Dominic Hewitt HMP Chelmsford
I feel broken.
No justice here for me, no help, no
one cares enough. I am one of 8,000 lost souls. I pray to my maker to
help me in my suffering and show me that there is light at the end of
this journey. Six-years of my life ‘lost at sea’, no positivity, a
distraught feeling has taken over my wellbeing. The sentence handed down
was three-years and seven-months – I have now served ten-years.
Adrian G – HMP Leyhill
Level playing field?
I am British born and bred, serving a 13-year sentence on
which I will be released at the halfway point, to serve the remainder on
license under Probation. I was informed that the time on license is
part of my sentence. My question is, why do foreign nationals (who may
have committed the exact same crime as me) get returned to their
countries, with no license conditions, at the halfway point of their
sentence? I have witnessed foreign national IPP’s and lifers sent home
once they reach their tariff, while UK-born prisoners are left to rot in
the system. I feel that British prisoners are being discriminated
against for having been born here. Where is the equality?
Mr MD – HMP Buckley Hall
Outrageous damage
I’d like to highlight my own plight, and that of the many prisoners I have met over the years. The injustice I have experienced and witnessed has been done by "prison-based psychologists". The damage they cause is outrageous. I have seen some of my friends take their own lives when they have lost all hope. Why are we inflicted with these charlatans?
Tom SW – HMP Northumberland
Begging for rehabilitation
I have been here for 8-months and I
have yet to see one person in authority who is here to rehabilitate me
or even talk to me about why I am here and what they can do to help. It
has actually got to the point where I am chasing my OMU worker. I have
submitted 7 apps and never had a single reply. I hear all those toffs in Parliament saying that prison is to punish and rehabilitate – I’m getting the punishment bit, but where the hell is my rehabilitation?
James L – HMP HighpointStop
fiddling around the edges
Recently, The Sun on Sunday published an exclusive interview with Justice Secretary, Liz Truss, in which she drones on about reoffending, violence,
lack of staff, etc… and her plan to combat this? ‘English and maths
lessons to help offenders find work on release…’ I’ve got news for Ms
Truss, basic English and maths do not get you a job, and nor does
learning basic computer skills. She should know this, as should anybody
with a bit of common sense.
Mr C – HMP Bure
Give and take
The trouble with prisons of late, or at least one of the
problems, is some unconsidered political decisions have been made by all
involved. The ‘new measures’ from Justice Minister Liz Truss do not
seem to be any better. Poor ideas, very poorly thought out. The smoking
ban has caused a lot of stress and anger. Decisions affecting thousands
of prisoners should be very carefully considered, as should their
implementation. Perhaps it is time to start giving a little bit, instead
of taking, taking, taking for years on end.
Samuel M – HMP Wandsworth Victorian values
The mailbag, ‘Give me shelter’ (March issue) rang a bell with me as I too was released to live on the streets on license. Even though part of my license
was for NOMS/Probation to know where I sleep every night. They didn’t
care. I lived on the streets for 3 months before being recalled to
prison for apparently ‘not staying at a suitable address’, even though they knew I was sleeping
in a shop-doorway a few doors away from Twickenham police station. For
some reason, they allowed me to sleep rough for 3 months before
recalling me. There is even a section on the license that says the
released prisoner must have ‘a suitable address that is approved by Probation’.
What is the point of that claptrap? When will the system grasp the
nettle, and admit that homelessness leads to reoffending? This needs to
be properly addressed by those in power. It is 2017 and we are still operating like the Victorians.
Cuts to legal aid for people in prison ruled unlawful by Court of Appeal “Common law came to the rescue of a marginalised and often forgotten sector of our society.”Deborah Russo, Prisoners’ Advice Service
“Evidence about prison staffing levels, the current
state of prisons, and the workload of the Parole Board suggests that the
system is under considerable pressure.” Lord Justice Beatson delivering judgement
Government cuts to legal aid for prisoners, instigated by
Chris Grayling in 2013 when he was Justice Secretary, were ruled
unlawful because they are inherently unfair, the Court
of Appeal ruled last month. The judgement came as a result of a
challenge brought by the Prisoners’ Advice Service (PAS) and the Howard
League for Penal Reform.
The ruling is an important step forward in making sure
that people in prison move through the system more safely and more
efficiently. Since cuts to legal aid for prisoners came into force in
December 2013, violence and self-injury in prisons have risen to record
levels and more prisoners than ever before have called the Howard League
and PAS to seek help. Calls to the two charities’ advice lines have
increased by almost 50 per cent since the cuts were imposed.
The legal challenge by the Howard League and PAS began in
2013. At that time, prisoners were completely shut out from any
possibility of getting legal aid for a wide range of problems. In the
time between then and the cases coming before the Court of Appeal in
January and February this year, the government conceded on four areas of
concern. This left five key problems for the Court of Appeal to consider and, in three of the five, judges found the cuts to be inherently unfair.
“This decision will make the public safer. It vindicates our concerns that cuts imposed by the former Lord Chancellor, Chris Grayling, in 2013 presented a grave risk that prisoners would become stuck in a broken system,” said Frances Crook, Chief Executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, adding, “This sends a clear message that important decisions about prisoners cannot be made efficiently or fairly in the face of these cuts. We look forward to hearing from the Lord Chancellor with her plans to give effect to the judgment.”
Court of Appeal rules Government’s policy of legal aid cuts for prisoners ‘Unlawful’
Ministers insist they are not obliged immediately to act on the ruling following the ‘unprecedented and groundbreaking’ judgment
In R (Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prisoners’ Advice Service) v the Lord Chancellor,
the Court of Appeal considered five areas of prison law where the
Ministry of Justice removed criminal legal aid eligibility in December
2013.
The court ruled that the high threshold required for a
finding of inherent or systemic unfairness was satisfied in the case of
pre-tariff reviews by the parole board, Category A reviews (those whose
escape would be highly dangerous), and decisions regarding placement in
close supervision centres.
The threshold was not satisfied in relation to decisions
about offending behaviour programmes and courses, and disciplinary
proceedings where no additional days of imprisonment or detention can be
awarded.
Following the judgment, a spokesperson for the ministry
said: “We note the Court of Appeal’s judgment on changes made to legal
aid regulations – introduced in 2013 – and will consider whether to
appeal.”
Eligibility for criminal legal aid in certain prison law
matters was removed in December 2013. Deborah Russo, joint managing
solicitor of the Prisoners’ Advice Service, said the ruling was an
“unprecedented and groundbreaking legal victory in which the
vulnerability of the prison population is fully recognised as a key
factor in its limited ability to access justice”.
She added: “Common law
came to the rescue of a marginalised and often forgotten sector of our
society.”
According to the Howard League for Penal Reform, almost
300 people have taken their own lives since cuts to legal aid for
prisoners were introduced. Calls to the Howard League for Penal Reform
and the Prisoners’ Advice Service have increased by nearly 50%.
Frances Crook, chief executive of the Howard League, said:
“This decision will make the public safer. It vindicates our concerns
that cuts imposed by the former Lord Chancellor, Chris Grayling, in 2013
presented a grave risk that prisoners would become stuck in a broken
system. This sends a clear message that important decisions about
prisoners cannot be made efficiently or fairly in the face of these
cuts.”
However, the ministry stressed that the judgment does not
mean the government must immediately reinstate legal aid in the three
areas where the threshold for inherent or systemic unfairness was
satisfied, noting that this is one option.
Cuts were political
Workload increased dramatically after legal aid cuts Prisoners Advice Service tells Inside Time
Since 2013 when Chris Grayling brought in the cuts we saw a
stark increase in the number of prisoners approaching us with telephone
calls; increasing almost 50% in the last year alone to 25,000. Our
workload increased massively. Because of the fact that legal aid was not
available it made telephone calls longer because, instead of small
queries, it was quite complicated issues. Because of mental health
issues in prison it would mean, more often than not, we’d have to
intervene by contacting governors urgently to ensure prisoners’ well
being is looked after and respected. It had a huge impact on our
capacity to take cases because we deal with so many pro bono cases now.
It could be that some prisoners are serving longer in
prison because of the cuts.
Mainly in the case of pre-tariff prisoners
who might not have assistance which is quite crucial so that they can
look forwards to a move to open conditions. Because of the cuts and lack
of representation it could affect the length of time they end up
serving post-tariff.
“It would cost more to keep them in prison longer so it was not an economical decision, it was a political one”
The judgement says that in the three areas of pre-tariff
reviews, category ‘A’ reviews and placement if CSC (Close supervision)
units the cuts are inherently unfair particularly if prisoners have
mental health issues Legal Aid will have to be reinstated.
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/the-right-to-a-diagnoses-and-rapid-interventions-for-those-with-learning-diffrences?source=facebook-share-button&time=1491748390
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/the-right-to-a-diagnoses-and-rapid-interventions-for-those-with-learning-diffrences?source=facebook-share-button&time=1491748390
Now we are at
the stage where we will have to negotiate with the Government as to the
extent of the Legal Aid which will have to be reinstated. We will do
our best to ensure it is as comprehensive as possible.Deborah Russo – Deborah Russo is joint managing solicitor at the Prisoners Advice
Everyone deserves justice
Cuts that form the focus of the judgment “just the tip of the iceberg”
Many prisoners were affected by the legal aid cuts. The
Howard League works for less crime, safer communities and few people in
prison. Individuals being able to achieve justice is central to
achieving these objectives. The Howard League decided to bring the case
in our own name, along with PAS, because the removal of legal aid was
wrong. It shifted the use of law away from what it is meant to be:
something that is available to everyone to achieve justice. We also run a
legal service for children and young people under 21, many of whom were
directly affected by the cuts.
We run a free and confidential legal advice line for
people under the age of 21. Our legal workload increased by around 50
per cent since the cuts came in. But it was not just that the number of
calls increased: the amount of additional work we did for free went up
because there was simply nobody else who could afford to do it. Many
other lawyers such as the brilliant lawyers who represented us, Bhatt
Murphy, in the legal aid community also stepped in. One of the nicest
things about the judgment is the annex which sets out all the lawyers
that provided statements of support for the case, many of whom
represented clients for free due to the cuts.
Large numbers of prisoners are serving longer in prison
because of the cuts. The cuts that form the focus of the judgment are
just the tip of the iceberg. Our lawyer, Simon Creighton, has calculated
that through the litigation around 85 per cent of the original cuts
have been either declared unlawful or conceded. The issues, which range
from pre-tariff reviews to licence conditions, all touch on liberty in
one way or another.
The Howard League would like to see the Lord Chancellor
accept the Court of Appeal’s ruling and bring these areas back into the
scope of legal aid. It is possible the government will appeal the
ruling, but I would hope that the Government takes heed of the careful
and thoughtful judgment and does the right thing.– Dr Laura Janes is the Legal Director and solicitor at the Howard League for Penal Reform.
The F Word
“Prisoners want and are entitled to fair hearings”
Four years is a long time. Chris Grayling’s Ministry of
Justice announced sweeping cuts to legal aid in April 2013 in a document
called Transforming Legal Aid. Grayling’s idea of transformation
differed from most.
He ignored several thousand consultation responses
which pointed out the risks and unfairness of his proposals. Legal aid
was removed from a raft of areas, leaving courts overwhelmed by
unrepresented prisoners and arguably denying many people on low or no
incomes from access to justice.
Grayling declared himself ideologically
opposed to legal aid for prisoners and promised that the prisons
complaints system would do just as good a job.
The Prisoners Advice Service and the Howard League began
their challenge to the legal aid cuts in the autumn of 2013. The wheels
of justice can be painfully slow. This case has taken a huge amount of
persistence on the part of the two charities and their lawyers. It is
not an easy task to persuade a Court that government policy is unlawful.
The High Court refused permission for the challenge in 2014, the Court
of Appeal overturned this decision in 2015 (allowing the challenge to
proceed to a full hearing) and the case was heard at the start of 2017.
What did the case decide?
The Court of Appeal were persuaded that there was
‘inherent and systemic unfairness’ in the decision to remove legal aid
for all prisoners in 3 categories of cases – pre-tariff reviews by the
Parole Board, category A reviews, and decisions to place prisoners in
Close Supervision Centres.
The key reason for this finding was that the
Court was not satisfied that there were alternative means in place to
ensure prisoners could participate effectively in these decision-making
processes, particularly for vulnerable prisoners including those with
learning difficulties or mental health problems.
Does this mean that prisoners can now get legal aid in these areas?
At the moment, the answer to that is no. At the time of
writing this article, the Ministry of Justice has not confirmed whether
or not they will appeal. If they do decide to appeal, it is likely to
drag the case out for at least another year. I suspect that they will
not appeal against the decision but I am afraid this does not mean that
they will take prompt steps to restore legal aid in these areas.
The Ministry’s response to the judgment was not
encouraging. They appear to have latched on to comments in the Court of
Appeal’s judgment recognising that “there may be safeguards other than
legal aid”.
Do not expect any announcement any time soon. The
political world is obsessed with Brexit and now with another General
Election. Politics will soon go into purdah – a period in which no new
policy is decided, a kind of political hibernation. This will end when a
new government is appointed. New governments usually mean new
ministerial appointments, even if the same government is elected. A
department which is traditionally slow to implement change is likely to
be even more tortoise-like in these circumstances. Restoring legal aid
to prisoners is unlikely to be high on the agenda, even with a Court of
Appeal judgment declaring a policy to be unlawful.
The quickest, fairest and probably cheapest option would
be to make a simple change to legal aid regulations. One alternative to
this would be to shunt these areas into the world of ‘exceptional
funding’. Legal aid practitioners are familiar with what exceptional
funding means. The clue is in the name. There is a long-winded,
labyrinthine process which puts many people off from applying for it.
Legal aid practitioners have already had to find ways of absorbing a
nearly 10% cut in the payment rates for their work.
It is asking a lot
to expect them to spend valuable time for which they will be paid
nothing in the hope that a small amount of funding will be granted for
them to take on a relatively complex case. The Ministry are likely to be
attracted by an option which puts the onus on the prisoner to show why
they are exceptional – for example that they cannot read, understand
basic concepts or have a communication disability. The irony of
expecting such prisoners to complete a lengthy form applying for
exceptional funding should be obvious to anyone.
Long grass
Another alternative would be The Long Grass Response. This
is the process by which the Ministry of Justice announces that it is
exploring options, consulting stakeholders and piloting alternatives.
They might think about trying to tap into the largesse of well-meaning
charities or pro bono groups which develop to fill gaps in need. Such
organisations should give some thought to what they are getting into if
they are approached to fill this gap.
Providing meaningful assistance to
prisoners for pre-tariff, category A and CSC reviews is not easy. It
requires the development of expertise. Good advocates will need to
understand the legal and procedural framework for the different types of
decision-making. They will need to have methods of communicating
effectively with prisoners in closed prisons, many of whom may have
mental health or learning difficulties. Their clients may be challenging
and might not agree with them. They may need to commission expert
reports. Psychologists and psychiatrists do not often work for free.
Organisations who are approached to fill this unfairness
gap may also want to reflect upon whether their desire to support
prisoners or to provide learning experience for students or budding
lawyers might cloud their judgment. The Ministry has demonstrated an
eagerness to take advantage of such groups. In the Court of Appeal case,
they argued that the Prisoners Advice Service – one of their opponents
in the case – could cure any unfairness by providing free advice and
help to prisoners who could not get legal aid.
Presenting a case well is a skill. You need to know how to
analyse evidence, to question witnesses, to apply the law, to
appreciate which are good arguments to make and which are pointless or
counter-productive. Good prison lawyers have spent years learning and
perfecting these skills. That is why prisoners instruct them.Andrew Sperling – Andrew Sperling
is a Consultant Solicitor-Advocate with Olliers Solicitors. He is a
former Chair of the Association of Prison Lawyers and was commissioned
to work on projects for the Parole Board between 2014 and 2015.
System could not ensure fairness
But may be some time before legal aid restored
The Court of Appeal’s judgment on the availability of
legal aid for prisoners was given on 10 April 2017. Simon Creighton of
Bhatt Murphy Solicitors acted for the two charities who brought the case
and explains what the case was about and what this decision will mean
in practice.
What was the case about?
In December 2013, the Government limited legal aid for
prisoners to a very small category of cases. These were parole reviews
when the Parole Board has the power to direct release, adjudications
before the Independent Adjudicator or where a governor has allowed
representation under the Tarrant criteria and sentence calculation
cases.
The Howard League and PAS argued that by removing legal aid for
all other areas, prisoners would run the risk of unfairness when
important decisions were made that could affect their liberty or their
fundamental rights. The areas they specifically challenged were: (1)
Parole hearings where the Parole Board is advising on open conditions
(or ‘pre-tariff reviews’); (2) Category A reviews; (3) Segregation and
CSC decisions; (4) Mother and Baby unit cases; (5) Resettlement cases;
(6) Licence conditions; (7) All governors’ adjudications; (8) Sentence
planning.
What did the Court decide?
Before the case even reached a hearing, the Government
accepted that some form of legal aid should be available for a number of
these areas. They agreed that those areas which have the potential to
engage rights under the Human Rights Act, such as the right to a private
and family life, should have legal aid available. This meant that a
form of legal aid called ‘exceptional case funding’ was extended to
cover cases concerning segregation, Mother and Baby units, resettlement
and licence conditions. Exceptional case funding is not automatic and an
individual application has to be made showing how your rights have been
infringed and why legal representation is necessary to ensure you are
treated fairly.
“Access to legal advice for prisoners makes prisons
fairer, safer and better at rehabilitating prisoners. This was first
recognised in the Woolf Report a quarter of a century ago and this
judgment underlines that it is still true today.”
At the hearing, the judges decided that the decision to
remove legal aid combined with the deterioration in prison conditions
meant that the system could not ensure fairness for prisoners when
important decisions are made about them. The Court was particularly
concerned that prisoners who are vulnerable, including children, those
with mental health problems or those who cannot read or write could not
participate properly in decision making.
They said that removing legal
aid for parole cases, CSC cases and category A reviews was unlawful.
However, they said that the prison system could deal fairly with
sentence planning cases and governors’ adjudications without legal aid.
Does this mean that legal aid will now be restored?
It is still too early to know what the final outcome will
be. The Government might try and appeal the decision. If they do not
appeal, legal aid will still only be available once they amend the
current law. If you need advice on one of the areas where the Court has
said that removing legal aid was unlawful or where the Government
accepted that exceptional case funding should be available, it is worth
contacting a solicitor but it might still be some time before it is
clear whether legal aid will actually be restored.Simon Creighton – Simon Creighton is a partner at Bhatt Murphy Solicitors
Vulnerable adults acquire appreciate specialist adult,s when attending court, police stations, and solicitors .
Everyone deserves justicePrisoners could NOT participate effectively in these decision-making processes, particularly vulnerable prisoners including those with learning difficulties or mental healthproblems.https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/best_evidence_in_criminal_proceedings.pdf
Law of England and Wales that full short in courts and police stations
Is a a wide definition is applied to meet the standard of vulnerable adult. Section 59 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Ac
A vulnerable adult is described as a person aged 18 years or over, who is in receipt of or may by reason of mental or hidden disability, age or illness.
A person is a vulnerable adult if, having attained the age of 18, s/he is in residential accommodation,or
- is in sheltered housing,
- receives domiciliary care,
- receives any form of health care,
- is detained in lawful custody,
- by virtue of an order of a court, is under supervision per Criminal Justice Act 2003 sections regarding community sentences;
- receives a welfare service of a prescribed description,
- receives any service or participates in any activity provided specifically for persons who has particular needs because of his age, has any form of disability or has a prescribed physical or mental problem. (Dyslexia, dyscalculia and dyspraxia are excluded disabilities),
- has payments made to him/her or to an accepted representative in pursuance of arrangements under Health and Social Care Act 2012, and/or
- requires assistance in the conduct of own affairs. continued
.............................................................................................
The new service to replace the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) will be Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS)
The effective abolition of NOMS, (christened
Nightmare on Marsham Street in its early days due to the confusion it
created) – follows the Prison Safety and Reform White Paper published
last November. From 1st April 2017 Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation
Service (HMPPS) will have full responsibility for the operational
management of people in custody and the community, including
strengthening security in prisons, tackling extremism and building
intelligence about criminal gangs. The paper outlined an overhaul of the
prisons estate with the forthcoming Prison and Courts Bill due to make
rehabilitation for people in prison a key duty of prisons for the first
time ever. There will be new leadership and promotion programmes for
prison and probation officers to “further professionalise and build
pride” in the service and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) will be taking
on responsibility for overall future policy direction, setting
standards, scrutinising prison performance and commissioning services.
- New service will be responsible for rolling out government’s reform programme
- New leadership programme and new promotion opportunities for staff
- New role of Director with specific responsibility for women across the whole system
“Creating HMPPS will bring clarity to managing our prisons
and probation services while further professionalising staff and
building pride in their work,” said Justice Secretary Liz Truss. “Our
prison and probation officers do a vital job and they deserve to work in
a world-class organisation which supports them in reforming offenders
and keeping the public safe,” she added. CEO of the new service Michael
Spurr was cautiously optimistic about his new role. “There is a great
deal to do,” he said, “but I am confident that with the additional
resources the government are providing, we can transform the system and
deliver the high quality of service the public deserve.”
Comments
No chance of succeeding, the POA’s primary role is to create
recidivists, more prisons, more screws, more power. Until this vile
organization is outlawed, classed a threat to the public and national
security, prisons will remain Hate Factories, churning out dehumanized
recidivists to keep POA members employed. No screw wants to see
rehabilitation succeed and prisons close. There will never be pride in
working in HM Hate Factories/Human Warehouses, prisons are staffed with
no-hopers, the dross end of the dole queue. Until penal policy is
independent of self-serving, demagogic, parasitic politicians, and any
organization with vested interests in recidivism, prisons will continue
to fail the public, and serve the parasite that feeds off the less
fortunate in society.
Chris Grayling's only concern was to see justice done quickly: justice delayed is justice denied. By giving prison gove…
This guy is spot on, the POA are an organisation whose methodology
is nowadays sophisticated but remains collusive and subversive with the
sole purpose of undermining any government or management initiative
which will reduce the requirement for so many people to be incarcerated.
they are a scurge on our society. inside times news paper.
Mike
I find this extremely worrying, as a potential employer will already
know I have a conviction before they even meet me. Regardless if the
conviction in no way affects my ability to work in said position and
regardless of how long ago my conviction was, with no other offences?
Everyone can make mistakes, how would you like it if one of your kids got into trouble on a night……
