Total Pageviews

Thursday, 24 May 2018

Update!!! The March went well and it was a productive day alot of people was interested the IPP Prisoners being overtariff and appalled

The next coming weeks  we have a meeting with the Chief of the parole board Martin Jones. I will keep you all informed once the date set. I shall post the images of the March in the next few days.
I have just made some quick notes below on some ideas to address the Parole Board but I know you have your own questions you want answered so ill be happy for you to email me them and  bring them along to the meeting.

Last year we asked for   release dates for the over tariff IPP prisoners ,we was given  2018 to 2020 , 2020 being for difficult cases.

•We want to know if the parole board are on target  since we are now in 2018 .
•We all want to  know if IPP Prisoners are a priority to insure  they meet the target
•Is there funding required to insure  target are met?
•Have there been delays and how have they addressed them?
Are the Parole hearing judges aware of postdate failing with the IPP sentence when denying an IPP Prisoner parole that has kept prisoners long beyond there sentence, and not by their own actions?  Because of

• Lack of courses
• legal aid
• Trainee psychologist
• poorly recorded records of prisoners

Examination of the risk

Perceived risk a person is kept in imprison not for what they have done but what they might do! Such not knowing when they will be released or what is the perceived risk is so they can make changes or progress. This gives a prisoner no hope because of the sheer uncertainty, causing stress and mental health and unprecedented deaths.

• Is the test for risk outdated only balanced on the trust of the individual parole board at the time of hearing or a tick box?
• EXAMPLE: An IPP over tariff with ADHD say suicidal tendencies because of the uncertainty of the sentence would be conceived a risk and fail parole .If it be the case a risk why couldn’t the prisoner be released to mental health other than prison which is not the correct environment.
• EXAMPLE: An IPP prisoner with learning differences is he as risk of depression not coping since he has not much family or support to return too if he was released.
• should the risk be test be modernized?

IPP over tariff prisoners are subject to another ten year licensee
Which all of us feel is unjust and unfair, and causes extended issues

• Continued mental health
• Employment issues /
• Long term poverty
• Likely to be recalled on non-crime basis or misunderstanding or because you have cognitive issues 55% recall is not an example of working.
• Failing of family ties do to distance and funds
• Break down of children ties and license rules restrictions
• Attempted suicides on the outside not always in the data.
• We all need to Safeguard and promote the rights of people with learning differences and we need to support their progression often those with cognitive issues have differcuties with defending their own defence and often end up with longer sentences as a result of the differcuties .reasonable adjustments are not   always enforced but needs to be intermediates are a must for fairness

Parole you may have first-hand knowledge on the effects of long license that can have  dire effects and we know that one does not fit all, and can do more damage than good, its time for change. We all want to see parole that is fast forward that makes reasonable adjustments when necessary one that is not stuck in time and one that is always being safe. We all want to see a modern Parole board with inactive ideas and solutions that improves prisoner’s progress and mental health.

• What can you do to intervene and influence a change with the Ministry of justice on long term license for IPP Prisoners?

The Solution?

• Take into account them being tariff and decrease the license for over tariff IPP prisoners Tag for 3 years?
• Work programs to reward and reduced your license, reward on progress?
• Assisted cognitive assessments for those who feel they have differcuties with daily tasks that affect them keeping to times and rules to enable them to get reasonable adjustments and insuring one set of prisoners are not persecuted when leaving prison on any work program. probation having knowledge and training of the effects of cognitive effects there would be less persecution recall for those who are recognised as having learning differences.

There needs to be  strategy to end the constant Recall. Recall is not the answer it just leads to self-harm and continued mental torture. Can the recall test be changed?

• Only use in extreme cases?
• Probation can undermine one another other which effects the offender one will ok a situation and another lather will not and the prisoner can be recalled on issues like this. What can be to see that probation are singing on the same him sheet?
• Progression of the prisoner is foremost and if your relationship with your probation officer broke down it can be made differcult to communicate any longer. Changing your probation officer should be a human right like if you wanted to change your solicitor id you feel that not working well with you. There should be modernization so it can be made simple to change your probation and move your records on rather than making difficult with long winded paperwork and explanations. When there is a breakdown of the ex-offender and probation both will not function well and this defeats progression.

Sign the IPP Petition by scanning with your phone.

 If you don't have an app on your phone .How to download a QR code reader to your mobile phone.

Are you looking for an easy way to download a QR code reader or QR code decoder to your mobile device? We got you covered. To download qr code software for your mobile phone, simply follow these steps:

  1. Open your mobile app store (App Store, Google Play, Windows Marketplace, etc.)
  2. Search for QR code readers. Check out our list of QR code readers for mobile phones to find the right one for you.
  3. Simply download the QR code reader to your phone, open it and you are ready to go.
    Note: You will need to open your downloaded QR code reader each time you want to decode a QR code. Otherwise, you will end up just taking a picture of the QR code.Most phones do not come with the software to decode QR codes out of the box. For this reason, you must download QR code readers to decode the contents of the any QR code you may come across.


Sheila Field, Human Rights

Thank you for organising the demo yesterday. I enjoyed having an excuse to talk to some of the civil servants at the MOJ -- they're quite nice. Did you hear David Gauke on Radio 5 Live this morning -- his scheme for getting prisoners into work on release? The snag being some become homeless as soon as released: they need a fixed abode to jobs eek or start work. I bet he can't solve that one. However, he seems as sincere and straightforward as any Secretary of State is ever likely to be. ON THE SUBJECT of going to court under the Human Rights Act(Articles 3 and 6) to get a BINDING JUDGMENT on the treatment of IPP prisoners, the first step is to pick the brains of the experts, to get

IDEAS and CONTACTS. Two groups likely to supply these are:(1) JUSTICE 59 Carter Lane, EC4V 5AQ 0207 329 5100 Director: Andrea people are lawyers with a membership of lawyers including top law firms. They have a formidable council whose president is HELENA KENNEDY (Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws) a criminal barrister by trade, and a formidable list of "Friends". They have a strong interest in human rights law and hold a human rights conference every year. In theory they will tell you everything you need to know, but these days I have reservations about professionals who are "paid to know" -- sometimes they don't know!

(2) LIBERTY, 26-30 Strutton Ground, SW1P 2HR 0207 378 3663Director: Martha Spurrier. Martha is a barrister, I think out of DOUGHTY CHAMBERS.
Solicitors. The above groups may recommend solicitors they trust onhuman rights issues. A few such firms are BINDMAN & PARTNERS, EIGH DAY or BIRNBERG PEIRCE& PTNRS, 14 Inverness Street, NW1 7HJ. There are numerous others.You must think big from the very start, or else don't proceed.

When talking to solicitors, insist you want a "top name" barrister. Nothing else will do. One obvious example is David Pannick QC,(Lord Pannick) who is an expert on the Human Rights Act.

Publicity and Funding. Seek advice as these are crucial. I can't help on social media as I'm a dinosaur. The Howard League does crowd-funding, if you can  go to Director Frances Crook for advice.Divine Help. When God takes over a case, its chances improve at a stroke. He can outwit the most devious opponent, and help you win even with a weak argument. The Bible fails to explain
just how clever God is !!! Ask a charismatic prayer group to hand your case to God and cover it in prayer. Some churches actually work with prisoners -- St Johns at Welling for one. A church that

works at Brixton Prison is HOLY NATION CHURCH at Victoria. They are also charismatic. HOLY TRINITY BROMPTON is the richest church in the UK (It's opposite Harrods) and is alsocharismatic, but I don't know if it does a project with prisoners. It can easily lay on both prayer and some funding.Get back to me if you need help on anything, but bear in mind

I've got a campaign of my own. However, if for example you would like me to handle the churches side of things, I'll do my best.


Best regards, Sheila Field

 but If I can help in anyway pls pls pls just ask an il do What ever u need of me thank u on behalf of EVERYONE serving a Ipp sentence I'm truly greatful that we have such a motivated women in u thanks .

this unfair ridiculous IPP
It touches my heart and my families heart my nephew needs windows of hope I care for him so much ——see you all there in unison———
Katherine  It was a great day today and thank you for organising it.

Research gaps

Last week (17 May 2018), the MoJ published an interesting document setting out its areas of research interest. The document highlights the Ministry of Justice’s strategic evidence gaps with a focus on long-term and cross-cutting gaps in our understanding. It was published in the light of Sir Paul Nurse’s review of research councils which made clear the need for government departments to communicate clearly about where their long-term research interests lie, to ensure that:

the UK continues to support world-leading science and invests public money in the best possible way. 

The document sets out its research gaps under four themes:

  1. Deliver a modern courts and justice system 

  2. Create a prison and probation service that reforms offenders 

  3. Promote Global Britain and protect the rule of law 

  4. Create a transformed department that delivers excellent services

In this post, I focus on the second theme – how the prison and probation services can promote desistance and reduce reoffending.

What research the MoJ wants

The prisons and probation section highlights four main themes which are discussed in turn below.

1: How do we reduce the number of young people offending and entering the youth justice system?

Arecently published Ministry of Justice international review outlines approaches that can be effective in managing young people in the youth justice system. While the evidence base is growing, most of the high quality published studies are international. Therefore, there is a lack of robust evidence on what works for whom at the various stages in our youth justice system. Comparable information on cost-effective interventions is also limited. Key questions highlighted by the MoJ include:

  • Which interventions are most effective in preventing ‘at risk’ children and young people from offending?

  • Which interventions are effective in reducing reoffending (and improving other outcomes such as education; training and employment; health and accommodation) for children and young people at various stages of the youth justice system?

  • What works to increase compliance among children and young people with the various youth justice disposals and supervision?

  • What type of interventions reduce reoffending among children and young people who are being supervised in the community or in custody?

  • What are the outcomes for children and young people post-release from custody (for example education, training and employment, health and accommodation)?

  • What are the factors predicting transition into the adult criminal justice system and do these vary by ethnicity or gender?

2: Does diversion to alternative disposals work and for whom?

The criminal court and youth justice system delivers justice through the decision making of magistrates, judges and other key stakeholders. It is a complex and expensive system to run. Diverting more offenders, where it is appropriate to do so, to alternative disposals or support has potential to deliver efficiencies, swifter justice and better outcomes. This includes triage, health and liaison to divert low level youth offenders and/or those with health issues away from the formal justice system to more appropriate support. For the wider offender population, initiatives include Restorative Justice and Community Resolutions. The MoJ wants to know:

  • How effective are different interventions aimed at dealing with the underlying causes of offending? At what point in the justice process or pre-justice process are they most effective? Who are they most effective for? What is the best approach to commissioning and delivering these interventions?

  • How effective are alternative disposals and diversionary methods in reducing subsequent offending? How does this vary across offence and offender type, and how can we make sure diversion is targeted where most effective? Where do costs and benefits fall?

  • What incentives and behavioural levers are more effective in encouraging the use of alternative disposals and diversionary methods among front line stakeholders?

  • What are the attitudes of victims, witnesses and the wider public, as well as key partner organisations such as the police and judiciary, towards alternative disposals, diversionary methods and community supervision? Is there confidence in these measures delivering justice?

3: What interventions are most cost-effective in reducing adult reoffending, and what works for whom?

There is good evidence on what factors are associated with reoffending – for example, impulsivity and poor self-regulation, drug misuse, lack of employment or lack of stable accommodation. However, our understanding of what works to reduce reoffending tends to be high level, with less understanding of what approaches might work best with different types of offender. In terms of sanctions, there are, for example, questions about the optimal approach to rehabilitating vulnerable offenders. In terms of interventions, there is good evidence on some (for example drug misuse) but for others there are gaps (for example accommodation). Evidence on the costs and benefits of interventions (and on which part of the system the costs and benefits fall) is also lacking, as is a more in-depth understanding of what works with whom, and how. Better quality evidence in this area would help to improve practice and design more effective interventions for offenders, be they delivered in a custodial or community setting. This is the largest section in the document and you can see the hand of the Probation Inspectorate. I reproduce some of the MoJ’s highlighted areas below:
  • Are certain sanctions more appropriate for some offenders than others, and how do we create the right conditions in custody and community for this rehabilitation? What is the best way to rehabilitate vulnerable offenders – for example those with mental health problems or learning disabilities, or those who have experienced domestic abuse?
  • What role does the workforce have in achieving effective rehabilitation? How can we develop a rehabilitative culture across the prison and probation workforce?
  • How can local services be best engaged to support and sustain desistance during the sentence and beyond? How can providers of services collaborate and work in partnership with prisons and probation to support offenders?
  • At what point of an offenders’ journey through the criminal justice system can we best intervene to support their rehabilitation?
  • What is the relationship between different sentences (custodial versus community, length of sentence, and delivery of sentence such as use of electronic tags) and reducing reoffending or promoting positive outcomes (for example reduced drug use)? What factors account for the relationship, and are there lessons to suggest different sentences are more effective in reducing reoffending in different circumstances?
  • What works to increase compliance among offenders with their court orders and licence conditions?
  • Which non-accredited interventions are effective in reducing reoffending and supporting desistance?
  • How effective are new forms of technology in engaging service users and supporting their desistance (for example, electronic monitoring and in-cell technology)?
  • What are the links between the different operating models implemented by prison and probation providers and key outcomes for service users? How effective are community hubs in helping engage probation service users and supporting their desistance?

4: How do we best create custodial and community based environments that keep people safe and reduce levels of violence and self-harm?

Improving and sustaining safety in prisons is a high and urgent priority for the department. Providing a safer environment for those in prison and returning people to the community in a better condition than on their entry to custody is an essential role of the prison service. We have reasonable information on levels of violence and self-harm within prisons as well as some of the risk factors (for example, assaults are strongly associated with younger age prisoners as well as those with low self-control). Existing evidence also shows that the prison environment, and the relationships within it, play a considerable role in how prisoners behave: for example, physically poor conditions, highly controlling regimes, or circumstances in which rules are unevenly applied or not adhered to, heighten tensions and induce stresses, giving rise to conflict and assault. Available staff with appropriate skills and minimising the illicit economy in prisons are also important in reducing risk. Further research, particularly involving quantified outcomes, is needed. The key questions where the MoJ is inviting research are:
  • What approaches are effective in reducing incidents in prison such as assaults, self-harm or drug use?
  • What are the drivers of violence and self-harm in custody and how can we better predict emerging risks? How does this vary by prison type and offender groups?
  • What are effective ways of stopping illicit items entering custody?
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.


No comments:

Post a Comment


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.