IPP Prisoners Familys Campaign: Matine Jones, Chief Executive of the Parole Board said that significant rise in the prison population was largely the result of longer sentences and an increased use of custody. Review of Legal Aid, what about IPP?

Wednesday, 1 November 2017

Matine Jones, Chief Executive of the Parole Board said that significant rise in the prison population was largely the result of longer sentences and an increased use of custody. Review of Legal Aid, what about IPP?

I am very aware that in the 1990s the prison population grew fast. The population increased by over 20,000 in around 5 years from 1993-1998 It is notable that despite those huge increases, in the late 1990s, there were just 150 recalled prisoners. In June 2017 there were 6,390.

The changes in the recall population were driven primarily by legislative change, although Serious Further Offences (particularly the Sonnex case) have also had an impact.

As CEO of the Parole Board I know that recall is an important tool in preventing further serious offences, and further victims. There are sometimes situations where recall may be absolutely essential to protect the public from serious harm. However, I am also clear that the sheer number of recalls, 21,721 over the last twelve months, makes this an area worthy of focus.

The Parole Board now considers thousands of recall cases each year. Last year we held over 2,000 oral hearings in recall cases; over double the number held 5 years ago. What do we learn from those figures?

IPPs are the fastest growing area of recalls

As previously noted the Parole Board is now releasing significantly more IPPs than it did 10 years ago. Because there are more IPPs being managed in the community it is inevitable that more are at risk of recall. However the trend line is a cause for concern. In June 2017 there were 760 IPPs who were back in prison following recall; up tenfold over the last five years. Last year the Parole Board ordered the release of 905 IPPs (including the re-release of 249 recalled IPPs). In the same period 481 IPPs were recalled. So more than 50% of the number released were recalled (prisoners can of course be recalled after a few days – or some years after release).

I believe there is a strong case for looking again at the current lifelong licence – to ensure that IPPs who are judged safe to release have a greater chance of moving on with their lives.

Around 60% of those reviewed by the Board at oral hearing were rereleased

I think this demonstrates that by the time a case gets to a hearing most recalled prisoners are not assessed as representing a significant risk to the public. I do not think this necessarily means that the initial recall decision was wrong; but it does demonstrate that things may not always be as they first appear.

We know that many people leaving prison lead chaotic lives. Many struggle to cope when they leave prison; and we need to be careful that their struggles to cope are not misinterpreted.

I do think that all efforts should be made to prevent unnecessary recalls. I therefore strongly endorse the efforts being made within HMPPS to reduce recalls; through looking at guidance and training. That work is already starting to bear fruit and the recall population is actually starting to fall (down by 3%) according to the most recent statistics.

Speaking to probation staff, I understand that one of the biggest problems they face is uncertainty. Is a breach of a licence condition a worrying sign of increased risk? Or are there good explanations/mitigation? A recall decision is ultimately a judgement call.

Often things will only be clear after the prisoner is recalled. The Scottish Parole Board makes the final decision on licence recall and, whilst we need to think carefully about workload, I do wonder if a similar early review would work in our jurisdiction.

I also wonder if the system should adopt a tougher approach where somebody is charged with further offences. The criminal courts are well placed to bail or remand those charged with criminal offences; we should be careful that those on licence are not subject to disproportionate punishment through recall, unless there is clear evidence of significant risk.

What next for the Parole Board?

Since joining the Parole Board my main priority has been to bring the backlog down to pre Osborn levels. My favourite chart (below) shows we are nearly there.

Whilst I am extremely pleased at the progress made; I can see further challenges on the horizon.

As highlighted at the Justice Select Committee, we still need to do much more to reduce our deferral rate. Too often all of the parties get to the hearing and the hearing does not complete. Unnecessary delays lead to increased uncertainty for victims, prisoners, and their families. The Board has set up a new project to look at how we achieve better results. I want us to work with prisons, probation and legal representatives to improve the effectiveness of our system.

We also need to tackle diversity in the Parole Board itself. Whilst the Parole Board has an excellent gender balance; I am really keen to improve the number of black, Asian and other minority ethnic groups on the board. I am absolutely certain that greater diversity in our membership would increase confidence in the parole system and help us make even better decisions. Over the next 4-6 months I am looking to talk to as many people as I can in order that we have a significant increase in applications when we next recruit

.....................................

Justice Committee hearing

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/d68b1225-3ebe-48cf-aaeb-1c6ba2f0b1e3

.........................................

David Liddington, has committed his department to review the deep cuts imposed on legal aid by the coalition government in 2012.

The long-anticipated consultation will run into next year and is likely to focus on whether the intended £450m a year savings were achieved and whether access to justice has been restricted

""Critics of the the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (Laspo) have included senior judges, human rights bodies and opposition parties. They have argued that the family courts, in particular, have been swamped by unrepresented litigants in person and that savings in one area resulted in increased costs elsewhere in government.""

In a written statement to parliament, Liddington said: “Our legal aid system is a fundamental pillar of access to justice, accounting for more than a fifth of the Ministry of Justice’s budget.

“The reforms within [Laspo] were founded on delivering better value for money for taxpayers by reducing the cost of the scheme and discouraging unnecessary and adversarial litigation, while ensuring that legal aid continues to be available for the highest priority cases, for example where life or liberty is at stake, where someone faces the loss of their home, in domestic violence cases, or where their children may be taken into care.”

At the time the act was passed – in the face of repeated opposition from the House of Lords – the government promised that it would hold a “post-implementation review”.

The MoJ consultation will examine limits imposed on the scope of legal aid for family, civil and criminal cases, the working of the exceptional case funding scheme, changes made to legal fees and the introduction of evidence requirements for victims of domestic violence and child abuse.

It will look into the introduction of the mandatory telephone gateway for legal aid applications, changes to the rules on financial eligibility and caps on put upon the subject matter of disputes.

The review is, according to the MoJ, intended to ensure that legal aid remains available for the highest priority cases while discouraging unnecessary and adversarial litigation and ensuring value for taxpayers’ money.

The justice minister Dominic Raab said: “We will review the legal aid changes introduced, and I will shortly be writing to interested groups to invite them to inform this important work.

“Maintaining access to justice continues to be at the heart of our reforms. We are focusing legal aid resources on those who most need help. Last year, we spent £1.6bn on legal aid last year, just over a fifth of the Ministry of Justice’s budget.”

A Labour-backed report by the former justice minister Lord Bach last month recommended spending an additional £400m to restore access to a more generous system of legal aid.

Joe Egan, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, said: “[Laspo] meant hundreds of thousands of people eligible for legal aid on 31 March 2013 became ineligible the very next day. Even those ... whom parliament vowed at the time of Laspo should be able to access legal help are unable to get the advice and representation they need.

“This post-implementation appraisal by government is long-awaited and needs to be comprehensive ... If people cannot access advice or protect their rights, then effectively those rights do not exist.”

Andrew Landon QC, the chair of the Bar Council, said: “This long-awaited review offers the government an important opportunity to take stock of the damage caused by the unprecedented cuts to legal aid that Laspo introduced and to reassess the value of justice to citizens.

“This review comes not a moment too soon; society has become increasingly aware of the importance of access to justice in underpinning the rule of law and our democratic constitutional arrangements.

“The announcement follows several years of sustained pressure from the Bar Council and many other organisations who work to promote the public interest of our citizens.”

The review is due to conclude “before the start of the summer recess 2018”. Interested individuals and organisations would be invited, the statement said, to join consultative panels and contribute to the review.The review is, according to the MoJ, intended to ensure that legal aid remains available for the highest priority cases while discouraging unnecessary and adversarial litigation and ensuring value for taxpayers’ money.

The justice minister Dominic Raab said: “We will review the legal aid changes introduced, and I will shortly be writing to interested groups to invite them to inform this important work.

A Labour-backed report by the former justice minister Lord Bach last month recommended spending an additional £400m to restore access to a more generous system of legal aid.

“The announcement follows several years of sustained pressure from the Bar Council and many other organisations who work to promote the public interest of our citizens.”

Katherine Gleeson

The vulnerable groups are struggling with coplexed legal issues alone.

For Thousands of IPP prisoners legal aid has not been available and access to justice was denied –This brought about challenges, entrapment, destruction and death. Vulnerable Prisoner with hidden disability and mental health are left undefended, a direct discrimination.

The most vulnerable people in the country have lost the chance to pursue justice because of swinging legal aid cuts creating a two tier system damaging the foundations of our justice system.

Petition to Reverse Legal Aid

The cuts to access to justice for those facing criminal prosecutions must be reversed before the disaster that has occurred in civil legal aid cases representation is repeated. It is essential to halt the erosion of access to legal representation in the UK when citizens are facing funded prosecution. Increasingly being divided the nation between those wealthy enough to buy legal services and the rest who increasingly are forced to act in person.

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/reverse-cuts-to-legal-aid-for-uk-citizens-prosecuted-by-the-state-and-others

Frances Cook

Howard League for Penal Reform

I met a man told by a judge his tariff was 12 months, he's still in prison 12 years later. That's British justice.

I visited a local prison a couple of weeks ago, and as I always do, I chatted to people I met along the way. One conversation stuck with me and the man has since written to me to tell me his story.
He was sentenced to an IPP in January 2006 with a tariff of 12 months. He was 19 years old.
As he says, he had a few ‘blips’ in his life, with an absent father and a poor relationship with his mother. He had been involved in petty crime and driving offences, hence the low tariff on his IPP. He told me that he is a good decent man who just wants a normal life and has a job and family waiting for him. He says he is sorry about his mistakes and he wishes he could go back and make things right, but he can only change his future, not his past.
He was released but was recalled because he missed appointments with his probation officer. He has now served another two years in prison waiting for another chance at release. He has served 12 years, not the 12 months that the judge indicated was appropriate.

He is not alone, there are hundreds of prisoners serving an IPP who have been recalled for this sort of administrative reason and are then tangled within a Kafka novel. It can take months, or even years, to get re-released. Even then, they may have to start all over again and stay in a hostel, often a drug-ridden and grotty place miles from home or connections. We are getting evidence that it is often staff in the hostels, who do not know the men, who trigger a recall without finding out the reason for the rule-breaking. This is risk-aversion gone mad.
I know the Parole Board is trying to speed up its processes for release and is now doing re-releases on paper without the need to hold a full oral hearing. But, it should not take more than two years to sort out releasing someone. Meanwhile, they are held in a crowded, understaffed prison that has not a single green area and was mostly built two centuries ago, with nothing to do all day, year after year.
The prisons minister was questioned about his plans to resolve the plight of IPPs at the Parliamentary Justice Select Committee. His response did not offer solutions. However, I know that there is work going on, in the Parole Board and the Ministry of Justice, and some imaginative thinking. We cannot wait for legislation, these bodies must get a move on. British justice is in disgrace.

Comments

Jez These cuts remain a national scandal and create more victims. If they are not reversed urgently our democracy will continue to erode away and we may as well live in a dictatorship.

Ady I only hope that in years to come, a future minister apologises for the distress the State caused IPP prisoners and families.

Valens Sad, God bless them all.Katherine Gleeson your hard work will pay.

Horton I put David Lidingtonstraight. He hasn't replied to that letter.

Brackenbury 2022! They cant even get a grip on 2018

Monica All words Ann and no action and each justice secretary says the same words but nothing has changed other then it's worse then ever in the prisons.

Horton Sorry if I seem unduly cynical, but I've heard the MoJ say so many times that "We welcome this report..." or "We are working hard to resolve this problem.." or other similar empty platitudes, that I wonder whether anything will change as a result of this. Sorry if I seem unduly cynical, but I've heard the MoJ say so many times that "We welcome this report..." or "We are working hard to resolve this problem.." or other similar empty platitudes, that I wonder whether anything will change

Boden Executive Release is possible. We have prisoners on IPP sentences years past their tariff but still in prison. We have old and infirm who are no longer a danger to society and we have far too many mentally ill people where prison is absolutely the worst place for them."

Viendra The prisons ombudsman is not open to families. We have to use the parliamentary ombudsman with an MP referral. PPO is just for prisoners

Peter If people cannot access advice or protect their rights, then effectively those rights do not exist.

Mack Read up on IPP prisoners. Absolute travesty.

Jez In the month of June alone this year there were 6,390 recalls! About half all the ipps released on licence have been recalled. The chief executive of the parole board tells it like it is.You don’t have to do anything wrong, you can be recalled because someone thinks your perceived risk has increased. So held potentially indefinitely for being a perceived risk in a perceived thought of someone who hardly knows you.

HOW IS THAT JUST OR FAIR!

S.Dem Please go to HMP and speak with IPP Prisoners some sentence to 12 months in 2006 and still in all these years.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/08/im-blame-blunketts-indefinite-prison-sentences-and-thousands-still-locked

Wilson Please retweet after signing as I met a few ipp prisoners, to be kept 10,15 maybe 20 years over your original sentence isn’t fair!

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/08/im-blame-blunketts-indefinite-prison-sentences-and-thousands-still-locked

lez Campaign Instead of building mega prisons why not free the IPP prisoners ?

Mark The ongoing imprisonment of over tariff IPP Prisoners without immediate review is contrary to natural justice

Murray Release the Remaining IPP Prisoners! Petition

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/free-the-remaining-ipp-prisoners?time=1506341683

Cook There were 3,162 IPP prisoner as at 30 September 2017 – a decrease of 18% in the last 12 months, good news but refer to link.It's disingenuous of minister to suggest tagging IPP prisoners will deal with excessive recalls, it will make things worse.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2017

James IPP solution: re-sentence all serving IPP Prisoners and discharge IPP sentence. Release if new sentence time served. End life supervision.

Hayes IPP Prisoners Familys Campaign: The Partner of Ian Hartly wanted the letter to be released

http://ippfanilycampaign.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/the-partner-wanted-letter-of-ipp-hartly.html?spref=tw

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/prisoners-serving-discredited-ipp-sentences-selfharming-in-despair-34826596.html
http://howardleague.org/blog/ipp-prisoners-are-tangled-within-a-kafka-novel/http://www.russellwebster.com/martin-jones2/?platform=hootsuite

IPP Prisoners Familys Campaign

Total Pageviews