Prisons Minister Rory Stewart
Prisons Minister Rory Stewart has reiterated his promise to resign and I say good riddance . He has not made any ignificant improvements with IPP prisoners or in lowering levels of violence and drugs in ten of the worst performing prisons in England and Wales.
I'm waiting for him to go he has done nothing to support policy change for IPP prisoners and has stated this. He is feeble and lacks back bone. A man was employed to manage a job who has failed those created injustices once more. There has been no update on the so called pilot project to help IPP prisoners since last year. A pilot project they said they was rolling out but where is the evidence? Where are the updates from parole on this Support on helping get out. Has the pilot plains failed due to poor follow ups and lack of transparency ?
PRISONS CRISIS:
2017-2018 almost 50,000 incidents of self-harm // 87 self-inflicted deaths // Record drug finds // 30,000 assaults // 10,000 assaults on staff and it goes on
...................................................................................................
Unlawful sentence
An open letter to David Gauke, Rory Stewart and the new CEO of HMPPS, Jo Farrar.
In 2012, the European Court of Human Rights ruled the IPP
sentence to be unlawful. The British government accepted this decision
and abolished the sentence under the powers of the LASPO Act 2012. You
can dress it up as much as you like but the fact is the British
government acknowledged that this sentence was unlawful, otherwise they
would not have abolished it. It is still an unlawful sentence. My
sentence has not been lawful since 2008, when tariffs below 2-years were
abolished. Yet, I still remain incarcerated on a recall.
The parole of a high-profile prisoner and the surrounding
publicity, plus the sacking of Nick Hardwick has proved that the Parole
Board is not independent and direct employees of the MoJ. This also
proves that the MoJ, HMPPS and the Parole Board all bow to public and
media pressure, and let public opinion be the first choice in their
decision-making.
They are all heavily reliant on so-called risk-reduction
work and Offending Behaviour Programmes (OBPs), which have been
evidenced not to work and, in some cases, have made offenders worse.
Even Dr Jo Bailey, lead psychologist for the Operations Directorate
HMPPS has stated that all OBPs are voluntary and emphasises that
participation in OBPs is neither necessary nor sufficient to achieve
release.
The LASPO Act 2012 also introduced the Tariff Expired
Removal Scheme (TERS), where any foreign national prisoner serving an
IPP sentence will be, in effect, released from prison once they have
served their minimum tariff; without the need to do any OBP work, sit
any Parole Hearing and they will never get recalled to prison because
they are not subject to Life Licence. This, along with the fact that I
am being unlawfully detained, means that I want to be released from
prison without the need to sit a Parole Hearing, do any OBPs and without
any licence conditions – because if my sentence has been ruled unlawful
then the licence is unlawful too.
I am prepared to spend the rest of my life in prison
because I will not engage with Probation or the parole process. I will
not be complicit in this unlawful sentence. I am being detained not for
what I have done but for what I might do in the future. This is
internment, and I now regard myself as a political prisoner and a
hostage to the British State.
Both my grandfathers fought in the war and one died at
Dunkirk for this country, which I once loved. But I would renounce my
citizenship in a heartbeat if I could find another country willing to
accept me. So, what are your plans for someone like me?
....................................................................................................
I have attempted to have someone to look at my conviction by sending letters to David Gauke, Justice Secretary – No Reply.
*I have written to CCRC – Can’t help due to me not having had an appeal turned down.
*Police Complaints – pointless. IOPCC – pointless.
*Local MP Gill Furniss – to no avail.
*Prime Minister – no politician can get involved in a legal case.
*CPS – also pointless.
I tried a local solicitor in Doncaster, they can’t get legal aid to fund a visit to see me. I am 66 years old, of previous good character, and feel angry that I am having seven years of my life stolen
I am unable to get legal aid for an appeal as I own my own home. This takes me over the threshold. I could sell my home to hire a good legal team, however even if my appeal was successful in overturning my convictions, I would end up homeless. As many of you will know, the chances of overturning a conviction are extremely low. I’m frustrated that I find myself in a Catch 22 situation. Like many prisoners I feel my case has several non-disclosure elements.
https://insidetime.org/taking-my-home/
.................................................................................................................
Gauke’s outlandish parole proposals
Prisoners may have read recently that Justice Secretary David Gauke has said victims of crime in England and Wales will now be given new rights to challenge Parole Board decisions to release life sentence prisoners and violent offenders.
Instead of having to go to court and challenge decisions by way of judicial review, victims will now be able to apply to the MoJ to appeal against decisions. This outlandish and unlawful change in policy has come about following the public outcry last year.
The Secretary of State for Justice is by this action effectively reducing the role of the Parole Board to that of an advisory panel which recommends rather than “directs” release. In practice it will effectively return the release mechanism for indeterminate sentences back into the hands of the executive.
Such arbitrary action is incompatible with article 5(4) of ECHR which requires decisions regarding detention post tariff/minimum term to be carried out by a court like body with the powers re-quired by such a court (see, Thynne, Wilson and Gunnel v UK [1990] 1WLR 134).
It is also unlawful under s116 of LASPO 2012 which stipulates that the Parole Board ‘directs’ rather than recommends release.
For a legal challenge to be successful it must be brought by someone awaiting release as they would have clearer standing.
My advice to any and all lifers is that if a challenge is not brought against this policy, we could be dragged back 30 years to a system whereby Parole Boards were merely consulted by the Justice Secretary as to the suitability of prisoners for release on parole. Think hard and act to prevent this from happening.
Andrew Sperling page 19
https://insidetime.org/gaukes-outlandish-parole-proposals/?fbclid=IwAR1Eeoy2ehoEeU5F-B0S1r9WTWgJkbVpe8XrjenQjMb5yGEiCmM-CNBvJZ4
Even more change
https://insidetime.org/even-more-change-to-the-parole-process/?fbclid=IwAR0-MZQfTsXOZJeQL1Wz43UQ5wziXKVl67P97vc9Jm9L6zgwLTZa9TVgpfc
.....................................................................................................................
We all know that when the IPP sentence was imposed that it was not intended for a prisoner with minor crimes. The Minister of justice is aware of this but continues to manipulate the truth via the media, on risk, to cover up their failings.
IPP
Prisoners remained concealed under these deficiencies while inmates go mental
to seek justice. I can say I am ashamed and embarrassed off the Minister of
justice to “Trap those in a system!
“We are now at a stage where the UK government is defying the will of
parliament through persistent failing and slow and timeless cumbersome way of
dealing with IPP prisoners.
https://ippfanilycampaign.blogspot.com/2019/03/ipp-prisoners-family-left-in-limbo-by.html?spref=fb&fbclid=IwAR1yo5uJLUHtE-BLWT0p0qZC5mEQQHf-E6dPH5cQzpq0FNLzWxWF1pgV4kI
.............................................................................................................................................
Its a large scale problem that the queen needs queen to be aware of and being her prison. Action is needed.
Like many others, I am sick and tired of writing to MPs and Ministers and then being passed on to the MoJ so they can fob me off.
I want real answers to what they are going to do to correct the injustices done to people like myself who, wrongly, received an IPP sentence? The sentence was designed to retain people who were prolific offenders who kept getting short custodial sentences, and it was in order to give time to deliver the interventions they required to break the cycle. This is my first custodial sentence and I have now served 8-years of a 5-year tariff.
“Never having served a previous custodial sentence, I should not have been given an IPP in the first place. Surely it is an admission that the system does not work if they think an IPP is warranted for someone who has never served a prison sentence?”
How can I have a risk of reoffending within 12-months if I was on unconditional bail for 15-months before I was charged? And in that time, I committed no offences nor breached any of my sign-on rules. I have always fully adhered to previous community orders, yet now apparently I cannot be managed in the community. This is all bull shine and a complete fantasy on their part.
The government need to admit that I, and many others like me, need our sentences revoked and reverted to a standard determinate sentence to correct this. No more talk, we need action. The abolition of IPP should have been retrospective and, by it not being so, the government knowingly and willingly are abusing our family’s human rights as well as ours, yet nobody is doing anything about it.
Comments
Corrigan Couldn't have said it better myself.
Horton Absolutely spot on.
......................................................................................................
The current model for the delivery of probation services in England and Wales is irredeemably flawed, and a major rethink is needed to create a system that is fit for the future, according to Dame Glenys Stacey, in her final annual report before she finishes her three year tenure as Chief Inspector of Probation.
In a lengthy report which cements Dame Glenys’ reputation for straight talking she depicts a sector under exceptional strain:
- both the public-sector National Probation Service (NPS) and privately-owned Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) are failing to meet some of their performance targets. The NPS is performing better overall, whereas eight out of ten CRCs inspected this year received the lowest possible rating – ‘Inadequate’ – for the implementation and delivery of probation supervision. In too many cases, there is not enough purposeful activity.
- the probation profession has been diminished. There is a national shortage of qualified probation professionals, and too much reliance on unqualified or agency staff.
- in the day-to-day work of probation professionals, there has been a drift away from practice informed by evidence. The critical relationship between the individual and the probation worker is not sufficiently protected in the current probation model.
Dame Glenys said:
Probation must be delivered locally, yet the service is now split at a local level. Despite capable leaders, there has been a deplorable diminution of the probation profession and a widespread move away from practice informed by evidence. This is largely due to the impact of commerce, and contracts that treat probation as a transactional business. Professional ethics can buckle under such pressures, and the evidence we have is that this has happened to some extent.
The Chief Inspector is clear that although the intention to terminate CRC contracts early and move to better-funded and better-structured contracts will improve matters, it will not be enough.
Any new probation model must focus on quality. In my view, effective probation work is most likely when good leaders are free to manage, motivate and develop professional staff, who are in turn able to build challenging but supportive relationships with offenders. Specialist and local services are also crucial to help offenders turn their lives around.
With the MoJ still in the process of deciding on the form of the next iteration of Transforming Rehabilitation (conflicting messages keep emerging from Petty France about the extent and nature of private sector involvement) Dame Glenys makes a timely appeal for probation structures to be built on four key design principles:
- probation services to be evidence based. Work to reduce reoffending should draw on research and evidence, and new initiatives should be evaluated and the results added to the evidence base.
- probation services that meet both the needs of victims and the individuals under supervision. Probation work should be of the right quality, whoever is providing it.
- an integrated and professional service. The probation service should have enough qualified professionals with access to the right facilities, services and information (and, where necessary, protections) to enable them to do their jobs well.
- a probation service able to command the confidence of the judiciary, victims, the professional staff employed and the wider public.
The report is 108 pages long and divided into two main sections. The first provides a detailed summary of the role and organisation of the probation service. One might think that this is superfluous in an annual report but the section makes sense for two main reasons:
- It provides an authoritative and up-to-date description of the work of probation; in itself an invaluable resource as anyone who has ever had to try to explain what probation is for to people from outside (or sometimes even inside) the criminal justice system is likely to agree.
- It gives a clear account of the significant changes which have taken place in probation over the last decade, both in terms of government expectations and the demographic and offending histories of those supervised by the service.
The section pulls together the latest data with specially commissioned graphics and will form the basis of another blog post next week. As a taster, see the graphic above which condenses the probation service’s workflow in such a helpful manner.
The second section presents a systematic evaluation of the current provision with an emphasis on the many failings of the current system with a focus on how things need to change. Again, I will provide more details in a subsequent blog post.
Conclusion
This report is written explicitly to urge ministers to redesign the probation service in line with the principles set out above. Taken with the recent National Audit Office report which also highlights the dangers of a split service, the MoJ will find it hard to argue that it has not received helpful advice on the future of probation. The aspect of Dame Gleny’s report which I personally find most heartening is her insistence that for many years probation worked well and that if the new system allows probation staff to use their experience and skills and focus on their interactions with the offenders they supervise (rather than have an eye on the requirements of commercial contracts), it will do so again. I will leave the last word to the outgoing Chief Inspector:
Services of the right quality are most likely if probation leaders are able to lead, motivate, engage and develop a sufficient number of probation professionals who in turn can exercise their professional judgement in each case and tailor supervision in each case, with access to a range of specialist services to meet needs in each case. Leaders can then be held fully to account for delivery, for the service’s adherence to the evidence base and for value for money.
Experience has shown that it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible to reduce the probation service to a set of contractual measures. I urge the government to consider carefully the future model for probation services.
.....................................................................................................................
‘I’m afraid of being stuck here and I’m afraid of getting out’
A new study of women serving indeterminate sentences has called on the government to convert imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentences to fixed terms sentences, and to reverse the burden of proof on parole boards so they have to demonstrate prisoners pose a risk.
The research for
the Griffin Society by solicitor Sarah Smart provides the first empirical study of women IPP prisoners drawing on interviews with nine women. Smart works for Women in Prison. Each of the prisoners she interviewed had served at least twice her tariff and one had served eleven times her tariff. Despite IPPs, introduced by New Labour under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, being scrapped in 2012, there are still nearly 2,600 prisoners locked up under the old discredited regime.
continued
* https://www.thejusticegap.com/im-afraid-of-being-stuck-here-and-im-afraid-of-getting-out/?fbclid=IwAR300f2pnYLhqcgxB7rPA1JMHFErY5LPgw-a0gbn-MTRrMZu96NPCcYeyl4
*https://mailchi.mp/russellwebster/womenipp?e=20b779e6c8&fbclid=IwAR1e44Jwk0fncoMWrw3Q2YOg9xblXAyxRAXw4z2sYPiHPF1sopwMBXTPCUM
Jez The sentence is abhorrent and the damage its causing is irreversible. In my view the sentence doesn’t discriminate on gender, if you are on it the effects are potentially catastrophic regardless of gender and spread across to friends and family as well
.....................................................................................................
Pages 70 to 72 are about IPPs.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmjust/483/483.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3DcoIlTQ-A8qcn2VTgQyQHCSzxNSuQ2KHc6uT7_4PbFxCLbOhqN-IMw1k
......................................................................................................................
A matter of perspective
Evan P – HMP Lewes
I’ve spent over three years in prison now and have found
that as time passes, my views on the justice system in our country have
slowly started to shift. There are undoubtedly serious problems with
British justice, not least the recent disclosure scandal. The inhumane
IPP Sentence and the stain that we know as “Double Jeopardy”.
............................................................................................................
Making addicts
Harder time, Having been in prison for 4-years, I have come to realise
the natural progression of prison life; that bad prisoners get moved
off the wing, either to the block or other prisons, leaving the quiet,
long-term prisoners in peace.
But it would appear that the governors here are not happy
with this situation, their attitude is to put the troublemakers in with
the quiet model prisoners in the hope that some sense might rub off on
the troublemakers. Forgive my language, but this is total horseshit. All
the bad prisoners do is bully the quiet ones, extort money and cause
mayhem for everyone.
They smoke Spice, set light to their cells, urinate on the
landings, etc. When will the governors realise that all they are doing
is causing grief for prisoners and staff alike? Spice addicts should all
be on a separate wing so that they can be monitored and helped to get
off this evil substance, not helped to buy more. All we seem to do is go
around in moronic circles.
........................................................................................................................
Prisons often lack accessibility for those with disabilities Older and Disabled Prisoners Rory Stewart has no duty of care but and though failing is still paid?
This project seeks to reform inadequate prison healthcare services, advocating for the protection of older and disabled prisoners in England and Wales. Currently, the prison system lacks sufficient staffing and resources necessary to secure prisoners' right to health. By providing free legal advice and support through telephone, mail, and face-to-face outreach clinics, PAS will ensure that the medical and healthcare needs of chronically ill, disabled and older prisoners are rightfully met.
Challenge
People 60 years and older are the fastest growing age demographic in the prison system, yet are often overlooked and underrepresented. This increase creates a need for more specialized, long term healthcare, as 60% of older prisoners report having a chronic illness or disability. PAS regularly sees these conditions ignored, medical appointments cancelled, and treatments delayed, with mental and physical health issues exacerbated. Prisoners' right to health must no longer be neglected.
Solution
Through the legal expertise and intervention of our lawyers, we will advocate for prisoner health to be properly assessed, with basic healthcare services, like seeing a GP or dentist, provided in a timely manner. Prisons often lack accessibility for those with disabilities and fail to provide medical services for older prisoners requiring special care. We aim to support these prisoners who suffer from poor health services by ensuring that auxiliary aids, wheelchair access, and specialized care.
Long-Term Impact
Potential long term impacts include: (1) Creating a safe and healthy environment for all prisoners so they may rehabilitate in prison and after their sentence is served; (2) Maintaining a lifestyle post-conviction that is free from addiction, infection, and disability that may be prevented through reformed Prison Health Services; (3) Improved mental health and physical well-being for all prisoners through shorter hours spent in cells, timely medical appointments, and proper auxiliary aids.Additional DocumentationThis project has provided additional documentation in a PDF file (projdoc.pdf).https://www.globalgiving.org/projects/legal-advice-for-prisoners/?fbclid=IwAR0uBwfz8f5_DUPnr1amJitMcsaZrI6XsSuVnw8LhT80hg7LRuZyoK5PmWs
In-cell phones
It is promising to see that David Gauke and the Ministry
of Justice wish to improve family ties. Their solution to this being a
ten-million-pound expenditure on in-cell telephones. Let’s look at this
closer. Whilst it will mean improved accessibility to a phone, at times
when families are more likely to be home (e.g. after 6pm) call costs in
comparison to prisoner’s wages will mean many prisoners cannot afford to
utilize their in-cell phones.
Particularly in adult prisons where call costs are almost
double that of costs in young-offenders units. Who says age
discrimination doesn’t exist in the prison system? Next, why install
archaic technology/ why not install a fibre optic line and put in up to
date IT. Yes, we all know how panic stricken the public and Neanderthal
prison management are about prisoners accessing the IT. Like it or not
though, in-cell IT across the prison estate will happen sooner rather
than later. Plus, the benefits will outweigh the ill-perceived
negatives. Prisoners held hundreds of miles from family could use Skype
type services instead of visits. Email would all but replace prisoners’
letters, reducing the need of censor’s departments.
Prisoners could access on-line education courses – the
only proven method of reducing re-offending. Internal applications etc.
could be completed online freeing up wing staff’s time. Contact with
probation would be greatly increased and improved, reducing costs to the
public purse. Lastly, aspects of rehabilitation courses could be run
on-line reducing the need for so many prison psychologists, yet another
saving to the public purse. Whilst creating greater accessibility for
prisoners.
So, Mr Gauke if you really do wish to introduce measures
to improve prisons and reduce re-offending, do it properly and install
modern technology. Not only will it help achieve your aims in a superior
manner, it will save the prison system and the public purse millions of pounds each year in the long run.
......................................................................................................................
The plight of women on indeterminate prison sentences (IPPs)
New Griffins Society research examines the impact of women stuck in prison having served more than twice their IPP tariff.
