Jail without end? ‘Absurd’ law keeps 4,000 prisoners behind bars indefinitely
Thousands of UK prisoners are being held with no release date despite serving their minimum sentence, because of an “absurd” law which has since been repealed by Parliament.
In the case of James Ward, now 31, he was initially sentenced to a 10-month term, but is still in prison almost 10 years later due to the now-defunct Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) law.
More than 4,000 inmates, some with mental health problems, are routinely denied release from prison by parole boards because they cannot prove they are not a danger to the public.
Former Justice Minister Ken Clarke branded the situation “ridiculous” because it is impossible for a prisoner to prove he/she is of no danger to the public.
Ward, whose case has been covered by BBC Radio 4, said he wakes up feeling afraid every morning.
“I find prison hard to cope with, being trapped in a box,” he wrote to the BBC.
“Prison is not fit to accommodate people like me with mental health problems. It’s made me worse. How can I change in a place like this? I wake up every morning scared of what the day may hold.”
Ward was sentenced to one year in prison after getting into a fight with his father, Bill. He was convicted of causing actual bodily harm.
“He’s told me it was the worst mistake he’s ever made ... he was young, he is a nice lad, everybody likes James,”
Bill said.
Near the end of his sentence, Ward set fire to his mattress in his cell. A judge gave him an IPP for arson and, despite sentencing him to 10 months, he remains in prison.
Ward has since set fire to his cell on numerous occasions.
“He becomes overwhelmed,” his solicitor, Pippa Carruthers, told the BBC.
“He loses sight of what he needs to do to prove to a parole board that he is no longer a risk and he acts destructively.”
Ward’s sister April said she fears her brother will not come out of prison alive.
“I do believe that one day we’ll get the phone call that Jimmy has taken his own life, definitely.”
Former Conservative minister Clarke abolished IPP sentences as justice secretary in 2012, but offenders who were jailed under the legislation can only be released by a parole board, which in turn must be satisfied the prisoners are safe.
“It is quite absurd that there are people who might be there for the rest of their lives, in theory, who are serving a sentence which parliament agreed to get rid of because it hadn’t worked as anybody intended a few years ago,”
Clarke said.
“The trouble is this ridiculous burden on the parole board of saying they can only release people if it’s proved to them that they’re not really a danger to the public.
“No prisoner can prove that – you never know when people are going to lose their control, what’s going to happen to them when they’re released.”
Inmates’ private letters regularly tampered with by prison staff – report
There are detailed rules for handling confidential mail, designed to ensure that prisoners are able to communicate with their legal advisers without fear of disclosure or interference, and that they are able confidentially to communicate with independent scrutiny bodies without fear of reprisals from staff,”
he said.
“I found little evidence of deliberate or sinister tampering or of repeated failures at a prison. Prisoners need to be able to have confidence that their confidential communications will be respected. Even infrequent errors will undermine this.”
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) insisted these cases were “isolated.”
“The recommendations made by the prison and probation ombudsman have been accepted and the necessary action has been taken at the prisons concerned,” an MoJ spokesperson told the Guardian.
“This bulletin is being shared with all prison staff to reinforce the correct process that needs to be followed when handling prisoners’ legal and confidential mail.”
The watchdog ruled in favour of the prisoner in 16 cases, but found "little evidence" of deliberate tampering.
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said they were "isolated cases".
Nigel Newcomen of the PPO said it was a "fundamental aspect" of the right to a fair trial and access to justice that correspondence between prisoners and their legal advisers was kept private.
Prison rules say such letters can be opened only if staff suspect they contain banned items, such as drugs, or if they do not think the mail is connected to a legal matter.
Most of the cases were due to "human error", he said
But he found that some letters had been "deliberately" opened on security grounds without the prisoner involved having the opportunity to be present, as the rules require.
There was a small number of cases in which staff training or prison processes had not been sufficient to prevent repeated mistakes, he said.
He added: "To say that the evidence pointed to human error rather than deliberate interference is not to minimise the seriousness of the issue."
He called for improvements in the way prisons handle confidential correspondence - ensuring errors are recorded and that staff fully understand the rules.
A Prison Service spokesman said his recommendations had been accepted and the "necessary action" taken at the prisons concerned.
"This bulletin is being shared with all prison staff to reinforce the correct process that needs to be followed when handling prisoners' legal and confidential mail."
https://www.rt.com/uk/344933-prison-parole-ipp-sentence/
More than 4,000 inmates, some with mental health problems, are routinely denied release from prison by parole boards because they cannot prove they are not a danger to the public.
Former Justice Minister Ken Clarke branded the situation “ridiculous” because it is impossible for a prisoner to prove he/she is of no danger to the public.
“I find prison hard to cope with, being trapped in a box,” he wrote to the BBC.
“Prison is not fit to accommodate people like me with mental health problems. It’s made me worse. How can I change in a place like this? I wake up every morning scared of what the day may hold.”
Ward was sentenced to one year in prison after getting into a fight with his father, Bill. He was convicted of causing actual bodily harm.
“He’s told me it was the worst mistake he’s ever made ... he was young, he is a nice lad, everybody likes James,”
Bill said.
Ward has since set fire to his cell on numerous occasions.
“He becomes overwhelmed,” his solicitor, Pippa Carruthers, told the BBC.
“He loses sight of what he needs to do to prove to a parole board that he is no longer a risk and he acts destructively.”
Ward’s sister April said she fears her brother will not come out of prison alive.
“I do believe that one day we’ll get the phone call that Jimmy has taken his own life, definitely.”
“It is quite absurd that there are people who might be there for the rest of their lives, in theory, who are serving a sentence which parliament agreed to get rid of because it hadn’t worked as anybody intended a few years ago,”
Clarke said.
“The trouble is this ridiculous burden on the parole board of saying they can only release people if it’s proved to them that they’re not really a danger to the public.
“No prisoner can prove that – you never know when people are going to lose their control, what’s going to happen to them when they’re released.”
Inmates’ private letters regularly tampered with by prison staff – report
Prisoners’ private and privileged correspondence with lawyers and courts has been opened by prison staff in 50 percent of all cases investigated by the state’s prisons ombudsman in 2014-15, a report has revealed.
Prisons and Probation Ombudsman Nigel Newcomen presided over 32 investigations into complaints regarding the handling of prisoners’ confidential letters across England and Wales.
He found that private legal letters to and from inmates had been opened by prison staff on multiple occasions. In a special bulletin detailing his findings, Newcomen said that the majority of letters that were tampered with involved human error.
However, he acknowledged this was not the case for all correspondence. Newcomen said he was particularly troubled by one case, where letters had been sealed by a prisoner but were being repeatedly opened prior to leaving the prison.
In a separate case, correspondence from the Royal Courts of Justice, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, Medway court and the Prisoners Advice Service was also regularly tampered with by prison staff.
Following a string of complaints, the offending prison apologized to the inmate concerned and told him the errors resulted from new employees starting in its censorship department.
Newcomen had received the findings of 32 official investigations into complaints about rule 39 letters between 2014 and 2015, and ruled in favor of the prisoner in 16 of the cases.
He found that private legal letters to and from inmates had been opened by prison staff on multiple occasions. In a special bulletin detailing his findings, Newcomen said that the majority of letters that were tampered with involved human error.
However, he acknowledged this was not the case for all correspondence. Newcomen said he was particularly troubled by one case, where letters had been sealed by a prisoner but were being repeatedly opened prior to leaving the prison.
In a separate case, correspondence from the Royal Courts of Justice, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, Medway court and the Prisoners Advice Service was also regularly tampered with by prison staff.
Following a string of complaints, the offending prison apologized to the inmate concerned and told him the errors resulted from new employees starting in its censorship department.
Prison rule 39
Prisoners are entitled to private correspondence with lawyers, courts and other bodies under prison rule 39. These letters can only be opened by prison staff if they contain illicit items or are suspected to be from an organization or person not recognized under prison regulations. Prison rule 39 requires strict compliance with procedures on private and privileged mail.Newcomen had received the findings of 32 official investigations into complaints about rule 39 letters between 2014 and 2015, and ruled in favor of the prisoner in 16 of the cases.
There are detailed rules for handling confidential mail, designed to ensure that prisoners are able to communicate with their legal advisers without fear of disclosure or interference, and that they are able confidentially to communicate with independent scrutiny bodies without fear of reprisals from staff,”
he said.
“I found little evidence of deliberate or sinister tampering or of repeated failures at a prison. Prisoners need to be able to have confidence that their confidential communications will be respected. Even infrequent errors will undermine this.”
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) insisted these cases were “isolated.”
“The recommendations made by the prison and probation ombudsman have been accepted and the necessary action has been taken at the prisons concerned,” an MoJ spokesperson told the Guardian.
“This bulletin is being shared with all prison staff to reinforce the correct process that needs to be followed when handling prisoners’ legal and confidential mail.”
A number of private letters between inmates and their lawyers were opened by prison staff in breach of the rules, an investigation has found.
The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) for England and Wales investigated 32 complaints, in just over a year, of letters being opened.The watchdog ruled in favour of the prisoner in 16 cases, but found "little evidence" of deliberate tampering.
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said they were "isolated cases".
Nigel Newcomen of the PPO said it was a "fundamental aspect" of the right to a fair trial and access to justice that correspondence between prisoners and their legal advisers was kept private.
'Human error'
Mr Newcomen said the investigation, which looked into complaints dating from April 2014 to June this year, found "one-off and occasional errors".Most of the cases were due to "human error", he said
But he found that some letters had been "deliberately" opened on security grounds without the prisoner involved having the opportunity to be present, as the rules require.
There was a small number of cases in which staff training or prison processes had not been sufficient to prevent repeated mistakes, he said.
He added: "To say that the evidence pointed to human error rather than deliberate interference is not to minimise the seriousness of the issue."
He called for improvements in the way prisons handle confidential correspondence - ensuring errors are recorded and that staff fully understand the rules.
A Prison Service spokesman said his recommendations had been accepted and the "necessary action" taken at the prisons concerned.
"This bulletin is being shared with all prison staff to reinforce the correct process that needs to be followed when handling prisoners' legal and confidential mail."
Prisoners' legal letters opened by prison staff, admits ombudsman
Confidential correspondence from inmates to lawyers and the courts found to have been opened in half of cases investigated
Prisoners’ confidential legal letters to and from their lawyers and the courts have been wrongly opened by prison staff in half of cases investigated by the prisons ombudsman in the past year.
The prisons and probation ombudsman, Nigel Newcomen, carried out 32 official investigations into complaints about the handling of confidential correspondence with prisoners in England and Wales, and found in half of them private legal letters to and from prisoners had been in opened by mistake by prison staff.
The ombudsman said in a special bulletin that most of the cases involved human error but he was “extremely troubled” to find in one case legal letters that had been handed in properly sealed by the prisoner in line with the rules were being repeatedly opened before they were sent out of the prison.
In another case, letters from the Royal Courts of Justice, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, Medway court and the Prisoners Advice Service were being routinely opened by prison staff. Following complaints, the prison apologised to the inmate and told him the mistakes were due to new staff starting in the censorship department.
Prisoners have a right to confidential correspondence with their lawyers and the courts and a range of other bodies, including the ombudsman, under prison rule 39. They can only be opened by prison staff on a case-by-case basis if there are suspicions that the letter contains illicit items or are from an organisation or person not recognised under rule 39. The prison service rule stresses that there must be strict compliance with procedures on confidential and privileged mail.
Newcomen said he had received 32 official investigations into complaints about rule 39 letters between April 2014 and June 2015 and had ruled in favour of the prisoner in 16 of them.
Newcomen said: “There are detailed rules for handling confidential mail, designed to ensure that prisoners are able to communicate with their legal advisers without fear of disclosure or interference, and that they are able confidentially to communicate with independent scrutiny bodies without fear of reprisals from staff.
“While I am in no way complacent, it is perhaps reassuring that, of the complaints I have upheld, most appear to be isolated incidents of human error where letters had been incorrectly opened.
“I found little evidence of deliberate or sinister tampering or of repeated failures at a prison. Prisoners need to be able to have confidence that their confidential communications will be respected. Even infrequent errors will undermine this.”
The Ministry of Justice said: “These were isolated cases. The recommendations made by the prison and probation ombudsman have been accepted and the necessary action has been taken at the prisons concerned. This bulletin is being shared with all prison staff to reinforce the correct process that needs to be followed when handling prisoners’ legal and confidential mail.”
Latest Government News
http://www.govwire.co.uk/news/parole-board
Prisoners’ confidential legal letters to and from their lawyers and the courts have been wrongly opened by prison staff in half of cases investigated by the prisons ombudsman in the past year.
The prisons and probation ombudsman, Nigel Newcomen, carried out 32 official investigations into complaints about the handling of confidential correspondence with prisoners in England and Wales, and found in half of them private legal letters to and from prisoners had been in opened by mistake by prison staff.
The ombudsman said in a special bulletin that most of the cases involved human error but he was “extremely troubled” to find in one case legal letters that had been handed in properly sealed by the prisoner in line with the rules were being repeatedly opened before they were sent out of the prison.
In another case, letters from the Royal Courts of Justice, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, Medway court and the Prisoners Advice Service were being routinely opened by prison staff. Following complaints, the prison apologised to the inmate and told him the mistakes were due to new staff starting in the censorship department.
Prisoners have a right to confidential correspondence with their lawyers and the courts and a range of other bodies, including the ombudsman, under prison rule 39. They can only be opened by prison staff on a case-by-case basis if there are suspicions that the letter contains illicit items or are from an organisation or person not recognised under rule 39. The prison service rule stresses that there must be strict compliance with procedures on confidential and privileged mail.
Newcomen said he had received 32 official investigations into complaints about rule 39 letters between April 2014 and June 2015 and had ruled in favour of the prisoner in 16 of them.
Newcomen said: “There are detailed rules for handling confidential mail, designed to ensure that prisoners are able to communicate with their legal advisers without fear of disclosure or interference, and that they are able confidentially to communicate with independent scrutiny bodies without fear of reprisals from staff.
“While I am in no way complacent, it is perhaps reassuring that, of the complaints I have upheld, most appear to be isolated incidents of human error where letters had been incorrectly opened.
“I found little evidence of deliberate or sinister tampering or of repeated failures at a prison. Prisoners need to be able to have confidence that their confidential communications will be respected. Even infrequent errors will undermine this.”
The Ministry of Justice said: “These were isolated cases. The recommendations made by the prison and probation ombudsman have been accepted and the necessary action has been taken at the prisons concerned. This bulletin is being shared with all prison staff to reinforce the correct process that needs to be followed when handling prisoners’ legal and confidential mail.”
Latest Government News
http://www.govwire.co.uk/news/parole-board
Paul Hackett / Reuters
No comments:
Post a Comment
comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.