Sunday, 19 May 2019

IPP Campaigners say being over tariff is causing dire mental health, suicide and self-harm and this is a 'national disgrace'.

‘Completely unsatisfactory’

Labour MP slams IPP sentences, highlighting the case of Manchester man imprisoned aged 17 for bike robbery still in prison 12 years later who has ‘given up’MP for Withington south Manchester Jeff Smith has attacked the iniquity of the now abolished   IPPsentences and has agreed to support the family of Wayne Bell, who received an IPP in March 2007.




“This example highlights that IPPs were completely unsatisfactory”. Bell was just 17 when he assaulted another boy in a park and stole his bike. He had a number of relatively petty previous offences, but the judge decided that for the bike theft he should receive the indeterminate sentence of effectively 99 years, with a tariff, (the period of four years. But 12 years later, Bell is still in prison with little prospect of release any time soon.

The discredited sentence was introduced bys.225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (with effect from 2005) by the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett (above). It was abolished in 2012 by the Coalition government thanks to a European Court ruling that claimed it violated human rights. Blunkett has since expressed “regret” about the impact of the sentence. “I’m to blame for IPP,” he said in an interview in 2017, “And we would do it differently now. If I had my time again, I would have ensured from the beginning that the IPP could only be applied for people with very substantial tariffs.”

The then Justice Secretary Ken Clarke MP (above), who abolished the sentence, once described prisons in England and Wales as “overcrowded slums” – and told the BBC that it was “absurd” to keep prisoners in jail beyond their original terms.

He said the IPP sentence was “a stain” on the justice system – adding that he believed there was a “ludicrous amount of incarceration in this country.”

“It is quite absurd that there are people who might be there for the rest of their lives, in theory, who are serving a sentence which Parliament agreed to get rid of because it hadn’t worked as anybody intended.”

Trapped! –
“We are all hoping, but Wayne has given up”

Wayne Bell was given the now-obsolete type of indefinite sentence, the discredited IPP, for robbery in 2007, stealing Bike). Now 29, he has suffered a mental breakdown and feels “trapped” after being repeatedly turned down for release, his relatives said.

.Mr Bell received a IPP sentence in 2007 after he was arrested for taking a bike from a boy he assaulted in Withington, Manchester. He was told he would serve a minimum sentence of four years for the crime.
Mr Bell’s father, Carl, said his son had gone before the Parole Board every two years but had been denied release for a number of reasons.

His son had been unable to access courses to tackle issues, including anger management, because they were oversubscribed, he said. He said his son had been an “easy target” for other prisoners which had led to him becoming involved in fights and further hampered his release. “We are all hoping, but Wayne has given up,” he said, “He’s 29 years-old and he’s had no life.” Mr Bell said the abolition of IPP sentences in 2012 had come too late for his son and called on the government to release him.

Regret

In 2014, former home secretary David Blunkett expressed “regret” that indeterminate jail terms, brought in while he was in office, have led to “injustices”. The Criminal Justice Act of 2003 introduced Indeterminate Sentencing for Public Protection, or IPP, designed for serious sexual and violent offenders in England and Wales. Mr Blunkett said the Labour government had “got the implementation wrong”.

When it was introduced, the government estimated that IPP would lead to 900 extra offenders entering the prison system. But the measure was applied far more widely and by 2012 – when IPP was scrapped, but not in existing cases – there were more than 6,000 IPP prisoners. IPP prisoners were given tariffs, or minimum sentences, at the end of which the Parole Board assesses whether they are still a danger to the public or ready for release.

Mental health risk

IPP prisoners appear to be at a significantly higher risk of mental health problems than other prisoners, according to the Centre for Mental Health.

In a study it carried out in 2008, it found that one in ten IPP prisoners were seeking psychiatric help in prison, double the rate in the general prison population.

Some 8,711 IPP sentences were dished out between 2005 and 2012, contributing to a huge rise in the prison population. Some were for repeat violent or sexual offenders who posed a continuing danger to the public.

But others, relatively petty offenders like Wayne Bell, were caught in the net – and may never escape it. The average prisoner serves half their sentence. That means Wayne has served the equivalent of a 24-year sentence, longer than many convicted of far more serious crime like murder.

Seven years ago, IPPs were abolished on the back of a European Court ruling that they breached human rights – on the grounds that prisons had failed to provide prisoners access to the rehabilitation courses required to demonstrate to the Parole Board that they were safe to be released. But the abolition wasn’t retrospective, so today, even though more and more are being released there remain almost 2,500 prisoners still locked up on IPP sentences.

Wayne Bell’s case is all the more unusual because he was, in the eyes of the law, still a child when he got his IPP.

Justice Minister Jeremy Wright said the release of prisoners serving indeterminate sentences was a matter for the independent Parole Board, which had to be satisfied that “an offender can be managed safely in the community”.

Ed note: Are lengthy IPPs

helping rehabilitation or just making matters worse?

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

Toothless Parole Board On the IPP Wire – May 2019

To all those who happen to be under a life or IPP sentence, it’s official, the Home Office have again gained control of all of those under such sentences. In fact the oral hearing proceedings are all but a total farce, which are carried out to give an impression that you are being heard by an independent body.

The Parole Board lost its independence after the case of taxi driver Joahn Worboys. The Home Secretary jumped to the tune of the media when reporting the case of Worboys and that was the end of the so-called Parole Board having independence.

When you go before a Parole Board, the Board will smile at you whilst you argue your corner, but you can see that they have decided already.

It is said that the Parole Board have released more IPP prisoners over the last three years than ever before?

That is a really big brag by the Parole Board,

seeing that the Board have been punishing those under such sentences as IPP for years. The Parole Board is appointed by ministers and its ministers who act on the voice of the media… need there be more said about the Parole Board?

Another nail in the IPP coffin

by Symon R – HMP Whatton

Another nail in the IPP coffin, when is this going to end? We have done our time, we have jumped through hoops, ticked every box and been told how bad we are and the damage we have caused our victims and still this witch-hunt goes on.

The IPP was abolished in 2012. The High Court judge stated we will not be forgotten but the reality is we are like a parcel left on a shelf at the Royal Mail – unwanted, just gathering dust and getting old. "Many inmates come to prison for the same offences and get 4 years with a release date – how is that fair to us?

I have had two knockbacks by parole on my 7-year IPP and am now 5 years over. I can’t believe that victims can appeal a decision of release and keep us in longer, yes, we can appeal as well but what is the point?

I believe that we are the victims of the IPP, isn’t it about time our family can sue for damages of stress and anxiety caused by this unlawful incarceration?

Come on Government get this sorted.

How’s that then?

Vincent D – HMP Garth

I am serving an IPP sentence. I was given 3 years and 3 months tariff 6 months before the sentence was quashed by the Courts and deemed inhumane.

"Right, it is now 8-years that I have been locked up, including remand time, how is the government getting away with this?If the sentence is ‘inhumane’ then why do I and thousands of IPP’s still sit rotting away in the system with no hope?

I’ve had three parole hearings (oral) and each time my outside probation recommends I be released into a hostel and that she feels I’ve done all the work and more. I’ve done so many courses – even the same course under a different name and I go for parole in 2018 and I get a knockback. But guess what? You don’t need to do any courses just sit back for the next 13 months, don’t get any nicking’s or IEP’s and if I’m not a risk I should be released.

If I am a risk, I will have more courses to do. We need action taken now.

Trapped!

“We are all hoping, but Wayne has given up”

Wayne Bell was given the now-obsolete type of indefinite sentence, the discredited IPP, for robbery of a bike in 2007. Now 29, he has suffered a mental breakdown and feels “trapped” after being repeatedly turned down for release, his relatives said. The Parole Board said it was handling cases ‘as quickly as possible’. Mr Bell received the Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence in 2007 after he was arrested for taking a bike from a boy he assaulted in Withington, Manchester. He was told he would serve a minimum sentence of four years for the crime. Mr Bell’s father, Carl, said his son had gone before the Parole Board every two years but had been denied release for a number of reasons.

His son had been unable to access courses to tackle issues, because they were oversubscribed, he said. He said his son had been an “easy target” for other prisoners which had led to him becoming involved in fights and further hampered his release. “We are all hoping, but Wayne has given up,” he said, “He’s 29 years-old and he’s had no life.” Mr Bell said the abolition of IPP sentences in 2012 had come too late for his son and called on the government to release him.

Regret

In 2014, former home secretary David Blunkett expressed “regret” that indeterminate jail terms, brought in while he was in office, have led to “injustices”. The Criminal Justice Act of 2003 introduced Indeterminate Sentencing for Public Protection, or IPP, designed for serious sexual and violent offenders in England and Wales. Mr Blunkett said the Labour government had “got the implementation wrong”.

When it was introduced, the government estimated that IPP would lead to 900 extra offenders entering the prison system. But the measure was applied far more widely and by 2012 – when IPP was scrapped, but not in existing cases – there were more than 6,000 IPP prisoners. IPP prisoners were given tariffs, or minimum sentences, at the end of which the Parole Board assesses whether they are still a danger to the public or ready for release.

Mental health risk

IPP prisoners appear to be at a significantly higher risk of mental health problems than other prisoners, according to the Centre for Mental Health.

In a study it carried out in 2008, it found that one in ten IPP prisoners were seeking psychiatric help in prison, double the rate in the general prison population.

Some 8,711 IPP sentences were dished out between 2005 and 2012, contributing to a huge rise in the prison population. Some were those in prison where violent or sexual offenders who posed a continuing danger to the public. But others, relatively petty offenders like Wayne Bell, were caught in the net – and may never escape it.
The average prisoner serves half their sentence. That means Wayne has served the equivalent of a 24-year sentence, longer than many convicted of far more serious crimes.

Seven years ago, IPPs were abolished on the back of a European Court ruling that they breached human rights – on the grounds that prisons had failed to provide prisoners access to the rehabilitation courses required to demonstrate to the Parole Board that they were safe to be released. But the abolition wasn’t retrospective, so today, even though more and more are being released there remain almost 2,500 prisoners still locked up on IPP sentences.

Wayne Bell’s case is all the more unusual because he was, in the eyes of the law, still a child when he got his IPP.

helping rehabilitation or just making matters worse?

https://insidetime.org/on-the-ipp-wire-may-2019/

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

IPP Families Compaign Lobby Group will be meeting the Parole Board 28th August 2019 at 130 pm. Those attending

Katherine Gleeson

Alana Bell

Jermey Owen

Siobhan Ryan

We will be discussing key issues: Traffic Light Pilot Project, Over tariff, Mental Health, Risk Management, Parole Board Hearings, Rehabilitation what it means, Complex cases that should not mean forever, Recall, what has been learned from 2018, being a snapshot. "It is important we are united and that everyone has a say. Other areas of

what would you like us to discusse Email katherinegleeson@aol.com example ......

Should there be a sole independent person visiting prisons to investigate how many people are suffering with mental health and to what extent and to look at unkempt records, appointment cancelations due to poor staffing or external. To look at over medicated prisoners important to make sure families are included in recovery.

Do you feel the parole board has a responsibility for the health and welfare of prisoners? If not who?

Have you been recalled 2018-19 for non-offence violation? When leaving prison, having a learning difference or mental health did you found it difficult to cope with daily life as a result and found rules was not explained to you in a way you could understand?

Have you been effected by mental health as a result of a son daughter having an IPP sentence?

Mental health in prison, was the treatment inconsistent and did you feel you was just pumped up medication all the time was revaluation of your health slow. Did your medication effect your communication such differculties moving forward> that you could no longer defend yourself .What help did you need or like?

Did you make complaint regarding a sentence that was effecting your son or daughters mental health who did you write too over how many years and did you get a reply moreover acted on? If not did your situation get worse? Has your situation resulted in loss?

As a result of a difference such as learning difference dyslexia, dyspraxia ADHD or Autism as well as personality disorder that you needed intermediate to help you go forward but never got one? If officers not trained in your differences effect you moving forward out of the prison? Does seeking help with things such as paper work from other put you at risk of other prisoners and your family because they had your personal information? Do you feel you’re doing a longer sentence because of your difficulties on top of your IPP sentence?

Do you think the queen should pardon IPP prisoners because of the continued failings of 5 ministers and government agency? What is this sentence doing to your family and loved one in prison?Something you want to you want to remind them off big or small, Email early katherinegleeson@aol.com emails or letters will be personally given to Martin Jones parole board. If your dyslexic don’t worry I am too.other issues that not got any better

Risk not changed, failing Parole Hearings, Rehabilitation what it means, Recall.........................

NO Justifiable reason

But realy there is no justifiable reason why Wayne and other young men and woman given an IPP sentence are i still being detained.

Indeed I would challenge any crown court judge to rule that he is being lawfully detained.

Sadly the board that rule on continued detention are not even real judges in my opinion.

And cant be aware of the injustice.

It makes me very angry and sad that we do not have a bill of rights integrated into law, if we did it would be highly likely that a competent barrister would be more willing to step up to the bar and fight for this wayne and others right to fair justice.

He is a victim of injustice and I would recommend writing to the Prisoners advice Service, Howard League for Penal reform and the Prison Reform Charity to see if they can source a human rights barrister willing to attack this injustice from any angle they deem would be effective. It’s damaging not just the prisoner but his family as well and it needs attacking with vigour and commitment.

So, by all means stuff the facts and relevant cases under nose of those. He cannot do anything about but those may have an attack of conscience when they leave there post, or maybe if they are not too worried about losing there job they may spell out the injustice to there bosses and to those MOJ.
But Know the Paroleboard are indepedent we hope the Moj are no longer paying the parole boards wages, moreover be least effective incase they lose there job. I hope to see a true change. And Moj that belives in justice for all.

Mental health is a massive problem in prison, far bigger than the government will want to reveal, that’s why they have steered clear of doing any credible research into it. when any prisoner first arrives in prison it should be a default position to categorise them as a person who has gone through a traumatic experience. Firstly they have been at the very least arrested; this experience is traumatic in its self. The arrest, the police station experience, court, being remanded or worse if they have gone through a trial, whether guilty or not the damage this can do is significant. That’s why they need to be supported from day one.

Now a trial will be probably the most traumatic experience anyone is likely to go through and that can leave someone extremely vulnerable and emotionally compromised afterwards. If that’s not traumatic enough imagine having to go through a trial every twelve to eighteen months.

That is exactly what an IPP prisoner is having to endure and I would hammer this point home vigorously. The parole process is extremely traumatic; it’s an emotional roller coaster just like a trial.

""Hopes frequently dashed, it’s a process that damages them every time their hopes are destroyed. A process which destroys not just the prisoners hopes but those of their families too"".

There are two clear aspects to this unacceptable situation.

First is the failure of the state to deal fairly and in the interest of rehabilitation to advance these prisoners through the criminal justice system and treat them with respect.

The second is the failure of the NHS to provide the same level of healthcare to prisoners as they would expect to receive in the community. The prisoner especially needs this help both before and after a parole board decision. Regardless of the conclusion they will need emotional support, if they have previously self harmed this period is a likely catalyst for it occurring again and it can happen whether the decision for release is granted or not. If granted other fears can quickly creep in.

The third Lets just think about that statement. The Parole Board make the ultimate decision on the perceived risk if an IPP is safe to be released yet they cannot say how that perceived risk can be reduced? So they cannot set any benchmark. idea, criteria to be achieved in order to satisfy themselves .They have done all the courses. So when they are saying there is a perceived risk when they don't release a prisoner then shouldn't they be the ones who stipulate what the perceived risk is and then direct how the perceived risk is reduced if they have the ultimate decision regards risk.
Absolute nonsense "If the Parole Board don't direct release then they have no say or criteria on what they believe will satisfy themselves to reduce the perceived risk .If they are the ones accountable for the assessment of a perceived risk to be released then they should be the ultimate ones to have the specific criteria on reducing the risk.

Instead it is left for the prisoner to continue to languish in prison with Offender Management Supervisors or Managers to come up with random and inappropriate suggestions then being passed to pillar to post with no actual benchmark set by the Parole Board.

This definitely has to be addressed! Does the Parole Board actually have any idea on how such perceived risk can be reduced in the reality of prison life?

If they are the ones who state they are not safe to be released they should be the ones to state on what they has to achieve to be released. An analogy could be a teacher ultimately responsible for passing an exam saying "I can't pass your exam but I won't tell you what to do or what the criteria is to pass your exam" and then when you come back "I haven't passed your exam again because what you did, didn't meet the criteria" when there was no idea what the criteria was in the first place!

In my view the sentence itself causes significant mental harm which is something the government refuses to accept.

However there is a clear cases that someone’s mental health has deteriorated to such an extremely poor level, like the case mention of Wayne Bell and this we must pursue as others

Pursue a case against the MOJ for human rights violations.

Press influence and legal action. Although the press have responded positively to some degree on the plight of IPPs, the sentence its self appears too difficult for the lay person to fully grasp and that’s the biggest problem It’s also difficult to put the big picture across when the Press always want to know what a person has been initially convicted of. This should no longer be relevant once passed the prisoner’s minimum term and if they have served a sentence equivalent to or more than what they would have received for the conviction post IPP then the prisoner should no longer be referred to as an offender but should clearly be labelled a victim.

The NHS also has a duty to provide the same level of care to someone whether they are in prison or not and this is another area that the solicitor can look at. Legal action sadly is the only avenue to pursue to get things improved as the MOJ simply clam up and deny unless they are aware that legal action is being pursued.

I know that the Prisoners Advice Service do represent people when they can see that the prisoner is not receiving the support they should get. Legal expenses under mental health needing a intermediary because you’re unable to defend yourself. Mental health longer than a year becomes a disability of course limited and not all cases can realistically be pursued.

Making connections with these prisoner services would be a good avenue to pursue for the IPP families because we can show the challenges that IPP prisoners and their families are facing and unite with them in areas that we agree. In the area of Mental Harm I am confident that all the fore mentioned groups would support us on our claim that IPP/DPP prisoners suffer the worst form of mental harm because of the very nature of the sentence.

Pursue the prison reform trust/Howard League and the prisoner advice service in seeking legal representation to pursue a case against the MOJ for human rights violations.

Data Protection Regulations 2018 we will be requesting a Subject Access Request of which he has the following rights to challenge any reports written up about him and I suggest that others should do the same as there is the following rights :

The data subject’s rights to rectification or erasure of their personal data and restriction of, or objection to, it’s processing.
The data subject’s right to complain to the supervisory authority (ICO).
Information about the source of the data, if not directly from the data subject.
Whether the personal data will be subject to automated processing, including profiling.

Information regards this can be found on the following link:

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/individual-rights/right-of-access/

Also it is stated that

When processed for criminal law enforcement purposes, including the execution of criminal penalties:

personal data based on facts must, so far as possible, be distinguished from personal data based on personal assessments (and lets face it a lot of Probation reports are just opinions and not actually facts which should be challenged) ;
A clear distinction must, where relevant and as far as possible be made between personal data relating to persons suspected of having committed or being about to commit a criminal offence; persons convicted of a criminal offence; persons who are or may be victims of a criminal offence and witness or other persons with information about offences;
All reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that personal data which is inaccurate, incomplete or no longer up to date is not transmitted or made available for criminal law enforcement purposes. If after it has been transmitted it emerges that the data was incorrect or that the transmission was unlawful, the recipient must be notified without delay.

Source https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/psipso/psi-2018/psi-03-2016-dpa-foi-eir.pdf

Last years meeting 28th June 2018,

IPP Prisoner Families Group Meeting

28^th June 2018

Attendees:

Martin Jones, Parole Board Chief Executive

Faith Geary, Director of Business Development and Improvement

Marianne Ede, Member Development and Practice Katherine Gleeson, IPP

Ann Horton, IPP
Michael Ford, IPP

The IPP families group raised several points, the main thoughts are summarised below.

Main points raised:

•       There is concern that issues are caused by a prisoner’s immigration status.

Parole Board comment:

-
The Home Office have the power to deport a person without the need for the Parole Board’s involvement. It is not clear whether / how often this power is utilised. In any case, the Parole Board must decide whether, or not, a prisoner is safe to be released. When making such decisions the Board’s Members must not be caught up in the prisoner’s immigration status, it is a strict question of risk.

•       The system (prisons, probation, etc.) protects itself. For example, if the prison is delayed in recommending a course which could have been recommended earlier or if a new Probation Officer is brought into the case late, this is just accepted by the Parole Board. It is the prisoner who pays the price (for example, through a delayed hearing).

•       It was asked if the Parole Board have the power to tell prisons what to do (in the context of avoiding delay).

Parole Board comment:

-          One of the frustrations the Parole Board experiences is directing reports which are not provided on time. The Parole Board is alert to this issue and is in the process of looking at (and pressing for) possible sanctions, not only if directed reports and information are not received on time but also the non-attendance of oral hearing witnesses. In addition to this, the Parole Board are considering, where possible, when case has its initial review by the MCA Member, to direct a physical date as opposed to specifying the number of weeks the reports must be received before the hearing. This may help to ensure that directed reports are received on time.

-          Although Dossiers and decisions of the Parole Board often refer to courses, Members when making their decisions do consider wider information. The Parole Board undertakes a fair and impartial assessment; however, the Board appreciates that the way in which the Members conducts their decision making needs to be understandable to the public. To assist with this, there is a Parole

Board Member lead group which is reviewing the approach to the decision making

about risk (‘RADAR’) to ensure a consistent approach which can be explained in simple terms.

-          The Parole Board is reflective in its practices and to assist with its learning is looking at the practices of international Parole Boards as a useful comparison.

-          The Parole Board appreciates the difficulties in the public perception around the release of offenders. Most of those going through the parole process have been convicted of serious violent / sexual offences. It needs to, however, be acknowledged that the rate of reoffending after a Parole Board decision to release is extremely low.

-          Parole Board Members make judgement calls based on the evidence. There will never be scientific certainty as to whether, or not, a prisoner will reoffend.

-          The Parole Board is still asking Members to go out and make rational decisions based on the evidence. The Parole Board supports its Members in making difficult decisions and will continue to do so.

-          Risk posed by a prisoner cannot be eliminated but can be managed effectively in the community.

-          The Parole Board has welcomed changes to the rules around transparency of Parole Board decisions. Now families can request summaries of decisions made by the Parole Board. This will help to provide clarity as to how the Parole Board arrived at its decision.

-          The Parole Board has been working on increasing the information available to the public around the parole process, including videos which now feature on the Parole Board’s websites and work with the national prison radio.

•       Concern around ‘IPP trauma’. Prisoners can have several negative decisions, this can end up with some giving up on the idea of parole. In addition, some have complex needs (such as ADHD) and have anxiety about opening up about their learning difficulties for fear that it will be perceived as a risk. Prisons should have the same regime as Warren Hill. What can the Parole Board do to help IPP’s?

•       It is felt that a logical parallel should be drawn between schools and prisons.

Parole Board comment:

-          HMP Warren Hill is a real success. HMPPS have found two prisons – one in the West and one in the North who can roll out a similar regime. The Parole Board is very supportive of this.

-          It is not within the remit of the Parole Board to advise or make suggestions on the sentence planning of offenders, this includes suggesting courses or work which the offender can undertake on risk reduction.

-          The Parole Board is working on improving public awareness and openness around the parole process. People can go on to lead law abiding lives after committing serious offences. In addition, just because something goes wrong in the community does not necessarily mean that the Parole Board’s decision is wrong. This message how not yet got across.

•       There is a concern that Probation have too many powers in the decision to recall.

Parole Board comment:

-          The Parole Board have written to MOJ ministers regarding sensible options for IPP reforms, such as changing recall arrangements and introducing a time cap (fixed period after recall).

-          The Parole Board appreciates that there are natural justice questions for those who have short tariffs, such as two years.

2

-          From December 2016, those serving IPP sentences can be (and have been) released on the papers by the Parole Board without the need for an oral hearing.

•       Can the Parole Board take into account the fact that IPP is no longer a sentencing option? It is difficult for some prisoners who are subject to an IPP to see other prisoners come and go from prison who are post-2012 but were convicted of a similar offence.

Parole Board comment:

-          The Parole Board is not allowed to take into account the fact the IPP sentences no longer exist as a sentencing option for the court. However, over the last few years the Parole Board has been highlighting the discrepancies between those who received an IPP sentence and those who are serving determinate sentences.

•       There needs to be reasonable adjustments in prisons to help prisoners with their parole paperwork. Some prisoners seek advice from other prisoners when intermediaries should be involved.

Parole Board comment:

-          The Parole Board can discuss this with the HMPPS to help prisoners get access to the right people so that they can understand their parole dossier.

•       What are complex cases?

Parole Board comment:

- A particular offence, such as a sexual offence should not automatically be classified as complex, simply because of its nature. A complex case may, for example, have a mental health element to it or may be complex based on the individual facts of the case.

The Parole Board would like to thank Katherine, Michael and Ann for taking time out to attend its offices on 28^th June 2018.
................................................................................................................

""Prison ministers left the prison system on its kneess.....and got away with it.

prison Minsthers left the priaon systheme on it knees ..... and got away with itRory Stewart ‘given get out of jail free card’ on prison pledge, say campaigners

‘You forge a good working relationship with these ministers and you start to make progress. But then all of a sudden, just as you’re moving forward, they get replaced or promoted,’ says prison officers’ union chief

The man who never answered you he never learned he works for the people.

Rory Stewart‘s removal from his role as prisons minister has “given him a get out of jail free card” on his pledge to improve the prison system, justice campaigners have claimed.

A cabinet reshuffle sparked by the firing of defence secretary Gavin Williamson over a national security leak saw Theresa May appoint Mr Stewart as secretary for international development – widely seen as a promotion.

As prisons minister, a role he served in from January 2018, he vowed to resign if he failed to reduce the levels of violence and drug use in jails selected for the 10 Prisons Project, a £10m campaign announced in August 2018 to tackle “acute” issues in 10 of the most challenging jails.

We’ll tell you what’s true. You can form your own view.

Criminologists and prison officers said it marked a continuation of the “ministerial merry-go-round” at the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) which was “destabilising” for the sector.

Campaigners said Mr Stewart had forged a good relationship with them and made “positive” pledges, but these now risked “disappearing into a black hole”.

A MoJ spokesperson told The Independent that progress on the 10 Prisons Project would continue regardless of who replaced Mr Stewart.

But campaigners worried that it would suffer the same fate as the “six reform prisons” project, which Michael Gove set up as justice secretary but was shelved after he was sacked in 2016.

Mark Fairhurst, national chairman of the Prison Officers’ Association (POA), said: “Rory Stewart has been given a get out of jail free card.”

He added: “The pledges [Mr Stewart] made and the way he engaged with us and listened to us were positive, but the question is what happens now?

“This is the problem. You forge a good working relationship with these ministers, and you start to make progress, because certainly the things he’s implemented are things that we’ve been calling for years. But then all of a sudden, just as you’re moving forward, they get replaced or promoted.

“So then you’ve got to do the same thing with somebody different, and you can only hope that they have the same engagement with the trade unions, respect what we say and act upon what we say like he’s done. Unfortunately this new prisons minister, whoever he or she may be, will not have time to settle in because this is an emergency – we are still in crisis.

Safety is a massive issue. We’re getting staff with their throats slashed and getting their heads stamped on. along with deaths”

Mr Fairhurst said that while Mr Stewart was making progress, the 10 Prison Project was not on track to succeed, and that his ministerial move would allow him to “get out of jail free” on the pledges.

“We all know that it will fail,” he added. “I think people in power knew what was coming and needed to protect him.”

Stirling University criminologist Dr Hannah Graham said: “The ministerial merry-go-round in justice in recent years is destabilising. It hasn’t offered probation, courts and prisons practitioners the consistent stability and support they need. At a time when painfully high numbers of people are dying on probation and in prisons, accountable and morally courageous ministerial leadership is so very needed.”

“safe to assume” that his replacement would not commit to resigning if the 10 Prison Project doesn’t deliver.

“Indeed, the 10 may well disappear into the same black hole as the ‘six reform prisons’ that Michael Gove set up as justice secretary before moving on,” he added.

Wayne Bell jailed in 207 for stealing a bike and was given 99 years IPP sentence. and he is still in prison now 29 and has suffered a mental break down. "trapped" after being unable to secure a release, his relatives said. The parole board told bbc new that there handling cases a quickly as possible so are people like Wayne and others so over tariff it because of the failing of the parole board and Moj.

Speaking to Wayne family he is not eating unable to walk since he is so weak. Wayne told his family he does not want to live any more. When Wayne entered prison for the first time he was told he would serve a medium sentence of 4 years. The IPP sentence was not implicated correctly government failed to apply the courses so that IPP prisoners with minor risk in comparison to other prisoners could prove to parole board they could be released into the community. Battle was not just the courses, lack of parole board, poor reports and records kept on the health of prisoners. poor staffing, corrupted staff who brought in drugs, violence, poor safety because lack of monitoring and staff, the use of trainee phycologist was all going against the prisoner with little reward for what you did in records being a snap shot. Despite media attention on the death toll being higher

In the 12 months to March 2019, there were 317 deaths in prison

i reciaved an email from the family they said no Wayne did not have any mental illnesses before he started the sentence it was a case of the IPP sentence finally broke him to the point were he niether wants to stay in prison nor wants to get out hes on 24 hr watch he doesnt want to live.

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

A unit has been created to tackle corruption among prison and probation staff in England and Wales.

The Counter Corruption Unit will be made up of 29 personnel covering a national team and five regional teams.

The taskforce, which began work earlier this month, will pursue those suspected of corruption - such as those who smuggle drugs into jails or have affairs with inmates.

Justice Secretary David Gauke told Sky News: "We do think it's a very all number of officers but even a small number of prison officers can cause very significant damage to security within a prison, can allow significant amount of contraband to get in, and can undermine trust in the prison services.

"So although we are talking about a small minority, that small minority can cause significant harm and damage and that's why we have to take the situation seriously."

In 2017/18, there were 13,119 incidents where drugs were found in prisons in England and Wales - an increase of 23% compared with the previous 12 months.

Mobile phone finds also went up by 15% to 10,643.

Published 25 April 2019 Safety in Custody Statistics, England and Wales: Deaths in Prison Custody to March 2019 Assaults and Self-harm to December 2018.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/797074/safety-custody-bulletin-q4-2018.pd

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

Mental Health Agrevated by failings in the crimal justice system

Wayne Bell story continued

He had no mental health before entering prison but he will need care for the rest of his life 24 hours day as a result of what the setence has done to hid mental health

Wayne has a mental problem because of the harm the IPP sentence has caused him there is no denying that. A person can’t be denied parole simply because he’s ill, but his health is said to be dire and hes malnourished and cant walk because he is so ill . He is unlikely to get through the process parole.

His mental health was not external to the sentence It is the sentence that caused it therefore the government need to stand to the mark and say enough is enough and we need to be clear with this it does not help rehabilitation this is just a way to punish someone indefinitely and reduce them down to skin and bone, it is just appalling it’s taken so long and Wayne needs to be released right away.

"""I would stress the point how does the offence Now warrant even being brought up at the end of the day he has served his minimum tariff over and over again and his mental health is the thing that’s suffered and the damaged it has caused to him and you the family is just well beyond any form of perceived risk."""

it makes no sense at all how can you keeping someone locked up for perceived risk for this length of time from when he was17 years of age and now he is 26 how can this be justifiable in a court room, I really, really can’t see it and it makes no sense.

His case was brought up in parliament last week you the family are doing everything to resolve this but it’s not a case of doing right thing for this lad.

write to the prison advice services the Howard league for penal reform and the prison reform charity they all need to be contacted in writing to the CEO each and every one of them to say look when are you going to stand up and support the people it’s in the interest of the public pretention to get these people rehabilitated and get them out into the community. Keeping them inside is just departmental to that all it’s doing is allowing the government to push people side and show little respect at all for the foundation of our society based on freedom and determination.

The injustices of being over tariff causes mental health ,we need to be clear with this it does not help rehabilitation this is just a way to punish someone indefinitely and reduce them down to skin and bone. like Wayne given a four years sentence aged 17 and he is 26 i call for him to be rereleasedor givem a parden this is a disgrace.

I looked meaning of

rehabilitations (plural noun)

the action of restoring someone to health or normal life through training and therapy after imprisonment, addiction, or illness.

John Kinloch died at Hmp Kinloch reported was concerns with safety of the prison,s as a whole.

Mr Kinloch care received was not equivalent to that which he could have expected to receive in the community. There were indications from the end of November 2017 that he was becoming increasingly unwell and a doctor found him to be malnourished. The doctor referred Mr Kinloch for investigations but he was not monitored by nurses in the meantime and was not seen by the duty response nurse on 12 December despite a request from an officer. Mr Kinloch was eventually sent to hospital on 27 December when found collapsed in his cell. But if the ombudsmen having caring out invitations in safety why have we so many deaths over 12 months to March 2019, there were 317 deaths in prison and the previous years too?

Annabell Landsberg mother of three death at the care of HMP Peterborough prison.

critically ill

Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/05/mum-died-prison-staff-thought-play-acting-illness-9119825/?ito=cbshare
Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/

she was also critically ill suffering multiple organ failure and subjected to shocking treatment. March 22nd 2019.when examined the next day the 45-year-old was found to be seriously unwell and later died in hospital. An inquest jury has found a series of failings contributed to her death. Type 2 diabetes

Jurors in Huntingdon concluded there were failings on the part of the prison, healthcare staff, GPs and custody officers. A nurse attended Ms Landsberg three times, on the final occasion telling her to "stop messing around" because they though she was flaying around and then threw some water on her to provoke a reaction.

"Her sister will not come back but no other family should have to go through this. "Prisoners should be properly supported and looked after."In a narrative conclusion, the jury found a lack of awareness of her diabetic status as a result of "inadequate checks", repeated failings to recognise the severity of the situation for so long and a failure to provide any medical observations , had contributed to her death.

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

Independent

Gill aged 25 died Hmm Salford after shortly after complaining that prison staff too her inhaler away in April last year though she suffered severe asthma

prison do not have anough staff to protect imates from death sucide and selfharm and camapainers say it a natunal degrace"

prisoner " do not have enough staff to protect inmates from suicide and self-harm the independent report

"Campaigners say prison suicide and self-harm rates are a 'national disgrace' The Government has been hesitant to act' ( iStock )

Prisons do not have enough resources to protect vulnerable inmates from suicide and self-harm, a prison governor has warned.issued the warning at the inquest of inmate Jake Foxall who died by suicide in November. The 19-year-old was jailed for theft. The jury at Leicester coroner's court was told of his mental health - self-harm and the prison was aware of this, however documents relating to his mental health had not been properly reviewed and appropriate procedures were subsequently not in place to support him.were also told he had experienced bullying inside the jail but the prison had failed to provide adequate support.

""Questioned about staffing levels in the prison, Ms Clarke told the jury a “lack of resources from the Ministry of Justice prevented [her] staff from being able to adequately protect prisoners at risk of suicide and self-harm.”
Frances Crook, Chief Executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: “It is horrific that a prison governor has to admit she cannot help those who have mental health even keep people alive because she does not have the staff.

“But, the key question never asked at an inquest when someone in prison takes their own life, is, why were they there in the first place? Why was a troubled teenager sent to prison for theft?”

Deborah Coles, Director of charity INQUEST which campaigns on deaths in custody said: “The situation at Glen Parva is a national disgrace and exemplifies a prison service in crisis. This month, INQUEST has supported two families through inquests into the deaths of their young sons, who died within 8 months of each other at HMP/YOI Glen Parva.

Both inquests have concluded that systemic failures to address mental health and bullying ensure family contact and prevent self-harming by these first time prisoners played a significant role in their deaths."

“Safety in prisons is fundamental to the proper functioning of our justice system and a vital part of our reform plans.”

Similarly, the number of recorded incidents of prisoners cutting themselves has risen from prisons past breaking point and creating an environment of chaos and violence.

2018 -19 figures ,,,,. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/797074/safety-custody-bulletin-q4-2018.pd

Buzz feed reports Exclusive: Just 6,800 of 25,000 prison officers in England and Wales have had the latest suicide and self-harm training, potentially putting prisoners' lives at risk says buzz feed. The delay in rolling it programmes.

just like many delays of prisoners being over tariff!!

The Introduction to Suicide and Self-Harm Prevention course was meant to be rolled out in all prisons from April 2017 but the latest figures show that by January 2018, only 27% had completed it.

Of 25,175 operational prison service staff, just 6,800 had fully completed the new training. Almost half of all staff had not even started the training, with only 14,300 having completed at least one module.

The figures were given to Labour's shadow justice secretary, Richard Burgon, after he asked the justice secretary, David Gauke, for them in a written question.

Richard Burgon told BuzzFeed News: “These figures are deeply concerning. Until all prisoner-facing staff, be they from the public or private sector, have had this training then lives are unnecessarily being put at risk.

“Violence and self-harm is at record levels in our prisons, with too many people being held in fundamentally unsafe conditions. Faced with this crisis, Poor support for mental health the government should be taking emergency action to tackle the epidemic of self-harm and suicide.”

The situation comes as prisons face a mental health crisis. Self-harm reached a record high of 42,837 incidents in the year to September 2017, official figures show, an increase of 12% in a year. The number of suicides fell annually to 70 in 2017, but was still 20% higher than in 2010.

Juliet Lyon there is nothing acceptable about a system where suicide prevention is only a priority in a crisis, where proven safer custody measures are dismantled and then reinstated, and where justice secretaries and prisons ministers come and go without providing the consistent, authoritative, and moral leadership needed to protect lives.

"Preventing suicide and self-harm in prison must be, and must remain, a top priority. Only by increasing ministerial accountability, ensuring humane treatment and decent conditions for everyone,

"prisoners and staff, putting a stop to the courts sending mental ill to prison’ or use of prison as a so-called place of safety for people who are mentally ill.

Staff shortages in prisons make it harder than ever to improve prisoners’ mental health and the conditions for inmates.

frances Cook Staff shortages in prisons make it harder than ever to improve prisoners’ mental health and the conditions for inmates.

Ultimately, much bolder action is required to make prisons safer. Decisive steps to reduce the number of people behind bars would save lives, protect staff.

A Prison Service spokesperson said in a statement: “Over 14,300 staff have already received new suicide and self-harm reduction training, in addition to the safer custody training already provided across the estate.” However, when questioned further by BuzzFeed News the service conceded that this figure was for those who had started the training, and that just 6,800 had finished it.

“Ministers have been clear that levels of suicide and self-harm are too high and we are urgently looking at what more can be done to reduce those figures as quickly as possible.”

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

10 things you didn't know?

On Thursday 25 October 2018, the Ministry of Justice published no fewer than nine statistical bulletins. Amongst them, was the Offender Management Statistics Bulletin which covers the prison population until 30 September and data from the rest of the system up to 30 June 2018.
Here are the ten trends that I found interesting:

1: Prison population down

After being relatively stable for the past five years, the prison population has fallen in 2018/ down by 3% to 83,005. There was a big fall in the number of first receptions (people who went to prison for the first time). There were 19,330 sent to prison for the first time in the last quarter, 9% down on the same quarter last year.

2: But adjudications up

However, despite having fewer prisoners, there were 3% more adjudications in the last quarter compared to the same period in the previous year, a total of 48,793 of which 5,584 resulted in additional days being added to prisoners’ sentences.

3: Probation caseload stable

The number of offenders on probation at the end of June 2018 (261,196) was stable (less than 1% decrease) compared to the same point in the previous year.

4: But recalls up

5,999 offenders recalled to prison in the latest quarter; an 11% increase on the same quarter in 2017.

5: More sex offenders in prison

The rise in the long determinate sentenced population is in line with the increasing number of sentenced sex offenders. As at 30 September 2018 there were 13,535 prisoners serving sentences for sexual offences, which represented 19% of the sentenced prison population.

http://www.russellwebster.com/trends18/?utm_source=ReviveOldPost&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ReviveOldPost

6: Violent offenders in prison

One in every four (26%) sentenced prisoners is in prison for a violence against the person offence. This proportion has remained stable for the past 12 months. The number of those sentenced to a ‘Possession of Weapons’ offence increased by 14% (to 2,842) compared to the same time last year. This substantial increase can be attributed to a range of factors, including more targeted police operations against knife crime. However this offence group only accounts for 4% of the sentenced prison population.

7: Extended Determinate Sentences

EDSs (the replacement to IPPs, with a fixed release date but a requirement to serve at least two thirds of the sentence inside and extended licence periods on release) were made available for courts to impose from 13 April 2015 and on 30 September 2018, 4,896 prisoners were serving such sentences; a 4% increase compared to the previous quarter and a 21% increase compared to the same time last year.

8: Foreign National Offenders

There were 9,047 (1,706 remand, 6,642 sentenced and 699 non-criminal) foreign nationals held in custody and HMPPS-operated Immigration Removal Centres (IRCs) as at 30 September 2018; representing 11% of the total prison population. The number of FNOs in the prison (and HMPPS IRC) population has decreased by 9% compared to 30 September 2017. The most common nationalities after British Nationals in prisons are Polish (9% of the FNO prison population), Albanian (8%), Irish (8%), Romanian (8%) and Jamaican (5%).

9: Home Detention Curfew

3,836 offenders were released on HDC during the latest quarter. The number of HDC releases increased by 69% compared to the same quarter in 2017.

10: Releases on Temporary Licence

There were 91,952 incidences of ROTL during the quarter ending June 2018, which is a 7% increase on the same quarter last year. Compared to the quarter ending June 2017, the number of ROTL incidences increased by 18% for females (to 8,141) and increased by 6% for males (to 83,811). The number of individuals given at least one incidence of ROTL between April and June 2018 was 4,185, which represents a 4% increase from the same period in 2017.

Two former officers said staffing levels at Maghaberry made it impossible for them to protect vulnerable inmates

some prisoners had serious mental and physical health problems and "should not be in prison"."We had a prisoner who had the mental age of a young child, he was in his late 20s, but he would watch Power Rangers on repeat in his cell," Gemma said."He didn't know to go for exercise or food or to clean himself."He needed a full-time carer, so we actually had to ask other prisoners to try and help him because we just couldn't provide that level of care to one prisoner when there were 29 other men there.
Gemma worked at the prison when there was a number of suicides but claimed a lack of staff meant the correct care could not be given to prisoners who were suicidal or self harming.She also raised concerns about the amount of time prisoners were kept locked in their cells - claiming that it could sometimes be 23 hours a day for prisoners who did not work or undertake education.Gemma said she raised staff issues with the then minister for justice, , in December 2016 .Last year, the governor of Maghaberry Prison told BBC News NI his job would be much easier if Northern Ireland had a dedicated medical facility to treat inmates at risk.

The following year, a report revealed staff watched but failed to intervene , Sean Lynch, blinded himself. Follow-up inspections in the last two years have indicated some "fragile" progress but concern remains about vulnerable prisoners.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43893729

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

ECHR: indefinite prison sentences breach human rights

UK prison sentences for unspecified periods are a breach of human rights guaranteeing liberty and security, the European Court of Human Rights finds.3,500 of the 6,000 IPP prisoners have already served time beyond their expected release date with no idea when they will be freed.Under UK law – since modified by Parliament – prisoners with sentences deemed “indeterminate imprisonment for public protection” (IPP) had to complete courses such as anger management before release to show they were no longer a threat to society. But because of the lack of courses, many IPP prisoners in England and Wales were held longer than necessary resultingbeing overtariff no fault of there own number are to years over there setence if not more like Wayne Bell age 17 4years setence and in still there 26 years later for robbing a bike and is now mental ill and now of sucide watch.

The European judges said in their judgment, adding that it was not the fault of prisoners who could not complete courses that were not available."European judges said.“It is clear that the delays were the result of a lack of resources,”

John Podmore, former governor of HMP Brixton, told the Guardian newspaper that the situation horrified him.The inadequate resources “appeared to be the consequence of the introduction of draconian measures for indeterminate detention without the necessary planning and without realistic consideration of the impact of the measures”, the judges found.

Catch 22

The European case was brought by three UK criminals who complained to Strasbourg that their parole boards would not release them because they had not taken rehabilitation courses that were not available.

The Parole boards argued they could not properly assess whether the men were no longer a danger because they had not completed the rehabilitation courses.

As a result, IPP prisoners were forced to remain in jail, on waiting lists, until the rehabilitation courses were offered.though they took the courses they still was held?

Brett James, was imprisoned for two years for unlawful wounding with intent and had completed all of the courses available to him in prison. Despite this the board would not release him because Mr James had not completed the courses that were not offered.“The length of the delays in the applicants’ cases was considerable they are simply left in local prisonswith nodate however the parole last year said they all would be relased by 2020 can they keep there worldafter they know whats these men and woman have gone through living without hope.

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

Howard League

We received some good news this morning: the probation service is to be reunified and run by the public sector.

This is a huge step forward, and it comes after years of campaigning by the Howard League and other organisations....

We have lobbied ministers; briefed MPs and peers; engaged with probation staff; promoted research and best practice; and, through the vital work of our legal team, supported young people who have been let down by the failures of the current part-privatised system. None of this would have been possible without the support of our members.

And our work is not done.

The devil still lurks within the detail. Probation will only keep the public safe and help people turn their lives around if it is integrated with housing, health and other such services, and promotes high professional standards at all levels.

With your support, we will continue to hold decision-makers to account and keep making the case for and fewer people in prison.

Thank you.

Frances Crook

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

Learning difficulties & disabilities in the justice system.The negative impact of ignoring LDDs

The negative impact of having an LDD may mean that inside the prison gates, people may not understand instructions given which could lead to frustration behaviours. Through the gate, that some offenders may not be able to use public transport to get to meetings or community payback. They may miss appointments due to not being able to plan. They may react badly to a new situation or they may not fully understand what they must do to adhere to their community order. If those working within the CJS knew that the person had these barriers, practical adjustments and strategies could be put in place to support the person in achieving their outcomes.

The need for whole person-centred screening and guidance for those working with offenders

The systems in place may preclude appropriate screening or assessments being made:

Paper- based systems may not be accessible for those who cannot read the questions, e.g. with low levels of literacy or for the 13% of people in the prison population where English is a second language (but there may not be a means of assessing their needs in their home language resulting in limited or little information about their prior educational experiences).

Questions relating to the ‘other’ factors may not be asked concurrently so conclusions may be biased by the data collected.

A lack of confidence and training by the non-specialist LDD staff to have a conversation with the offender if identified as having an LDD. There can also be a lack of knowledge to know what to do and how to provide support for the offender or make reasonable, practical adjustments

A lack of tools in place to assist may prevent the process of screening happening. Or the tools may take too much time or be too confusing to administer. Therefore, missing key information on the rehabilitation barriers the offender may have.

Lack of pathways for onward referral- there may not be a system in place to know what to do if someone is identified with ADHD or Dyspraxia traits or how to make reasonable adjustments.

The negative impact of ignoring LDDs

The negative impact of having an LDD may mean that inside the prison gates, people may not understand instructions given which could lead to frustration and negative/violent behaviours. Through the gate, that some offenders may not be able to use public transport to get to meetings or community payback. They may miss appointments due to not being able to plan. They may react badly to a new situation or they may not fully understand what they must do to adhere to their community order. If those working within the CJS knew that the person had these barriers, practical adjustments and strategies could be put in place to support the person in achieving their outcomes.

The need for whole person-centred screening and guidance for those working with offenders

The systems in place may preclude appropriate screening or assessments being made:

Questions relating to the ‘other’ factors may not be asked concurrently so conclusions may be biased by the data collected.

Lack of pathways for onward referral- there may not be a system in place to know what to do if someone is identified with ADHD or Dyspraxia traits or how to make reasonable adjustments.

The benefits of screening offenders- using technology to help

The reality is that even though around 1 in 3 offenders may have an LDD there is a need to understand all barriers and strengths to support their rehabilitation and move towards developing their skills and gaining meaningful employment.
This requires a whole person approach- therefore screening in all areas so as not to miss key information about the person that is needed to support conversations, to prepare reports, to plan their intervention or understand why they are not adhering to, for example, Prison or Probation rules.
One tool that is currently used with offenders in custody and through the gate across the UK is the Do-IT Profiler system which provides:

A whole person approach to identifying the strengths and challenges for the offender through a modular based system completed online.

Quick, consistent screening for LDD traits and provides assessment tools and resources relating to literacy, numeracy, wellbeing and training for work skills.

The integration and analysis of the data through the management information platform which provides instant person-centred feedback for the individual, as well as guidance for staff and reports.

The use of such a system could benefit offenders by providing:

Those working with offenders training and guidance on how to recognise someone has a LDD and the means to make practical adjustments to help that person whilst in custody, though the gate and on community orders.

A system that is accessible for all, both staff and offenders, e.g. built in coloured overlays and voiced questions and answers, written material available in different formats, and easy read materials as options.

Consistent, systematic and time efficient approaches using evidence- based tools that screen and capture information on the strengths and barriers of the offender, therefore providing more information to support the offender in achieving their outcomes.

1 in 8 of employees have an LDD, therefore accessibility for staff needs to be considered also.

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

IPP Family Survey 2: Enabling the Contribution of Families to the Resettlement of People Serving IPPs

Last year, we – Dr Harry Annison and Dr Rachel Condry – published a report on ‘The Pains of Indeterminate Imprisonment for Families of IPP Prisoners’, available here: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/425364/. This was based on interviews and survey responses with over 100 families of people serving IPPs.

Relevant organizations – primarily the Parole Board, Prison Service, and probation – have asked us “what could we do that would improve the situation for both families, and people serving IPPs?” This survey gives you an opportunity to help to answer this question.

(It is important to emphasize that these organizations cannot change the release test, or convert IPP sentences to determinate sentences. Those are both matters for central government).

We are keen to hear from as many people as possible. This survey is for families of people serving IPP sentences. (And ‘families’ is broadly defined to include close friends and others who are providing ongoing support to IPP prisoners).

This survey is completely anonymous – we do not ask for your name or the name of the person serving an IPP sentence. But we are also holding a small number of workshops with families of people serving IPP. If you would like to participate, please email ippfam@soton.ac.uk. You can also contact us if you have any questions about the study.

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

Comment s

I hope you can use your influential connections to totally expose in the media and to challenge the latest publication by the Parole Board particularly as this will have an effect in the plights of Indeterminate Public Protection (IPP) prisoner cases of which this publication should also be legally challenged.

Please refer to the following link on the Parole Board website regards the latest publication by the Parole Board on how to deal with allegations which have been made against a prisoner of which I have my very valid reservations especially when it comes to an IPP prisoner although this appears to be a generic publication relating to all prisoners.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/794823/Guidance_on_Allegations_for_Parole_Board_members.pdf

An allegation is referred to as a conduct alleged to have occurred which has not been adjudicated upon and that these allegations could be currently being investigated by the police or others and may be disposed of or adjudicated on in the future. Allegations may be of harmful behaviour and/or ‘risky’ behaviour.and that Panel decisions must be made objectively,based on (a) the information and evidence provided to the panel and (b) information and evidence obtained as a result of the panel’s inquiries and (c) what can properly be inferred from that information and evidence.

Let us remember that when it comes to an IPP prisoner that they are very vulnerable prisoners whereby it is known that they are always open to recall or have no release date hence any sort of allegation can easily result in a recall or seriously affect their ability to be released as opposed to a determinate prisoner who will always have a release date making the IPP very easy targets for manipulation should anyone "have it in for them" and very open to false allegations being made against them.

They are simply labelled as the most violent of prisoners by professionals such as Offender Managers purely due to their type of sentence when it is well documented that this law was imposed on prisoners by default because of the conditions of the law when in fact they are not the most violent of prisoners as it is acknowledged the IPP law was imposed on thousands of prisoners who it's original misguided intention was not for.

The Parole Panel now states faced with information regarding an allegation they will have to assess the relevance and weight of the allegation and either: a/ Choose to disregard it; b/ Make a finding of fact; c/ Make an assessment of the allegation to decide whether and how to take it into account as part of the parole review.

So the Parole Panels now say that in respect of allegations which they consider to be relevant that Panels may need to make a finding of fact regarding the allegation? Then they say Panels will only be in a position to make a finding of fact when it has a reasonably sufficient body of evidence on which it can properly make a finding of fact on the balance of probabilities and that the prisoner’s case can be fairly considered. The prisoner must have a fair opportunity to contest the allegations and this may be achieved through oral evidence, written submissions, or in interview with an Offender Manager, depending what is fair in the case. But then states: Fairness may be particularly difficult to achieve as panel hearings do not have the safeguards that are present in criminal proceedings.

Fairness may be particularly difficult with allegations arising out of events which happened a long time ago. Then: Panels can make findings of fact on allegations where the individual was not charged, or the allegation was charged but did not result in a conviction or any other judicial determination whether linked to the index offence or not. Panels should exercise caution when considering such allegations as it may be that it would not be possible for the prisoner to have a fair hearing. A finding of fact in relation to alleged criminal conduct against the prisoner will not equate to a criminal conviction.

It will, however, be something that the panel can take into account when reaching their decision!

Is this nothing but total contradictory that they admit that in the Findings of Fact that Fairness may be difficult to achieve but still it something that the panel can take into account when reaching their decision!

So now it appears the Parole Board are going to do Finding of Fact of an allegation and act as the Police, Crown Prosecution & Criminal Courts!

Does the Parole Board now think they are above the whole Judiciary System!

Shouldn't the Parole Board consider their decisions based on evidence based facts only and anything else should be left to the Police, Crown Prosecution and Criminal Courts!

Lets examine the reality of the above statement of Finding of Fact by the Parole Board and actual contradictory statements within this information because from my own experience of my friend who is an IPP prisoner the Parole Board had failed on all levels which in his case he was charged with a false alleged offence then recalled and found Not Guilty of by the Courts yet he is still in prison 3.5 years later due to not being released at his last Parole Hearing.which makes a total mockery and arrogance of the British Justice System and the reasons why we have Court cases in the first place.

How exactly are the Parole Board going to find the Findings of Fact?

At least they admit: Fairness may be particularly difficult to achieve as panel hearings do not have the safeguards that are present in criminal proceedings. Fairness may be particularly difficult with allegations arising out of events which happened a long time ago. Panels should exercise caution when considering such allegations as it may be that it would not be possible for the prisoner to have a fair hearing

- From Interviews with Offender Managers? Really? Let us examine on how the Parole Board process is undertaken - reports are submitted from Offender Managers (community Probation Officers) who barely see the prisoner when inside, who fail to engage with prisoner's friends or family members, who are biased and fail to complete assessments on prisoners and are more than willing to take on board any allegation as fact without any objectivity, who submit reports based on their conversations with Psychologists when Psychologists have not even met the prisoner and then not even showing the Prisoner the reports for the Parole Hearing yet the Parole Board never seem to question the validity of the reports by Probation Officers or Psychologists.

I HAVE COME ACROSS MANY FAMILIES AND FRIENDS OF IPP PRISONERS AND PRISONERS WHO WILL CLEARLY STATE THAT PROBATION OFFICERS ARE LIARS, HAVE PRESENTED UNTRUTHFUL REPORTS, ARE TOTALLY OPINIONATED, MAKE UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS, HAVE NOT MADE ANY EFFORT TO ENGAGE WITH FAMILY MEMBERS AND WHO HAVE NOT MADE ANY ATTEMPT TO EXPLORE THE VERY RESOURCEFUL OPPORTUNITIES IN THE COMMUNITY TO SUPPORT RELEASE AND THAT REPORTS BY PROBATION SERVICES ARE EXTREMELY POOR AND BIASED.

Whether the Parole Board choose to believe this or not the Parole Board never seem to question the validity of the reports by Probation Officers and now they are going to rely on reports submitted by Offender Managers in their Findings of Facts!

- So the prisoner can give written submissions? Really? And is the Parole Board going to specify what the "allegation is" in order to allow the prisoner to defend that then allow time for written submissions. Is the Parole Board going to approach family and friends who can help prisoners that may require assistance with making written submissions or for their evidence or ask and accept any other witnesses in support of the prisoner in the Findings of Facts? Probation Officers are known to suddenly submit untimely reports or make allegations / unsubstantiated reports just days before a Parole Hearing not giving time for the Prisoner to submit any defence which then results in an unfair or deferred Parole Hearing.

Then what is the Parole Board exactly going to do, write out to the actual accusers to check the validation and write out to wider sources to actually check the credibility of the accuser? I thought the Parole Board as they advocate on their website make decisions solely focused on whether a prisoner would represent a significant risk to the public after release and that the risk assessment is about evidence that their behaviour has changed since their offence was committed based on detailed evidence found in the dossier and evidence provided at the oral hearing and not allegations! Therefore the Parole Board's duty is not meant to be about making decisions and actions regards allegations of which courts are meant to deal with.

- So the prisoner can have a fair hearing through Oral Evidence? Really? I am estimating that an average Parole Hearing will be for a maximum of 3 hours. In these 3 hours there will be the Offender Manager, Offender Supervisor, possibly a Psychologist, the Prisoner and his Legal Representative of which all areas of his imprisonment will be explored so for each person to have their say gives the Prisoner 35 mins approximately to have their say and they call that a fair hearing? And then when the prisoner does have their very limited say it is in the presence of the Probation Officers making it extremely difficult should they have concerns about their Probation Officers and if they do this will be seen to be held against them as if it is the prisoner who has the problem and not the Probation Officers.

In fair Criminal Court Case proceedings there is a reason why actual Court Cases go on for days if necessary so that all evidence can be considered. where any such evidence is given the full opportunity to be cross examined and the Parole Board think they can do this in a 3 hour Parole Hearing whereby any witnesses in support of the Prisoner can'[t have a say with only a solicitor in some cases as a representative as lets remember some prisoners (determinate prisoners) may now not even get legal aid for representation of a solicitor at Parole Hearings.

- Now the Parole Board want to make a Finding of Fact on an allegation not charged or the allegation was charged but did not result in a conviction? Really? Whether it is liked or not the Crown Prosecution will only charge if there is enough evidence. Then there will be a fair trial where by the accused can have proper legal representation, witnesses can be called and all evidence will be presented and cross examined. Court cases trials can go on for days and Judges or Juries then make their decision but now the Parole Board think they are above that in their so findings of fact and want to ignore any Court Cases that didn't result in a conviction and this when Parole Hearings are already shrouded in mystery where by any witnesses don't actually get a chance to have a say.. What is the Parole Board going to do hold another trial in their 3 hour Parole Hearing? I find this absolutely unbelievable

- The Parole Board are meant to be Independent? Really? As any of this come about because of the John Worbouy's case by any chance?

Cannot the Parole Board accept gracefully that they made a mistake in his case whereby they would have based their decision on no doubt the unchallenged reports presented to the Parole Board by Psychologists and Offender Managers because lets face it the Parole Board in their typical 3 hour Parole Hearing would not have had chance to truly make their own assessment of John Worbouy but just going off other so called professionals just like conversely thousands of other IPP prisoners who have served even more years over tariff yet not had any sort of conviction to the level of John Worbuoy and the Parole Board are making disastrous decisions keeping people years over tariff because they based their decisions on unchallenged reports presented to them by Probation Officers and Psychologists and then believe that they have given the prisoner a chance to truly represent themselves in the space of a 3 hour hearing of which they have a limited time to have their say after listening to the Offender Managers and Psychologists.

The Parole Board have failed abhorrently so far in their decision making with thousands of IPP prisoners who are years over tariff when common sense tells you that a Prisoner's risk will be greatly reduced in getting the IPP prisoners out of prison away from the very hostile, confined, volatile, drug ridden environment that they are in once they have served their tariff and back into society where they can be integrated through supportive measures and that there is no trust what so ever in the Offender Managers and Psychologists reports. Just because in the case of one very obvious manipulative, convincing calculating offender such as John Worbouy's who managed to fool the Offender Managers and Psychologists this should not be held against everybody but there again this just proves even more so that the reliability of such Professionals who give their presentations to the Parole Board are not to be relied on at all which has resulted in the other many thousands of IPP prisoners being years over tariff when these so called professionals don't recommend release because of their total inadequate reports.

I REST MY CASE BUT CERTAINLY NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE PAROLE BOARD.

Comment

Winters I feel this IPP will cost the people and Government a lot more in the end. I always pray the prisoner's manage to stay sane in the meantime

Comment

Haynes

Frances cook wot a lovly lady she is i meet her in the bay when the govenor got her the sack there coz she was on our side but i can see this as being another tactic to delay progression and parole hearings coz of the changes but fingers crossed for as all and our familys keep up the good work x

Comment

Clavering

My brother been in nearly 16 year of a 21 month ipp disgrace, currupt Goverment.

Comment

killeen

Bit info on the ipp to share among the ipp community which a lot of probation and so called professionals havnt got clue bout bit like my probation who thinks am on license rest me life.

Comment

Rumble I wish I could get a job in the system and review

Comment
Boden

Accountability is the way forward.

https://www.thersa.org/discover/publications-and-articles/rsa-blogs/2019/04/how-can-we-enable-prisoners-to-want-a-better-life?fbclid=IwAR3i6aUrHmHMRoObdYobnqswXK_StCyu2pKDtUihQ-ptI5qtSe9MSG3lTh8

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/apr/29/more-than-2500-prison-staff-disciplined-in-five-years-moj-figures-show?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Gmail&fbclid=IwAR0-XbREmt-L9CTVSrhl07mR3HzT3hfpjzkGOkqJoIpmIhSjmKu1_2ZvFvc

Mooney Implement a Scandinavian style approach to rehabilitation. They are now closing prisons due to declining re-offending rates.

regarding a rememberence Day

Mooney Sadly everyday is remembrance day for the families of those who have died.

comment

Mclukie My son is on his 13th yr from a 3 n half yr tariff an like ur brother Mark Clavering his an ipp it's inhumane an very heartbreaking the never knowing if or wen they will ever b released my heart goes out to u an all in this disgraceful situation xxxx never give up hope cos that is all we have to hang onto .Their excuse is they've not proved their no longer a danger to the public which nick Hardwick stated that no course in the land can prove anyone is a safe person so it's a fight all the way

Comment

Toner They didn't go on to hang everyone who was given the death sentence when it was abolished so they should be seriously taking a look at all IPPs over tariff and releasing them.

Comment

Stocker, They all have been in so long they need some genuine rehabilitation now before they can face the world - why oh why didn't the government that was in power, when this sentence was abolished, put a productive process in place at the time. If they had worked concertively on this prisons wouldn't be crowded nowadays & money would be saved in the long run - simples

comment

Howard there isn't much help when they do get out. My grandson got out, but is back in as he was late for a probation app. Also put in a hostel, could only stay there for a while, got so fed up with moving from one to another. When he said anything he was told to get a job and rent a place....

Comment

Rumble Absolutely criminal

Comment

Monica My son was a epp he got a release date as some of you will know and he’s home now BUT he was very lucky that they never threw an ipp at him,when reading these comments over the past and now,my heart breaks I’m just stuck for words how long your loved ones have been away and well over there tariff it’s diabolical. 😔😔

Comment

I am distressed to be writing this letter to you regarding the issue of the controversial outlawed ‘IPP Sentence’. Although ‘IPP’ has rightly been abolished, due to the European Court of Human Rights ruling it to be unlawful in 2012, there are still over 6,000 people serving this sentence, because it wasn’t abolished retrospectively. Most of who are still incarcerated and have served well over nine years beyond their original recommended tariff set by the sentencing judge. ‘IPP’ prisoners are making up roughly 5% of the prison population.

The prisoners that are eventually freed and liberated after serving ‘IPP’ are then put on licence for 99 years, and more than half are then being sent back to jail for breaching licence conditions. The government have called this ‘a critical issue’; they're getting recalled often for relatively minor breaches of licence, for example not staying one night at the approved address. Mr Hardwick said IPP offenders were being sent back to prison for turning up drunk at their bail hostel - even though that presented no risk to any member of the public. When they return to prison, they are back to square one and must re-start the assessment procedure with the Parole Board. There is a back log of nine years worth of cases awaiting parole hearings, so it can then take years before getting released at a parole hearing. The parole board has stated they ‘remain concerned’ about this matter.

Something needs to be done urgently, these are not the most dangerous prisoners known to society. I am desperately calling for you to support the change in legislation, and the total abolishment of the ‘IPP’ sentence. A lot of prisoners did deserve a sentence but not a sentence without a release date. This sentence has been given to many for fairly minor crimes like shop-lifting, criminal damage and fighting.

David Blunkett introduced the sentence in 2001, against the advice of specialist officials. Although he later accepted that he regrets introducing it, and it is a ‘strain on the British Justice System.’ This sentence is a psychological torture, which has resulted in prisoners who have been given this sentence being twice as likely to commit suicide or self-harm.

The Appeal Court Judges all agree that ‘IPP’ is unjust, but refuse to fix the problem, and claim it’s up to the politicians to change the legislation. That statement has made every IPP prisoner into a political prisoner and a hostage of the British state.

The current C.E.O of the Parole board, Martin Jones describes ‘IPP sentence’ as a ‘dreadful legacy of failure’, and sympathises with the people, ‘who got scooped up into the sentence’. He strongly believes that the time most of them have spent in prison ‘completely outweighs the seriousness of the offence they committed’. Some people got sentenced to a tariff of less than 2 years, and are still incarcerated 11 years down the line.
Ed Miliband called the government 'out of touch' and stated they did not think the sentence through, words are not enough, and action needs to be taken. The system is a ‘flawed’ mess. Prisoners have already served their recommend time and are still in prison and don’t know when and if they are getting out.

Some prisoners were sentenced to ‘IPP’ due to criminal damage of under £20, with it then costing the government 109 million annually to accommodate these prisoners.

I find this issue outrageous and a great injustice. A loved one of mine is still incarcerated, after being given an ‘IPP’. He is being detained on an unlawful sentence. Please bear in mind it’s not just the prisoners who have been given this ‘unlawful’ sentence but also the loved one’s of those prisoner’s.

Please can you do the right thing, and show some compassion? I urge you to recommend reform and support the family campaign to get the legislation changed so we can finally get IPP abolished retrospectively. I would appreciate it if you consider this an urgent matter.

I will be awaiting a reply on your stance on this very serious and sensitive matter.

My email address is

Postal address is

Kind Regards

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

https://oxfordsaid.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6WFOMhlbrKu5N7n

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rory-stewart-prisons-minister-pledge-crisis-poa-justice-department-inmates-a8896186.html

https://news.sky.com/story/taskforce-to-tackle-corrupt-prison-and-probation-officers-11710869?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter&fbclid=IwAR2PXAdgRTL6IINUUCrOiVe69tdHZt1fcNYXFZE8DHprvNpmSb80KEPs3Fs

https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/05/mum-died-prison-staff-thought-play-acting-illness-9119825/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-47673826

https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/ppo-prod-storage-1g9rkhjhkjmgw/uploads/2019/01/N266-18-Death-of-Mr-John-Kinloch-in-hospital-Holme-House-18-01-2018-NC-51-60-53.pdf

https://insidetime.org/punishment-v-public-protection-star-letter-of-the-month/

http://www.russellwebster.com/trends18/?utm_source=ReviveOldPost&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ReviveOldPos

Number of deaths have increased compared to the previous 12 month period.

Total Pageviews

Sunday, 19 May 2019

IPP Campaigners say being over tariff is causing dire mental health, suicide and self-harm and this is a 'national disgrace'.

Toothless Parole Board On the IPP Wire – May 2019

Another nail in the IPP coffin

IPP Families Compaign Lobby Group will be meeting the Parole Board 28th August 2019 at 130 pm. Those attending

Risk not changed, failing Parole Hearings, Rehabilitation what it means, Recall.........................

NO Justifiable reason

But realy there is no justifiable reason why Wayne and other young men and woman given an IPP sentence are i still being detained.

There are two clear aspects to this unacceptable situation.

Last years meeting 28th June 2018,

""Prison ministers left the prison system on its kneess.....and got away with it.

We’ll tell you what’s true. You can form your own view.

A unit has been created to tackle corruption among prison and probation staff in England and Wales.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/797074/safety-custody-bulletin-q4-2018.pd ....................................................................................

Mental Health Agrevated by failings in the crimal justice system

Wayne Bell story continued

He had no mental health before entering prison but he will need care for the rest of his life 24 hours day as a result of what the setence has done to hid mental health

John Kinloch died at Hmp Kinloch reported was concerns with safety of the prison,s as a whole.

Annabell Landsberg mother of three death at the care of HMP Peterborough prison.

Independent

10 things you didn't know?

1: Prison population down

2: But adjudications up

3: Probation caseload stable

4: But recalls up

5: More sex offenders in prison

6: Violent offenders in prison

7: Extended Determinate Sentences

8: Foreign National Offenders

9: Home Detention Curfew

10: Releases on Temporary Licence

Two former officers said staffing levels at Maghaberry made it impossible for them to protect vulnerable inmates

ECHR: indefinite prison sentences breach human rights

Catch 22

Howard League

We received some good news this morning: the probation service is to be reunified and run by the public sector.

Learning difficulties & disabilities in the justice system.The negative impact of ignoring LDDs

The need for whole person-centred screening and guidance for those working with offenders

The negative impact of ignoring LDDs

The need for whole person-centred screening and guidance for those working with offenders

The benefits of screening offenders- using technology to help

No comments:

Post a Comment

Pages

End the MentaLTorture

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/797074/safety-custody-bulletin-q4-2018.pd

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