TWO TEMPLATES ENCLOSED.
A Letter to MP asking him to lobby.
1)
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
NAME
ADDRESS
POSTCODE
PHONE NUMBER & MOBILE
E-MAIL
Dear .........................................MP
As one of your constituents I would like TO LOBBY THE IPP and ask you Table questions to the house regarding the injustice of IPP Sentences. I would be happy to talk to you further about my concerns in person.
I really care about this issue because ADD PERSONAL STORY HERE or add the line this issue has deeply affected my family.
London
SW1A 0AA
NAME
ADDRESS
POSTCODE
PHONE NUMBER & MOBILE
Dear .........................................MP
As one of your constituents I would like TO LOBBY THE IPP and ask you Table questions to the house regarding the injustice of IPP Sentences. I would be happy to talk to you further about my concerns in person.
I really care about this issue because ADD PERSONAL STORY HERE or add the line this issue has deeply affected my family.
Firstly, many prisoners on IPPs have
not committed the kind of crimes for which IPPs were designed, but less serious
ones.
Secondly, there was inconsistency
in sentencing even for serious crimes – some prisoners who have committed
identical crimes are IPP prisoners, some are not. This is clearly unjust.
Thirdly, IPP prisoners have
“indeterminate” sentences, which means that they never know exactly when they
will be released, unlike normal prisoners. The effect of living under this
level of stress and uncertainty means that IPP prisoners are significantly more
likely to suffer mental health issues than other prisoners. Research indicates
that they may be twice as likely to suffer such issues.
Fourthly, many of the courses
which IPP prisoners are required to complete before they have any chance of
being released, are not easily available. Not all prisons provide them, and /
or there is a long waiting list for many courses. Through no fault of their
own, therefore, many IPP prisoners are unable to “prove” that they are no
longer a danger.
Fifthly, IPP prisoners, even if
released, are on licence for at least 10 years, and can be recalled to prison
at any time for even minor offences. They are never allowed to put their crime
behind them, because their licence can be extended indefinitely. Their official
sentence length is 99 years.
So is anything being done about this?
The government abolished the IPP
sentence on December 3rd 2012, so no more could be imposed after that. However,
it did nothing at all about the 5-6000 prisoners still serving IPP sentences,
and has consistently refused to tackle the problem, saying that more and more
IPP prisoners are now being released.
Unfortunately, the Parole Board
has such a backlog of cases to be heard that according to the MOJ’s own
figures, it will take about 9 years at the present rate, for all IPP prisoners
to be released (currently around 4,700 in all) – by then all will be over their
tariff.
In 2012 the European Court of
Human Rights ruled that indeterminate sentences breached prisoners’ human
rights, because of the fact that rehabilitative courses were not being made
available even after the tariff had been served, yet still the situation has
not improved.
What are the alternatives?
·
The Government has the power to change the
release test for IPP prisoners, in accordance with section 128 of LASPO 2012*
·
The law already provides for long licence
periods for ordinary prisoners who need close monitoring on release, by
“extended” sentences**. These could be
applied to IPP prisoners.
This would give a definite release date, to end the injustice
*Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012
**The judge decides how long the offender should stay in prison and
also fixes the extended licence period up to a maximum of eight years. The
offender will either be entitled to automatic release at the two thirds point
of the custodial sentence or be entitled to apply for parole at that point.
If parole is refused the offender will be released at the expiry of the
prison term. Following release, the offender will be subject to the licence
where he will remain under the supervision of the National Offender Management
Service until the expiry of the extended period.
I further underlined what I
would like to see change
·
To request the Secretary of State for Justice to
exercise their power to change the release test for the IPP prisoners under
Section 128 of the LASPO Act, for an effective system in place that works
·
and the IPP sentences to be converted into
extended sentences, as changing the release test will not necessarily get rid
of the "99-year-licence" problem.
·
(the Lord Chief Justice agrees that these are
the options available for change)
At the very
least, the Government must increase the number of Parole Board members, so that
hearings can be held more frequently and reduce the current backlog and delays.
·
To investigate the failure to provide accommodation
and aids for those with learning disabilities as a result have may serve longer
custodial sentences than others convicted of comparable crimes. Limited supply
with long queues for these and for Parole Board reviews. People who are
mentally ill, on medication or have learning disabilities are effectively
barred from these courses and barred from the only route out of this awful
maze, does not the Disability
discrimination Act apply in prison.
I would like your thoughts on "Lex posterior derogat
priori".....
"Lex posterior derogat priori"..... more recent law prevails over an inconsistent earlier law. Can this be
applied to this situation, where the IPP has been abolished, but the earlier
law is still in force for those who received an IPP before it was abolished?Full document https://www.facebook.com/groups/katherinegleeson17/
Look forward to hearing from you soon
Yours sincerely,
Yours sincerely,
Thank you again for your time.
Sincerely,
Name…….
Find out more about the IPP sentence:-
https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/legislation/bills-acts/legal-aid-sentencing/ipp-factsheet.pdfhttps://www.facebook.com/groups/katherinegleeson17/
http://ippfanilycampaign.blogspot.co.uk/
.........................................................................................................................................
Thank You Letter to MPs following up on meeting
2)
(Date) (MP address)
Mr. or Ms., MP for (………………) OR
The Hon. MP for (……………..)
Thank you for taking the time to
meet with on day 25TH May 2016 regarding the IPP sentence.
I appreciate the fact that you gave
me the opportunity to discuss the issues and I value your perspective on the
matter.
In our meeting I highlighted
Firstly, many prisoners on IPPs
have not committed the kind of crimes for which IPPs were designed, but less
serious ones.
Secondly, there was inconsistency
in sentencing even for serious crimes – some prisoners who have committed
identical crimes are IPP prisoners, some are not. This is clearly unjust.
Thirdly, IPP prisoners have
“indeterminate” sentences, which means that they never know exactly when they
will be released, unlike normal prisoners. The effect of living under this
level of stress and uncertainty means that IPP prisoners are significantly more
likely to suffer mental health issues than other prisoners. Research indicates that
they may be twice as likely to suffer such issues.
Fourthly, many of the courses
which IPP prisoners are required to complete before they have any chance of
being released, are not easily available. Not all prisons provide them, and /
or there is a long waiting list for many courses. Through no fault of their
own, therefore, many IPP prisoners are unable to “prove” that they are no
longer a danger.
Fifthly, IPP prisoners, even if
released, are on licence for at least 10 years, and can be recalled to prison
at any time for even minor offences. They are never allowed to put their crime
behind them, because their licence can be extended indefinitely. Their official
sentence length is 99 years.
So is anything being done about this?
The government abolished the IPP
sentence on December 3rd 2012, so no more could be imposed after that. However,
it did nothing at all about the 5-6000 prisoners still serving IPP sentences,
and has consistently refused to tackle the problem, saying that more and more
IPP prisoners are now being released.
Unfortunately, the Parole Board
has such a backlog of cases to be heard that according to the MOJ’s own
figures, it will take about 9 years at the present rate, for all IPP prisoners
to be released (currently around 4,700 in all) – by then all will be over their
tariff.
In 2012 the European Court of
Human Rights ruled that indeterminate sentences breached prisoners’ human
rights, because of the fact that rehabilitative courses were not being made
available even after the tariff had been served, yet still the situation has
not improved.
What are the alternatives?
·
The Government has the power to change the
release test for IPP prisoners, in accordance with section 128 of LASPO 2012*
· The law already provides for long licence
periods for ordinary prisoners who need close monitoring on release, by
“extended” sentences**. These could be
applied to IPP prisoners.
This would give a definite release date, to end the injustice
*Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012
**The judge decides how long the offender should stay in prison and
also fixes the extended licence period up to a maximum of eight years. The
offender will either be entitled to automatic release at the two thirds point
of the custodial sentence or be entitled to apply for parole at that point.
If parole is refused the offender will be released at the expiry of the
prison term. Following release, the offender will be subject to the licence
where he will remain under the supervision of the National Offender Management
Service until the expiry of the extended period.
I further underlined what I
would like to see change
·
To request the Secretary of State for Justice to
exercise their power to change the release test for the IPP prisoners under
Section 128 of the LASPO Act, for an effective system in place that works
·
and the IPP sentences to be converted into
extended sentences, as changing the release test will not necessarily get rid
of the "99-year-licence" problem.
·
(the Lord Chief Justice agrees that these are
the options available for change)
At the very
least, the Government must increase the number of Parole Board members, so that
hearings can be held more frequently and reduce the current backlog and delays.
·
To investigate the failure to provide accommodation
and aids for those with learning disabilities as a result have may serve longer
custodial sentences than others convicted of comparable crimes. Limited supply
with long queues for these and for Parole Board reviews. People who are
mentally ill, on medication or have learning disabilities are effectively
barred from these courses and barred from the only route out of this awful
maze, does not the Disability
discrimination Act apply in prison.
I would like your thoughts on "Lex posterior derogat
priori".....
"Lex posterior derogat priori"..... more recent law prevails over an inconsistent earlier law. Can this be
applied to this situation, where the IPP has been abolished, but the earlier
law is still in force for those who received an IPP before it was abolished?
