Justice Secretary wrong to push Parole Board chair to quit, judge rules
Board found to lack independence after Gauke’s response to Worboys case A high court judge has ruled it was unacceptable for the justice secretary to pressurise the Parole Board chair Nick Hardwick into resigning, and that the board lacks independence from the government.
Hardwick resigned in March when David Gauke told him that his position was untenable following the Parole Board’s decision to John Watboys .
The case was brought by Paul Wakenshaw, a British prisoner, who argued that although the Parole Board was a de facto court under both common law and the European convention on human rights, Hardwick’s removal proved it lacked the independence of a true court.
Like Warboys, Wakenshaw has been serving an indeterminate imprisonment (IPP) sentence. In 2009 he was sentenced to a minimum of six years’ imprisonment for two offences of robbery and for using an imitation firearm. In 2012, IPP sentences were scrapped by the then justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, who called them a stain on the justice system.
Wakenshaw is three years over that tariff and due to appear before the Parole Board, but he has argued he does not have a fair chance of being released following the Worboys controversy.
He said it was constitutionally improper for the justice secretary to have requested that the head of a judicial body resign without any procedure being followed to determine whether there were grounds for his removal. Wakenshaw also sought an order postponing the recruitment of a new chair, for which interviews are scheduled to take place this month.
On Tuesday Mr Justice Mostyn granted Wakenshaw permission to judicially review the independence of the board on the grounds there was a lack of security of tenure for Parole Board members (including the chair) – as evidenced by the circumstances in which Hardwick offered his resignation. The judge also said that if the justice secretary decided to remove a member of the Parole Board, there was no mechanism to ensure it was a fair decision.
Mostyn, in a proposed judicial declaration, said: “The period of appointment (three or four years, renewable for three or four years) of Parole Board members coupled with the power of the secretary of state to remove a member … without recourse to any procedure or machinery to determine the merit of a decision to remove him or her on one or other of these grounds, means that the provisions for tenure of Parole Board membership fail the test of objective independence.”
The judge added: “I think that the reasonable, albeit well-informed, observer could conclude that the short term of appointment, coupled with the precarious nature of the tenure, might wrongly influence a decision that had to be made.”
The judge also criticised the Ministry of Justice for failing to act on an earlier divisional court ruling – R (Brooke) v Parole Board in 2008 – that the appointment term had failed the test for objective independence. Mostyn rebuked the MoJ, saying: “Remarkably, the terms of appointment have remained exactly as they were at the time of the Brooke case.” He said he was told that the failure to amend the terms was an oversight and that the MoJ would, as a matter of urgency, consider revisions.
Hardwick, in a statement to the court, said Gauke had twice told him he “did not want to get macho” with him – as revealed in the Guardian in June – saying: “I remember it because I thought it was an odd phrase to use. I understood it to be a clear threat.”
Mostyn said: “In my judgment it is not acceptable
for the secretary of state to pressurise the chair of the Parole Board to
resign because he is dissatisfied with the latter’s conduct. This breaches the
principle of judicial independence enshrined in the Act of Settlement 1701. If
the secretary of state considers that the chair should be removed, then he
should take formal steps to remove him pursuant to the terms of the chair’s
appointment.The judge refused to grant an injunction halting the next chair’s appointment saying this would be “a disruptive remedy”. The judge has stayed proceedings for three months to enable Gauke to act on his proposed declaration that the Parole Board lacks independence. If the MoJ fails to respond satisfactorily within that time, Wakenshaw would proceed to the judicial review.The judge refused to grant an injunction halting the next chair’s appointment saying this would be “a disruptive remedy”Wakenshaw’s lawyer, Dean Kingham, of Swain & Co, said: “This
claim was brought due to concerns that the minister was interfering with
the judicial independence of the Parole Board, which has the same
status as a court. The circumstances of the forced resignation, if the
chair had had employee status, probably as Justice Mostyn referred to,
would have amounted to constructive dismissal. The judgment serves as a
timely reminder that the secretary of state for justice cannot seek to
usurp the board’s independence.”
An MoJ spokesperson said: “The Parole Board is independent from the
government and ministers play no role in the decisions that it makes.
Today’s judgment does not call that into question.
“We will carefully consider this judgment in relation to the tenure
and removal of Parole Board members – we are looking at how we can
address these concerns. It would be inappropriate to comment further
while legal proceedings are ongoing.”
A link to the full judgement https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/2089.html
Parole Board Chief Executive's Martin Jones Blog - 1st
Edition - August 2018
The last few months have been an exceptionally busy and challenging
period for the Board and for me as Chief Executive. Heightened scrutiny
and significant change bring their own challenges, but they also bring
opportunities to better explain the work we do and focus on lasting
changes that are going to improve the experience of prisoners and
victims.
Two weeks ago, I presented at the University of Cambridge
to academics and practitioners who are interested in parole. I talked
about where we are now and how we can ensure we are effective and
efficient in our independent decision making. It was particularly
interesting to hear their thoughts and ideas about where things are
working well, but also how the Board can improve its practice whilst
focused on our primary duty; making independent and fair decisions which
ensure the protection of the public.
We have also published our 2017-18 Annual Report and Accounts this month.
Last year we held a record number of hearings and have made good
progress on IPPs. One of the Parole Board’s biggest achievements over
the last year has been the steady elimination of the backlog. This means
prisoners are not waiting unnecessarily for their case to come before a
Parole Board. However, some cases are still being delayed through
unnecessary deferrals and adjournments. This is a priority and we are
working hard to look at how we can progress cases more effectively and
there are a number of initiatives ongoing within the Board to tackle
this problem – trying to bring cases to a fair and early resolution.
The Government is considering potential options for an internal
review mechanism and possibly changing the rules that we are governed
by. These will take some time to work through, I am keen to ensure that
any changes improve the way we do things and are properly thought
through and resourced. The Board has submitted its formal response
to the Ministry of Justice but in essence, we think it is important to
have a simple and process, that doesn’t create unnecessary delays for
victims or prisoners.
This month has also seen our annual staff and members strategy day,
outlining where we are focusing our efforts for the year ahead. 2018-19
will see us being a more transparent organisation, so the public can
really understand our work and the decisions from our members. I would
also like to pay special tribute to Sir Brian Leveson who round off our
50th anniversary celebrations with a fantastic speech dedicated to the work of the Board.
Whilst Sir Brian’s speech makes for excellent reading one of the things he said resonated with me:
At a fundamental level, however, Parole Board decisions should be treated with the same respect for integrity
and independence as any other judicial decision.Independence is the bedrock of all that you do and should be the bedrock of the Parole Board.There should be no improper influence or
interference, whether from the media, the public, or politics, in your
decision-making process.
Decisions should be, as I said earlier, made without fear or favour.
Katherine Gleeson
Back in 2016, Aug 25th, I set up a write in campaign for IPP prisoners to voice there key concerns and a petition signed by you all. Hundreds of you wrote to me otherwise through my email in the inside times.
The main focuses of those letters was the impact of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) Subsequently a meeting was arranged 9th August 2016 to meet with Nick Hardwick to discuses inmates key issues, outside the building was a 38 Degrees vigil, enabling the families of IPP sentenced prisoners to gather and show support. Myself and IPP associates discussed the various issues and observations and deliberated areas of change in the Prison System, Parole and Probation. The biggest single piece on news at the time seemed to be very positive from Martin Jones chief executives when asked for a end date his reply was that all IPP Prisoners “over tariff “will be release 2018 and complex cases by 2020.
2018 june v a new meeting was set up with Martin Jones to discuss the issues that continue around IPP and the the media echoes this by the families who just want them home.
'I just want him home': Mum of prisoner begs him to try and get out
A man handed a minimum sentence of 21 months is still behind bars almost 15 years on.
Steven
Sciberras was handed an indefinite sentence, known as imprisonment for
public protection (IPP), for a violent slash attack on a bus.
The punishments, which have now been abolished, were handed to criminals which judges deemed to be a danger to the public. As an alternative to life sentences, they meant offenders could be locked up indefinitely, but courts were required to set a minimum term, after which the offender could be considered for parole. Karen McCall mother of Steve Scibberas who is classed as an indefinite prisoner (Image: newcastle chronicle) However, Sciberras’ mum, Karen McCall, fears her son is simply languishing in jail and not trying to get out as he remains inside more than ten years after he potentially could have been freed. Steve Scibberas who is classed as an indefinite prisoner. Picture taken when he was 20 (Image: newcastle chronicle)
Convicted robber Sciberras was 24 years old when in 2005 he was jailed for attacking John Hewitt, in Newcastle.He goaded the blameless construction site manager, intimidating and threatening him once they were on board the same service.And when Mr Hewitt refused to get off at the Morrisons supermarket in Byker, Sciberras came back on and launched a savage knife attack which scarred him from cheek to nose.Judge Beatrice Bolton passed an IPP with a minimum term of 21 months.She said: “There is a pattern of offending which has escalated into this serious offence of violence.
“Looking at your background and the pre-sentence report, in particular the risk assessment, I’m of the opinion there is a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm from you.
“It’s necessary to impose a sentence of imprisonment for public protection.
“This sentence means you will not be released until it is deemed safe by the parole board and when you no longer present a risk. You will be on licence for the remainder of your life.
IPP sentences were introduced in 2003 by then-Home Secretary Lord David Blunkett. They first came into use in April 2005, just five months before Steven Sciberras was sentenced.
The aim was to protect the public from serious offenders whose crimes did not merit a life sentence.
However, the sentences were abolished in 2012 amid fears their use had been inconsistent.
Offenders of low level crimes were given IPP sentences with tariffs as short as two years.Sciberras, now 37, is currently being held at HMP Northumberland Karen, from Byker, says she speaks to her son regularly but he has not told her why he hasn’t been released.
Brexit prisoner jobs bonus?
Transfers to open conditions are a serious concern in the prison system at the moment with too many prisoners and not enough spaces to accommodate them. Determinate sentenced prisoners who can officially only spend a maximum of 2-years in an open prison are waiting up to 16-months for a transfer then, with their 3-month lie down period this leaves them only 5-months to reintegrate back into the community and forge strong ties in their local area prior to release.
PSI 40/2011 (which expired on 1-9-2015 but is still the document referred to as it is obviously not a priority of the MoJ to update it) states at Section S paragraph 1: ‘Allocation often follows immediately after recategorisation’.
This quite obviously is not the case for the many prisoners currently being held in closed conditions despite them not requiring this expensive level of security. This is by no means the fault of the individual prisons, but blame must lie with the MoJ, who have failed to identify a need and look into the prospect of opening more open prisons (which are the easiest of all the categories of prison to open).
The issue is also affected by the changes to the ROTL procedures in 2015, which effectively stopped most prisoners from obtaining a ROTL from closed conditions. I am aware that this is now under review and I wish to thank David Gauke MP and his team on behalf of all prisoners for noticing the benefits of ROTL for both us and society and the fact that the restrictions applied previously may have been excessive.
With Brexit looming there are already dozens of companies around the country who are appealing for workers of various skill levels as their current migrant workers return to their home countries. Is the MoJ noticing that these gaps could be filled by prisoners on ROTL from either the existing/newly-built open prisons or from closed estates with a robust risk assessment?
This is another prime example of how the MoJ’s choices are causing a backlog of prisoners in an already crowded system and I for one would welcome any changes that benefit us as prisoners and also has a positive impact on society.
Staff don’t care
J Featherstone - HMP Thameside -
I have always suffered with mental illness. I get extreme anxiety and depression to the point that I no longer wish to live and have a serious attempt at suicide on my record, which raises concerns with staff when I say I am not feeling mentally well. I have been told to speak out and never to suffer in silence and always ask for help. So, having been feeling low and depressed and suffering with extreme anxiety which, at the time, can be real frightening to the point I start to believe that my life is in danger. So, I decided to ask for help.
I pressed my cell-bell and when the member of staff looked in I was trying to express my thoughts and feelings, but I was totally shut down and given a verbal warning not to press my cell-bell unless it was an emergency.
There is a distinct lack of professionalism from the staff here towards vulnerable prisoners. I witnessed some appalling things by staff and for people in positions of trust it was scary. If I am ever feeling suicidal again in here I would be far too scared to seek help. https://insidetime.org/staff-dont-care/
Suicide watch
LR Wooden - HMP Durham -
I would like to know a few things concerning 24-hour suicide watch. If an inmate decides to hang himself and then prison staff, along with paramedics and doctors and nurses save his life, when he gets back to prison he then gets put on a 24-hour manned constant watch.
When you are on an ACCT document, i.e. suicide, self-harm, at risk folder and on constant watch do they not have to have an interview review with the governor every day? What I am about to tell you may shock your readers and change the minds of those who wonder why there are so many deaths in prison custody.
I hung myself. I was saved.
I was placed on suicide watch. I told the governor
I was not strong enough to come off it and that if he took me off the constant watch I would do it again. The governor had an ACCT review without me being present and decided to take me off my constant watch. Twenty minutes later, after they told me this, I hung myself and once again I was saved by a quick-thinking, skilled officer.
This just goes to show how my basic human right to life was jeopardised. Section 1.1a of the HRA states ‘everyone is entitled to human life’. The governor had no right to have a review of my ACCT without me being present. He took me off it though I told him I was not ready. I could have been dead. These so-called money-manager governors at private prisons are putting lives at risk to save money and increase profit on constant watch.
True state of our prisons
LR Wooden - HMP Durham-
On 11th of June 2018, ITV showed an Exposure programme on the state of English prisons. It showed the true state of our prison system and the wrongs that happen on a daily basis.
It will perhaps be best remembered by the general public for the vivid scenes of rioting at HMP Birmingham.
However, those of us in custody who watched this programme would have been more upset I’m sure by the scenes towards the end of the programme at HMP Wandsworth. The programme shows CCTV footage of the Segregation Unit where an 18-year-old Lithuanian prisoner was being held. He had been found 5 times in the preceding weeks with ligatures, including once on the day he was ‘fitted’ for segregation.
The CCTV shows the prisoner’s emergency cell-bell activating at 19.00. The officer is on the wing watching television. She says she didn’t hear the bell ringing as it was quiet. If it was just that then perhaps she should be given the benefit of the doubt, but at 19.15 she is seen next door to the prisoner’s cell with another prison employee and she still did not answer the bell. She went back to the office and eventually went to the cell at 19.37 to answer the bell and found the prisoner hanging. She radioed for staff and they responded within seconds and cut the prisoner down and began resuscitation. While this is happening, the female officer is led away from the scene visibly distressed. There is no doubt in my mind that this officer should be held responsible in law for the death of that young prisoner.
Who knows?
L Turner - HMP Lewes
I was wondering if anyone could provide me with any information and/or assistance. In October 2017, I was recalled back to prison for a new offence to which I accepted responsibility and have served the punitive part of the sentence in its entirety.
However, I am now the subject of parole every December until my sentence end date for my original 2010 conviction but need to complete a behaviour programme before being considered for release by the Parole Board who want me to complete the programme in custody in order to be considered for release before the sentence-end date, which is 30th of December 2023.
But, Probation have recently said that they ‘don’t know how, when or where’ I can access either the Horizon and / or Kaizen behavioural programmes. HMP Lewes are no better at answering this question.
So, my question is – does anyone know which prisons in the South will allow me to engage with these programmes?
Also, do you know if I can access these programmes in the community if released on license? I come under Sussex National Probation. By
Faceless decision-makers
LR Wooden - HMP Durham
Society is led to believe that the Prison Service is there to punish and rehabilitate prisoners, ultimately reducing reoffending and making the streets a safer place to be. However, what they are really achieving with all that tax-payers money seems to be handing out a high amount of punishment with rehabilitation taking a back seat.
Those prisoners identified as posing a low risk are not fully assessed, they are simply left to acclimatise by themselves and to get through their sentence with no support. They are categorised by someone who has never spoken to them and there is little chance of them ever meeting their Offender Supervisor. So many people making decisions that will etch their path through prison who cannot even put a face to a name.
No Sentence Plan is discussed with them and interventions suitable are prioritised for those classed as high risk. How can they have been rehabilitated when they have never been given the chance to talk about their offence? They are released having achieved and learnt nothing. The majority suffer from some form of mental health problems which, unsurprisingly, worsen after spending their first few days, sometimes weeks, locked in a cell for 21 hours a day.
“Self-harm is rife as, for most, finding the light during such a dark time on their own is futile.”
On top of this, many are mothers who have been torn away from their young children and are filled with an unimaginable pain by being separated from them. If that is not punishment enough, they only get to see them for 2-hours per week, during which they cannot move off their seat and interact with them. All they can do is watch them play from a distance whilst holding back their tears.
The Courts and prisons are punishing low-risk offenders, but at the same time they are inflicting greater punishment on their children, their partners and their elderly parents who, more often than not, suddenly find themselves acting as full-time carers to their grandchildren. They have little reason to find hope in life after being released as the future looks bleak, low job prospects, higher insurance costs, the long road trying to rebuild relationships and living with the stigma of having been in prison.
The Courts and Prison Service are failing the public, the victims, the families and, most of all, the prisoner. It’s creating more problems than fixing them and leaving society to clear up the mess. What is prison for? Why rehabilitation? Because punishment alone achieves nothing.
IPP Prisoner: 'I thought about ending my own life'
Shaun Lloyd
He was convicted of a street robbery in 2006 and handed an IPP - an Imprisonment for Public Protection. This was a minimum sentence given to repeat offenders like Shaun.In Shaun's case he had previously been in a young offender's institution for assault. To be released IPP prisoners must prove to a parole board they no longer pose a serious risk to society.T his kind of sentence was abolished in 2012 under 3,000 of these prisoners remain inside. Shaun was recalled to prison in 2016 and served a further 9 months. IPP prisoners can apply to have their licence cancelled after 10 years. Shaun says support from his family got him through but as he tells the Today programme the uncertainty has driven some of his friends to suicide. Shaw is now out but many hundreds still remain.
'The self-harming is unbelievable'
Video of his his family fear he will take his own life like many other IPP prisoners, describing the level of self-harming as "unbelievable". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-40900691/prisoner-suicidal-11-years-into-10-month-jail-term
Channel 4 News recently reported that the Chief Inspector of Prisons has invoked the Urgent Notification Protocol at Exeter Prison, using his new powers for only the second time.
He appeared on Channel 4 News for a brief interview, but the best words he could find to describe Exeter was ‘Not good enough’. When the presenter asked if the conditions at Exeter Prison were ‘inhumane’, Mr Clarke said it was ‘not his place to make emotive comments’.
Given HMP Exeter’s most recently published inspection report, noting that prisoners are unable to access clean bedding, rodent infestations, record high levels of assault and self-harm, how can it be that the man tasked with ensuring we are held in safe and reasonable conditions be so emotionally removed from his work that he refuses to call it what it is?
Is Mr Clarke simply blind to the human lives these conditions affect, or is he scared of upsetting a weak government and his civil service buddies? ‘Swift improvements at Exeter’ page 14
Comments
Mark Claverinr
MY BROTHER DONE THIS GOT 21 MONTH IPP STILL IN 15 YEARS LATER HE HAS WELL SERVED HIS TIME THE JUDGE WAS CRACKING UP AT THE TIME BEATRICE BOLTON FROM NEWCASTLE CROWN COURT HE IS JUST ROTTEN AWAY IN JAIL THE SYSTEM IS CURRUPT SO IS THE GOVERMENT WHAT CAN BE DONE AND PEOPLE PLEASE SHARE THANKS
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/parole-board-chief-executives-blog-1st-edition-august-2018
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/i-just-want-him-home-14992529
https://insidetime.org/author/admin/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-40944738/ipp-prisoner-i-thought-about-ending-my-own-life
Parole Board Chief Executive's Martin Jones Blog - 1st
Edition - August 2018
The last few months have been an exceptionally busy and challenging
period for the Board and for me as Chief Executive. Heightened scrutiny
and significant change bring their own challenges, but they also bring
opportunities to better explain the work we do and focus on lasting
changes that are going to improve the experience of prisoners and
victims.
Two weeks ago, I presented at the University of Cambridge
to academics and practitioners who are interested in parole. I talked
about where we are now and how we can ensure we are effective and
efficient in our independent decision making. It was particularly
interesting to hear their thoughts and ideas about where things are
working well, but also how the Board can improve its practice whilst
focused on our primary duty; making independent and fair decisions which
ensure the protection of the public.
We have also published our 2017-18 Annual Report and Accounts this month.
Last year we held a record number of hearings and have made good
progress on IPPs. One of the Parole Board’s biggest achievements over
the last year has been the steady elimination of the backlog. This means
prisoners are not waiting unnecessarily for their case to come before a
Parole Board. However, some cases are still being delayed through
unnecessary deferrals and adjournments. This is a priority and we are
working hard to look at how we can progress cases more effectively and
there are a number of initiatives ongoing within the Board to tackle
this problem – trying to bring cases to a fair and early resolution.
The Government is considering potential options for an internal
review mechanism and possibly changing the rules that we are governed
by. These will take some time to work through, I am keen to ensure that
any changes improve the way we do things and are properly thought
through and resourced. The Board has submitted its formal response
to the Ministry of Justice but in essence, we think it is important to
have a simple and process, that doesn’t create unnecessary delays for
victims or prisoners.
This month has also seen our annual staff and members strategy day,
outlining where we are focusing our efforts for the year ahead. 2018-19
will see us being a more transparent organisation, so the public can
really understand our work and the decisions from our members. I would
also like to pay special tribute to Sir Brian Leveson who round off our
50th anniversary celebrations with a fantastic speech dedicated to the work of the Board.
Whilst Sir Brian’s speech makes for excellent reading one of the things he said resonated with me:
At a fundamental level, however, Parole Board decisions should be treated with the same respect for integrity
and independence as any other judicial decision.Independence is the bedrock of all that you do and should be the bedrock of the Parole Board.There should be no improper influence or
interference, whether from the media, the public, or politics, in your
decision-making process.
Decisions should be, as I said earlier, made without fear or favour.
'I just want him home': Mum of prisoner begs him to try and get out
The punishments, which have now been abolished, were handed to criminals which judges deemed to be a danger to the public. As an alternative to life sentences, they meant offenders could be locked up indefinitely, but courts were required to set a minimum term, after which the offender could be considered for parole. Karen McCall mother of Steve Scibberas who is classed as an indefinite prisoner (Image: newcastle chronicle) However, Sciberras’ mum, Karen McCall, fears her son is simply languishing in jail and not trying to get out as he remains inside more than ten years after he potentially could have been freed. Steve Scibberas who is classed as an indefinite prisoner. Picture taken when he was 20 (Image: newcastle chronicle)
Convicted robber Sciberras was 24 years old when in 2005 he was jailed for attacking John Hewitt, in Newcastle.He goaded the blameless construction site manager, intimidating and threatening him once they were on board the same service.And when Mr Hewitt refused to get off at the Morrisons supermarket in Byker, Sciberras came back on and launched a savage knife attack which scarred him from cheek to nose.Judge Beatrice Bolton passed an IPP with a minimum term of 21 months.She said: “There is a pattern of offending which has escalated into this serious offence of violence.
“Looking at your background and the pre-sentence report, in particular the risk assessment, I’m of the opinion there is a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm from you.
“It’s necessary to impose a sentence of imprisonment for public protection.
“This sentence means you will not be released until it is deemed safe by the parole board and when you no longer present a risk. You will be on licence for the remainder of your life.
IPP sentences were introduced in 2003 by then-Home Secretary Lord David Blunkett. They first came into use in April 2005, just five months before Steven Sciberras was sentenced.
The aim was to protect the public from serious offenders whose crimes did not merit a life sentence.
However, the sentences were abolished in 2012 amid fears their use had been inconsistent.
Offenders of low level crimes were given IPP sentences with tariffs as short as two years.Sciberras, now 37, is currently being held at HMP Northumberland Karen, from Byker, says she speaks to her son regularly but he has not told her why he hasn’t been released.
Brexit prisoner jobs bonus?
Transfers to open conditions are a serious concern in the prison system at the moment with too many prisoners and not enough spaces to accommodate them. Determinate sentenced prisoners who can officially only spend a maximum of 2-years in an open prison are waiting up to 16-months for a transfer then, with their 3-month lie down period this leaves them only 5-months to reintegrate back into the community and forge strong ties in their local area prior to release.
PSI 40/2011 (which expired on 1-9-2015 but is still the document referred to as it is obviously not a priority of the MoJ to update it) states at Section S paragraph 1: ‘Allocation often follows immediately after recategorisation’.
This quite obviously is not the case for the many prisoners currently being held in closed conditions despite them not requiring this expensive level of security. This is by no means the fault of the individual prisons, but blame must lie with the MoJ, who have failed to identify a need and look into the prospect of opening more open prisons (which are the easiest of all the categories of prison to open).
The issue is also affected by the changes to the ROTL procedures in 2015, which effectively stopped most prisoners from obtaining a ROTL from closed conditions. I am aware that this is now under review and I wish to thank David Gauke MP and his team on behalf of all prisoners for noticing the benefits of ROTL for both us and society and the fact that the restrictions applied previously may have been excessive.
With Brexit looming there are already dozens of companies around the country who are appealing for workers of various skill levels as their current migrant workers return to their home countries. Is the MoJ noticing that these gaps could be filled by prisoners on ROTL from either the existing/newly-built open prisons or from closed estates with a robust risk assessment?
This is another prime example of how the MoJ’s choices are causing a backlog of prisoners in an already crowded system and I for one would welcome any changes that benefit us as prisoners and also has a positive impact on society.
Staff don’t care
J Featherstone - HMP Thameside -
I have always suffered with mental illness. I get extreme anxiety and depression to the point that I no longer wish to live and have a serious attempt at suicide on my record, which raises concerns with staff when I say I am not feeling mentally well. I have been told to speak out and never to suffer in silence and always ask for help. So, having been feeling low and depressed and suffering with extreme anxiety which, at the time, can be real frightening to the point I start to believe that my life is in danger. So, I decided to ask for help.
I pressed my cell-bell and when the member of staff looked in I was trying to express my thoughts and feelings, but I was totally shut down and given a verbal warning not to press my cell-bell unless it was an emergency.
There is a distinct lack of professionalism from the staff here towards vulnerable prisoners. I witnessed some appalling things by staff and for people in positions of trust it was scary. If I am ever feeling suicidal again in here I would be far too scared to seek help. https://insidetime.org/staff-dont-care/
Suicide watch
LR Wooden - HMP Durham -
I would like to know a few things concerning 24-hour suicide watch. If an inmate decides to hang himself and then prison staff, along with paramedics and doctors and nurses save his life, when he gets back to prison he then gets put on a 24-hour manned constant watch.
When you are on an ACCT document, i.e. suicide, self-harm, at risk folder and on constant watch do they not have to have an interview review with the governor every day? What I am about to tell you may shock your readers and change the minds of those who wonder why there are so many deaths in prison custody.
I hung myself. I was saved.
I was placed on suicide watch. I told the governor
I was not strong enough to come off it and that if he took me off the constant watch I would do it again. The governor had an ACCT review without me being present and decided to take me off my constant watch. Twenty minutes later, after they told me this, I hung myself and once again I was saved by a quick-thinking, skilled officer.
This just goes to show how my basic human right to life was jeopardised. Section 1.1a of the HRA states ‘everyone is entitled to human life’. The governor had no right to have a review of my ACCT without me being present. He took me off it though I told him I was not ready. I could have been dead. These so-called money-manager governors at private prisons are putting lives at risk to save money and increase profit on constant watch.
True state of our prisons
LR Wooden - HMP Durham-
On 11th of June 2018, ITV showed an Exposure programme on the state of English prisons. It showed the true state of our prison system and the wrongs that happen on a daily basis.
It will perhaps be best remembered by the general public for the vivid scenes of rioting at HMP Birmingham.
However, those of us in custody who watched this programme would have been more upset I’m sure by the scenes towards the end of the programme at HMP Wandsworth. The programme shows CCTV footage of the Segregation Unit where an 18-year-old Lithuanian prisoner was being held. He had been found 5 times in the preceding weeks with ligatures, including once on the day he was ‘fitted’ for segregation.
The CCTV shows the prisoner’s emergency cell-bell activating at 19.00. The officer is on the wing watching television. She says she didn’t hear the bell ringing as it was quiet. If it was just that then perhaps she should be given the benefit of the doubt, but at 19.15 she is seen next door to the prisoner’s cell with another prison employee and she still did not answer the bell. She went back to the office and eventually went to the cell at 19.37 to answer the bell and found the prisoner hanging. She radioed for staff and they responded within seconds and cut the prisoner down and began resuscitation. While this is happening, the female officer is led away from the scene visibly distressed. There is no doubt in my mind that this officer should be held responsible in law for the death of that young prisoner.
Who knows?
L Turner - HMP Lewes
I was wondering if anyone could provide me with any information and/or assistance. In October 2017, I was recalled back to prison for a new offence to which I accepted responsibility and have served the punitive part of the sentence in its entirety.
However, I am now the subject of parole every December until my sentence end date for my original 2010 conviction but need to complete a behaviour programme before being considered for release by the Parole Board who want me to complete the programme in custody in order to be considered for release before the sentence-end date, which is 30th of December 2023.
But, Probation have recently said that they ‘don’t know how, when or where’ I can access either the Horizon and / or Kaizen behavioural programmes. HMP Lewes are no better at answering this question.
So, my question is – does anyone know which prisons in the South will allow me to engage with these programmes?
Also, do you know if I can access these programmes in the community if released on license? I come under Sussex National Probation. By
Faceless decision-makers
LR Wooden - HMP Durham
Society is led to believe that the Prison Service is there to punish and rehabilitate prisoners, ultimately reducing reoffending and making the streets a safer place to be. However, what they are really achieving with all that tax-payers money seems to be handing out a high amount of punishment with rehabilitation taking a back seat.
Those prisoners identified as posing a low risk are not fully assessed, they are simply left to acclimatise by themselves and to get through their sentence with no support. They are categorised by someone who has never spoken to them and there is little chance of them ever meeting their Offender Supervisor. So many people making decisions that will etch their path through prison who cannot even put a face to a name.
No Sentence Plan is discussed with them and interventions suitable are prioritised for those classed as high risk. How can they have been rehabilitated when they have never been given the chance to talk about their offence? They are released having achieved and learnt nothing. The majority suffer from some form of mental health problems which, unsurprisingly, worsen after spending their first few days, sometimes weeks, locked in a cell for 21 hours a day.
“Self-harm is rife as, for most, finding the light during such a dark time on their own is futile.”
On top of this, many are mothers who have been torn away from their young children and are filled with an unimaginable pain by being separated from them. If that is not punishment enough, they only get to see them for 2-hours per week, during which they cannot move off their seat and interact with them. All they can do is watch them play from a distance whilst holding back their tears.
The Courts and prisons are punishing low-risk offenders, but at the same time they are inflicting greater punishment on their children, their partners and their elderly parents who, more often than not, suddenly find themselves acting as full-time carers to their grandchildren. They have little reason to find hope in life after being released as the future looks bleak, low job prospects, higher insurance costs, the long road trying to rebuild relationships and living with the stigma of having been in prison.
The Courts and Prison Service are failing the public, the victims, the families and, most of all, the prisoner. It’s creating more problems than fixing them and leaving society to clear up the mess. What is prison for? Why rehabilitation? Because punishment alone achieves nothing.
IPP Prisoner: 'I thought about ending my own life'
Shaun Lloyd
He was convicted of a street robbery in 2006 and handed an IPP - an Imprisonment for Public Protection. This was a minimum sentence given to repeat offenders like Shaun.In Shaun's case he had previously been in a young offender's institution for assault. To be released IPP prisoners must prove to a parole board they no longer pose a serious risk to society.T his kind of sentence was abolished in 2012 under 3,000 of these prisoners remain inside. Shaun was recalled to prison in 2016 and served a further 9 months. IPP prisoners can apply to have their licence cancelled after 10 years. Shaun says support from his family got him through but as he tells the Today programme the uncertainty has driven some of his friends to suicide. Shaw is now out but many hundreds still remain.
'The self-harming is unbelievable'
Video of his his family fear he will take his own life like many other IPP prisoners, describing the level of self-harming as "unbelievable". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-40900691/prisoner-suicidal-11-years-into-10-month-jail-term
Channel 4 News recently reported that the Chief Inspector of Prisons has invoked the Urgent Notification Protocol at Exeter Prison, using his new powers for only the second time.
He appeared on Channel 4 News for a brief interview, but the best words he could find to describe Exeter was ‘Not good enough’. When the presenter asked if the conditions at Exeter Prison were ‘inhumane’, Mr Clarke said it was ‘not his place to make emotive comments’.
Given HMP Exeter’s most recently published inspection report, noting that prisoners are unable to access clean bedding, rodent infestations, record high levels of assault and self-harm, how can it be that the man tasked with ensuring we are held in safe and reasonable conditions be so emotionally removed from his work that he refuses to call it what it is?
Is Mr Clarke simply blind to the human lives these conditions affect, or is he scared of upsetting a weak government and his civil service buddies? ‘Swift improvements at Exeter’ page 14
I have always suffered with mental illness. I get extreme anxiety and depression to the point that I no longer wish to live and have a serious attempt at suicide on my record, which raises concerns with staff when I say I am not feeling mentally well. I have been told to speak out and never to suffer in silence and always ask for help. So, having been feeling low and depressed and suffering with extreme anxiety which, at the time, can be real frightening to the point I start to believe that my life is in danger. So, I decided to ask for help.
I would like to know a few things concerning 24-hour suicide watch. If an inmate decides to hang himself and then prison staff, along with paramedics and doctors and nurses save his life, when he gets back to prison he then gets put on a 24-hour manned constant watch.
I was placed on suicide watch. I told the governor
I was not strong enough to come off it and that if he took me off the constant watch I would do it again. The governor had an ACCT review without me being present and decided to take me off my constant watch. Twenty minutes later, after they told me this, I hung myself and once again I was saved by a quick-thinking, skilled officer.
On 11th of June 2018, ITV showed an Exposure programme on the state of English prisons. It showed the true state of our prison system and the wrongs that happen on a daily basis.
It will perhaps be best remembered by the general public for the vivid scenes of rioting at HMP Birmingham.
L Turner - HMP Lewes
I was wondering if anyone could provide me with any information and/or assistance. In October 2017, I was recalled back to prison for a new offence to which I accepted responsibility and have served the punitive part of the sentence in its entirety.
Society is led to believe that the Prison Service is there to punish and rehabilitate prisoners, ultimately reducing reoffending and making the streets a safer place to be. However, what they are really achieving with all that tax-payers money seems to be handing out a high amount of punishment with rehabilitation taking a back seat.
He was convicted of a street robbery in 2006 and handed an IPP - an Imprisonment for Public Protection. This was a minimum sentence given to repeat offenders like Shaun.In Shaun's case he had previously been in a young offender's institution for assault. To be released IPP prisoners must prove to a parole board they no longer pose a serious risk to society.T his kind of sentence was abolished in 2012 under 3,000 of these prisoners remain inside. Shaun was recalled to prison in 2016 and served a further 9 months. IPP prisoners can apply to have their licence cancelled after 10 years. Shaun says support from his family got him through but as he tells the Today programme the uncertainty has driven some of his friends to suicide. Shaw is now out but many hundreds still remain.
Comments
Mark Claverinr
MY BROTHER DONE THIS GOT 21 MONTH IPP STILL IN 15 YEARS LATER HE HAS WELL SERVED HIS TIME THE JUDGE WAS CRACKING UP AT THE TIME BEATRICE BOLTON FROM NEWCASTLE CROWN COURT HE IS JUST ROTTEN AWAY IN JAIL THE SYSTEM IS CURRUPT SO IS THE GOVERMENT WHAT CAN BE DONE AND PEOPLE PLEASE SHARE THANKS
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/i-just-want-him-home-14992529
https://insidetime.org/author/admin/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-40944738/ipp-prisoner-i-thought-about-ending-my-own-life
No comments:
Post a Comment
comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.