Not so transparent liz Truss !!!

Following the new rules be published in November 2016 there have been changes to options for IPP cases at the paper stage. Further  (The position in relation to life sentence cases is unchanged)

Changes to the Parole Board Rules in November 2016

allowed the release of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) prisoners on the papers.

The  Parole Board’s Management Committee has now agreed two  changes

 that affect the options available to members dealing with IPP cases ( paper stage).

These changes will take effect for MCA cases with a panel date of 8 March 2017 onward.

Who are  MCA Inside times http://www.insidetime.org/member-case-assessment-mca/

The two changes are as follows:

1. Option to recommend open conditions on the papers in IPP cases

Members will be able to recommend open conditions on the papers in any IPP case, where eligible under the referral.

Under previous Parole Board policy, although it was permitted under the rules, members have not had the option to recommend open conditions for any prisoners at MCA stage, unless the case was considered exceptional and approval was gained from the Parole Board Chair. These limitations will no longer apply.

2. Option of negative decision on the papers in IPP recall cases

Oral hearings will no longer be automatic for IPP recall cases. At MCA stage members should assess whether to send the case to oral hearing or make a decision on the papers.

Under previous Parole Board Rules and guidance, all indeterminate recall cases, including IPP recalls, were sent automatically to oral hearing. The Parole Board Rules 2016 aligned the options available for IPP cases at the paper stage with those for determinate cases; that is, members are able to direct release, no release, or send the case to an oral hearing. These options apply to all IPP cases where release is an option, i.e. on or post tariff reviews and recalls. This means that a negative decision on the papers in IPP recall cases is now permitted.

The Management Committee has now approved an approach whereby members exercise broad discretion in deciding whether to send an IPP recall case to oral hearing or make a decision on the papers. Members will take into account the principles set out in Osborn, Booth & Reilly (2013) UKSC 61 in deciding whether an oral hearing is required. This broadly mirrors the approach in

determinate cases.

 

We are not happy with the way the Liz Truss running the justice system.

 Since being on the job, she has not done anything substantial to prove to the people she is a justice leader who will not accept anything less than sterling performance.

At the  this stage she is “Someone who sometimes   get  use of a car but without that she  wouldn’t have a clue ...she  keeps changing her mind does not answer your questions and does not reply to the families or there  MPs.

Hardly been seen or heard from. She is what we describe as the invisible justice Minister. She cannot run the illustration from behind closed doors or while having lunch with other Minister  rather than being effective. We don’t have confidence that those given an IPP sentence will get justice. How can she solve issues well she has been given lots of alternative,s options however feel she is not qualified or experience to deal with situation.
 I do not appreciate, rude and sometimes downright cruel manner in which she treats her citizens. She  lacks in robust communication which is important  for those who want to  learn and understand , may translate into something positive for JUSTICE in terms of re-gaining the confidence and trust that is lacking from the public. But such intervention cannot take place successfully while the Minister is in denial. 

The prison system have been failing for decades consequently IPP sentence was bound to be open to abuse. Though IPP prisoners finished their courses some twice over there risk had not been lowered  Therefore there was no light at the end of the tunnel  and coupled with the fact the psychologist had no criteria to follow.

Howard League’s legal team successfully applied to the High review, arguing that that a inmate removal from association, and the lack of suitable educational provision, was cruel, inhuman and degrading. Figures demonstrate the courses do not work or lower risk how can you measure a risk.

“For instance if I cross the road can one prove I will get run over?”

If rehabilitation courses where available for all they were not suitable for all those with neurological disorders /learning disability or mental health. Continued (1)

What is proven is 23 hours in a cell with no appropriate education / adequate accommodations or courses, excises and sun does cause mental health problems. I would not put a dog in a cage for 23 hours with no end date and expect it to be sane.A sentence which is open to abuse from other such as parole who makes a profit on the longer they keep an IPP Prisoner . Recalling those for non-offences and those groups with hidden disability/ leaning differences people who cannot cope with daily tasks remembering appointments being a snap shot.

It has been long proven that those with learning differences serve more time than anyone else in fact double the time than those without disability. often unable to assert themselves through lack inadequate accommodations to support them with task such as their paper work solicitor and put them at a disadvantage therefore unlikely to do well when up for parole.

On-going and never ending is Multi agency’s which you always have to I question their effectiveness or their partnership with working with others individual agencies. Information is not clearly been passed appropriately or shared appropriately and this leads to delays, delays in action. Poor cross referencing information and failing to indemnify a prisoner at risk though concerns were raised. Missing paper work poor or redirecting referrals due to poor paper work being a snap shot, the these type of sentence will be open to abuse because there is always going to be new errors with different agency . Re-offending is largely caused by a lack of post release support.

We have Human rights in place to make life fair and equal how is it equal for those ipp prisoners over five years with relatively minor crimes than those of others to be given an no end date and those with learning differences do double the time with or without an IPP sentence.
16 IPP Prisoners died as a result of this never ending sentence NO one listened or heard there cry’s .MPs and Minatory of justice now should end the chat and correct the wrong and end the 99 year tariff, for all.

Though one may have a tariff of 5 years …for a serious crime does not justify a life sentence, a longer sentence perhaps but not more than a murders for minor offense in comparison ?
Every one that comes out of prison is a risk a risk of re offending not just one group. Ipp prisoners are no more a risk than any other prisoner coming out of prisoners each day.

Conclusion

All prisoners are a risk of re offending for what they might do! But IPP prisoners have served their time parole should be constructive rather than punitive; guiding, not catching.

(1) Discretionary release “but” if they feel the offender is still not willing to abide by the by the conditions or unwilling or unable or unready to change there must be an alternative system in place for offenders to return to the community’s with support and supervision for the best interest of the victim and community that they have guidance upon release., Perhaps a specific stipulation on order to prevent their relapse and re offending.
Its NOT right to keep those with disabilities' incarcerated"  because of what they might do or because  behavior they cant help  as a direct result of a disability -ADHD- Asperger’s and Dyspraxia .........

Often parole assessment goes beyond conduct
 
It’s an action plan which often includes the family housing, job opportunities, and a support network. So it makes me wonder why numbers of families were refused attending the parole hearings to enable them to demonstrate their support. How wonder often the independent monitoring board attended hearings.
Parole boards lack of sufficient independence and they lack resources that constituted, in effectively managing its case load and in report delaying with inmates details. The lack of details the problems caused by lack of compliance with timetabling and the need for jurisdiction with the power to supervise cases and manage their progression effectively has been long standing. Huge caseloads and the temptation to save money compromising procedural standards for example, the intensive case management process ICM limits the right to oral hearings and leads to some decisions being taken by single members of the parole board on paper I stress the that procedural fairness is not only an obligation at common law under the European convention on human rights ( echr) it did not promote good decision making by ensuring that evidence used to release or refuse a release was properly tested .
The cost of holding hearings alongside saving money by recouping the costs they failed in preventing reoffending unnecessary long incarcerations. Further evidence through proposals on recall and delays in release and re-release. The use of OASys on low offenders. The focus on risk upon risk relate to the importance of proportionality in sentencing?

(1) Does it mean that sentencing and offending management now discriminate against certain socio economic and demographic groups? Who are ill-served by risk assessment methods or considered particularly dangerous through factors beyond their control? Can risk be accurately assessed and if so, how should this be done? Both the government and the criminal justice system as a whole should respond to the questions?

A system unduly managing risk in a wide variety of cases became financially underfunded and both procedurally and substantively unfair. The government risk focused rather than deserts approach to sentencing the government failed to anticipate the number of these sentences that would be imposed, despite broad statutory criteria and the cries of the family’s, they failed to provide sufficient courses programmes to enable such offenders to demonstrate their rehabilitation and achieve release
5 ECHR( right to liberty and security. The lawful detention of a person after conviction .Everyone who is deprived of liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by the court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful 6 echr right to a fair trial. Resulting in litigation and reform.

We know the government wanted to address risk from violent and sexual offences which is both understandable and laudable However , in my view, it is wrong is principle for indeterminate sentences which in effect is a life sentence was not justify a life sentence and where the maximum term served could be out of all proportion to the index of the offence placing undue pressure on the parole authority effectively to determine the length of sentence in a large number of cases.

In relation to determinate sentences, the role of conditional release has now ended for newly sentenced prisoners as a result of the criminal justice and immigration act. All such prisoners will be release automatically however a structure of custodial sentences remains flawed.
The IPP sentences, with dangerousness assessed by the sentencing court, should be abolished. Where a sexual or violent offender is sentenced for an offense that is serious but not deserving of a life sentence .A more appropriate sentence would be a determinate sentence with conditional release manged or an extended license period S we invite the government and others to give further consideration to the options.

In all events, the parole board should focus upon worse cases and hope doing so, its caseload will eventually be reduced. Simple sentences for other offenders, with automatic release, will obviate the need for a tribunal to determine release date and its associated costs in these cases where is the case management, to reduce deferrals.

MPs must work with us because they continue to fail their constituents and a result families and prisoners go unheard as do there cry's.

Those who have finished their sentence  are still incarcerated because the system failed them resulting in numbers serving more than  double their sentence even though they had done the courses. They and have suffered enough, end the continued suffering.

 End the 99 Tariff

                                          Post date  2012