JUSTICE Secretary Liz Truss and prison service head Michael Spurr should be sacked for incompetence following the latest damning government statistics on understaffing, the Prison Officers Association said yesterday.
Front-line prison
officer numbers fell by more than 300 last year, official figures show,
triggering fresh scrutiny of staffing levels as jails tackle a safety crisis
Latest statistics from
the National Offender Management Service (Noms) reveal a loss of 366 staff,
many of them experienced officers, last year and 133 over the last quarter.
Leaving rates are
calculated as the percentage of permanent staff who left for reasons other than
voluntary early departure schemes and redundancy
Shrinking staffing
levels have come under the spotlight in recent months as assaults and suicides
behind bars hit record levels
However, the pledged
recruitment drive, which was supposed to provide thousands more officers, has
met with a lukewarm response at best, the POA said.
General secretary Steve
Gillan told the Star: “If I was prime minister, I would sack Liz Truss and the
head of Noms (Michael Spurr) for incompetence.
“There needs to be an
independent root-and-branch inquiry into the way the service is being run.
We warned them years
ago not to get rid of older, experienced staff, but they didn’t listen.
He said the union had
warned the government time and time again that the system was in crisis, but
“all they seemed interested in was saving money.
Shadow prisons minister
Yasmin Qureshi said: “It’s no wonder ministers tried to sneak this out during
the parliamentary recess.
“It would appear Liz
Truss’s flagship recruitment drive is failing and front-line officers are still
leaving the service
“We need urgent action
to tackle the understaffing which is contributing to the Tories’ prisons crisis.
In a statement to the
Star, the Ministry of Justice said the government was on track to recruit 400
more front-line officers by next month as it works towards its goal of taking
on an extra 2,500 in total.
further on Liz Truss out of her depth for sure
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/769243/Liz-Truss-Justice-Secretary-Andrew-Marr-Prisons
Barrister Philip Rule
explains the importance of appealing
Barrister Philip Rule,
of Number 5 Chambers, was successful in an appeal against an unlawful
indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP), over eight
years after imposition.
On 17 February the Lord
Chief Justice, presiding over a hearing at the Court of Appeal (Criminal
Division), allowed the appeal against an IPP imposed in 2006 in the case of R v
James-Davis. The offence had been committed in a period from late 2004 to early
2005 so prior to the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 on 4 April
2005. Consequently an IPP was simply not available as a matter of law.
What is most unusual,
and worrying about this case is that the fact the sentence was unlawful was not
noticed by the defence or prosecution representatives at the time, the
sentencing judge, or any staff involved in the offender’s case in prison since,
and not even by the Parole Board on several occasions after tariff-expiry.
It was not until
the case was finally brought to Mr Rule and his instructing solicitor that the
error was spotted.
The Court of Appeal
also accepted it is not an option for the Court of Appeal to replace an
unlawful IPP by a life sentence, due to the operation of the rule that prevents
the Court sub- stituting any sentence that would result in dealing with the
offender more severely on appeal than he was dealt with at the Crown Court.
The Court had been
considering whether to increase the sentence so as to impose a longer term of
imprisonment than the notional sentence from which the minimum term had been
calculated under the IPP, but was persuaded not to do so.
The Court quashed the
unlawful IPP, and in its place imposed the sentence of twelve years’
imprisonment with an extended 10-year period of licence and a sexual offences
prevention order as additional public protection measures. The appellant was
entitled to immediate release on conditions of licence.Nor is this the only
example of this kind of failure.
In R v G in late 2014
A similar appeal
was allowed (although there the maximum sentence in law for the offence had not
extended to life imprisonment). The offender had a very serious previous
conviction, and was assessed to be a very dangerous offender indeed ([5], [7]).
The Court however had
no doubt that the sentence was an unlawful one as a consequence of the date of
the offences, despite the danger that offender plainly represented [11].
There was no
power to impose an IPP and the sentence had to be quashed.
In its place was
imposed a sentence of imprisonment reflecting the calculation made by the
sentencing judge of the notional determinate term, and added to that was an
extended licence period.
This is unlikely to
represent the end of unlawful sentences being brought belatedly to the Court of
Appeal where it takes many years before someone spots such a mistake.
It is an almost
inevitable consequence of the strain placed on the criminal justice system by
an ever-increasing volume of complex sentencing provisions, in tandem with
constant legal aid cuts devaluing representation before the criminal courts,
that unlawful sentences are sometimes passed.
In the case of the IPP
such a mistake can mean years of detention that could or should not lawfully
have been imposed at all. It is an unacceptable state of affairs in any mature
democracy that liberties are so carelessly safe- guarded by the state’s system
for justice.
If you feel you may
have been subjected to an unlawful sentence you may be able to seek help from a
solicitor AND BARRISTER. Do not apply direct to Philip Rule as enquiries to
Philip Rule that are thought to be eligible for funding will automatically be
directed to an appropriate solicitor unless a specific request is made.
Stephenson's, Grounds
for appeal IPP sentence,
Have successfully
appealed IPP sentences on clients behalf and have had indeterminate sentences
replaced with determinate sentences for advice call us on 0333 323 1610 ask for a call back
Section 225 Criminal
Justice Act 2003 provides for the imposition of imprisonment for public
protection where a person is aged 18 or over and is convicted of a serious
offence if the Court is of the opinion that there is significant risk to
members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission of further
specified offences.
Serious harm is defined
at section 224(3) as “death or serious personal injury, whether physical or
psychological”.
In the case of R v Lang
[2006] 2 Cr.App.R.(S) 3, the Court of Appeal considered the approach sentencing
Courts should take when considering whether to impose an IPP.
Before a sentence of
life imprisonment or imprisonment for public protection can be imposed a
significant risk must be shown in relation to two matters;
first, the commission
of further specified (but not necessarily serious) offences,
Secondly, the causing
of serious harm to members of the public. This is often described as
“dangerousness”.
There must be a
“significant risk” in relation to both these matters
The Court stated that
in assessing significant risk, it should be borne in mind that
"significant" is a higher threshold than mere possibility of
occurrence and it can be taken to mean "noteworthy, of considerable...
importance".
In assessing the
risk of further specified offences being committed, the Court should take into
account the nature and circumstances of the current offence,
the offender's history
of offending
(including kind of
offence, its circumstances, sentence passed,
whether offending
demonstrates any pattern),
social and
economic factors in relation to the offender (including accommodation,
employability, education, associates, relationships and drug and alcohol abuse),
and the offender's thinking/attitude towards offending and supervision and
emotional state.
The Court stated that
such information most readily, though not exclusively, should come from
antecedents and the pre-sentence report; in relation to such reports, the court
will be guided, but not bound, by any assessment of risk.
In assessing the risk
of serious harm
Courts must guard
against assuming there to be a significant risk of serious harm merely because
the foreseen specified offence is serious.
Where the
foreseen specified offence is not serious, there will be comparatively few
cases in which a risk of serious harm will properly be regarded as significant.
Serious harm
Section 224 defines
serious harm as “death or serious personal injury, whether physical or
psychological”.
As to the significance
of the offender not having caused any harm when committing the index, or any
prior, offence, this, the court said, may be advantageous to the offender, but
it may be entirely fortuitous.
The Court may wish to
reflect on the likely response of the offender, if his victim, instead of
surrendering, resolutely defended himself
It does not, therefore,
follow from the absence of actual harm caused by the offender to date, that the
risk that he will cause serious harm in the future is negligible.
If serious harm has
been caused in the index offence this is obviously something that the Court can
take into account.
Reasons
The Court in Lang said
that sentencers should usually give reasons (briefly identifying the
information which they have taken into account) for all their conclusions,
particularly as to whether there is or is not a significant risk of further
offences or serious harm, and also for not imposing an extended sentence under
section 227 and 228 where this is available.
In giving of
reasons for an indeterminate sentence, the Court said that there is a
requirement that the sentencing remarks should explain the reasons which have
led the court to its conclusion.
The Court of Appeal
will not normally interfere with the conclusions reached by a sentencer who has
accurately identified the relevant principles, and applied his mind to the
relevant facts.
The case of Pedley
Martin and Hamadi 2010 1 Cr App R (s) 24 has introduced an overall
proportionality test where the degree or level of risk has now to be
balanced against the nature of the risk or the nature of the harm.
Proportionality
requires that only a relatively high risk of some lesser harm would be
sufficient to justify preventative detention
Our solicitors
have successfully appealed sentences for public protection on the following
grounds:
That the Judges have
not adhered to the guidance as set out in Lang
Alternative sentences
have not been considered
Full reasons have not
been stated
criteria has not
been met to impose such a Draconian sentence
They said the
inadequate resources, "appeared to be the consequence of the introduction
of draconian measures for indeterminate detention without the necessary
planning and without realistic consideration of the impact of the
measures".
Fighting
the IPP Why use a barrister and not solicitors?
""If you feel your solicitor is ill trained for the job have
your case notes to someone who will get things done.""
Expertise: Barristers are equivalent to consultants in healthcare. Barristers
are experts in their chosen areas of law. They will provide answers to your
problems, letting you know where you stand and what your options are.Efficiency of service: barristers are skilled at working out solutions to legal
problems quickly and telling their clients. You won’t have to keep chasing them
to deal with your issue.Skilled advocates:
using a barrister doesn't mean you have to go to Court.However, if you do need to go to Court, they are skilled advocates, who will present your case better than anyone else.
Search for your barrister here.
0330 333 3791, Contact@.mybarrister.co.uk/ http://www.mybarrister.co.uk/barrister/find/135/0/ipp%2Bprisoner
Examples Barristers
Grand Chamber considers whole life sentences and Article 3 ECHR
Barrister Joel Bennathan QC
2012 EWCA Crim 27 appeal against IPP sentence, arson, IPP quashed; Led by
Joel Bennathan QC.
His barrister Joel Bennathan QC told the court that open-ended sentences of
imprisonment for public protection (IPP) are a 'draconian' punishment.
On the 21st October
2015, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights considered the
appeal . Joel Bennathan QC and Katy Thorne represented Mr Hutchinson,
whose complaint is that his whole life sentence is incompatible with
Article 3 of the Convention. Mr
Following Vinter v
United Kingdom decided in June 2013, whole life sentenced prisoners must
be able to access a clear and foreseeable review mechanism so that their life
sentence can be reviewed and its continuing penological justification
scrutinised. If there is no such review mechanism then the life sentence will
be "irreducible", which is a breach of Article 3 ECHR. In Hutchinson the
applicant is arguing that the UK government has failed to put in place an
Article 3 compliant review mechanism because the only way that a whole life
sentenced prisoner can be released is if there are exceptional, compassionate
circumstances. In fact there have been no releases of whole life
prisoners.
Tel: Work 020 7404 1313 Email j.bennathan@doughtystreet.co.uk.53-54 DOUGHTY
STREET, LONDON, WC1N 2LS, ENGLAND.
Paul Taylor specialises in criminal appeals.
Expertise in cases
involving fresh evidence, homicide and mentally disordered offenders. He
regularly represents appellants before the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
(being instructed at the appellate stage), and has also appeared as junior
counsel before the House of Lords (in Graham Coutts) and the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council (in capital cases from the Caribbean). He has extensive
experience in drafting submissions to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and
representations in relation to the judicial setting of tariffs in murder cases
under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.his cases include:
Colborne [2014]
EWCA Crim 286 [Sentence, IPP, substitution of hospital order, fresh
psychiatric evidence]
Ahad [2011] EWCA
Crim 2736 joint enterprise; substitution of manslaughter; sentence)
H (K) [2011] EWCA
Crim (Extended sentences)
Gill and
Eccles [2012] 1 W.L.R. 1441 [2012] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.)
26 mandatory lifers; exceptional progress as a mitigating factor in
setting the minimum term.)
Baker [2012] EWCA
Crim 2843 (Murder, diminished responsibility; jury directions)
Jones (aka
Malik) [2012] (Murder, judge’s duty to leave self-defence.)
Phillippa Ellis
Represented clients wanting to appeal conviction, sentence or ancillary orders,
and assisted in applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. She also
has experience of prison law matters including representing clients at parole
and recall hearings.
Phillippa Ellis
Represented clients wanting to appeal conviction, sentence or ancillary orders,
and assisted in applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. She also
has experience of prison law matters including representing clients at parole
and recall hearings.
Tahir Khan QC
He specialises in serious crime, including serious and complex drugs
prosecutions, terrorism cases, complex frauds and the most serious cases of
violence.
Barrister Joel Bennathan QC
2012 EWCA Crim 27 appeal against IPP sentence, arson, IPP quashed; Led by
Joel Bennathan QC.
His barrister Joel Bennathan QC told the court that open-ended sentences of
imprisonment for public protection (IPP) are a 'draconian' punishment.Read
more:Tel: Work 020 7404 1313 Email j.bennathan@doughtystreet.co.uk.53-54
DOUGHTY STREET, LONDON, WC1N 2LS, ENGLAND.
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/violent-sunderland-criminal-jailed-indefinitely-after-attempted-carjacking-launches-freedom-bid-1-7617761#ixzz3yumjrK4T
Chambers
and Partners 2015 commented "Joel is a first-class lawyer and ..Kathy
Thorne Doughty Chambers
Grand Chamber considers
whole life sentences and Article 3 ECHR On 21st October 2015, the Grand Chamber
of the European Court of Human Rights considered the appeal of Hutchinson v
United Kingdom. Joel Bennathan QC and Katy Thorne represented Mr
Hutchinson, whose complaint is that his whole life sentence is
incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention. Mr
Following Vinter v
United Kingdom decided in June 2013, whole life sentenced prisoners must
be able to access a clear and foreseeable review mechanism so that their life
sentence can be reviewed and its continuing penological justification
scrutinised. If there is no such review mechanism then the life sentence will
be "irreducible", which is a breach of Article 3 ECHR. In
Hutchinson the applicant is arguing that the UK government has failed to
put in place an Article 3 compliant review mechanism because the only way that
a whole life sentenced prisoner can be released is if there are exceptional,
compassionate circumstances. In fact there have been no releases of whole
life prisonershttp://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=hearings&c=#n1357300199863_pointer
Jennifer Oborne
Has experience in the full spectrum of offences. Frequently instructed in
case of serious violence, sexual offences, organised crime and drugs matters
and large scale fraud. Experienced at representing defendants in
post-conviction confiscation proceedings and contested applications for
Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, Sexual Offences
Elizabeth Nartey
regularly provides written advice on appeals against conviction and/or sentence
and as a result has a wealth of experience in arguing technical points of law in
the Court of Appeal.
Lord
Justice Davis quashed an IPP sentence
Open-ended sentence has
now been quashed at London’s Criminal Appeal Court and replaced with a
conventional jail term of three years,15 August 2012 Lord Justice Davis was
among the judges who were anxious about the outcome
judges said that, while
they were deeply anxious about the outcome, the law on indeterminate sentences
laid down by Parliament left them with ‘no alternative’ but to quash Crisp’s
IPP.The decision means that, instead of remaining behind bars until the Parole
Board concludes it is safe to release him, Crisp will now be automatically
released after serving half of the three-year term.A probation report concluded
Crisp was a danger to the public and there was a real threat that
would result in him reoffending.Sentencing him, the crown court judge said a
five-year sentence would have been appropriate for the offences, but that he
was ‘dangerous’ and should therefore be locked up indefinitely.Crisp’s lawyers
argued the five-year ‘notional term’ was too long, saying the crown court judge
didn’t take enough account of the overall sentence or the level of his
offending.London's Court of Appeal heard how Crisp’s computer equipment,
including a laptop, webcam and four discs, were seized from his home in
September Allowing the appeal, Judge Morris agreed the term was ‘excessive’ and
that the IPP must be quashed - as indefinite sentences can only be imposed
where the offences would justify a conventional sentence of at least four
years.He told the court: 'We consider that the judge’s finding of dangerousness
was fully justified on the evidence before him.'But, by reason of this court’s
decision to reduce the notional determinate term, a sentence of imprisonment
for public protection was not available.'We have great concern as to the
outcome. But, as Parliament has laid down that the notional term must be at
least four years for an indeterminate sentence to be imposed, we have no
alternative but to quash the IPP.http://www.megrahimystory.net/downloads/Summary%20of%20Grounds%20of%20Appeal%201%20&%202.pdf
COMMENTS
‘I find prison hard to
cope with, being trapped in a box. 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.’
James Ward
Shane Another ‘victim’ of the legal
system. My friend successfully appealed his sentence through the help of CS
Solicitors. They regularly deal with miscarriage of justice, excessive
sentences and are experts in Prison law. If you require expert advice on Appeal
matters contact CS Solicitors 01952 243 346 or alternatively drop them a email
and they will be in touch. IPP – Law
Banks Honestly, why do
you believe that nothing has been done yet for all of these IPP prisoners still
inside? Is it because they are seen as less than human to the higher ups? My
personal theory is that if this is proven to be an injustice that every
prisoner will be liable to compensation, which at today's rate should be £90
for each day over tariff (+8% statutory interest?) afterall the majority of our
governments decisions do come down to money £££ not sense . I believe
freedom is worth more than just money. I do hope one day this happens. We all
know that once that class action suit happens we open the gates for everyone
else, that's when the system will feel the repercussions from this injustice. I
believe that once we get some IPPs released and adjusted to life on the
outside, That we can then help guide them using any resources we have. I myself
am currently self representing in court on personal matters, all using
information found on the internet and in books. It can be done and we do stand
a good chance."That's the only thing holding them back once released, is
the lifetime license. Trying to help from the outside so no I've not
done an IPP personally. The actual compensation for being held in prison for
too long is £110 per day as per human rights laws, this is if it is
successfully proven that all IPP prisoners are being held unlawfully over
tariff after it has been abolished. Here is the link to the last mention of any
figures http://www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Payouts-inmates-kept-jail...
bear in mind that this is just my theory. I'm looking for a solution as to why
nothing has been done about the 4000+ prisoners still rotting in jail without
hope. I'm as angry the whole thing, but we have to be diplomatic and
fight the system from within.a huge difference to someones life just to have
this removed."iI am not bothered about the cash. The license is a
drag too, but nothing better to just have them out here. Living the lives they
were supposed to.We have a meeting with the local MP regarding my
brothers IPP, he's about 8-9 years over tariff. What questions shall I put to
him and what's the best course of action for us to take moving forward..?
The mental health issue hits home, as my brother is not in the best shape at
the minute. There are 4 of us meeting with 3 different MPs from Manchester
Stockport and Trafford. Hopefully we will leave today with some kind of action
plan.I have since been
with 2 case workers for the local MP. They have agreed that the punishment has
been overly harsh and they will be putting our questions to the MP both
directly about my brother and indirectly about ALL IPP cases. They are keen to
speak to Liz Truss and put forward a list of questions and also to ask why the
prisoners are still serving under this inhumane sentence, can we get them
switched to determinate sentences, why haven't more
resources been provided for the prisoners to do the courses etc. As we should
have known, they first need my brothers consent which will take around 15-20
days in total. Finally good to know we are getting somewhere. Myself and his
old Barnados youth worker are also going to get support from our local MP's,
they cant help my brother but they can also speak with Liz Truss on behalf of
all IPP prisoners to ask these crucial questions.
Cooke This is an
argument that has been aired and discussed before, I sincerely hope every
over tariff IPP who is or has been released should sue the government.
Unfortunately, with the withdrawal of legal aid most won't be able to. The best
thing they could do would be to take a class action but it requires a)
organisation b) money. One day someone will do this - it's just a case of
when...Maybe the key to change is to try and get a class action going - it
would need to come from the ex IPPS themselves but we could offer our support.
It's food for thought because to my knowledge protests against IPP have been
going on since July 2012 and apart from the abolition of the sentence itself,
very little else has changed.Any ex IPPs willing to volunteer? I am sure most
of those IPPs who are released just want to get their heads down and get on
with their lives and who the heck can blame them? Then there's the life licence
to think about...I'm happy to be involved in anything that might bring this
situation about.Stress the inequity of having no release date and the mental
stress it causes; the inequity of people having committed same offences serving
their time and being released. The more MPs are aware pf this inhumane sentence
the better. I'm contacting my MP to ask him to get Liz Truss to meet us may be
able to persuade her ....Its true, my brother has given up on ever achieving an
outside life. It no longer seems to be an end goal. ! Its not easy to
watch.
Weeden My son is
IPP and he's now into his 11th year on a 4 year tariff. It's horrendous. I wish
you every success Someone needs to start listening. 7 years over....The
IPP sentence breaks them. With no release dates they just give up.My son is in
his 11th year on a 4 year tariff. At his last parole hearing his outside
probation who he had never met, decided to go for a clinical overide the day
before the hearing to make him do the RESOLVE course which he had previously
been deemed as unsuitable for. He hadn't done any courses for almost 4 years
because he'd already done them all. They deferred his hearing so he could do
this course. Now he waits for another hearing.
McGeough Did you
do the sentence? I went two years over Tariff, 8 1/2 rather than 6 1/2 with no
adjudications and got fuck all. I fought them through The European Court of
human rights; what a load of b......s that was! However, they did pay me £2000
because my review was delayed by six months. Please prove me wrong and fight my
case for me. You can have half the money.
Brackenbury what we are
all doing, looking for solutions, it's good that people who aren't even an ipp
themselves are taking interest, we are all well aware most of our efforts have
been in vain, my partner also sued them for delaying his hearing by 5 months he
got a few hundred pounds that legal aid chewed up he never saw it, the whole
system Is corrupt but nothing is unbreakable I
will die trying! I really will, morning noon and night I'm on this now! Sooner
or later the cracks will appear and we will make a breakthrough, nobody is
unbreakable. I would ask your MP to pressure liz truss into
changing the sentences to determinate sentences, remind them that the sentence
was abolished in 2012 but not for those still serving one which is unfair, I'd
also ask for them to enquire somebody higher than liz truss to have a full
investigation as to why this is being allowed to continue, ask them to attend
the protest on your behalf, also maybe ask them to enquire for evidence
that courses actually reduce reoffending, and maybe ask the relevant people if
it is in fact safe to keep him jailed beyond his tariff expiry with the current
state of prisons, because if an ipp prisoner is killed by another prisoner I'm
sure it will raise concern that someone so severely over tariff should've still
been there in the first place! Bring up all the risks of him being there to
long, like mental health, loss of family life etc... Hope this helps .
Ireland Apparently
theres 2500 unopened letters from ipp families sat on liz truss desk...So apparently theres
2500 unopened letters from ipp families sat on liz truss desk...i am seriously
strugglin, im strugglin to get support from his family let alone get anyone
else to back it, ive been trying to get mental health protesters to unite and see
if i can get them to come to double our numbers, travel is an issue for most
but its london! No matter where u are theres always a way to get there and you
have time to save to get the money so its no excuse, how are you getting
on.Personally i am not arsed about the money, i would much rather just have him
out license free, but if theyre doin pay outs they clearly know theyre
wrong???? So why not just bloody release them. We just have to keep pushing,
yes its tired and we hit roadblocks but then we find a new wayOur priority is
getting them home of course it is but it is worth then seeing if theyre
entitled to anything, they need all bloody help they can get.
Morris Liz Truss
is a disgrace, only way we can get het out is through a vote of no
confidence
Umm We should do a petition to get lis Truss
removed from Parliament the lack of common sense from her brain is
unreal. So glad that I ain't waste paper and a stamp on that waste women
liz tRSS .. ðŸ˜
But
I think it's better then having her useless bum ...doing nothing as it is like
how long is taking to do anything... It's will be better then having someone
that really don't care at all.well it wouldn't shock me to be honest we need a
detective to dig out the mug that that Liz truss is..well it wouldn't shock me
to be honest we need a detective to dig out the mug that that Liz truss is.
What can the mp do for them? As I've contacted the local one and not got much
help
Zing lis Truss cant
represent anyone if she doesn't read what they want from their
"representative" Ford I wrote to lis Truss & was fobbed
of with a useless reply from NOMS, but will keep at it to this pitiless,
ignorant woman.
Mccarthy When Hanging
was Abolished, Did they carry on Hanging ppl ?I Doubt it, so Why they holding
our loved ones?, Ipps Abolished, f/king release them, They say it was lawfully
imposed by a Judge, Yes I agree, But they done there sentence some of them 2, 3
times over, so nothing would be going against the sentencing judge do they not
get it.?,only one word MUPPETS, Soz for the swearing just a bit upset tonight,
How we as Families are being punished as well as the ipps,Ive been through
everyday of this sentence with my boy, Like many others and who feels it, Knows
it, feeling Disgusted, we got to make this year 2017 the year of change, And get
our loved ones Home.
Why was Ipp only
introduced in England, and wales,? and not Ireland and Scotland, we all in
uk?wonder what the difference.Maybe we need to ask Michael Gove to have another
word with the Hopeless Liz truss, we need Executive Clemency for All over tariff
Ipps, we need it NOW, Its well overdue, if she doesn't do it she needs the
sack, And whoever takes her place made to do it, This is a Total injustice,on a
corrupt sentence that no longer exsists, we need a Barrister who believes in us
and the flawed ipp, to do more, more claims for compensation, for unlawful
detention.
Pettit By doing this if
possible it would then mean those who have in the past not being able to
participate in protests or meetings will have the opportunity to do their bit
without compromising their health and their welfare. We can all do our bit to
contribute in the hope all IPP,s can get a release date or some other change
that helps them and us.. We are all suffering inside and out.That needs to stop.
Cooke Ireland
and Scotland have separate legal systems. Northern Ireland has the same as
UK.Scotland and Ireland not as evil as England lol
Chaddock Contact your
Mp and the Mp of the area the prisons in I did it for my bro he got iPp 1year44
days tarrif he has served 11 he is coming out 6 march keep on at MPs citizen
advice they will soon Listin as long as they keep their head down.
Horton The mental
health issue is a really important point because the stresses on IPP prisoners
mean that the longer they are in, the less likely it is that they will be able
to "prove" that they are no longer dangerous, as they will be more
likely to kick off. And the fairness issue - many dangerous prisoners are being
released because they have determinate sentences, whereas IPPs who are in most
cases less dangerous are stuck in prison. I hope you have a good MP.
