England and Wales and the President of the Courts of England and Wales at the address below:
Judicial Office
11th floor, Thomas More Building
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL


We trust that this information is useful for you.

If you need assistance from Gavin with anything else in the future please let us know.

Best regards

Richard

Richard Robinson
Senior Parliamentary Assistant
www.gavinshuker.org



House of Lords information office

Dear Katherine

Thank you for your email.

If you would like to contact Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, he leaves the following address with us:

Rt Hon The Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
Royal Courts of Justice
London
WC2A 2LL
Tel: 020 7947 6776
E-mail:
thelordchiefjustice@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk

Lord Thomas
 
Image result for pic of Lord Thomas of CwmgieddImage result for pic of Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
............................................................................................................................................



Rt Hon Michael Gove MP Michael Gove, Minister for Justice               

Parliamentary

House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA
Tel: 020 7219 6804
            
                           
Website: www.michaelgove.com/in...            
 

“When will the Lord Chancellor finally decide to bring this terrible scourge to an end? This is a form of preventive detention, internment, entirely alien to our traditional criminal justice approach.” These are the words of former Supreme Court judge, Lord Brown.



His Lordship was talking about a scar that has defaced the penal system since 2005, with the introduction of Indeterminate Public Protection (IPP) sentences.

They were introduced two years earlier with the intention of protecting the public from people who had committed serious offences, but not deemed so grave as to warrant a life sentence. Offenders sentenced under IPP rules were given a minimum term (tariff) to serve in prison.

When that tariff point was reached, IPP prisoners could apply to the Parole Board for their freedom.

Catch 22

Almost immediately after their introduction, prison watchers realised that IPPs represented a classic Catch 22 situation.

To convince the Parole Board they no longer represented a threat, IPP prisoners had to complete certain offending behaviour courses, according to the nature of their offence.

But these courses were not available across the entire prison estate. So, you could not be released until you had completed the programme, but the programmes were not available in the numbers required.

Systematic failure

IPP prisoners began to clog up the system. The more they did so, the less the programmes became open to them.

The Court of Appeal quickly recognised this catch and in 2007 judges ruled the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully in introducing IPPs.

They condemned the “systematic failure to put in place the resources necessary to implement the the scheme of rehabilitation required-under the Act.”

It was not until 2012 that the government scrapped IPP, replacing it with new sentencing guidelines.

But the changes were not retrospective and IPP prisoners continue to be held many years after their tariffs have expired – and still unable to complete the courses that were the keys to their freedom.

Currently 4,614 people ares still being held on IPP sentences, of whom 3,532 (77 per cent) have passed their tariff expiry date.

In some cases, prisoners given a minimum tariff of two years were counting their years in double figures....

Log jam

In this month’s edition of Inside Time, an IPP prisoner who in 2008 was given a tariff of six years states his case.
He has been a model prisoner: never committed an offence against prison rules and been on enhanced status for six and a half years. He has completed 23 offending behaviour courses but remains stuck in the log jam in a Category C prison.

He appears to be a victim of the intolerable pressures put on the Parole Board, who simply do not have the resources to cope with the demand.

 And who, no doubt, are terrified of getting it wrong and releasing a person who may re-offend, and o incurring the wrath of the right wing press.The Catch 22 nightmare still applies, three years after IPPs were scrapped.

One solution

The failed IPP system is just one of the many problems facing new justice secretary Michael Gove.
Under current rules, he still has to wait until the Parole Board clears the log jam, which will likely be 8 years down the line.

I offer one solution to at least improve the situation.
The Parole Board carries out a thorough risk assessment before releasing a prisoner.

During this time inmates serving IPP sentences may well be held in open prisons, to help them adjust to life in the outside.
But to get to an open jail, prisoners undergo a thorough risk assessment and, of course, they could walk out of their jails whenever they choose. By staying there, surely these men have proved they are not a risk.
Common sense and justice should prevail.

This ugly stain on the criminal justice landscape can and should be removed forthwith.
prisonwatchuk.com/2015/12/15/the-ugly-stain-of-ipp-indeterminate-sentences-comment-from-eric-allison/

, , , , , , , ,

Tuesday 15 December 2015

IPP CASES. I would get writing to lord chief justice Lord Thomas or Michael Gove minister for justice.""

Monday 14 December 2015

Lord Chief to hear 13 IPP cases together to give a consistent approach to the older cases. 8 December 2015 with Baker J and McGowan J.


Michael Gove is reviewing the position of thousands of prisoners who are still in jail despite having served the minimum jail term laid down by the courts, The Times can reveal.

The inmates are caught in a Kafkaesque situation in which they remain behind bars because they cannot prove to the Parole Board that they are no longer a risk to the public.

One prisoner is in jail ten years after he was given an indeterminate sentence for stealing a phone, with a recommendation that he serve a minimum term of 12 months.

 
Janet Boden. The important bit from this article ...."There is one piece of news. On 10 December 2015, in the Court of Appeal, the Lord Chief Justice will hear about a dozen beyond-tariff IPP cases. I am involved in one of the cases and I understand that all the defendants are challenging the imposition of IPP rather than detention beyond the end of the tariff. Normally when a series of cases are linked together this is because the Lord Chief Justice wants to issue new guidance."

 
 Links:
 

OFFENDERS MAGEMENTS Statistics Bulletin covers the prison population as at 30 June 2015 and the probation .... first time more than three quarters of IPP prisoners are now post-tariff. ... Statistics publications on the Criminal Justice System in the Ministry of justice.
file:///C:/Users/user/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/VQL3TZUI/offender-management-statistics-bulletin-jan-mar-2015%20%281%29.pdf

The times IPP:
http://help.thetimes.co.uk/site_timesarticledetail?categories=Exclusive_Memberships_Offers&id=000007961&retURL=site_timeshome&searchtext=&type=Non-Member

Robert Banks receives letters from prisoners asking for advice. from those who have received unlawful sentences. Each one is answered and a selection of answers are published in Inside Time, the prisoner's newspaper.
The prisoners whose letters are published consent to the replies being published. However, no details which would identify the prisoner are given.
Only letters sent via a solicitor can be answered. Letters sent direct will be returned. Serving prisone...rs should send their letters to Inside Time, who will send it to a solicitor.

Wednesday 9 December 2015

To be given opportunities by a penal system that believes in giving individuals another chance, responsibilities and the tools to improve. You are so right Mr Gove, offenders do deserve another chance.

| By SHANE WOODFORD - HMP HULL

‘Best of luck Mr Gove’
Oh, Mr Gove, what a beautiful, encouraging, idealistic speech you gave regarding prison and prison reform at the Conservative Party Conference on the 5th of October. I would love to be able to have the chance to ‘change my life for the better’, to ‘provide for my family and give back to the community’.

I would love for prison to encourage me, teach me new skills and help build or maintain relationships with family, friends and prospective employers on the outside.

I welcome a system that allows me to serve my time and come out as an improved, rehabilitated and useful individual. To be able to find employment in a sector suited to my skills, interests and abilities. To be respected and forgiven by society.

I would love to be able to move forward without judgement of my past mistakes. To have self- respect and pride in who I am now. To be given opportunities by a penal system that believes in giving individuals another chance, responsibilities and the tools to improve. You are so right Mr Gove, offenders do deserve another chance.

 But there are a few problems with your speech.

The main problem being how are you going to achieve this utopian vision at a time when the Prison and Probation Services are on their knees? Crippled by budget cuts, understaffed but working at near 100% capacity. A time of rife substance abuse and an inability to detect and stop the latest scourge of ‘legal highs’. With a lack of trained and experienced staff, an increasing prisoner population and a decaying prison estate. If the prison system was a patient it would be on life support with its relatives gathered around the bedside to say their last goodbyes!
To revive this patient would require massive injections of cash, the right people and serious changes to a system that operates more like a storage company than a place of rehabilitation. Here at HMP Hull the prison has a motto ‘Serving the community’, which always makes me smile. . The only service this prison provides is one of containment Don’t get me wrong, Hull isn’t a ‘bad’ prison, the staff do the best they can with what little they have. But we could do so much more. We could serve the community properly, with more money, staff and resources. So, best of luck Mr Gove, you are going to need it.

Inside times news.
http://insidetime.org/poa-gives-noms-28-days-to-put-its-house-in-order/

Just a snap shot.

8 years backlog of IPP prisoners though they have served more than 5 times there sentence.
No courses or lack of them, post and present
Who is responsible for the failings and who was responsible to inject cash or provide correct course?
Who is responsible to budget and to keep updates on the effects of the budget which has led to serious health and safety failings and violations?
who is responsible for the 16 death of IPP prisoners?
Who is going to stand up and be counted?


Who is going to stand up and be counted?

| By Katherine Gleeson  
 

 

IPP. Another year is slipping by and I am still here waiting for release.

 
 
  By Robert Banks barrister,writes Banks on Sentence 

Another year is slipping by and I am still here waiting for release, which is so dependent on courses. My courses are either cancelled or don’t seem to make any difference. I got an IPP sentence in 2007 and I seem trapped in the system. I served my sentence years ago. It’s a disgrace. Nowadays people who have committed far worse crimes than I did get a fixed term and at the end of it are released. But not me. Is anything going to be done about us? 

A I wish I knew. Perhaps you would like to know the context of this stain on our criminal justice system.
A House of Commons briefing paper issued in August 2015 sets out the government’s view. The paper says, ‘The main concerns about IPP were that:
a) Some less serious offenders were given very short tariffs but then have been kept in prison for a long time after these have expired.
b) The prison and parole systems could not cope with the need to give all these short-tariff prisoners appropriate access to rehabilitative and resettlement programmes so that they could demonstrate they were no longer a risk to society.
c) The administrative delays resulted in uncertainty and perceived injustice for prisoners and litigation.
d) The rapid increase in the numbers of those on IPPs contributed to prison overcrowding, which in turn exacerbated the problems with providing rehabilitation.
In October 2008, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons said, in a review of IPP, “The large number of new IPP prisoners led to IPP prisoners languishing in local prisons for months and years, unable to access the interventions they would need before the expiry of their often short tariffs. A belated decision to move them to training prisons, without any additional resources and sometimes to ones which did not offer relevant programmes, merely transferred the problem. As a consequence, the Court of Appeal found that the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully, and that there had been ‘a systemic failure to put in place the resources necessary to implement the scheme of rehabilitation necessary to enable the relevant provisions of the 2003 Act to function as intended’. Rather more pithily, a prison lifer governor told me that it is as though the government went out and did its shopping without first buying a fridge”.’
Also in 2008, the government made it more difficult to impose IPP but failed to address all those wrongly in prison on short tariffs.
In June 2010, after the change in government, the prison minister said, “We have inherited a very serious problem with IPP prisoners. Many cannot get on courses because our prisons are wholly overcrowded and unable to address offending behaviour. That is not a defensible position.” There followed a review of IPP, which on 21 June 2011 led to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, said at a press conference that day, “The consultation also raised significant concerns about the effectiveness of IPPs. We have inherited a system that is unclear, inconsistent and uncertain. Unclear because actually a large proportion of the public don’t really know what indeterminate sentences are or how they work. Inconsistent because they can mean that two people who commit the same crime can end up getting very different punishments. And uncertain because victims and their families don’t have any certainty about the sentence that will be served or when their assailants will be let out. So we’re going to review the existing system urgently with a view to replacing it with an alternative that is clear, tough and better understood by the public.” Kenneth Clarke, the Secretary of State for Justice, said that the government was replacing a regime that did not work as it was intended. He also said, “What is wrong is that indeterminate sentences are unfair between prisoner and prisoner. The Parole Board has been given the task of trying to see whether a prisoner could prove that he is no longer a risk to the public. It is almost impossible for the prisoner to prove that, so it is something of a lottery and hardly any are released. We therefore face an impossible problem.”
The following year, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 abolished IPPs for those convicted on or after 3 December 2012. A new extended sentence was introduced.
The real problem of those already serving IPP and who were wrongly held in prison was not dealt with. It had, however, been addressed in the House of Lords while the Bill was being considered. Lord McNally, a government minister, responded by saying, “We do not think that it is right or appropriate retrospectively to alter sentences that were lawfully imposed by the court simply because a policy decision has now been taken to repeal that sentence.” He described dealing with the backlog of cases as being like “disarming a time bomb. It is not just a matter of throwing the gates open; this has to be a managed process. However, I hope that I have made it clear that that process is being managed … and that we are trying to target resources to make sure that this is carried forward with due urgency.”
Interestingly, every part of that analysis was flawed. The problem has never been properly addressed since. It is not as if it is legally difficult to construct the legislation to deal with this. One of the most helpful contributions was made by Eoin McLennan-Murray, the President of the Prison Government Association, who said at the annual conference of his Association in October 2010, “IPP was a blatant injustice. The government should urgently review those cases with a view to immediate release, unless there is clear evidence that the prisoner presents an unacceptable risk to the public.”
In 2013 and 2014 attempts in the Supreme Court to rectify the problems with IPP failed.
Since then nothing has happened. It cannot be said that the government does not understand the problem. Those in charge just seem to prefer to do nothing about it. Perhaps they think that then they can’t be accused of being soft on crime. The problem is that the large number of people in prison who should not be there creates serious problems, not only for the prisoner, but also for other prisoners and the prison system itself.
There is one piece of news. On 10 December 2015, in the Court of Appeal, the Lord Chief Justice will hear about a dozen beyond-tariff IPP cases. I am involved in one of the cases and I understand that all the defendants are challenging the imposition of IPP rather than detention beyond the end of the tariff. Normally when a series of cases are linked together this is because the Lord Chief Justice wants to issue new guidance.
On a different point you might like to consider those trapped with the old automatic life sentence, who think they have been forgotten. Unlike the new automatic life, the order applied to any length of sentence once the pro- visions were triggered by a second serious offence. It has most of the faults of IPP, but no one seems to be fighting for them to be dealt with justly.










Robert Banks, a barrister.
www.banksr.com
INSIDE TIMES NEWS.



http://insidetime.org/banks-on-sentence-6/
 

Friday 4 December 2015

Despite its abolition in 2012, the effects of the disastrous IPP sentence continue to be felt

an explosion in the use of indeterminate sentences and the increased use of long determinate sentences are key drivers behind the near doubling of prison numbers in the past two decades. The latest edition of the Bromley Briefing Prison Factfile, published yesterday (30 November) by the Prison Reform Trust, reveals the cost of our addiction to imprisonment in wasted time, money and lives.

The prison population in England and Wales has soared by over 40,000 since 1993, and currently stands at 85,163. England and Wales has the highest imprisonment rate in Western Europe at 148 per 100,000 of the population. This compares to an imprisonment rate of 100 per 100,000 in France and 78 per 100,000 in Germany. At an average annual cost per place of £36,237, the rise in the prison population since 1993 represents an estimated additional cost of £1.22 billion annually.

The latest prison population projection figures published last week by the Ministry of Justice estimate that the prison population in England and Wales will increase to 86,700 by June 2016. By March 2021 (the end of the projection period) it is estimated to be 89,900.

Recent changes to prison policy and legislation – including the impact of mandatory year long supervision for short sentenced prisons, mandatory minimum custodial sentences for a second offence of knife possession, and restrictions on the use of release on temporary licence – are projected to place an upward pressure of the prison population. Changes in the offender case mix, resulting in more serious cases and historic coming before the courts, are also predicted to have an impact.

The projected increase in the prison population comes at a time when the Ministry of Justice is having to reduce its running costs by £600m by 2019-20, according to the requirements of last week’s Comprehensive Spending Review. The government plans to build nine new prisons (five over the current spending review period) and close inner city jails, including the women’s prison Holloway. But without a concerted effort to reduce the size of the prison population, it is unclear how these savings will be accrued. £600 million is what it costs to keep 30 medium to large prisons afloat each year. 

In its submission to the Spending Review, the Prison Reform Trust set out how the prison population could safely be halved. This would mean a multi-faceted programme, focused on sentencing reform, incorporating new approaches both to divert people from custody in the first place and to ensure that former prisoners did not return to custody once released. The rapid and sustained fall in the number of children sent to prison – an over 60 per cent reduction in the last seven years together with a fall in youth crime – shows that change can be achieved.

The Ministry of Justice’s own figures show that two-thirds of the rise in the prison population between 1993 and 2012 has been driven by greater use of long custodial sentences. The average prison sentence is now nearly four months longer than 20 years ago at 15.9 months. However, this average hides the large numbers of people spending significantly longer behind bars. The use of sentences of more than ten years has nearly tripled since 2005 alone, and accounts for around 14 per cent of the people in prison serving a sentence.
The use of indeterminate sentences has also risen dramatically. The proportion of the sentenced prison population serving a life or indeterminate sentence for public protection (IPP) has almost doubled since 1993 from nine per cent to 17 per cent in 2014.

There are more than three times as many people in prison serving an indeterminate sentence in England and Wales as France, Germany and Italy combined – many of whom have no idea when, or if, they may be released.

Despite its abolition in 2012, the effects of the disastrous IPP sentence continue to be felt by the 4,614 people still in prison, three-quarters of whom have already served their tariff, the minimum time they must spend in prison. A Parole Board facing significant resource pressures, and an increasing backlog of cases, means that many continue to be held years beyond what was anticipated, with little or no prospect of imminent release.

People serving mandatory life sentences are spending more of their sentence in prison. On average they spend 17 years in custody, up from 13 years in 2001. Judges are also imposing longer tariff periods. The average minimum term imposed for murder rose from 12.5 years in 2003 to 21 years in 2013.
Peter Dawson, deputy director of the Prison Reform Trust and a former prison governor said: “Increasing sentence lengths has been a comfort blanket for every government of the last 20 years. However the uncomfortable truth is that most of that expensive additional prison time is both unnecessary and wasted, with successive budget cuts leading many in prison to spend long, pointless, hours behind cell doors with predictably poor results."
Evidence suggests that sentence inflation at the top end has had an impact on sentencing in other areas, with greater use of mandatory penalties and many people going to prison for offences that would have previously attracted a community sentence. 
Since 2006, the use of community sentences has nearly halved despite their being cheaper and more effective than a short prison sentence at reducing reoffending.

The briefing outlines how three years of drastic cuts to prison budgets have resulted in diminished regimes and staffing levels. Violence and disorder have risen sharply, suicides continue to rise while levels of purposeful activity were judged unacceptable in three-quarters of prisons inspected. Poor standards behind bars are reflected in poor outcomes on release with almost half of all people reoffending within one year of leaving prison.
Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust said: “Following last week’s Spending Review and now facing an unaffordable projected prison population, the justice secretary has the opportunity to meet his spending commitments without compromising either public safety or the long running fall in crime. Pressure on the system could be relieved by revising the sentencing framework, curbing ever lengthening sentence lengths and mandatory penalties, dealing with the dragnet of indeterminate sentences and the use of joint enterprise, getting a grip on unnecessary use of remand and recall, and dealing case by case with the forgotten thousands of prisoners still held long beyond terms set by courts. Further steps can and must be made in diverting addicts and people with mental health needs into treatment.”





* Prison Reform Trust prison re formtrust. org.uk/

THE INSPECTOR CALLS… November 2015. survey IPP prisoners s %

Prisoners Survey
11% IPP/Life Prisoners 2% Number of foreign nationals 1% Prisoners on Recall 73% Treated well in Reception 27% Had legal letters opened 61% Food is bad or very bad 17% Don’t know who IMB are 76% Treated with respect by staff 14% Number who have felt unsafe 23% Victimised by staff 53% Difficult to see dentist 33% Easy to get drugs 20% Not engaged in any purposeful activities 5% Less than 4 hours out of cell 15% No Sentence Plan.


HMP Standford Hill was previously man- aged as part of a cluster of Isle of Sheppey prisons but while some services continue to be shared, the prison is now independent and has its own governor. The number of prisoners with indeterminate sentences for public protection had increased significant- ly since the last inspection and nearly all these men were now well beyond their tariff expiry date.
Inspectors say they found a ‘much-improved prison’: previously resettlement work was ‘fragmented and inconsistent’ but now they said it was the core of nearly everything that happened at the prison.
Prisoners felt safe and levels of violence were low. The prison resolved most problems informally without recourse to disciplinary measures. Support for vulnerable prisoners and those who self-harm is good and problems with drugs and alcohol are ‘well managed’.
The living environment was, say Inspectors, ‘clean and decent’ although the condition of the Healthcare building is poor. Prisoner/ staff relationships had improved and the newly re-launched Personal Officer Scheme was having a positive impact although, Inspectors commented that ‘some wing- based staff remained too passive and distant in their interactions with prisoners, which wasted a valuable opportunity to provide further support for the resettlement aims of individuals and the prison as a whole.’
In summing up Nick Hardwick, Chief Inspector of Prisons, said; ‘Standford Hill had made significant progress since our last inspection against all of our healthy prison tests, most notably in putting resettlement work at the heart of the prison. The prison was very well led, and we had confidence that it would continue to progress.’
Screen Shot 2015-11-27 at 11.35.09HMP Bullingdon
Male adult category C training and resettlement prison
Local Resettlement Prison
Managed by HMPS
CNA: 869 / Population: 1,102
Announced Full Inspection: 15-26 June 2015
Published: 29 October 2015 / Last inspection: July 2012
SAFETY: Sufficiently good RESPECT: Reasonably good
PURPOSEFUL ACTIVITY: Not sufficiently good RESETTLEMENT: Poor
Prisoners Survey
24.4% Remand 24.2% Aged under 17 9.3% Been in local authority care 42% Under 14 when last at school 11% Lost property on arrival 67% Treated well in Reception 22% Boys on Basic IEP 61% Food is bad or very bad 73% Had an adjudication 44% Been physically restrained 62% Treated with respect by staff 41% Number who have felt unsafe 26% Victimised by staff 14% Easy to get drugs 16% Not engaged in any purposeful activities 26% Don’t receive visits
The prison had been through a difficult period before this inspection. However, the establishment had begun to turn the corner, although it was still getting to grips with its new resettlement function and progress was held back by significant staff shortages in a number of critical roles.
Inspectors were concerned that:
  •  data on levels of violence was unreliable and could not be used effectively to plan how to reduce violent incidents;
  •  outcomes for prisoners with protected characteristics, such as disability, were not monitored adequately and the prison did not know if they were being treated equitably;
  • very large offender assessment system (OASys) backlogs hindered prisoners’ progression and compromised the management of their risk;
  • although the prison felt calm, more prisoners than at the last inspection said they did not feel safe;
  •  the rise in the availability and use of Spice was a serious threat, leading to debt and bullying and there was no effective prison- wide strategy to reduce the supply of drugs;
  • there had been five self-inflicted deaths since 2012 and although prisoners at risk of self-harm said they felt well cared for, not enough was being done to reduce the risk of further deaths and to implement the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman’s recommendations;
  • despite having enough places to meet the needs of the population, attendance at education and training was just 50% and inspectors found more than a third of prisoners locked in their cells during the working day;
  • the prison was on a restricted regime as a result of staff shortages; and
  • there was no strategy that set out how the prison would tackle the rehabilitation of its complex population, and offender management processes were undermined by acute staff shortages.In summing up the report Nick Hardwick said; ‘… at the time of the inspection overall outcomes were not good enough and the prison carried some significant risks.’
  •  http://insidetime.org/the-inspector-calls-november-2015/

When will it end? I was sentenced to a IPP in 2008

When will it end?

I was sentenced in 2008 to an IPP with a 6-year tariff. This is my first time in prison and I have never had a nicking or an IEP warning and have completed 23 courses. I have been Enhanced for 61⁄2 years. Also, I have been employed since I came into prison 7 years ago. Yet I still have not had a parole hearing. I came to prison when my daughter was only 2 months old and now she has just turned 7! On every visit she says ‘Daddy, when are you coming home?’
But I cannot tell her as I do not know myself. I know I speak for all IPP prisoners when I ask where do we go from here, when will it end?
Published  2015
INSIDE TIMES. 

IPP ‘personality clash’

Could you please help me get an answer to my question about how many IPPs are still in custody owing to a personality clash or breakdown in their relationship with their offender manager? I have asked this...

Postdate 2010 as we look back at Bens Blog discustions on the IPP. Has as much changed regarding the IPP goverment will say yes, and the famileys will tell you NO. 8 years to clear a back log money needs to be urgently PUMP ot release them on Tag. 16 deaths of IPP prisoners something urgent needs to be done.E.


The IPP Injustce

A simple tweak of the law by a desperate government has managed to more than double the number of Lifers in under ten years. Remarkable.

It was once the case that in order to receive a Life sentence you had to do something pretty horrible. Murder, obviously, got you a mandatory life sentence. Then there were discretionary life sentences, dished out for lesser crimes but where Life was a sentencing option. It had to be the case that to receive a discretionary life sentence, there had to be firm evidence that you were either unstable or on an escalating path of violence. Receiving such a sentence was a Very Big Deal.

But the government, faced with some popular panic whose specifics I forget (there are so many), diluted the meaning of the sentence whilst simultaneously broadening its scope.

These sentences are "not really" life sentences, only open-ended ones. The terminology is different but the reality is exactly the same. These are Indefinite Sentences for Public Protection - IPP.

You don't have to do anything particularly serious to receive such a sentence, which is why there are over five and a half thousand people serving one, and the number rises each week.

The pettiness of some offences which have attracted these sentences is revealed by the tariff portion of these sentences. The tariff, minimum term, equates with the fixed sentence they would have received before IPPs were invented. The average tariff for IPP's is a mere 18 months; there are those who have had a tariff of one day.

These sentences are a travesty on several levels. Their purpose is fundamentally objectionable. IPP are intended to hold people in prison on an assumption that they pose a future danger to society, hence their open ended nature. When it comes to depriving people of their liberty and inflicting upon them and their families the degradations that flow from imprisonment, I firmly hold that it should be no more than a punishment for the crime already committed.

Detaining people on the basis of what they may possibly do in the future is wholly unjust. It can be dressed up with whatever politico-legal sleight of hand available, but it remains the fact that punishing people for what they may possibly do in future is a repellent act.

Added to these principled objections are practical ones. IPP's can only be released if they can show that they have "addressed their offending behaviour". This is done by completing "offending behaviour courses" and then parading these achievements before the Parole Board.

Alas, the side effect of knee jerk policy making is to speak first, try and make it work later. With IPP's, this means that there are insufficient places on these courses for them to complete them before the end of their tariff. If your tariff is 18 months and the waiting list for the course is 2 years, there is no chance for you to demonstrate before the PB that you are fit for release.

Way over 2,000 of those serving IPP's are over their tariff and the Ministry accepts that this is not necessarily the fault of the prisoners. So bizarre and wicked is this situation, that the High Court ruled last year that, in effect, the sentence has become so arbitrary as to become unlawful.

The higher courts plugged this political problem on the well known legal doctrine of "tough shit". And so these men remain in prison. A similar situation applies to those who are due Parole hearings, their only avenue of release. The PB is so overstretched that people are not getting their hearing as prescribed by law, some serving years extra just waiting for the hearing.

The courts have ruled that this is a terrible situation but, alas, there is no one in particular to blame. And so they have now blocked IPP's from launching legal challenges to demand their right to a parole hearing. It's no one’s fault, so we are back to "tough shit".

Actually, we know whose fault it is. It is the governments fault. They invented IPP sentences and talked tough on sentencing. The judiciary responded and used IPP sentences with some vigour. The government, quick to throw people in prison, neglected to provide the resources for these prisoners to undertake their offending behaviour courses, and failed to fund the Parole Board for this doubling of their workload.

This situation reflects a profound shift in sentencing philosophy that was overlooked by legislatures and society. Rather than being sent to prison for a fixed time as a punishment for the crime committed, many are now detained not only for the crime, but on the basis of what they may do in future.

It seems obvious to me that this is a wicked injustice, a shift in philosophy that should have received a wide debate. Even so, to implement this schema without funding the mechanisms to administer it, such the parole board, strips whatever legitimacy may have existed from this shameful enterprise.




The IPP Injustce

A simple tweak of the law by a desperate government has managed to more than double the number of Lifers in under ten years. Remarkable.

It was once the case that in order to receive a Life sentence you had to do something pretty horrible. Murder, obviously, got you a mandatory life sentence. Then there were discretionary life sentences, dished out for lesser crimes but where Life was a sentencing option. It had to be the case that to receive a discretionary life sentence, there had to be firm evidence that you were either unstable or on an escalating path of violence. Receiving such a sentence was a Very Big Deal.

But the government, faced with some popular panic whose specifics I forget (there are so many), diluted the meaning of the sentence whilst simultaneously broadening its scope.

These sentences are "not really" life sentences, only open-ended ones. The terminology is different but the reality is exactly the same. These are Indefinite Sentences for Public Protection - IPP.

You don't have to do anything particularly serious to receive such a sentence, which is why there are over five and a half thousand people serving one, and the number rises each week.

The pettiness of some offences which have attracted these sentences is revealed by the tariff portion of these sentences. The tariff, minimum term, equates with the fixed sentence they would have received before IPPs were invented. The average tariff for IPP's is a mere 18 months; there are those who have had a tariff of one day.

These sentences are a travesty on several levels. Their purpose is fundamentally objectionable. IPP are intended to hold people in prison on an assumption that they pose a future danger to society, hence their open ended nature. When it comes to depriving people of their liberty and inflicting upon them and their families the degradations that flow from imprisonment, I firmly hold that it should be no more than a punishment for the crime already committed.

Detaining people on the basis of what they may possibly do in the future is wholly unjust. It can be dressed up with whatever politico-legal sleight of hand available, but it remains the fact that punishing people for what they may possibly do in future is a repellent act.

Added to these principled objections are practical ones. IPP's can only be released if they can show that they have "addressed their offending behaviour". This is done by completing "offending behaviour courses" and then parading these achievements before the Parole Board.

Alas, the side effect of knee jerk policy making is to speak first, try and make it work later. With IPP's, this means that there are insufficient places on these courses for them to complete them before the end of their tariff. If your tariff is 18 months and the waiting list for the course is 2 years, there is no chance for you to demonstrate before the PB that you are fit for release.

Way over 2,000 of those serving IPP's are over their tariff and the Ministry accepts that this is not necessarily the fault of the prisoners. So bizarre and wicked is this situation, that the High Court ruled last year that, in effect, the sentence has become so arbitrary as to become unlawful.

The higher courts plugged this political problem on the well known legal doctrine of "tough shit". And so these men remain in prison. A similar situation applies to those who are due Parole hearings, their only avenue of release. The PB is so overstretched that people are not getting their hearing as prescribed by law, some serving years extra just waiting for the hearing.

The courts have ruled that this is a terrible situation but, alas, there is no one in particular to blame. And so they have now blocked IPP's from launching legal challenges to demand their right to a parole hearing. It's no one’s fault, so we are back to "tough shit".

Actually, we know whose fault it is. It is the governments fault. They invented IPP sentences and talked tough on sentencing. The judiciary responded and used IPP sentences with some vigour. The government, quick to throw people in prison, neglected to provide the resources for these prisoners to undertake their offending behaviour courses, and failed to fund the Parole Board for this doubling of their workload.

This situation reflects a profound shift in sentencing philosophy that was overlooked by legislatures and society. Rather than being sent to prison for a fixed time as a punishment for the crime committed, many are now detained not only for the crime, but on the basis of what they may do in future.

It seems obvious to me that this is a wicked injustice, a shift in philosophy that should have received a wide debate. Even so, to implement this schema without funding the mechanisms to administer it, such the parole board, strips whatever legitimacy may have existed from this shameful enterprice.


1 comments:

  1. I find this situation and its implications very frightening.
    Reply
  2. That is one of the best written pieces I have seen about IPPs. The person I visit in prison has an IPP with an 18 month tariff and is still there 4 years later. He got the IPP by committing 2 offences 21 years apart! He has had only one parole hearing, should have been having another next month but has been told the Parole Board is 4/6 months behind so he won't get his second hearing (if he gets one 4/6 months later) until he has done nearly four and half years. The offence is at the 'lower' end as one might imagine as he got 18 months tariff. I have had lots of correspondence with the goverment and they say 'tough luck' - alhtough they have now changed the laws about who gets an IPP - you cannot get one with a tariff of less than 2 years now, the government flatly refuses to release the people who had less than 2 years and are so far over tariff. I worked out that as the government now say there are 1225 people with less than a 2 year tariff it is costing us approx.
    £50m to keep them in per year!

    Another interesting point is that the government insist that they will not make the new rules about IPPs not being given if the tariff would be less than 2 years retrospective - but they are willing to use a comparatively minor offence retrospectively (i.e. 21 years before) to create the IPP. Where's the logic and fairness?
    It would be really good if readers of this wonderful blog could write a letter to the government about it and whilst doing that write a second letter about Ben himself who should also be released.

    Just think if the judicial system properly assessed and released people like Ben, and those mentioned above, they would be able to free up hundreds of places in the system and would not need to build mammoth new jails etc.
    Reply
  3. And it was written: The voice of the people shall rise up and they shall cry out in their anger and terror, “Throw away the key, for they are lowlifes even unto the very last of them!” And the Scribes of the Tabloids shall behold the fruit of their scribbling and their shoulders shall shake with mirth. And the Elders of the People shall lead by following and shall say unto the people, “Done. Vote for me.”

    Ben is in favour of reason over rioting – rightly in my view. But reason falls on deaf ears, mostly. It’s going to take for ever at this rate. Does anyone know of an effective prison reform/abolition org out there? One that actually makes things happen?
    Reply
  4. If one talks with respect about a strong leader, that person is almost always described as "tough but fair". What weak leaders find is that the tough bit is easy, it's the fair that takes effort and wisdom.
    Reply
  5. both Orwellian and Kafkaesque
    Reply
  6. Thanks for this Ben - if anyone feels able could they look at the No.10 website petition about IPPs and consider signing it. Thanks
    Reply
  7. Found it: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/FightIPPs/
    Reply
  8. Aside from the utterly unacceptable and unjust treatment of prisoners, surely this ludicrous situation doesn't make sense fiscally? I mean, what would be the comparative costs of providing enough training course placements or parole officers to reduce waiting times by, say, 6 months compared to the cost of incarcerating a person for the same period?
    Reply
  9. Could not agree more. We sent an open letter to the PM on this issue:

    Dear Prime Minister,

    Re: Cost to the Tax Payer – The IPP Sentence

    Britain is overwhelmed with debt. As the incoming Prime Minister you have the unenviable task of reducing the vast deficit left by the last government. It is time to cut waste from areas in which money is being spent for no ascertainable benefit.

    In March 2010 the total prison population stood at 85,608, which is approximately 800 more than the highest figure predicted for March 2010 . The prisons are, by anyone’s estimation, full. A very significant number of these prisoners are serving Imprisonment for Public Protection. These prisoners are given sentences by judges who set their minimum term – the ‘punishment’ period - at half of the length of a determinate sentence.

    In reality, the expiry of the minimum term is almost never the date on which the prisoner is released. In fact only about 1% of all IPP prisoners have been released and have subsequently stayed out of prison. This means, for example, that someone sentenced to a 12 month IPP in November 2006 (the equivalent to a two year determinate sentence) could technically have been released in November 2007 but could still be in prison today. To date they would have served three years and six months, the equivalent of a seven-year determinate sentence.

    There are approximately 6,000 IPP prisoners in custody, and the figure is rising at a rate of around 70 per month . With the average cost of keeping a prisoner in jail estimated at £40,000 per year this equates to a total of £240m per year for this class of prisoner alone, and which will continue to rise under the current system.

    In order to have any chance of being released on parole, these prisoners are wholly reliant on demonstrating their reduction in risk while in prison. These prisoners are unable to access the courses they need because of the continuing problem of woefully inadequate funding. In a shockingly high number of cases, these people are simply not being given the opportunity to earn their release.
    Reply
  10. And the second part:

    The previous government admitted that there were no centrally available reliable figures on the number of IPPs waiting to access courses. To compensate for the overcrowding, they embarked on a program of early release for determinate sentenced prisoners. There is a clear contradiction here which, we submit, cannot have been the intention of the sentencing judiciary.

    Rather than being saddled with this enormously inefficient, not to mention ‘inhumane’ , regime we implore you to make your pledged wholesale review of sentencing, including the IPP, a priority. So much money is wasted currently holding individuals in prison who have, because of a lack of availability of courses, been unable to demonstrate that they are no longer dangerous to the satisfaction of the Parole Board.

    We are not suggesting that offenders should not be punished for their offences: On the contrary, we wholeheartedly support your proposals for mini-max sentences. If prisoners have definite dates for their earliest and latest release this will give them an impetus to want to earn release as soon as possible. This will encourage good behaviour amongst all prisoners, rather than just those serving indeterminate sentences who are scared to ‘step out of line’ while those currently serving determinate sentences aren’t as adversely affected if they are punished for misbehaviour.

    Mini-max sentences will reduce pressure on the operation of the Prison Service as a whole by promoting good order inside prisons; they will enable this government to budget more accurately in terms of the annual cost of the Prison Service; and will still act as a sufficient deterrent in terms of serious crime.

    The changes to IPP in 2008 did not go far enough – and there are many, many short tariff IPP prisoners still languishing in jail who were sentenced under the earlier regime. Only abolition of the IPP will put a stop to this wasteful expenditure.

    Yours faithfully,

    Michael Robinson
    Emmersons Solicitors
    Reply
  11. i think i.p.p.sentences are a form of medieval torcher for the children of prisoners not knowing when their fathers will be coming home.like my son who has served nearly 4 years for a 1 year tarriff and is nearly 3 years over a parole hearing.I thought were in 2010 not 1610 please lets save this goverment millions and let theses people out. I am not talking about Knife crimes or sex affenders but prisoners like my son who was protecting his children after 14,months of harrasment.
    Reply
  12. I P P sentences are the most unfair system of imprisonment ever . Even with the death sentence at least prisoners knew where they stood they were to die , end of but with ipp the prisoners have no idea how long they will serve , or in fact if they will ever be freed or end there lives behind bars. Should a prisoner with a 1 year tarrif still be behind bars 3 years later without having even been granted the courtesy of a parole hearing (which I do believe is an infringement of a persons human rights ) when are these barbaric sentences going to be disbursed with and the many prisoners being held at her majestys pleasure be released to live the rest of there lives back with their family and children at home. AFTER ALL A YEARS SENTENCE SHOULD BE JUST THAT AND NOT FOUR YEARS. For gods sake isnt it about time someone did away with this inhumane carry on.
    Reply
  13. I was recently attacked and raped by a man who was not mad just wanted to inflict pain on somebody because his girlfriend left him. I have been left traumatised and i lost the baby that i had been carrying for 7 months. He recieved an ipp sentance and i am glad that he wont get out until he proves himself. It is easy to make judgements on sentances when your not the victim. God nos i used to. The tariff he recieved was only 3 years, do you think he should have recieved more or simply got a community punishment for ruining mine and my families life ? . Not everybody can get it right all the time im glad he never got a mandatory life sentance or simply 10 yrs because knowing he wont get out for a long time is peice of mind when i wake up screaming, when i am affraid to go out . So dont be so quick to dismiss things
    Reply
    Replies
    1. god bless you my daughter is in the same situation,my heart goes out to you, x
  14. There has been massive criticism of IPPs and not without justification in many instances. I think the principles underpinning the sentence do have merit. What is wholly wrong is (a) that there are such limited resources for the necessary courses in prisons (b) that Parole hearings are so delayed. With proper resourcing these sentence could work as intended. I understand exactly what 'Anonymous" above means. I know of a case where a man with a history of violence and sex-offending indecently assaulted a woman in a park, in front of her grandchild just days after he was released from an earlier sentence. Rightly, in my view, he was given an IPP and has to show his risk to others is sufficiently reduced prior to release.
    Reply
  15. My son is currently serving a 3 year IPP of which he has served 18 months. He has already been moved prison twice due to the fact that they do not offer the courses he needs to complete in respect of the IPP let alone satisfy the parole board. He is in the process of being moved again to access the relevant courses. In the meantime he is taking on extra courses. To add to this he is being stopped by the local authroities from being able to see his children and his younger siblings even though he has never indirectly or directly been a threat or caused harm to them. I do not condone the reasons as to why my son finds himself in this situation, however, I do believe that he has a right to be rehabilitated. How can he do this when he has no prospect of release, no access to the courses he needs to do and the emotional turmoil of not even being able to have contact with his extended family. I understand that in certain circumstances an IPP is appropriate according to the crime that was inflicted and I am not disputing that my shouldnt have received this punishment. However, how can my son or anyone else serving an IPP show that they are a reformed character and no longer a threat to society if the system fails them to do so.
    Reply
  16. I'm sensing that lots of people have an idea of 'justice': Wardens, police, lawyers, judges, convicted people, unconvicted people, victims, non victims and so on. It seems obvious that justice means different things to different people. Some have different opinions within similar categories.
    All cases are in my opinion massively complicated.
    I reckon that, collectively, we are the 'most knowledgeable' people to inhabit earth so far...(libraries at our fingertips etc.)
    Although, knowledge is available, it (imo) aint helpin us any.
    We still stuck.
    For example, i worked with this chap (in general a nasty type with occasional decency and tons of v. diahroea) who said stuff that stayed with me; he'd been inside for 7 years, and would often remark "i'd do another 3 out of principle" . Describing a potential sentence for a beating he would inflict upon another.
    I've an idea that this attitude aint too uncommon.
    Its almost bearable when seeing this as two dumb/tough males wanting to beat seven bells o's..t outta each other... but template the action to a sexual or physical or mental situation where the concerened parties are unequal...
    Raping out of some deranged principle?
    I think that we have to accept that people have and continue to act in this manner.
    Society has decieded these people need to be controlled. Or perhaps destroyed.
    Imagine... "i'm free at last, those bastard screws kept me in for 4 years too long, i know, ill rape someone to prove i don't mind jail'
    ... if i've upset anyone i'm sorry...i've upset myself too.
    I can see the idea that IPP demonstrates the muscle of law and order, controlling whoever at will.
    I suppose justice has evolved to what it is now despite its incomprehensible nature. Evil people are human beings. Judges are human beings. All will fail at some point. (High Court judge that was convicted for years of child abuse towards her daughter springs to mind).
    It looks like the trouble will always be, as Ben has pointed out numerous times, how to make the call? What does he have to do to prove he is 'minimal risk', same as everyone else? Will he change attitude to a psycho once he is described as safe?

    I find paradoxical dilemmas such as this very unhelpful. Very easy to talk bullsh.t on paper.

    Personally, i believe all people can do right by all. No matter what their history. No matter how evil the deed. No matter how many repititions of evil deed. And yes, in our lifetime. And no, not thru drugs/surgery.
    Reply
  17. Thank you Ben a great write up on the Ipp.If you dont mind i will share and quote.
    ReplyDelete
  18. Quote away, Bow - no problem!
    Reply
  19. my daughter has been raped and beaten by an ipp prisoner who was let out,he was so called rehabilitated,infact he was rehabilitated that well that he left her fighting for her life,she has lost everything,she is in a safe house now,we will never see our daughter again because we have to keep her safe,we have panic alarms and we cannot leave our house,our life is in tatters,what about the victims?
     
     
     
     
     
     http://prisonerben.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/ipp-injustce.html