Tom an IPP Prisoner asked am i going 2 die in prison?

Tom Reid

It seems to me like the fight 2 free the IPPs is weakening right across the board. Am i going 2 die in prison? 27month tariff an now starting 14th year.... Was a kid at the time an just turned 30 year old. Got no hope left but thank u 4 everything.

Join us  

 Help Tom and other IPP prisoners get justice

Join Us -Parliament -IPP Prisoners, and an all Prisoners United Protest / March.
Date: Wednesday 23 May 2018 

Demonstrating outside Parliament Time:11:30 2pm then
From 2pm we March a short distance to the Ministry of Justice, Ending at 3-30pm.

Unit,
*IPP prisoners, family, friends and supporters.
*Champion campaigners for all prisoners’ rights
*Activists for human rights of all prisoners
*Societies for the rights of equality for those with disabilities / mental health or diversity needs

What can we do? 

Be there for your family member, be visible, wear printed T shirts, printed or painted banners, bring loudspeakers, flyers......

Why we are protesting? 

The situation is unsatisfactory for our IPP prisoners, and for other non-IPP prisoners likewise trapped by perceived risk because they have a disorder or intellectual disability or mental health issues.

We face injustice:
Our voices will be heard in the UK for IPP prisoners and determinate sentence prisoners. We will be united, chanting. We are protesting as one family; we are protesting for those who cannot do so themselves.

We protest and will keep protesting because we believe in liberty, and justice for all. We will no longer be quiet. We have been tolerant for too long.

We are tired and angry at the governmental lack of response and of Justice Ministers who constantly deflect and side-step the issues. We are irritated at the government’s preoccupation with words and lack of swift action resulting in continued suicides and deaths of our loved ones.

Why are IPP prisoners’ families marching with all prisoners? 

We have all been affected by failures in the justice system in one way or another, and by the lack of response from prisons to resolve issues within the prison system or individual prisons.

We are disillusioned.

We need fairness, we need a voice and we are going to be heard. We are stronger together. How many more need to die before we wake up and realise? We are no longer going to feel intimidated or victimised, we need to see a future.

Ministers are responsible for the function and resources of the prisons but have only left them unresourced and not fit for purpose. All prisoners have been affected in one way or the other.
There is a lot of preoccupation with risk, but we need more support for prisoners in community settings. We need to stop the recall for non-offences. We need more prison officers and more facilities available in the community.

We are now in 2018. IPP prisoners who have been given a date for release are sometimes still in prison a year later due to a lack of hostels.

The vulnerable are particularly at risk: these are people in need of special care, support, or protection because of age, disability/mental health, or risk of abuse or neglect/over tariff:

• Keep up the fight. You are the voice for every serving IPP prisoner. They are counting on you to fight their fight.

Coordinating: Katherine Gleeson & Carole Mcluckie .
Administrator's: Carole Mcluckie & Ann Horton.

 Emergency number ONLY for the 23 May 2018 Carol Mcluckie 07375849555 Katherine Gleeson 07436114070

Hosted by

katherine gleeson

Starts on
Wednesday, 23 May 2018 at 11:30 AM

Ends on

Wednesday, 23 May 2018 at 3:30 PM

Parliment and Ministry of Justice

London, SW1A 0PW

United Kingdom

FACEBOOK: IPP "Petition. Thank you for your support.

Petition

 

There may be some IPPs prisoners with differcuties but we are also talking about none IPP prisoners who often do double the sentence compared to those who don't have a difference

Research by the Prison ReformTrust has found that there are a significant number of prisoners who, because they have a learning disability or differences as well as mental health issues , are excluded from aspects of the prison regime including offending behaviour programmes. A report by HM Chie Inspectors of Prison and Probation described this predicament – prisoners being unable to access the interventions they needed to secure their release as ‘kafka-esque’ You need the courses to prove to parole you have changed. The Joint Committee on Human Rights found, in response to evidence submitted by PRT, that ‘people with learning disabilities /differences serve longer sentences than others convicted of comparable crimes as much as double...... ’. The report went on to say that ‘this clearly breaches Article 5 ECHR (right to liberty) and Article14 ECHR (enjoyment of ECHR rights without discrimination)’ Nearly 80% of IPP sentences for young women surveyed by the Chief Inspectors

of Prisons and Probation were for offenses of arson and for the men it was robbery ABH relatively minor cases all given life sentences without a release date.
SEVING IPP’prisoner told the Prison Reform Trust: To lower my risk, I have to do Thinking Skills: a course offered imprison but because I learning differences can’t read and write, I can’t lower my situation. I’m just stuck. They are saying that until I can read and write I can’t do the course and I can’t lower my risk. It’s hard. Hard dealing with the sentence let alone dealing with these tress of not being able to do the course It’s like when I’m trying to say I can’t learn no more. I’ve been to a special school and I’ve learnt as much as I
can but they don’t believe that. But why should I be punished for two things? I’m being punished for the crime and again for not being able to read and write.

This lack of action has resulted in no progress being made towards dealing with the thousands of IPP prisoners long overdue for release and who have no idea when or indeed if – they will ever be freed.
Whilst it is true that Blunkett has now publicly admitted in the Commons that the sentence “has not worked as intended”, he has also failed miserably to take responsibility for the disaster that he created and has certainly done nothing at all to help find a solution.

legislation to abolish the IPP sentence and has done so in the face of severe political opposition from right wing MPs on both the Conservative and Labour benches; on the other, it has not introduced a timetable for the removal of the sentence from British Law. But has done nothing about the thousands of prisoners already serving the sentence and who are completely unaffected by the recent legislation.

HM Chief Inspectors of Prisons and Probation have described those serving IPP sentences as ‘prisoners with many and complex needs, including learning disability’ HUNDREDS of people being held beyond tariff, many had not completed no accredited offending behaviour programmes. Hundreds of people serving IPP sentences had not completed an accredited programme.HM Chief Inspectors of Prisons and Probation has stated that ‘the situation is not sustainable. Even with the recent changes in legislation, these numbers far exceed the capacity of the probation service and the prison system (and the Parole Board for that matter) to deliver the necessary quality of service Many people given an IPP sentence under the old legislation, subsequently amended, are still in custody. In fact, given that the reckless

Framing of the sentence doesn’t even attempt to unpick ‘the vulnerability, . Beyond the moral problems of this, it is likely that people will be put in an environment that will make them less settled. It would be, for example a kind of torture As the Joint Committee on Human Rights put it report on deaths in custody.

Faster why are they saying by 2017 and 2020 move your fingers and open the doors now...let them out and get it sorted they mess about too much and its already been 4 years since it was abolished...why are they still in stuck in 2016 sorry but it makes me mad that they don't rush them through...let some out now nobody would know....I bet we are still here in 2020 talking about it... on

Having read many IPP blogs and accounts, I am appalled that this is considered Justice in the UK. You do the crime, you do the time (preferably with re-education + positive self contemplation).. but trashing young lives indefinitely is torture for them and their families if the sentence has no foreseeable end. No wonder prison suicides are on the increase. Put on end to this expensive tragedy NOW! on

Unbelievable Injustice ....calls into question the English Justice System................shows the beginnings of an & quot; open & quot; Police State.... on fingers crossed - this could be the breakthrough that is needed KEEP FIGHTING!  My heart goes out to anyone suffering the injustice of an IPP sentence,  Katherine Gleeson  it goes to show how much SUFFERING is being caused. All I can say to that individual is please do not give up home. There are people out here who know your suffering and we are doing everything we can to help you. The longer the government ignore their duty to resolve this injustice, the louder our voices will shout. We will make sure they are held to account. Keep going, stay strong. Your voices are being heard on

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

 

The government’s privatisation of the probation service, Transforming Rehabilitation, was supposed to ensure that voluntary and third sector organisations played a central role in providing specialist support to offenders.                        We have known that this has not been the case in practice for some time now.  Today’s HMI Probation’s thematic report on probation supply chains confirms that this is the case. The report comes to a number of damning conclusions: The National Probation Service (NPS), responsible for high-risk offenders, “is not buying services from CRCs to anywhere near the extent expected” under TR – for reasons including objecting to the price and doubting the quality. All CRC owners inspected were concerned about the financial instability and viability of their own contracts with the MoJ. Their own lack of stability was driving their relationship with principal and smaller sub-contractors in the third sector and most were looking for further efficiencies and cutbacks. Supply chains delivering services within the community were generally small scale, and non-existent in some local areas. A noticeable proportion of pre-2014 contracts with third sector organisations had been discontinued. The Ministry of Justice’s template contract for CRCs – ‘Industry Standard Partnering Agreements’ (ISPA) –  was burdensome, and disproportionate to the value of most of the third sector services being contracted. It seems that the third sector is less involved than ever in probation services, despite its best efforts; yet, many under probation supervision need the sector’s specialist help, to turn their lives around. Dame Glenys Stacey, Chief Inspector of ProbationTweet Key findings The principal findings from the inspectors’ report are set out below. Implementation Supply chains have not been established at the scale anticipated by the MoJ when setting up TR. Most CRCs are now looking to their supply chain to find further efficiencies to shore up their own financial position, and so those supply chains that do exist look set to shrink further. CRC intentions (as expressed in their bids) for extensive voluntary sector supply chains were not then hard wired into CRC contracts. Instead, government policy to allow CRCs freedom of design led to individualised ‘black box’ contracts which  do not require CRCs to commission specialist services from the third sector or from others. CRC financial incentives do little to guard against the unequal provision of services across the country, or to encourage growth. Are specialist services being provided? Where supply chains exist, they are small in scale, and the scope of services provided by each Tier 2 provider is usually narrow. In the eight CRC local delivery unit areas inspected for this report, there was an average of three subcontracted Tier 2 providers in each locality, with virtually no Tier 3 providers. Tier 2 providers generally included one providing specialist services to women.  The national picture showed an average of six subcontracted services, in scope for our inspection, per CRC. It was noted that there was more than double this amount in Cheshire and Greater Manchester CRC. There was unequal provision across the country, and in some local areas there were no Tier 2 providers.  While inspectors saw some valuable holistic support being provided, there were few examples of true innovation. The small scale nature of provision was underlined by the fact that nearly half of the providers working with CRCs were employing under two members of staff: Is the NPS buying services? The NPS is not buying services from CRCs to anywhere near the extent expected, for many reasons. Some NPS local delivery areas had made no purchases. Inspectors found little evidence of CRCs conducting a periodic, robust user needs analysis, first of all. They are not required to do so, but without it CRCs cannot be sure to commission the right services in the right places. Probation trusts conducted such analyses routinely. NPS divisions are reliant on CRCs setting out (in a rate card) the price and range of services they have on offer to the NPS. Some CRCs took many months to publish agreed rate cards and service directories. Inspectors found that many in NPS divisions and even within CRCs were unaware of the services on offer. Both NPS and CRC staff are frustrated by the rate card process and the way it inevitably constrains how services can be commissioned.These frustrations, and the (often) limited range of services on offer, lead to the pursuit of alternative options, or else apathy among responsible officers in the NPS and in CRCs. Finally, we have found some NPS staff and leaders reluctant to purchase services from CRCs because of concerns about the quality of services to be provided, or whether they represent value for money, or because of an instinctive reluctance to pay. In addition, there is an enduring cultural dimension: professional probation staff do not see themselves as purchasers, and most do not want to be. Quality of provision Inspectors found that the quality of services was variable, but reasonable overall. Tier 2 providers gave due consideration to meeting specific individual needs, and took appropriate action on matters relating to the risk of serious harm to others. Where probation workers had made referrals to Tier 2 providers, the referrals were appropriate. However, CRCs and Tier 2 providers do not work in a sufficiently integrated way, case by case.  Many Tier 2 providers are doing more for individuals than required by their Tier 2 contracts, so as to make a difference to people’s lives and life chances. Recommendations The report makes a number of recommendations. Perhaps the three most important ones are:  The MoJ should: ensure the continued availability of sufficient specialist services locally, through stewardship of those third-sector organisations and services currently available and/or in other ways. produce a national framework that promotes local joint commissioning arrangements to meet the needs of service users and enables the better targeting of resources. Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation service should  reappraise the probation delivery model, to enable more effective commissioning of specialist and innovative services. In particular: review whether the rate card mechanism is fit for purpose; ensure that accurate data is available to determine the needs of service users subject to probation intervention, and is used to inform both strategic decision making and contract management; and hold CRCs to account regarding their contractual obligations to develop and deliver services of sufficient quality and meet service user needs.

The government’s privatisation of the probation service, Transforming Rehabilitation, was supposed to ensure that voluntary and third sector organisations played a central role in providing specialist support to offenders. We have known that this has not been the case in practice for some time now.  Today’s HMI Probation’s thematic report on probation supply chains confirms that this is the case. The report comes to a number of damning conclusions: The National Probation Service (NPS), responsible for high-risk offenders, “is not buying services from CRCs to anywhere near the extent expected” under TR – for reasons including objecting to the price and doubting the quality. All CRC owners inspected were concerned about the financial instability and viability of their own contracts with the MoJ. Their own lack of stability was driving their relationship with principal and smaller sub-contractors in the third sector and most were looking for further efficiencies and cutbacks. Supply chains delivering services within the community were generally small scale, and non-existent in some local areas. A noticeable proportion of pre-2014 contracts with third sector organisations had been discontinued. The Ministry of Justice’s template contract for CRCs – ‘Industry Standard Partnering Agreements’ (ISPA) –  was burdensome, and disproportionate to the value of most of the third sector services being contracted. It seems that the third sector is less involved than ever in probation services, despite its best efforts; yet, many under probation supervision need the sector’s specialist help, to turn their lives around. Dame Glenys Stacey, Chief Inspector of ProbationTweet Key findings The principal findings from the inspectors’ report are set out below. Implementation Supply chains have not been established at the scale anticipated by the MoJ when setting up TR. Most CRCs are now looking to their supply chain to find further efficiencies to shore up their own financial position, and so those supply chains that do exist look set to shrink further. CRC intentions (as expressed in their bids) for extensive voluntary sector supply chains were not then hard wired into CRC contracts. Instead, government policy to allow CRCs freedom of design led to individualised ‘black box’ contracts which  do not require CRCs to commission specialist services from the third sector or from others. CRC financial incentives do little to guard against the unequal provision of services across the country, or to encourage growth. Are specialist services being provided? Where supply chains exist, they are small in scale, and the scope of services provided by each Tier 2 provider is usually narrow. In the eight CRC local delivery unit areas inspected for this report, there was an average of three subcontracted Tier 2 providers in each locality, with virtually no Tier 3 providers. Tier 2 providers generally included one providing specialist services to women.  The national picture showed an average of six subcontracted services, in scope for our inspection, per CRC. It was noted that there was more than double this amount in Cheshire and Greater Manchester CRC. There was unequal provision across the country, and in some local areas there were no Tier 2 providers.  While inspectors saw some valuable holistic support being provided, there were few examples of true innovation. The small scale nature of provision was underlined by the fact that nearly half of the providers working with CRCs were employing under two members of staff: Is the NPS buying services? The NPS is not buying services from CRCs to anywhere near the extent expected, for many reasons. Some NPS local delivery areas had made no purchases. Inspectors found little evidence of CRCs conducting a periodic, robust user needs analysis, first of all. They are not required to do so, but without it CRCs cannot be sure to commission the right services in the right places. Probation trusts conducted such analyses routinely. NPS divisions are reliant on CRCs setting out (in a rate card) the price and range of services they have on offer to the NPS. Some CRCs took many months to publish agreed rate cards and service directories. Inspectors found that many in NPS divisions and even within CRCs were unaware of the services on offer. Both NPS and CRC staff are frustrated by the rate card process and the way it inevitably constrains how services can be commissioned.These frustrations, and the (often) limited range of services on offer, lead to the pursuit of alternative options, or else apathy among responsible officers in the NPS and in CRCs. Finally, we have found some NPS staff and leaders reluctant to purchase services from CRCs because of concerns about the quality of services to be provided, or whether they represent value for money, or because of an instinctive reluctance to pay. In addition, there is an enduring cultural dimension: professional probation staff do not see themselves as purchasers, and most do not want to be. Quality of provision Inspectors found that the quality of services was variable, but reasonable overall. Tier 2 providers gave due consideration to meeting specific individual needs, and took appropriate action on matters relating to the risk of serious harm to others. Where probation workers had made referrals to Tier 2 providers, the referrals were appropriate. However, CRCs and Tier 2 providers do not work in a sufficiently integrated way, case by case.  Many Tier 2 providers are doing more for individuals than required by their Tier 2 contracts, so as to make a difference to people’s lives and life chances. Recommendations The report makes a number of recommendations. Perhaps the three most important ones are:  The MoJ should: ensure the continued availability of sufficient specialist services locally, through stewardship of those third-sector organisations and services currently available and/or in other ways. produce a national framework that promotes local joint commissioning arrangements to meet the needs of service users and enables the better targeting of resources. Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation service should  reappraise the probation delivery model, to enable more effective commissioning of specialist and innovative services. In particular: review whether the rate card mechanism is fit for purpose; ensure that accurate data is available to determine the needs of service users subject to probation intervention, and is used to inform both strategic decision making and contract management; and hold CRCs to account regarding their contractual obligations to develop and deliver services of sufficient quality and meet service user needs. Russell Webster  www.russellwebster.com

Autistic people can also be misunderstood by professionals within the criminal justice system. There’s a tendency, particularly in relation to some serious crimes including terrorism and sexual offences, for criminal justice professionals to interpret ‘odd’ as ‘dangerous,’ or a risk.

Autism (including Asperger syndrome) is a serious lifelong, disabling condition affecting social behaviour and communication. An offender in custody with autism can have specific difficulties which may impact on their successful rehabilitation. Prison staff and providers working in prisons with a better understanding of the condition are more equipped to make a positive difference.Feltham is working towards achieving National Autistic Society accreditation , and will be followed by Parc and Wakefield prisons. what I do now there serve longer sentencesin many cases double someone without a disability si it does not sound like there getting the help though a  Prison at Feltham diagnose young people in the prison, if they are there long enough. In February 2016, they identified that 4.5% of their population had a diagnosis of autism, which they’d received either before or at the prison. It also requires main grade prison staff to refer prisoners they suspect are autistic.From discussions I have had with prison governors, they don’t think that numbers of autistic prisoners are large, but the impact on the prison can be significant as they struggle to identify the best ways to support them.Some prisons are aware that autistic prisoners are spending—and often choosing to spend—extended periods in Care and Separation Units (segregation), as they are quieter environments, without contact with other prisoners. HM YOI Feltham in West London was the first prison to achieve Autism Accreditation in 2016, after we’d worked with them to develop the specialist Autism Accreditation Standards for prisons however has the public proof of these standards? 30 prisons are interested in Accreditation, following a letter recommending Autism Accreditation sent to all prisons in England and Wales by the then Minister for Prison, Probation and Rehabilitation, Andrew Selous MP. The Minister also asked us to look at developing accreditation standards for probation services which have done and these are currently being piloted. Following this work, we had police forces interested in the programme. What is clear is that research has found that autistic people “represent some of the most vulnerable people in the offender population.   But there are of course cases where autistic people, like anyone else, can commit a crime. There are also cases where someone's autism may have a bearing on their behaviour. For instance, autistic people can have difficulty understanding unwritten social rules or how the world works, which can leave them open to being taken advantage of by others .running a campaign around this so-called mate crime). Autistic people can also be misunderstood by professionals within the criminal justice system. There’s a tendency, particularly in relation to some serious crimes including terrorism and sexual offences, for criminal justice professionals to interpret ‘odd’ as ‘dangerous,’ or a risk. which may bring autistic people into contact with the criminal justice system or to their behaviour being seen as more serious in its intent. For example, if someone commits an offence related to a special interest, they may speak about it in great depth and passion when asked, leading people to think they are cold and calculating. Likewise, many autistic people struggle with eye contact and this can be interpreted as having something to hide.More and more professionals are starting to understand more about autism and the different ways autistic people may respond to situations. This should help prevent people’s behaviour being misinterpreted. http://www.autismdailynewscast.com/sexuality-and-children-with-asd-understanding-appropriate-behavior/4621/ashleyisaacson/ Autism and crime People with autism are much more likely to be crime victims than criminals1, and are especially unlikely to be involved in premeditated violent crime or crime committed for personal gain. When they do end up in prison, the cause can be behaviour related to their autism (for example, obsessive behaviour that can turn into stalking or computer hacking,) or due to manipulation by others. I question how many  misunderstood and given an IPP sentence .In 2016 a Boy with Autism Jailed six times before he was diagnosed then kept in prison how like him are?  Sex crime is a distasteful subject, and the last thing I want is a negative association between autism and such behavior. Autistic people ARE NOT by nature sexual predators of any sort.  Multiple studies have shown autistic people are likely to  be victims far more often that we are perpetrators of crime in general and sex crime in particular. Abuse of people with disabilities is a well known and tragically common situation. it's impossible to lump them in the same box with other sex offenders.  The autistic folks I have met were not predatory, nor were they violent.  None had engaged in physical sex acts— all were viewing material online.  The thing that troubled me the most is that none of the individuals I met really understood what they had done, or why until later therapy revealed those answers.  Yet our legal system treated these people much the same as if they had solicited a twelve-year-old girl in a school yard, and had sex with her.  That, to me, is a miscarriage of justice. If it's recognition of autistic vulnerability that gets these people help instead of hard prison time, I am all for it. I have no wish to paint autistic people as potential sex offenders— they are not.  But I do feel  differences can place those at risk in some situations and this is one of them.   https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/my-life-aspergers/201308/autism-and-porn-problem-no-one-talks-about How it can go wrong with so called professionals and practitioners who put  Autistic in the same category as those who don't have a disability and claim to know how people with Autism  are influenced when its just poor understanding,most professionals and practitioners have trouble diagnosing someone with  Autistic spectrum never  mind claiming they understand.

Sex offenders? with autism Anew report jointly published earlier this week (10 April 2018) by the Prison Reform Trust and University of Leeds, examines sexual offending amongst people with learning disabilities and/or autism. Building on an expert, multi-sector seminar held in 2017, this new report provides a stimulus for further discussion, looking at the challenges faced both by the individuals themselves and the professionals and practitioners who work with them, suggesting practical ways forward and recommendations for improving outcomes. The report explores some of the reasons why people with learning disabilities and/or autism may get into trouble over an "alleged sexual offence. At times their actions may be influenced by factors that are similar to those affecting non-disabled offenders, such as lack of empathy, poor impulse control, or attachment problems. However other reasons that are particular to the experiences of people with learning disabilities and/or autism may include a lack of opportunity for appropriate sexual expression; limited knowledge about sex and sexuality; and cognitive distortions or poor understanding of the social sanctions attached to sexual offending. Several local, regional and national authorities and multi-agency partnerships have overlapping responsibilities for their health and wellbeing, and the array of support agencies can be confusing and hard to access—both for the individuals themselves and family members seeking help on their behalf.  The report concludes that an effective response to people with learning disabilities and/or autism who sexually offend requires professional health, social care and justice services to integrate support. It recommends that a focus on prevention and early intervention would improve outcomes for individuals, make communities safer and reduce the number of victims, and lessen the high cost of crisis intervention and secure care or imprisonment. The report makes a number of recommendations, some of the principal ones are summarised below: Education and learning about sex and relationships for children with learning disabilities and/or autism should be included in the curriculum from a young age, and reinforced throughout their statutory education. Effective specialist community-based forensic support should be delivered to meet the needs of people with a learning disability and/or autism. Family members should be involved and encouraged to share concerns about any sexually inappropriate behaviour. A whole system approach is critical. Services need to be co-designed with the active participation of people with autism and/or learning disabilities. Health and justice agencies should collaborate to agree a suite of shared, evidence-based interventions and treatment options for use in the community, and in secure and custodial settings. People with learning disabilities and/or autism who commit offences should not be treated less favourably by the combined criminal justice, health and social care systems. There are currently people detained in hospital for longer periods than they would have spent in prison, with no discernible clinical purpose or therapeutic benefit. Commissioners of liaison and diversion services, working together with the police, should ensure that all suspects are screened for learning disability and autism. Further research is needed to better understand the vulnerability and criminogenic factors of individuals with autism who display inappropriate sexual behaviour and sexually offending behaviour, including sensory needs, levels of anxiety, and general autism profile. All prison posts are kindly sponsored by Prison Consultants Limited who offer a complete service from arrest to release for anyone facing prison and their family. Prison Consultants have no editorial influence on the contents of this site. Criminal justice All criminal justice professionals may come into contact with people on the autism spectrum, many of whom may be undiagnosed or misdiagnosed. Here you will find information about autistic people, tips for initial police contact, interviews and court appearances, ways that parents and carers can help, and where to find further information and training.http://www.autism.org.uk/cjp http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Behaviour%20that%20challenges.pdf http://www.thinkingautismguide.com/2017/04/what-happens-to-autistic-people-in.html https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/678334/autistic-child-parent-autism-aspergers-jailed https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/678334/autistic-child-parent-autism-aspergers-jailed

John Worboys case shone light on IPP injustice

Jane Barder continues her late husband’s campaign against indeterminate sentences for public protection.In his blog in 2016, Brian pointed out that there were 4,614 IPP prisoners still incarcerated, and that 3,352 of these had served their full periods of punishment or tariffs but were still in preventive detention with no release date.

Brian Barder in 1988 when he was a high commissioner to Nigeria. In later years he became a leading campaigner against indeterminate sentences for public protection (IPPs). Photograph: ITN/Rex/Shutterstock 

“The role of the Parole Board has grown in the past 20 years, matching the public’s appetite for more punitive sentencing,” writes Alan Travis (Analysis, 29 March). For many years, my late husband, Brian Barder, was a leading campaigner against indeterminate sentences for public protection (IPPs), which were abolished in 2012. Until Brian died in 2017, he was still campaigning against the injustices brought about by the sloppy drafting and often incorrect application of the act under which IPPs were imposed, and he had built up a huge caseload of examples of desperate people, still imprisoned years after they had served their intial tariff, who had no hope of release.

As he wrote in June 2016: “Since it is inherently impossible to prove a future negative, few IPPs have managed to persuade parole boards that it’s safe to release them.

“As Ken Clarke pointed out recently on the BBC Today Programme, parole boards are scared to order the release of an IPP for fear that the board will be blamed if the IPP goes on to commit another offence after being released, so it is obviously safer for the parole board, always risk-averse, to reject most applications for release.”

In that blog in 2016, Brian pointed out that there were 4,614 IPP prisoners still incarcerated, and that 3,352 of these had served their full periods of punishment or tariffs but were still in preventive detention with no release date. It is illuminating to be told that some of the alleged victims of John Worboys whose cases were not taken up by the Crown Prosecution Service were assured that the IPP sentence in effect meant a life sentence so they had no reason to worry that he would be released at some future date. It will worry the relatives of those more than 3,000 prisoners still held under IPP sentences that CPS lawyers and police can regard an IPP sentence as equivalent to a life sentence.

It is ironic that the first major legal challenge to the part played by the Parole Board in this scandalous system should be a case where common sense would suggest that the decision, said to have been made by a very experienced panel, was questionable at the very least. So many prisoners and their relatives over the years since the IPP system came into effect have suffered the anguish of having their cases assessed and rejected by a Parole Board panel with no explanation or possibility of appeal except to try again some years later when their turn comes round again.

When the decision to release John Worboys was announced, my immediate thought was that this must be a clever ploy to discredit Parole Board panels, but to what purpose? It will have reinforced their fear of tabloid and public criticism, which is a disastrous outcome. It has, however, brought the system under public scrutiny. I hope that MPs interested in civil liberties will seize the opportunity to campaign for greater transparency about the membership and decision-making of Parole Board panels and a clear understanding of the nature of their responsibilities. To whom are they responsible?
Jane Barder
London
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

The Worboys fiasco shows the absurdity of indeterminate sentences. IPPs were officially abandoned in 2012 – so why are thousands of prisoners still serving time under it?

David Lammy

Can’t believe he said this to the Committee. The Home Office operates a policy of indefinite detention. People are detained, often unlawfully having done nothing wrong, indefinitely. We are also the only country in the EU that detains people indefinitely. A source of great shame.

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/979107397502488578?t=1&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&refsrc=email&iid=46282803dc014a7f8e277d2b152e47b0&uid=54237635&nid=244+293670929
 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/03/john-worboys-case-shone-light-on-ipp-injustice
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/29/were-not-swayed-by-emotion-parole-board-members-how-they-reach-decisions?CMP=share_btn_tw

1. A letter to the Justice Minister.Its Time for Change, but please make the changes fairer for all Post IPPs. 2. The Worboys fiasco shows the absurdity of indeterminate sentences.

A Letter to the Justice Minister

Many I’m sure will have heard the judgement by the High Court regarding the decision made by the Parole Board on a recent high profile case. I cannot help but be concerned that a kneejerk reaction by Mr Gauke could worsen the three main issues outlined in the Unintended Consequences thematic review written by HM Inspectorate of Prisons in November 2016.

www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/pdf

I was shocked by the High Court’s decision but I do not wish to challenge the reasons for it as their findings at least in part seem sound. For one the need for a more transparent process seems sensible, rule 25 does seem unnecessary when it would be straight forward to mitigate concerns over what should be disclosed and what should not. It also seemed unusual that release straight from a category A prison had been granted and indeed Mr Gauke remarked in parliament “it is a rare event”.

www.parliament.uk/statement-john-worboys
In my view and that of a growing number of people there is a fundamental problem with the Parole Board process and one that the judicial review was not at liberty to address. Currently the parole process for a post sentenced IPP prisoner is like having to go through another trial in court. It after all is a process which decides on whether they are detained still further or not. The onus is still on the prisoner to demonstrate that they have lowered their perceived risk, so for those with money it would seem totally normal to seek the best legal direction and argument to prove this point. For those who don’t have capital it would seem grossly unfair and I would argue unjust. Now the justice secretary is in the spotlight I’m concerned that he may make changes that could further slow Parole Board proceedings down. He currently appears to be putting an emphasis on them to seek methodically further information from all other agencies to probe still further into prisoners possible offending, a point raised as a failure in the judicial review as its within the Parole Boards remit. This I feel will take more of the Parole Boards resources, not forgetting the cost this puts still further on the public purse by potentially holding prisoners for longer when they could have been released sooner. It seems foolhardy to put further pressure on the Parole Board; their job dealing with ‘perceived risk’ is difficult enough as it is without further unnecessary interference. He needs to make the decision process clearer for them not more complicated.

To me the system needs a clear decisive change which makes the process fairer and simpler; a change that has already been requested but is now clearly needed more than ever.  The burden of proof needs to be removed from the prisoner where the prisoner is Post Tariff; the test for release needs to be changed so that the argument for the continued detention is made by the state. It should not be down to the prisoner to demonstrate they are no longer a risk, this only seems fair if the prisoner is Pre Tariff.  It should be the Probation service that needs to demonstrate why the prisoner needs to be held Post tariff. After all it is the tax payer’s money that is being used to hold them and they need to demonstrate why the prisoner still needs to remain in custody.

In this particular case it would have certainly made it clearer for the Parole Board to make a decision. They wouldn’t have needed anything from the prisoner, the argument would have come from the Probation service and they would have presented a case based on the facts as they see them. The Parole Board’s focus would be in one direction, they could then make a judgement on what they deem this demonstrates regarding the individual’s perceived danger, cutting out the need for the prisoner to even participate if they didn’t wish to do so. Whether they would have come to a different decision isn’t worth speculating but would the prisoner spend thousands on private psychologists assessments if the onus wasn’t on him to demonstrate that his risk had been lowered?  It would also make it a fairer process for the many prisoners that have no financial means and rely on minimal legal representation.

Is it not the job of the Parole Board to focus primarily on whether the prisoner is still a risk after the punitive side of the sentence has been completed, not to instead have its remit stretched still further to robustly sift through pages of incomplete and untested data which would completely undermine the creditability of any normal court process and challenge the validity of any perceived risk calculation process? Surely it would be better for information to come from one source, that being the prison and probation service who have been responsible for the prisoner during their entire time within the justice system and have access to all relevant information regarding their conviction, pre-sentence information and all the work and custodial reports during their incarceration.

Mr Gauke was kind enough to mention the facts regarding the backlog of IPP sentenced prisoners, acknowledging that the Parole Board although had been making progress with the backlog, that it was still a significant problem. I agree with him, over three thousand IPP’s still in prison sounds significant to me too. He makes it clear that they need to be properly assessed and I would hope he means within that remark that they are also fairly assessed.

I am of course glad that Mr Gauke appreciates the scale of the IPP problem but he needs to make adjustments to ensure the system is fair to all, including those at its mercy. It shouldn’t be down to the prisoner to prove that they are no longer a danger, the argument as to whether detention is still necessary should instead lie on the state to prove.

Please Mr Gauke address this injustice and make the process fairer and clearer for all.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/the-queen-on-the-application-of-dsd-and-nbv-ors-v-the-parole-board-of-england-and-wales-ors-and-john-radford/

Jez.

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

The Worboys fiasco shows the absurdity of indeterminate sentences

IPPs were officially abandoned in 2012 – so why are thousands of prisoners still serving time under it? It could be said that Hardwick has become the final victim of indeterminate sentences for public protection, a form of sentencing so discredited that it was rejected six years ago by the European court of justice. Despite this, more than 3,000 people are still serving IPPs (imprisonment for public protection) – the most notorious of whom is Worboy

 
                   

                            

Ex-Parole Board chief criticises justice ministry over Worboys case

Yes, the three-member Parole Board panel made mistakes – it should have insisted on documentation that was missing (such as the prosecution’s opening statement), although it was the Ministry of Justice’s responsibility to provide it!

The high court also ruled that the panel should have taken into consideration the multiple offences Worboys was alleged to have committed – though it is equally valid to argue that Worboys was not even charged on those counts, never mind convicted.

The Parole Board seemed too quick to accept at face value Worboys’s professed rehabilitation, not least because for six years after his conviction he continued to protest his innocence.

Perhaps Hardwick, who never interfered with individual panel decisions, should have had the foresight to keep a much closer watch on this one. He must have known there would be an uproar when it was announced that Worboys would be released. [See footnote]

But ultimately the major failings in this case are down to the Metropolitan police and the Crown Prosecution Service – and perhaps most of all the nature of the sentence Worboys received in the first place.

What is the Parole Board?

The Parole Board is an independent body that carries out risk assessments on prisoners to deterne whether they can be safely released into the community.It manages the early release of prisoners serving fixed-length sentences of four years or more; the release of prisoners who are serving life sentences or indeterminate sentences for public protection; and the re-release of prisoners who have been given life or indeterminate sentences and were then re-imprisoned.Some prisoners

seeking release may have to attend a hearing before Parole Board members.Up to three

 members of a panel will decide whether to release the prisoner based on a file of documents including information on the inmate’s behaviour in prison, their plans once released and risk of committing further crimes. Medical, psychiatric and psychological evidence can also be heard.

As well as the prisoner, a solicitor, psychologist and witnesses could attend. The victim of the prisoner’s offences may also be present.The Parole Board has 234 members who make the assessments and decisions and employs 120 members of staff to support them.

James Ward was jailed for 10 months but spent 11 years in jail after being given an IPP for setting fire to his bed

Sure enough, Worboys did eventually admit his guilt, did his courses and was a “model” prisoner. Indeed, the Parole Board could argue that it had exercised caution in keeping him two years longer than his minimum tariff.

Hardwick, an effective former chief inspector of prisons, is a decent man who has always placed the issue of fairness at the heart of his work. As both head of the Parole Board and chief inspector of prisons he consistently condemned IPP as unjust.

At the other extreme from Worboys, and equally problematic, are prisoners with tariffs of two years or less for minor crimes who were given IPP sentences – usually because of their chaotic lives. IPP was ended as far back as 2008 for prisoners serving less than two years, but in 2017 more than 750 prisoners were still locked up on IPPs with tariffs of less than two years.

Drug addict Charlotte Nokes was 30 when she was sentenced to a minimum of 16 months in prison and given an IPP. She had been begging outside a corner shop and when a woman refused to give her money she brought out a knife. She did not attempt to stab the woman but she did terrify her. Nine years later, in July 2016, she died in prison.

James Ward was jailed for 10 months but spent 11 years in jail after being given an IPP for setting fire to his bed. His family had made repeated pleas to the Parole Board to release him on the grounds of his repeated self-harm and mental health problems, but their requests were refused. When the then justice secretary Kenneth Clarke scrapped IPPs in 2012, he called them a “stain” on the judicial system.

How can thousands of prisoners still be serving time under a sentence long vanquished? Those who pose no threat, and should have been free long ago, must be released instantly. Those who have not served their tariff should do so knowing that, with good behaviour, they will be released when it is up. As for Worboys, he should be tried for the crimes he is alleged to be guilty of, and if convicted appropriately, resentenced (though he would now argue it’s impossible for him to get a fair hearing). Indeterminate sentencing never had a place in a democracy.

Although indeterminate sentences were withdrawn six years ago, they are still blighting thousands of lives in England and Wales. It is bitterly ironic that a sentence the chair of the Parole Board regarded as unjust has been responsible for one more major injustice – his sacking.

• Eric Allison is the Guardian’s prisons correspondent. Simon Hattenstone is a Guardian writer

Footnote: In fact Hardwick could appoint the panel but thereafter had no powers to intervene or influence the decision.

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

The CSJ's Criminal Justice. What have we learned from Worboy's case Secrecy  is undermining and hampering services and criminal justice system

If nothing else is learnt from the we need less secrecy across the criminal justice system generally, There is a bias against sharing information even with public bodies ,never mind the public. hampering  justice. It must change .In the wake of the Worboys judgment, a Government committed to better public services should reboot the drive for transparency. It may come at a short-term cost – in exposing areas of weakness, inefficiency or even incompetence – but the longer-term prize is worth having: more effective public services that are so vital for the poorest and most vulnerable in Britain today Rory Geoghegan Head of Criminal Justice, The Centre for Social Justice .

Failing across the board

The scale of the failure also by police and prosecutors to disclose  sharing vital evidence in criminal cases is exposed today.The scale of the failure by police and prosecutors to disclose vital evidence in criminal cases is exposed today in documents showing that such behaviour is routine and deliberate. A dossier seen by The Times reveals a commonly held view that the defence is not entitled to see all the evidence. It discloses the tactics used to stop it being handed over, with officers in at least one force apparently trained in how to avoid making available material that might undermine their case. Liam Allan was put on trial for sexual violence because the police failed to hand over text messages that would have exonerated him. More

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/police-are-trained-to-hide-vital-evidence-cnfdbm6jz?CMP=Sprkr-_-Editorial-_-thetimes-_-Unspecified-_-TWITTER

Prison Safety and the Future of Probation

As part of our work on prison safety we are actively seeking, via email, short stories from the families of prisoners and prison officers describing the impact that the current situation in our prisons has on them. Our work on the Future of Probation continues. Probation Inspectors

We are offering these posts on a three-year secondment or a three-year fixed term contract. We may be able to offer a permanent contract after three years.

If seconded, remuneration (salary and any taxable allowances), pay progression and employment terms & conditions will be the same as currently received from the seconding employer.

The salary for those joining us on a fixed term contract will be £42,879.

Anyone subsequently joining us on a permanent contract who is a new civil servant will join on a salary of £42,879.

We seek competencies often found at broadly the level of Senior Managers/Divisional Managers (in CRCs and NPS), Youth Offending Managers, Senior Managers/Governor grades in the Prison Service, and psychologists or equivalent.

This is an opportunity to work in a highly professional organisation. As an independent inspectorate, we are ambitious to make the best possible difference to the quality of youth offending and probation services in England and Wales. It is important to the public, to victims and to those who commit crime that these services are as effective and efficient as possible.

Who are we? HM Inspectorate of Probation is an independent Inspectorate, funded by the Ministry of Justice, and reporting directly to the Secretary of State on the effectiveness of work with adults, children and young people who have offended aimed at reducing reoffending and protecting the public. Our Corporate Plan sets out our work for the next year, as agreed between the Justice Secretary & HM Chief Inspector.

View it on our website: www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation

Who are we looking for? We are now recruiting for HM Inspectors, and we warmly welcome applications from minority ethnic and/or Welsh speaking candidates. The option of part‑time or jobshare contracts can be discussed individually.

All the posts we offer will be conditional upon evidence from references and various statutory checks, including an Enhanced check with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).

Is this for you? HM Inspectors (HMIs) play a key role in our adult and youth offending inspections.  As an Inspector you will lead inspections in a designated sector [National Probation Service, Community Rehabilitation Companies, Youth Offending Teams] and be responsible for the assessment of the organisation being inspected, including making recommendations for the rating they receive.

HMIs are responsible for the planning, fieldwork and preparation of the report for each inspection and are accountable for the judgements, rating, grading and recommendations arising from the inspection.

Proven strong relationship-building skills, at a senior management level, as well as the ability to produce clear well written reports to tight deadlines are essential for this role. You will also need to have experience of assessing the quality of work being delivered to those who have offended, a good level of IT skills, and the personal resilience and stamina to spend regular periods of time away from home.

How do we select? You must complete your application by no later than 23:55 on Friday 13 April 2018. We will invite short listed candidates to an Assessment Centre to be held during the week commencing 28 May 2018 – you must be available to attend on one of the assessment centre days. Candidates who are successful at the assessment centre will then be invited to interview. Interviews will be held during the week commencing 18 June 2018. You must be available to attend on one of the interview days. Further information on the structure and expectations of our assessment process will be sent to candidates who are successful through the application sift stage.

Further information:

If you would like to discuss these posts, please contact our office on 0161 240 5336 and we will direct you to an appropriate person to speak to. We would ask that you please read the application information thoroughly first.

We are committed to a policy of equal opportunity for all staff. We will not discriminate on grounds of gender, ethnic origin, disability, sexual orientation, faith or any other factor not relevant to a person’s work. To apply for this job  following URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/about-hmi-probation/jobs/ →

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

"Please can you support me as your constituent and write to the Justice Minister.

The RT Honourable David Gauke, urging him to ensure that the new appointee to replace Nick Hardwick (who has recently resigned as chairman of the parole board), is someone that who prioritises the indeterminate sentence for the protection of the public (IPP).

We need a Chair of the Parole who understands that the need for immediate action on IPP sentences - a system that left many prisoners unable to get on with their life.

Please let me know. The IPP Sentence has to be a priority." Finally click and send in link Https://www.change.org/p/12181480/u/22575467?utm_medium=email&utm_source=petition_update&utm_campaign=293279&sfmc_tk=5Z6InPOuZxRodCItdrWzF2soluzdxKLUXMBkskIEoHDNjdqCavN5dcQQH2FvGdT5&j=293279&sfmc_sub=151894539&l=32_HTML&u=52969571&mid=7259882&jb=15

Sean Dougall, I've sent the following to my MP:

mark.harper.mp@parliament.uk

Urge the Ministry of Justice to Prioritise the Review of those Serving "IPP" Prison Sentences

Dear Mr. Harper,

As a constituent in the Forest of Dean, I am writing to gain your support in urging the Ministry of Justice to Prioritise the Review of those Serving "IPP" Prison Sentences.

I trust that you will seriously consider what I have to say and write to the Justice Minister, The R.H. David Gauke M.P., urging him to review the legal and moral grounds for the continued imprisonment of those with this type of Sentence.

I am supporting the Petition of the Family of Shaun Lloyd (https://www.change.org/p/let-my-son-rebuild-his-life-abolish-the-ipp-off-him) which, at the time of writing, has 43,526 signatures.

The MoJ acknowledges that IPP sentencing went far beyond what the, then (2003), Labour Government intended. It acknowledges here - https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/legislation/bills-acts/legal-aid-sentencing/ipp-factsheet.pdf - that IPP hasn't worked.

David Blunkett M.P. is credited with introducing IPP in the CJA 2003 after being introduced to the idea in the USA. It failed there, even whilst it was being put into Law here in England & Wales.

IPPs were "...designed to protect the public from serious offenders whose crimes did not merit a life sentence." So what were Judges thinking of by giving out Tariffs measured in months or just a couple of years to "serious offenders"?

Shaun Lloyd is one of many hundreds, even a few thousand men that are incarcerated well beyond the correct period of detention for their crimes. Their sentence requires that they complete courses/targets that the Prison Service can't provide.

Society, in general, is unaware of these men and their families' predicaments and the subsequent damage that it does TOO Society! It's an oxymoron to say that IPP has a deterrent effect, it's a contributor to further crime!

I'm supporting this Petition as I have seen, first hand, how IPP destroys people rather than rehabilitate. Individuals like Shaun Lloyd should have their sentences reviewed now!

I voted for you Mr. Harper, I put my faith in you to represent my views on this subject.

I look forward to your considered response.

Comments

Paul

I think the damage is so bad now it will never, never! be the same again. I really cannot see how they are going to bring about positive change. It continues to get worse and deliberate to cause confusion.    

Reid As an IPP I'm very concerned as to the butterfly effect following this case!

Katherine Gleeson

Hi Reid,  I totally understand I was just thinking about this, this week. "We sure don't want a repeat of Worboy who had to prove he was not a danger such he did  but even that proved did not work on the face of it due to parole's failings to disclose unknown information post tariff, what's next?. We sure don't want any butterfly effect what Minister needs to do is listen and addresses the huge fallings Urgently.

Nick Hardwick was forced to quit I am now concerned of the consequences be any significant work done be undone, the government need to be transparent and honest with us we need answers but why is the Minister keeping a low key?

https://www.theguardian.