1.Court Judgment on IPP Prisoner given release the parole board were making his detention almost arbitrary . 2. Prison suicides 3. Families need more help to deal with the pains of IPP imprisonment 4. The Prison Reform 5. A Helping Hands. Supporting Families in the Resettlement of People Serving IPPs 6. a report has branded “deeply harmful” for IPP families. 7. Crises prison Boss quits after inmates revolt . 8. prison and Autism Dr. Natalie Engelbrecht BA MSc ND RP; Registered Psychotherapist .9. What has the MoJ been up too. 10. Justice Minister I hope your listening life is not disposable. 11. Crime is a record low. 12. Family and Campaigner say enough is enough the deaths of IPP needs urgent investigation .

 

Prison Suicides?

Uphill battle for prisoners and their families.

A mother begged the prison to keep watch of her Son. She told prison staff . Despite the mother's warnings, the prison took no mental-health precautions. no one checked in on her Son. Prison guards noticed him increasingly distressed wailing and banging on the cell doors, but did not investigate his condition.

The prison added an entry to the hourly cell-check log for this time, but whether any took place is disputed. 

The amount of deaths the prison  the prisons and the garment  have to bear some of the responsibility. Despite the observed links between the IPP prisoner’s incarceration and suicide, there is an  obstacle course of prisoner-unfriendly legislation and legal doctrines stand in the path of attempts at holding any individual person or institution accountable.

With evidence identified over decades these legal barriers have made reforming prison conditions via litigation near impossible. The reckless neglect of the prisoner's mental health and safety constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment."

Medical Malpractice. 

"key is demonstrating deliberate indifference," 

Deliberate indifference is a more difficult to prove than "professional negligence," the standard used for medical malpractice.

Negligence standard

The negligence standard only requires that a person should have done something, and didn't—ignorance isn't an excuse;

Deliberate indifference 

in contrast, requires knowing that something should have been done, and not doing so. It does not, however, require proof of intent to harm. So a prisoner’s family or Barrister need not show that prison guards specifically meant for the prisoner to die."There has to be more than a hint that a person was suicidal or at risk. 

You have to have knowledge that there's a high degree of likelihood that this man would commit suicide. And then you have to fail to take any precautions that are designed to be preventative,"

"They don't have to be the best precautions. But they have to be kind of reasonable. If you knew, you did try to do something."

"Nevertheless 

they must show not only that correction officers failed to do what was necessary to prevent a prisoner suicide, but that the officers knew that the prisoner was at risk, and still deliberately avoided clearly established standard procedures for dealing with them.

Example 

One prisoner was a trans woman serving a prison sentence who was beaten, and raped, and, when she was housed with the male prisoners in general population. The prisoner argued that the prison knew it was putting her at risk with this housing situation, and that its deliberate indifference to the danger was a form of cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court ruled that, and all prisoners, were entitled to be protected from "deliberate indifference" to their harm.

This standard of liability became a central precedent for suicide cases

Incarcerated inmates

Prison screen for suicide If a jail that screens for suicide or assault- risk is more likely to be held liable if a prisoner dies by suicide then jails might not want to take preventative measures that are in prisoners' interests.

Are prisoners being put at risk when the prisons knowingly  know there is drugs  and violence in there prison resulting in risk to another prisoner, death or  injurey even mental health ! prisoners themselves  are generally unified class against the prison system, rather than against each other  the condition of the prison play a role.

Prisons who have depression often said to be waiting  for a hospital bed as long as a year putting them at risk of further harm, or a complete breakdown and suicide.

Prisoners are put a risk because of the shortage.Living conditions.Over use of confinement, retaliation of against inmates with solitary condiment physical abuse /resources. .

Disability and hidden difference violation.  Many prisoners with learning differences are unable to cope through the grievance procedures (a prison's administrative system for raising complaints) procedures that are often rigged against them. As the prison ignored the disability that offers a person with a hidden disability a  intermediary under the disability law . 

prison attitude is for prisoners to  rely on other inmates putting those with disability at risk of bullying ,stolen data and a pay back scheme. 

Lack of access to rehabilitation programs which caused up hill battles and destress and mental break downs as they further   challenge proving risk without tools to do so even after they finishing programmes. 

It seems to me that the government are illustrating that it was up to prisoners themselves to take action to fight the abomination, outrage) of their conditions leading to a  escalation and causing increasing agitation. 

“Creative activist lawyer might

want to make a structural case, arguing, for example, that the way a government jails operate constitutes deliberate indifference to a system-wide suicide risk. The amount of time they had to resolve these issues amounts to negligence. 

But back in the '70s and '80s, they succeeded regularly but since the prison estate has got worse and has been neglected. moreover funds to account for those with  mental health or disabilities  was not  accounted for, little or no data.

I would rule that government prison conditions were a form of cruel and unusual and look at the totality of the conditions of confinements and disability violations in total these being a snap shot 

I would argue the structural cases looking at the "totality of conditions. And Allowing conditions to continue into the years. 

But, in the face of all those doctrinal and legislative impediments to accountability for prisoner harm conditions are not seen to be improving—though greater awareness of training of the issue.

The Justice Minister is ignoring the totality of the issues and  and continues to  down play the bigger picture with media to keep his job.

...……...…………………………………...….

Families need more help to deal with the pains of IPP imprisonment

15 hours ago

The families of people serving Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences are not getting enough help to deal with the painful burden of supporting their relative through their sentence, a joint report by the Prison Reform Trust and Southampton University reveals.

The report by Dr Harry Annison and Christina Straub is supported by funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.

“As a family it has destroyed us, and we need all the support we can get’, said one family member interviewed for the report.

Another said: “I’ve been doing this since my early forties. I’m 59 next birthday. It has consumed my life. I haven’t had a life for myself…It’s not fair.”

The IPP was abolished in 2012, but there are still 2,223 people in prison serving the sentence, nine in 10 of whom are passed their tariff expiry date. A further 1,206 people are in prison having been recalled while serving an IPP sentence in the community. The latest Ministry of Justice statistics show that the recall rate now exceeds the rate of release for people serving IPPs.

A Helping Hand: Supporting Families in the Resettlement of People Serving IPPs, found that the pains and barriers faced by the families of people serving IPP sentences have not sufficiently been addressed by criminal justice agencies.

This meant that the valuable contribution families can make to the successful rehabilitation and resettlement of IPP prisoners was not being realised.

In his independent review on strengthening family ties, Lord Farmer said that family and other supportive relationships are a ‘golden thread’ that should run through efforts by the penal system to support prisoners, where families should be ‘seen as a vital resource and...treated as valued allies in the rehabilitation cause’.

The findings and recommendations of the report are based on detailed consultation with the families of IPP prisoners as well as close engagement with criminal justice and voluntary sector organisations involved in the management and supervision of people serving IPPs.

The report identifies a need for clearer information, more consistent communication, the provision of specific support for families, and a recognition by practitioners of the painful legacy and history of the IPP sentence and its impact on prisoners and their loved ones.

One family member interviewed for the report said: “The officers do not really understand IPP, they treat them like any prisoner on a determinate sentence, which they are not. It is stressful not knowing when they will come home, and they think about that every day while they are inside.”

The report calls for additional information, guidance and support for families on issues such as progression, licence and recall; and action to mitigate some of the pains experienced by families as a result of the unique burden of supporting a relative on an IPP.

Commenting, Dr Annison said:

“Families of people serving IPPs carry considerable burdens in supporting their relative through their sentence. All criminal justice organisations should avoid inadvertently placing further burdens on those who have often given years of devoted support to their relative. Additional information, guidance and support for families, and actions to ameliorate some of the pains experienced, would help to ease the burden on families and enable them to better support their loved ones in prison and on release.”

Peter Dawson, Director of the Prison Reform Trust, said:

“The suffering caused by this disastrous sentence goes on and on. It extends far beyond the people still unjustly held in prison, affecting parents, partners and children, all totally innocent. Legislation is needed to finish the job of putting right the injustice done to so many by the IPP sentence. But in the meantime there is scope to do more to support families, reducing their pain and helping them to help their loved ones make a success of life after release.

Click here to download a copy of the report

About the IPP sentence

Introduced in 2005, IPPs were designed to detain serious offenders who were perceived to be a risk to the public indefinitely. People serving an IPP are required to serve a minimum tariff after which release is determined by the Parole Board. Those who are released are subject to an indefinite period of supervision on licence, subject to review after 10 years.

The Home Office initially estimated that the sentence would result in 900 people going to prison. However, over 8,000 IPP sentences were imposed, placing severe strain on prison, probation and parole board resources. Resulting delays to parole hearings and difficulties accessing offending behaviour programmes in prison, which were considered necessary in order to demonstrate reduced risk, left many prisoners struggling to work towards their legitimate release.

As a result of these concerns and mounting legal challenges, the IPP sentence was abolished in 2012. However, its abolition was not retrospective, and today there are still 2,223 people in prison serving the sentence who have never been released. Nine in 10 people (93%) serving an IPP sentence are still in prison having passed their tariff expiry date—the minimum period they must spend in custody and considered necessary to serve as punishment for the offence. 358 people are still in prison despite being given a tariff of less than two years—more than half of these (187 people) are still in prison over a decade after their original tariff expired.

Release and recall rates

The rate of release for IPP prisoners has increased sharply in the last four years, but has gone into reverse in the last year. The latest Ministry of Justice caseload management statistics reveal that the recall rate now exceeds the rate of release for people serving IPPs:

• More IPP prisoners were returned to custody after licence recall than were released from custody in the past 12 months. In the year from 1 July 2018 – 30 June 2019, there were 433 releases of IPP prisoners, but 636 IPP prisoners were returned to custody after licence recall.

• By contrast, over the previous year (1 July 2017 – 30 June 2018) the releases were higher than the numbers returned to custody after recall (568 released and 559 recalled).

• There are 1,206 people serving an IPP sentence who are back in prison having been previously released—a 25% increase in only a year.

……...…………………………….

The Prison Reform

A Helping Hands. Supporting Families in the Resettlement of People Serving IPPs

                                  

The Prison Reform Trust is an independent UK charity working to create a just, humane and effective penal system. We do this by inquiring into the workings of the system; informing prisoners, staff and the wider public; and by influencing Parliament, government and officials towards reform. The Prison Reform Trust provides the secretariat to the All Party Parliamentary Penal Affairs Group and has an advice and information service for people in prison. Our two main objectives are: reducing unnecessary imprisonment and promoting community solutions to crime, and improving treatment and conditions for prisoners and their families. 

However, our findings suggest that to date the pains and barriers faced by families of people serving IPP sentences have not sufficiently been addressed. We argue in this report: That the IPP sentence is deeply harmful to families

•That the state – and relevant organisations therein – should seek to mitigate these harms

•That changes in legislation, policy and practice are required in order better to enable

•families to support the successful resettlement of their family member serving an IPP sentence That the proposed changes would benefit not only families of people serving IPP

• sentences, but also the prisoners themselves, criminal justice organisations, and the public. In this report we focus on measures that are likely to ameliorate the pains experienced by families, and to reduce the barriers experienced by them that hinder their efforts to support their relative. But it is important to emphasise that the families’ pains are tied directly to the IPP sentence itself and to the prisoners’ experiences. Therefore, efforts to improve the situation for families of indeterminate-sentenced IPP prisoners are intertwined with the need to address the needs of IPP prisoners themselves. In particular we identify the ongoing unmet needs by many families for clear information on the processes and policies related to the IPP sentence and related issues (including progression, licence and recall). We also identify families’ concerns about the need for all relevant practitioners to have an understanding of the practical issues facing IPP prisoners and their families, but also the historical factors that have led to a sense of injustice for many families. 

And further, we identify the desire by many families to be enabled to be part of the solution for their relative, and for their efforts to be appropriately recognised. We encourage all organisations to take inspiration from HMP Warren Hill’s underlying ethos of seeking the ‘quiet rescue’ of indeterminate-sentenced prisoners who are considerably over tariff.13 With an institutional focus on sentence progression, HMP Warren Hill’s work with IPP prisoners aims at balancing risk reduction with trust-building elements.14 Its prioritisation of the concept of hope – a notion increasingly being recognised as crucial to penal policy, and enabling people to work towards a positive life, free from crime15 – should similarly be a central focus for relevant organisations. And, specifically, there must be a recognition of the difficulties for families in maintaining hope in the face of the persistent delays and challenges faced in relation to the IPP sentence. Finally, it is important to recognise that families already carry considerable burdens in supporting their relative serving an IPP. All organisations must be mindful of this in ensuring that actions taken do not inadvertently place further burdens on the individuals who have often given years of devoted support to their family member. Our recommendations – for additional information, guidance and support for families; and actions to ameliorate some of the pains experienced – should be read in this light.

2. Background

The Farmer Report stipulated that criminal justice agencies needed to make much greater effort in working with the families of offenders to enhance resettlement outcomes: The emergence of a rehabilitation culture inside every prison ... will not happen unless good relationships with families and others on the outside are treated as a much higher priority in many jails. These need to be seen as a vital resource and ... [families] treated as valued allies in the rehabilitation cause.

16This argument must be read, here, in light of the specific issues raised by the sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP). The Justice Secretary at the time of the abolition of the IPP sentence described the IPP sentence as: Unclear, inconsistent and have been used far more than was ever intended ... That is unjust to the people in question and completely inconsistent with the policy of punishment, reform and rehabilitation.17David Gauke, speaking as Justice Secretary earlier in 2019, said, ‘We need to ensure that we do everything we can to progress these [IPP] cases as best we can.’18 Together, these statements provide compelling reasons for the pains experienced, and the challenges faced, by the families of those serving IPP sentences to be addressed. A research study by Dr Harry Annison and Dr Rachel Condry published in 2018 provided the first detailed empirical study of the pains of imprisonment experienced by the families of IPP prisoners.

19Subsequent meetings with key stakeholders revealed a considerable – and unmet – demand for evidence-based expert guidance for criminal justice organisations in order to a) understand the specific problems facing families of IPP prisoners; and b) develop appropriate solutions.20This project, which this report forms part of, addresses that need. It seeks to support, via a process of co-production, the provision of tangible benefits to families of prisoners serving indeterminate IPP sentences. These are likely to be provided through substantive improvements by relevant organisations such as HMPPS, the Ministry of Justice, the Parole Board and relevant third sector organisations, such as the Prison Advice and Care Trust (Pact) and Partners of Prisoners (POPS), in their understanding of, and responses to, the issues facing this group.

43. Objectives and Methodology

 The recommendations made in this report have emerged from a three-step process: 1. Engaging with family members21 of people serving IPP sentences, through co-production workshops, an online survey and one-to-one informal discussions. This enabled us to identify specific issues that organisations should seek to address,22 or changes to policy or practice that would be likely to provide the most benefit. We sought, in other words, to buildon our initial findings of ‘The Pains of Indeterminate Imprisonment for Families of IPPPrisoners’23 by asking: ‘What specifically would ameliorate your suffering, and help you inyour efforts to achieve the successful resettlement of your relative serving an IPP sentence?’

2. Engaging with relevant criminal justice organisations to understand emerging policies and practices, which may be capable of addressing some of the issues identified.

3. Refining our recommendations by: reviewing existing reports on IPP specifically and related issues such as prisoners’ families, prison suicides and so on, and relevant scholarly literature; revisiting our co-production workshop notes and survey responses. We thereby worked together to:

1. Identify families’ main difficulties (institutional and personal) in dealing with IPP and in facilitating transition upon release and in providing resettlement support.

2. Identify best practice examples of communication, support, and information already delivered by stakeholders (i.e. HMPPS, the Parole Board, the Probation Service, and relevant voluntary and third sector organisations, such as POPS and Pact).

3. Collect and develop the ideas and suggestions provided by family members around the reduction of secondary pains and an enhancement of resettlement, to inform recommendations for service and policy delivery by stakeholders. Accommodating the complexity and sensitivity of the research topic, workshops were purposefully designed to include only a small number of participants. This was done with a view to enable extensive individual contribution as well as providing sufficient time and space for discussion of, and reflection upon, difficult issues.24Workshops with family members of individuals sentenced to IPP took place in London, Manchester and Cardiff. They lasted 3-4 hours, involving 5-7 participants and were facilitated by Harry Annison or Christina Straub, supported by a co-facilitator. Throughout each workshop detailed notes were taken, and participants’ contributions were audio-recorded. The collected data was then analysed with a view to detecting recurring issues or suggestions. Insights from the workshops were consequently used to inform the design of an online survey available for completion by family members of IPP prisoners who were unable to attend the workshops but wanted to contribute to the study. These were supplemented by one-to-one discussions by the authors with a number of relatives of IPP prisoners.

4. General Findings4.1.

 Workshops I’ve been doing this since my early forties. I’m 59 next birthday. It has consumed my life. I haven’t had a life for myself ... It’s not fair. workshop participant Some of the predominant themes identified revolved around the secondary pain and distress experienced by family members ‘on behalf’ of the IPP prisoner.25 Participants repeatedly described a reverberation process whereby a prisoner’s trials and tribulations exerted an immediate effect on the well-being of the family member(s); they were commiserating greatly with their incarcerated loved one. Often, they had become case workers on behalf of the prisoner, always ready to present and explain the individual’s case files in painstaking detail. Families expressed their disappointment with organisations that their care and efforts had not been recognised, echoing broader concerns about the ‘hidden and undervalued contributions of citizens in the provision and delivery of public service.’26 

Families felt that part of the responsibility of, and duty of care held, by public services for their loved ones had been ‘outsourced’ to them. Despite experiencing the situation as bearing considerable weight upon their shoulders, families were not prepared to give up. They often expressed a duty to speak on behalf of their relatives, to make them ‘feel they’ve got a voice and they’re not powerless, because that’s one of the worst things about the IPP sentence, you are more powerless than anybody who’s a determinate prisoner’ (workshop participant). 4.2. 

Families survey As a family it has destroyed us, and we need all the support we can get family member, survey response. Having developed a set of provisional suggestions for action from the workshops with families, an online survey was utilised to enable those who could not attend workshops in person to contribute to the project. 

We received 51 responses to the survey. All respondents were female and over four-fifths reported being ‘White-British’. We received responses from all parts of England and Wales. Three-quarters of respondents said that their relative had not been released from prison; the others said that their relative had been released but subsequently recalled at least once. Respondents were all over 18 years old and the spread of reported ages broadly matched the demographics of the adult UK population. The most common reported relationships were partner, parent, sibling, friend (and ‘other’ including grandmother, aunt and daughter). The survey results suggested that there is widespread support amongst families affected by the IPP sentence for the suggestions emerging from the workshops. 

6 Information and communication

The most popular suggestions included: As regards communication, a small number of positive experiences were reported:From our own experience I can say that the communication with Probation has always been good, I still now have a good relationship with his [offender manager] and his solicitor, both of which I am in regular contact with, this I feel is due to my willingness and my partner’s to try to work together with them. workshop participant Nevertheless, most families reported considerable practical difficulties. 

Indeed, the same family member with a positive experience had also experienced challenges: The frustration comes with the delays and misinformation, at times this is just down to misunderstandings rather than any malice... [And] surely if families were involved in the process of managing that risk with agencies and able to put forward other alternatives to put to the board we may be able to release and support more effectively. 

workshop participant Here are some suggestions that have emerged from the workshops so far.

Do you agree that they would improve the situation? Mean (out of 5)1. Recognition by organisations of the understandable feelings of injustice, given the abolition of the sentence in 2012.4.672. 

Clear information provided to families about relevant processes (e.g. parole hearings, recall, licence conditions).4.603. Better and more consistent communication between agencies and families.4.564.

Provision of specific support for families in the wake of recall.4.494. Explicit recognition by relevant organisations of the hard work put in by families to support their relative sentenced to IPP.4.495. A dedicated ‘one stop shop’ IPP point of contact for families.4.266. Facilitation of local peer support for family members.4.21 

Policy and practice, training and guidanceThe most popular suggestions were: Emerging as a distinct issue from the workshops were concerns that many staff in relevant organisations did not necessarily have a sufficient understanding of the specific nature of the IPP sentence and the issues that flow from it: The officers do not really understand IPP, they treat them like any prisoner on a determinate sentence, which they are not. It is stressful not knowing when they will come home, and they think about that every day while they are inside. workshop participant The survey responses therefore support recommendations regarding training for relevant staff in relation to the law and policies in relation to IPP prisoners (including those released on licence), and the lived experience of the sentence. In particular, it is essential that staff understand the substantial, deleterious impact of the indeterminacy, uncertainty and hopelessness that it engenders.27 

7 Here are some further suggestions that have emerged so far from the workshop. Do you agree that these measures would improve the situation?Mean (out of 5)1. Revised approach to progression planning: IPP-specific sentence plan tailored to individual needs of prisoner that specifies necessary measures such as educational qualifications, professional qualifications, and courses that are treated as binding. Once completed, presumption would be that the prisoner is to be progressed/released unless there are compelling reasons not to do so.4.712. 

More effort to make licence conditions supportive of individual living conditions of released prisoners and their families.4.633. Better training of staff in relation to IPP sentence and related issues, ensuring that they demonstrate both awareness and empathy.

4.603. Same professionals stay with the prisoner to build long-term relationships (e.g. key workers from agencies such as the Offender Management Unit (OMU), probation service, prison service, and HMPPS psychology department).

4.604. Support for family members to act as advocates for their relative (enabled by staying in contact with prisoner’s assigned key workers in the prison and probation service, for example).4.544. A review of the use of Approved Premises (APs) for IPP prisoners and their conditions.4.54

85. Detailed findings Here we provide in relation to each organisation the families’ reported experiences and issues, recent changes in policy and practice of which we are aware. Section 7 then sets out recommendations for further action. 5.1. Prison Service a) Families told us that specific issues faced included: The indeterminacy and uncertainty inherent in the IPP sentence has made it difficult for 

•families to avoid relationship breakdown and estrangement from their relative serving the indeterminate sentence.28 Furthermore, they told us that the loss of relationships presents a challenge, if not a danger, to the well-being of IPP prisoners. They advocated for heightened awareness within the Prison Service of these issues, since: these prison officers, offender managers, offender supervisors, they know, ‘Oh, that IPPprisoner there in cell number two never has a visit, never has a phone call, don’t have noletters, he’s got nobody,’ and they do need taking care of more ... you have got the onesthat have got nobody because they’ve been in prison a long time, families have got fed upof visiting ... So ... all touch is lost with family. And I think these prison officers ... have gotto note – because these are the prisoners that are more likely to commit suicide as well.

29workshop participant It was often very difficult to reach relevant staff within the prison, a problem which was 

•particularly worrying where families had pressing concerns about their relative’s wellbeing.

30 This represented a major stressor for families on the outside who felt powerless dealing with this form of one-sided communication. Asked what would make the most important difference to them, one workshop participant suggested the following: For me, overall, I think it would be ... to be able to communicate with the prison ...somebody that is a key worker for all IPP prisoners, who will talk to the families ...because I can’t get hold of my son when I want to, they don’t listen, they don’t give themthe message ... And, I worry and worry ... That to me is key, it would make such adifference for everybody ... When you are worried about their health, and you can’t getthrough, it is a nightmare. workshop participant Prison staff were often experienced as knowing little about the IPP sentence and failing to •display awareness of the pains experienced by families. One mother pointed out that prisoners, like her son, who had been incarcerated for a long time needed: professionals, not just his emotional mother ... it needs someone who is an IPP ... specialist ... And they have the knowledge ... And the experience to be able to deal with those issues ... likewise for the prisoners but also for families it would be very helpful. workshop participant

There was a general belief by families that: 

•IPP prisoners ... have different needs from determinate sentence prisoners, so ... in a sense some of the regulations do need to be different. workshop participantThere was a perception that a lack of awareness of the mental strains and effects of an IPP •sentence could sometimes lead to a ‘misreading’ of behaviour. One mother voiced her concerns about the lack of mental health training for prison officers. To me [son ́s name] behaviour, has not just come down to aggression ... he’s had no hope ... he said to me, “I’m rotting, I’m being left to rot”.31workshop participant 

Regular family visits were often found to be a real challenge, due to cost, distance and the •sometimes detrimental experience of the visit itself (especially for children). The culture surrounding prison visits was often described as unwelcoming, leaving 

•partners and/or families feeling stigmatised: an offender-by-association. This was related by a workshop participant who noted that: people judge a whole family, don’t they? They don’t just judge the person that committed the crime ... Oh there’s a massive stigma, yeah, it’s a very hard thing to get past ... that fear of being judged – it’s difficult. workshop participant Families felt a keen absence of opportunities for any ‘taste of normal life’ while their •relative was in prison, which was felt to be particularly important given the considerable amount of time that had often passed beyond tariff and the need to retain hope of release. Telephone contact with their relative was generally difficult and expensive whilst other 

•forms of contact, such as letters or emails, were, at best, of mixed utility. Workshop participants therefore welcomed the introduction of phones in individual prison cells in some prisons, so that contact could be established when it was needed the most: When you’re down, sometimes you reach crisis point. You don’t know when that’s going to be. workshop participant b) Policies and practices already in place or in development: We are pleased to note the increased policy focus on families of prisoners, and the re-doubling of efforts to support them, at a national level following the publication of the Farmer Review.32 These general developments may have some benefits for families of people serving IPPs, and include:

all establishments being required to develop a specific family strategy;33

•an initiative to improve family communications (as part of tackling a number of pressing 

•issues facing prisons);34the embedding of a Families Working Group into the Safety and Rehabilitation Directorate 

•within HMPPS; and developments including the allocation of a ‘family service partner’ to each public •sector prison, supported by a relevant third sector organisation. Some of these initiatives appear to be bearing some fruit.

35 However, specific issues facing people serving IPPs – and their families – could be a more central focus in current efforts. It is particularly important that prison staff – a large proportion of whom will have begun their careers after the abolition of the IPP sentence – are aware of the sentence, the challenges it poses for progression, and the detrimental impact it often has upon prisoners and their families.

365.2. Probation Service a) Families told us that specific issues faced included: Problems and obstacles in being able to communicate with probation. Participants thought 

•that ‘families should ... be able to interact more with the probation officers because a lot of the times when you’re in prison [the prisoner] can’t get to a phone’, and the same could be said for people released from prison. This was seen as a major cause for concern, since good relationships with probation officers could either hinder and hold an IPP prisoner back or propel them forward. A general need for continuity was expressed. This would include more proactive support of 

•IPP prisoners during their sentence, to flow on after release. Workshop participants further advocated for a more inclusive resettlement approach 

•involving increased services and third parties, rather than relying only on family members to do the ‘heavy lifting’ in resettlement work. 

As much as families wanted to play an important role in their loved ones’ resettlement, they felt they were left with a disproportionate amount of emotional and economic labour imposed on them: Not everyone’s got the resources to be able to do that ... or don’t want to do that. They’ve had a lifetime of managing very difficult stuff and maybe they don’t want it anymore. There’s an expectation that families can go on and on providing it – well, no, they can’t, because ... you’re depleted. workshop participant Families felt that some probation staff were lacking sufficient knowledge with regard to the 

•specific issues as regards the IPP sentence and implications for the prisoner and their family that flowed from this. This was often attributed to systemic issues and recruitment policies: 10

I think the turnover of staff is probably quite great...they don’t really have an understanding... of the complex situations of the prisoners and IPP sentences ...That’s been my wholeexperience apart from the odd couple of people that have been pretty amazing.workshop participant In a similar vein, a lack of continuity and consistency in the allocation of both offender 

•supervisors and probation officers was raised as a cause for concern. Families felt that in order to correctly risk assess and supervise individual prisoners, it was vital that staff met their clients personally and got to know them over a longer period of time. This would enable them to provide tailored support and advice. Families commonly perceived Approved Premises (APs) as being treated as the default

•option upon an IPP prisoner’s release. Reasons for this were often not given, or poorly explained, and families perceived their own views on how best to support the IPP prisoner to be unheard. The risk of recall brought families particular distress due to their powerlessness and anxiety

•about the uncertainty it caused. 

These feelings were mainly caused by a distinct lack of clarity and consistency around it. What were the guidelines concerning, and limitations upon, who could recall an IPP prisoner? For what reasons could recall take place? Under what circumstances? What would happen following recall? Families often felt left alone in the aftermath of the recall of loved ones, paying a high emotional price. One mother described herself as ‘a broken person when my son was recalled I think on the ... third occasion, I was desperate ... I didn’t know what to do with myself’. There was a widely perceived injustice in the proportionality of the length of the period in 

•prison following recall, when considering the reason for recall. It could lead to families and prisoners reacting in panic, to their own detriment, over a recall decision: The mental impact on IPP prisoners when they know they’re recalled, the first thing they want to do is run ... They’re still in a ‘prison’ within themselves. So it has to be taken into consideration that this has ... a mental impact on them to get their head round [if they’re recalled]: ‘I’m going away for the rest of my life again’. workshop participant Licence conditions were another factor contributing to families’ and IPP prisoners’ anxieties.

•The awareness that freedom could be taken away immediately – often for reasons not fullyclear to the individual – over a long licence period contributed to a feeling of being stuck in anongoing nightmare. Even release from prison did not seem to bring relief: Having been through this process many times, it just gets harder and harder each time. It’s just the beginning, the release. The problems of getting through the Parole Board is a battle enough, but then getting through that and you feel this intense relief and it doesn’t go away. You’re living with it the whole time. workshop participant 11

b) Policies and practices already in place or in development at relevant organisation:The National Probation Service (NPS) has faced substantial reductions in available resources over recent years, as has the Ministry of Justice as a whole.37 Further, the challenges posed by the re-structuring of probation from 2015 have been well-documented.38 Families’ concerns about probation contact tended, whether explicitly or implicitly, to reflect, in part, concerns about the resulting high caseloads held by NPS staff. Given the concerns raised about Approved Premises, we are pleased to learn of plans to review their use to ensure that they are utilised appropriately and only where necessary. 

We were informed that training tools – both e-learning packages and ‘practice improvement tools’ – are being made available to probation officers, which specifically include training on the ‘IPP journey’, with the role of families included within this. More generally, training to encourage engagement by staff with families of those supervised by probation and to enable nuanced analysis of (ex) prisoner behaviour and risk assessment may have beneficial effects for both IPP prisoners and their families. The development of the new OMiC (Offender Management in Custody) model,

39if successful, may facilitate the development of higher quality and more sustained relationships between those serving IPPs and their offender manager. Further, it holds the potential to facilitate improved contact with family members, and the transition towards release. 

5.3. Parole Board a) Families told us that specific issues faced included: A perceived lack of communication with families and information for them was often noted,

•although participants recognised and appreciate recently introduced changes made by the Parole Board. In particular they felt that practical guidance about what happens before, during, and after parole hearings as well as which role family members can and cannot assume was difficult to obtain (if it existed at all). Families often felt that their detailed understanding of their relative was not utilised as part of

•parole hearings. This also hindered their sense of participation and recognition, as illustrated by the following quote: I have written as well to the Parole Board. I have been [to a hearing] as an observer too. My mum’s been as a witness as well. But ... I don’t really feel listened to. They don’t listen to families ... I’m the key person in my son’s life, I’ve been with him since the day he was born, I’ve supported him, I know him very well ... I’m not naïve ... How can you go on and on about the importance of families in supporting offenders on their release if you’re not prepared to listen to them and take what they say seriously? workshop participant b) Policies and practices already in place or in development at relevant organisation: The Parole Board have succeeded in reducing the considerable backlog of cases that arose as a consequence of the decision in the case of Osborn to increase oral hearings.40 However, deferral rates for hearings remain high. The Parole Board has recognised how the postponement of 12

hearings, often at short notice, undermines the effectiveness of the system and potentiallyexacerbates the distress of all involved by causing ‘increased uncertainty for victims, prisoners, and their families’.

41 An internal project, COMPASS, has been conducted to examine ways to reduce on the day deferrals. This shows indications of being able to achieve significant reductions in deferrals and swifter resolution of hearings that cannot take place on the listed day; the underlying principles of the project will be rolled out for all parole panels in 2019-20.

42Recent years have also seen a considerable increase in the rate of release of IPP prisoners – both in terms of numbers and as a percentage of parole hearings.43 Difficulties remain for families, including the stresses of the parole process itself; the increasing number of released IPPs being recalled; and families’ acute concerns about the prospect of recall once on licence.

44 Nonetheless, the Parole Board’s – and others’ – past and ongoing efforts to improve the progression of IPP prisoners do provide reasons for hope. We are pleased also to note the Parole Board’s public recognition of the injustice perceived by many IPP prisoners and their families. It has stated, for example, that it ‘is clear that more can and should be done to give hope and a reason to engage in rehabilitative activity to the majority of IPP prisoners.’

455.4. HMPPS Psychology a) Families told us that specific issues faced included: Families were often concerned that requirements placed on their relative in terms of lowering •their assessed risk did not always align with what could reasonably be achieved. This typically related to the availability – or otherwise – of particular offending behaviour programmes and other courses,

46 and sometimes also to factors specific to a prisoner (including the existence of learning disability, mental health needs, or language issues):Prisoners are told they have got to do these courses. But either they are not available because they are full up, or they don’t run them, or you have got to wait years for them ...How are they supposed to achieve the unachievable? workshop participant A related concern was that IPP prisoners’ loss of hope in release became a self-fulfilling 

•prophecy, with ‘the frustration, the anxiety, the despair that they suffer...somebody’s life drifting away’. A lack of consistency and continuity in relationship between staff and prisoner (and family) was a common concern. This was seen as being particularly important in relation to psychologists whom families felt could enhance rehabilitative efforts by providing long-term therapeutic relationships: My son has had the most amazing psychologist and she is a very experienced forensic psychologist and she has done nothing but support him for ... the last four years, yeah, she’s been amazing ... She is very experienced, very down to earth and realistic about the 13

14sentence and what he needed ... she put in all the referrals for the services, she made sure that she was still involved when he was discharged, released from prison. She continued until she couldn’t do it anymore ... She has been one of the only professionals that’s been consistent over five years with him and that’s made a big difference. He completely trusts her, she knows everything about him, she’s done therapy with him and everything ... It shows you the importance of someone who ... understands the IPP. workshop participant b) Policies and practices already in place or in development at relevant organisation: From its inception to the present day, individualised risk assessment, and HMPPS psychologists, have been central to the operation of the IPP sentence – in particular decisions on progression and release.47 Concerns raised by families about efforts by IPP prisoners to progress (and their own efforts to contribute to this) align with more general concerns – raised in the scholarly literature and elsewhere – about the limitations and unintended consequences of an individualistic conception of ‘risk’ and thus ‘rehabilitation’.48 We are pleased to learn of efforts to develop a strategy towards IPP prisoners that prioritises a strength-based perspective deriving lessons from the desistance from crime literature. Following the setting up of a joint HMPPS-Parole Board IPP Action Plan in 2016, a central case file review of IPP prisoners who had not made the anticipated progress was conducted by senior psychologists. It has been reported that: out of 1,365 completed reviews, 233 prisoners in these most challenging cases achieved release, with a further 401 achieving a progressive move to open conditions. We have put in place enhanced case management for the most complex cases, so that a multidisciplinary team can work together to remove barriers to progression.49Furthermore, this action plan set out to assist IPP prisoners in demonstrating their suitability for release by: prioritising post-tariff prisoners in accessing rehabilitative interventions, including psychology service-led reviews in cases where there has not been satisfactory progression, and enhanced case management for those prisoners sentenced with a complex set of risks and needs.50Additionally, progression regimes have been developed and implemented at four prisons across the country, which are ‘dedicated to progressing indeterminate prisoners struggling to achieve release via the usual routes.’51However, difficulties have been recognised concerning the limits of available resources that may hinder the ability to address and promote important factors including hope, family engagement, and employment.

5.5. Third sector organisations a) Families told us that specific issues faced included: They reported making little use of services provided by third sector organisations. Some •participants preferred ‘to just keep a little circle, you don’t want everyone knowing your business’, to ‘look to my family for support, so I don’t feel the need to go outside of that’ (workshop participant). When those services were accessed however, participants particularly valued being listened to and when service providers acted: I found that Pact was so good, they actually listened to me, they wrote everything down, they came back to me and said, ‘Look, we’re going to do this, this and this,’ and I mean, actually when he was in the prison, made an appointment to see him and then ended up ... saying, ‘We’ve heard that you’ve had these problems here with your mental health and not getting the help you need and is there anything you’d like to do – this is what we can offer to help you with.’ I mean, I think they were amazing, you know, to take it that far. workshop participant Some respondents had tried to contact non-criminal justice charities, such as mental health charities, and had been disappointed by their apparent unwillingness to provide support. Many families reported having a need for signposting towards relevant organisations for •support with issues related to the IPP. Some families, ideally, desired a specialised, comprehensive support system dedicated •solely to IPP and its impact upon family members and loved ones. In particular they reported valuing mental health support in relation to the pains associated with the IPP sentence. Some participants pointed out that being able to share their thoughts and concerns in a •small peer group, reflective of our workshop structure, would provide a sense of ‘being received’, being heard, in turn providing immense relief for stress. They suggested that the development of peer support systems (beyond campaigning and activist activities) would be valued. This could take the format of regional or national support group meetings with other family members of IPP prisoners where trust and understanding were key. b) Policies and practices already in place or in development at relevant organisation: Third sector organisations Pact and POPS have both provided support to families of people serving IPPs, along with others including the Prison Reform Trust and Howard League for Penal Reform. It is likely that other charities are also providing some support for families of IPP prisoners. These organisations are generally constrained by limited resources, yet we were nevertheless struck by the extent to which their staff and volunteers sought to go above and beyond to help families who had contacted them.

We were made aware of specific schemes that could provide a useful model for the support offamilies of IPP prisoners. One example was the POPs partnership with Greater Manchester Probation Trust from 2009 that focussed on providing integrated support for families of people subject to an Intensive Alternative to Custody Order.52 Any such initiative would of course require adequate resourcing. This report focuses on criminal justice organisations. It should be noted, however, that the significant negative health effects reported by families of IPP prisoners can be viewed as a public health issue.53 The numerous ways in which the effects of imprisonment ripple out beyond the prison walls, impacting children, families and communities, are increasingly well-documented.54At the same time, it is clear that a lack of adequate supports in terms of housing, employment and other basic needs, dramatically undermines efforts by ex-prisoners and their families to achieve successful resettlement.55We share Liebling et al’s (2019) concern at the ‘tragic “dropping off” of ... support on release’.56Thus, while beyond the scope of this report to examine these matters in detail, we emphasise that these issues generally – and specifically as regards families of those serving IPP sentences – require policy and practice responses beyond criminal justice, including health, education, housing and social welfare. 16

6. Recommendations6.1. Legislation Ultimately, the specific difficulties set out in this report result from the creation of the IPP sentence, and the failure to take retrospective action at the time of its abolition in 2012. There remains a need to legislate to end the injustice it represents for those still serving it, whether in custody or on licence in the community. The precise shape and scope of that legislation is beyond the remit of this study, but now requires a detailed technical proposal to be constructed and parliamentary time found for its implementation. 6.2. Prison Service Policy and practice Ensure that families are consistently and reliably able to be recognised and involved as 

•advocates for their relative serving an IPP sentence, where appropriate. Prioritise consistency in building staff-prisoner and staff-family relationships over time. 

•Ensure that those serving IPP are in establishments which can both support progress 

•towards release and facilitate contact with family. Relevant prisons to have a dedicated IPP caseworker, with protected caseload of IPP •prisoners. Information and communication Ensure a system is in place whereby family members with concerns about a prisoner’s •safety can contact an identified member of staff – and expect an appropriate response – without delay.57Ensure that prisoners are able to communicate with family members as a matter of •urgency during times of high stress or crisis (including failure to achieve progression or release at parole hearing). HMPPS to develop appropriate information materials for families that explain the systems, 

•processes and responsibilities related to the IPP sentence (see 2.3). Ensure swift and straightforward communication between IPP prisoners’ family members, 

•the prisoner’s key worker, and other relevant staff. Ensure clear information for families is available regarding recall, including clarity regarding 

•contact details, taking into account the high levels of stress often caused by recall and related uncertainties. Training and guidance Improved training to ensure that all staff who come into contact with IPPs understand the 

•specific issues relating to the IPP sentence, particularly in terms of the practical implications of the sentence and the ramifications of this for families of IPP prisoners. 17

186.3. Probation Service Policy and practice Ensure that families are consistently and reliably able to be recognised and involved as •advocates for their relative serving an IPP sentence, where appropriate. Set clear expectations that offender managers and supervisors will consider and pursue 

•avenues of progression for IPP prisoners and provide support in a timely manner. Review the use of Approved Premises as release options, and appropriate alternatives. 

•Ensure continuity and consistency in the allocation of, and communication with, dedicated •offender managers. Information and communication Ensure swift and straightforward communication between IPP prisoners’ family members – 

•in particular those identified as advocates – and relevant staff. HMPPS to develop appropriate information materials for families that explain the systems, 

•processes and responsibilities related to the IPP sentence. These would include: - Understanding the post-release licence - Understanding recall - Possible processes such as suspending some licence conditions or ending the licence Training and guidance Improved training to ensure that all staff who come into contact with IPPs understand the 

•specific issues relating to the IPP sentence, particularly in terms of the practical implications of the sentence and the ramifications of this for families of IPP prisoners. Develop clear guidance for probation staff around IPP licensing conditions (particularly in •relation to recall) and how this affects families’ daily lives. 6.4. Parole Board Policy and practice Ensure policy is consistent in terms of how the chair of a parole hearing should treat family 

•members in attendance. Develop policy for written contributions by family members to parole hearings and produce 

•related guidance for families. Information and communication Develop information materials for families that explain the systems, processes and •responsibilities related to parole aspects of the IPP sentence. 

Training and guidanceProvision of guidance to Parole Board members as regards families of IPP prisoners: 

•including the issues that they face, the role families often seek to play in supporting their relative, and the potential role they can play in successful resettlement. 6.5. HMPPS psychology Policy and practice HMPPS to ensure IPP prisoners are provided access to relevant programmes within 

•appropriate timescales. Progression and release plans to involve families where appropriate, and reflect on the •positive role they may be able to play (and support that may be required to facilitate this). 6.6. Third sector organisations Information and communication Explore the possibility of establishing a ‘Families of People Serving IPP’ webpage, bringing 

•together – or linking to – sources information about IPP policies and processes. This wouldact as a ‘one stop shop’ for families of those serving an IPP sentence to obtain information in a straightforward and accessible manner. Relevant organistions that support families of prisoners are encouraged to explore the

•possibility of facilitating local peer support groups for family members of people serving IPPs.Training and guidance Relevant organistions are encouraged to explore the development of guidance documents 

•for staff/volunteers providing support for families of prisoners, specifically on the issues facedby families regarding the IPP sentence. 7. Conclusion This report has made clear the pains experienced by families of those serving IPP sentences. It has set out the specific challenges they face, and the ways in which their vital role in the resettlement of people serving IPPs could better be supported. We have seen that families report a sense of the injustice ‘eating away at you’ and the stress of ‘not knowing when it will ever end’ (workshop participant).58 Families often reported finding it difficult to obtain information about even basic matters. Important processes like parole hearings or recall, the division of responsibilities between organisations, and other crucial matters often remained obscure. 19

20Efforts to help their relatives were experienced as stressful and time-consuming, and families often felt over-burdened by the labour required of them. At the same time, they reported feeling ignored or side lined, with their efforts to support their relative not recognised. This left many feeling ‘powerless’, ‘depleted’ and sometimes both (workshop participant). These experiences are particularly concerning given the central role that can often be played by families in the successful resettlement of prisoners. The recommendations set out here, if implemented, would constitute important steps in mitigating the pains experienced by families, and reducing barriers experienced by them that hinder their efforts to support their relative. The changes proposed in this report would benefit not only the families of people serving IPPs, but also: those serving IPPs themselves; relevant criminal justice organisations (by easing the costs and burdens imposed by this sentence); other public services (by reducing the negative health effects experienced by families, for example); and the wider public (by improving the prospects of successful long-term rehabilitation for people sentenced to IPP). We have seen that the IPP sentence was recognised by the government in 2011 to have been ‘unclear, inconsistent and have been used far more than was ever intended,’59 and that there has been more recent governmental recognition of the ‘concern and wisdom’ cumulatively gained over the 15 years since the introduction of the sentence.60 We welcome the progress that has been made over recent years to address the legacy of the IPP sentence. There is, however, still more that must be done. 

We are especially grateful to all family members, loved ones, and friends of IPP prisoners for sharing their time, dedication and thoughts with us. 

We appreciate greatly the trust we were invested with, and participants’ willingness to talk about painful experiences as well as expressing their hopes and ideas for a better future

It should be noted that families of people serving IPP sentences have been particularly active in campaigning about the situation they face, and engaging directly with relevant policymakers. See, for example, ‘IPP Prisoners Family's Campaign: Justice for IPP Prisoners, lobbying group’ http://ippfanilycampaign.blogspot.com/  Continued at bottom of page. 

...……………………………………...…………….....

[2019] EWHC 2710 Case No: CO/2565/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate: 17/10/2019 Before : MR JUSTICE PUSHPINDER SAINI  (ON THE APPLICATION OF WELLS) Claimant  - and -   PAROLE BOARD Defendant 

IPP Prisoner given released, Court Judgment
This was a successful judicial review for Mr Mark Wells  I am really pleased regarding the judges conclusion, well done to his Barrister, good work.

Although his counsel had challenged the parole board on a number of grounds the cruncher is the following:-
'the Decision the Panel appears to have considered that it had to be satisfied that there was essentially no risk of re offending.  That cannot be correct in law'

It shows in this case the parole board were making his detention almost arbitrary because they had incorrectly disregarded the professional evaluations (psychologists). They also incorrectly assessed the perceived risk bar for post tariff IPPs.

As the judge mentions, the parole board must now expedite another review.  This is because the judge has NO power to release Mr Wells, only the parole board can do this.

So to clarify, this judgement is a slap on the wrist for the parole board. I would hope they will accept the judgment as its very clear and I would hope they would revaluate their decision without trying to undermine this judgement. 
 As mentioned in the report they remained neutral in these proceedings so I would hope they would redo his parole review within 12weeks and grant his release.

The Claimant argues 

that the relevant Panel of the Board (“the Panel”) misdirected itself in law in the Decision (Ground 1) and also committed a number of additional public law errors which I address in numbered Grounds 2-4 below. 

2. In accordance with its Litigation Strategy document (revised in August 2015), the Parole Board, as a quasi-judicial body, has decided to maintain neutrality in the proceedings. The Secretary of State for Justice, served as an Interested Party by the Parole Board, has also adopted a neutral position. They accordingly did not appear before me or provide any substantive representations on the issues. 

3. The Claimant, aged 48 years, is currently serving an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) at HMP High Down. That sentence was imposed on 27 September 2005 by His Honour Judge Martineau sitting in the Crown Court at Blackfriars upon the Claimant’s conviction for the offence of robbery. 

The circumstances surrounding this offence were as follows. 

On 20 May 2005 the Claimant and his co-defendant were en route to the co-defendant’s uncle’s house when they approached the victim and demanded money and cigarettes from him. The Claimant took the victim’s wallet containing bank cards. The Claimant demanded that the victim go to a cash point to draw money, however, the victim managed to escape. The Claimant subsequently accepted that he was under the influence  alcohol at the time of the offence. He entered a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity. 

4. As appears below, the Claimant’s history of offending required the imposition of an indeterminate sentence but the Judge set the Claimant’s minimum tariff at a relatively modest period of 2 years.

• This expired on 27 September 2007. 
• The Claimant had by the time of actual first release date served a period of 12 years and 8 months. 
• He was released on 20 November 2017 but subsequently recalled on 26 January 2018.  

5. The reasons for recall were, in summary, that the Claimant had failed to comply with his licence condition requiring that he confine himself to his approved address between certain hours; that he had discharged himself from rehabilitation on 25
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. R (Wells) v Parole Board

January 2018 and failed to make contact with his probation officer to inform him of the change in circumstances. The Claimant was at large for 2 months but no offences were committed during this time. There is evidence that the Claimant "may have been under the influence during some of this time. Substance abuse, both drugs and alcohol, are features of the Claimant’s history and form the backdrop to his offending.

6. The oral hearing which culminated in the Decision under challenge took place on 2 April 2019. The Claimant was legally represented and also gave oral evidence. Although the Parole Board  refused to direct his release they did recommend a transfer to open conditions. 

7. The circumstances in which the Judge imposed an indeterminate sentence appear from his sentencing comments. I set them out because they explain the prior offending of the Claimant and also express the Judge’s views as to how long one might expect the Claimant to be in custody: 

“Mark Wells, as far as you are concerned I regard my hands as being tied by Parliament, and they intended that the court’s hands should be tied in the circumstances set out in the Criminal Justice Act and the relevant provisions of it in 2003. 

It seems to me that bearing in mind your relevant previous convictions – robbery in 1989, wounding in 1990, affray in 1990, assault occasioning actual bodily harm in 1998, robbery in 2001, possessing a bladed article in as recently as February 2003 – some of these offences require me to assume that you pose a significant risk of harm to members of the public; 

I must assume that unless it would be unreasonable to conclude that you do pose such a risk. You just committed an offence of robbery; it does not appear that you have a weapon, but matters can very easily escalate when a robbery takes place, particularly if there is resistance by the victim and violence falls to be used by the robbers. 

It seems to me looking at the totality of your convictions, the ones I have mentioned, the carrying of a bladed article relatively recently as I have said already is a short step between carrying such an article in a public place and using it if a confrontation arises suddenly and unexpectedly. Therefore I cannot conclude that it would be unreasonable to say there is no such risk. 

The Parole Board will consider your case after 2 years and they may or may not come to the conclusion that you are fit to be released. If they take the view about your past offences that the more serious is a long time ago and more recent offences of violence have been less serious, they may well permit your release…

If they do not release you, then it is an indefinite sentence, there is no guarantee you have release, but I would be very surprised – since there are many cases far worse than yours of extreme gravity where somebody would be kept in custody for a very long period. I very much doubt if you are in that bracket”.
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. R (Wells) v Parole Board


8. It is of some relevance that the Claimant has completed a substantial number of following Accredited Offending Behaviour Programmes since he was sentenced for the substantive offence, including:  

(i) ETS (Enhanced Thinking Skills) (2007)

 (ii) CALM (Controlling Anger and Learning to Manage it) (2007) 

(iii) ADTP (RAPT Alcohol Dependency Treatment Programme) (2011)  (iv) TSP (Thinking Skills Programme) (in community in open conditions, 2010)

(v) RESOLVE (2015) (vi) Pathways Recovery Group (2015) (vii) AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) (2015, 2017/ 2018) (viii) NA (Narcotics Anonymous) (2017/ 2018) (ix) Bridge Programme (2018) 

9. In terms of context, it is important to record the conclusions of an earlier Parole Board panel. A Parole Board hearing (the Claimant’s sixth review) took place on 19 October 2017. In the decision letter dated 23 October 2017 directing release the Parole Board concluded: 

“Your offender manager assessed you as posing a high risk of serious harm to the public. Your offender supervisor considered that risk of serious harm was at a medium to high level.
OVP indicated a medium likelihood of violent reoffending.
In the panel’s view, you present a medium risk of serious harm and reoffending. The panel agreed that substance misuse would be the trigger for an escalation in risk.
…
You are assessed by the panel as posing a medium risk of serious harm and reoffending. 

You have previously failed to progress through open conditions on three occasions and the panel has not identified any benefits of you returning there… 

Your release was recommended by all witnesses and a risk management plan is in place to address those risks that you continue to present. 

The panel is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that you remain in prison.”
(emphasis supplied)
 II. Evidence before the Parole Board
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. R (Wells) v Parole Board


10. There was a substantial amount of historic and current evidence before the Parole Board. I have considered that material. I will set out below such of that evidence as appears to me to be relevant to the Grounds of challenge relied upon in this claim. 

11. Prison psychologist, Dr. Emilia Morton in her report dated 11 January 2019 stated:
“It is my judgement that Mr Wells’ risk for future violence is highly  dependent on him remaining abstinent.

 It is my assessment that Mr Wells’ risk of re-offending using violence is low if he does not relapse into substance dependency.
…
I have not recommended Mr Wells to remain in closed conditions, as it is my assessment that his level of risk does not indicate the need for it. 

In conversations with a treatment manager for the adapted moderate intensity programme New Me Strengths+, Ms Green at HMP Bullingdon, she is concerned that Mr Wells has completed several moderate intensity violence reduction programmes to a level of probably saturation. As this is the case, Mr Wells would probably be found unsuitable to attend an additional programme concerning reduction of further violence.” 

12. "Independent psychologist, Jennifer Bamford said as follows in a report dated 6 January 2019:
“In my opinion, essential strategies are those that relate to substance misuse specifically. The imminence of this risk in closed and open prison is low and in the community is assessed as low - moderate. In my opinion, Mr Wells’ risk can now be safely managed in the community with the recommendations outlined below
…
It is my considered opinion, based on risk assessment, that Mr Wells’ risk can now be safely managed in the community if he were released to a rehabilitation environment or to an AP with plans for a moderate – high level of support for his substance misuse. Detailed recommendations are outlined above in section 7 of this report.” 

13. In a Memorandum of Agreement dated 21 March 2019, both psychologists agreed on the following: 

“- Both psychologists felt that Mr Wells demonstrated good insight but that his ability to apply this learning at times of acute stress is somewhat impaired, possibly due to his cognitive limitations, and that he requires support to try and integrate his learning into real life scenarios/settings. 

Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. R (Wells) v Parole Board

• - Both psychologists recommend that Mr Wells be transferred to a residential rehabilitation unit in the community. 

- Both psychologists agree that release to an AP could be safely manageable if sufficient support around substance misuse was available, but this is a secondary recommendation to residential rehabilitation.  

- Both psychologists agree that open conditions is not necessary, nor is it the most supportive of environments for Mr Wells.”
14. Rebecca Feek, Offender Supervisor, in the Sentence Planning and Review Report dated 14 September 2018, concluded that:
“Mr. Wells has completed a number of custodial interventions prior to his release on licence including the Thinking Skills Programme (TSP), RESOLVE, Controlling Anger & Learning how to Manage it (CALM) and Rehabilitation for Addicted Prisoners trust (RAPt) 12-Step Programme. 

Mr. Wells’ last instance of violence was an adjudication on 21/08/2014 

When he was found fighting with a prisoner. Whilst Mr Wells was non-compliant on licence, there is no evidence to suggest that he was violent or had committed any further offences.  w
…
I would assess that Mr. Wells’ risk is manageable in the community whilst residing at an Approved Premises and attending the local Drug Support Team… A licence condition to comply with drug testing would assist in assuring that Mr. Wells is managing his risk of relapse into Substance Misuse.” 

15. Offender Manager, Rachel Horton, prepared a report dated 1 March 2019 in which she observed:

• “A previous Psychological Assessment (05/08/15) has highlighted that Mr Wells has borderline/ low levels of intellectual functioning which could impact on his ability to learn from programmes he undertakes.

 He has never completed any adapted programmes. 
…
Since being in custody, Mr Wells has completed the Bridge Programme and the feedback has been positive from group facilitators. They have highlighted that he engaged well on the programme and was able to demonstrate appropriate insight
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. R (Wells) v Parole Board

 around his addiction problems and future triggers leading to relapse.
I would concur with the Psychology Report and believe the most supportive move for Mr Wells, at this stage, would be to engage in a residential rehabilitation unit in the community.  
…
I do not believe that Mr Wells would benefit from a move to open conditions as it would not allow him to continue to build upon the work he has undertaken around substance misuse in closed conditions.
…
Lastly, I assess that his risk is manageable in the community. Therefore, it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public for him to remain in custody.”

 
III. The Decision
16. The following passages from the Decision are of some importance and I set them out in full in order for the Grounds of challenge and my reasons to be properly understood.
17. Between paras.6-8 the Panel set out its detailed reasons on the issue of risk. Omitting certain immaterial parts of these sections, the Panel observed as follows (with my emphasis): 

“Your OGRS score places you in a group with a medium risk of reoffending. A recent OASys assessed you as having a medium risk of general and violent reoffending and a medium risk of serious harm to the public. 

Both psychologists assessed you as presenting as a low to medium risk of future violent offending and do not consider that our risk is imminent. The panel agree that your risk of causing harm is not imminent but considered that your risk of further violence may be underestimated given that you are yet to demonstrate that you can maintain a period of stability in the community. The key warning sign that your risks were increasing would be a lapse into substance misuse.
…
Both psychologists recommended that you be released into residential rehabilitation or, as a secondary recommendation, to approved premises with support around substance misuse. Neither considered that open 

Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. R (Wells) v Parole Board 

 
conditions was necessary or would be the most supportive environment for you… Ms Feek and Ms Horton both recommended that you be released, ideally to residential rehab.
…
[T]he panel had concerns that you have progressed to open conditions three times and been released once and on each occasion have not been able to maintain your motivation to avoid substances. One (sic) the most recent occasion you had dropped out of contact as you relapsed into substance misuse which meant that the warnings signs could not be picked up. The panel did not share the confidence of witnesses that you had learnt from previous experiences where you thought you would be able to manage but could not… The panel concluded that the proposed plan, be it approved premises or third stage rehab, was not likely to be able to manage your risks, particularly as it did not offer the level of support and monitoring that you had previously been released with. 

• The panel reached this conclusion having also carefully considered whether the option of a “trail monitoring” electronic tag

 could assist in managing the inevitable elevation in risk if you were to again drop out of contact. However, bearing in mind that you would only need to remove the tag, it decided that greater internal controls on your part were essential before you could be safely in the community.
…
The index offence was a serious matter and was part of a pattern of violent and aggressive behaviour, often associated with substance misuse.  You have made good progress in addressing your risk factors but have repeatedly struggled to put that knowledge into practice.  The panel appreciated that you had not been violent for a considerable time. However, you have continued to display active risk factors associated with your use of violence.  You also have not yet built the protective factors which would be key to helping you live an offence free life in the future. 

 As a result, the panel concluded that your risks could not be safely managed in the community.  Having taken into account the written and oral evidence the panel considers that you need to remain confined for the protection of the public and did not direct your release. 

The panel concluded that the benefits of a move to open conditions outweighed your risks and recommended that you be transferred to open conditions.”

Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. R (Wells) v Parole Board

IV. Legal Framework
18. Section 32 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 provides in material part:
“(4) The Secretary of State shall refer to the Parole Board – the case of a life prisoner recalled under this section. 

(5) Where on a reference under subsection (4) above the Parole Board directs the immediate release on licence under this section of the life prisoner, the Secretary of State shall give effect to the direction.” 

19. Under section 28(6)(b) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, the Parole Board shall not give a direction for the release of a life sentence prisoner unless:  

“the Board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined.” (emphasis supplied) 

20. It follows that the Parole Board can only direct the release of a life sentence prisoner if it is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined. So, the danger posed by the prisoner must be of reoffending that would cause serious harm to the public and the level of risk that would justify post-tariff detention, is a substantial, or more than a minimal, risk. I will return to case law on IPP sentences below. 

21. Following the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Osborn & others v Parole Board  [2013] UKSC 61; [2014] A.C. 1115, the Parole Board issued a document entitled ‘Practical Guidance for referral of cases to an Oral Hearing 2013’. It is material that the guidance states: 

“When dealing with cases concerning post-tariff indeterminate sentence prisoners, it should scrutinize ever more anxiously whether the level of risk is unacceptable, the longer the time the prisoner has spent in prison following the expiry of his tariff.”


V. Ground 1: misdirection in law 

22. Although not put precisely in these terms, it appears to me that the Claimant’s first ground can more clearly be formulated as essentially a submission that the Decision, on its face, reveals a misdirection in law. Counsel for the Claimant had termed this ground as “illegality” in her clear and helpful written grounds but, as discussed at the hearing, it is in fact a more simple complaint of misdirection in law. 

23. As set out in more detail above (see para. [17]), the Panel observed in a crucial concluding paragraph that:
“You also have not yet built the protective factors which would be key to helping you live an offence free life in the future.” (underlining supplied)
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. R (Wells) v Parole Board 


24. In my judgment, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Panel  misdirected itself in law as to the hurdle which they considered the Claimant had to overcome. 

Reading this paragraph in the context of those preceding it, in my reading of the Decision the Panel appears to have considered that it had to be satisfied that that there was essentially no risk of reoffending.  That cannot be correct in law. 

25. In R (Brooke) v PB [2008] EWCA Civ 29; [2008] 1 W.L.R. 1950 at [53] Lord Phillips CJ observed:
“Judging whether it is necessary for the protection of the public that a prisoner be confined is often no easy matter… it does not require that a prisoner be detained until the board is satisfied that there is no risk [emphasis in the original] that he will reoffend. 

• What is necessary for the protection of the public is that the risk of re-offending is at a level that does not outweigh the hardship of keeping a prisoner detained after he has served the term commensurate with his fault. Deciding whether this is the case is the board’s judicial function.” 

26. The Panel’s approach does not to my mind faithfully apply the terms of the statute or this important judicial guidance. Rather than evaluating whether the Claimant would be “offence free” (effectively, no risk of reoffending), they should have instead assessed whether any potential risk was proportionate with his continued detention. 

27. In my judgment, as a post-tariff IPP prisoner, Mr Well’s continued detention depended upon whether he posed a risk of committing offences that may occasion serious harm.

 That is, offences of serious violence like his index offence: R (Sturnham) v Parole Board [2013] 2 A.C. 254, per Lord Carnwath at para. 

45. The question being: 

is there is a risk to life and limb from which the public needs protection by way of the Claimant’s continued detention? That is very different from asking whether the Claimant would remain “offence free”.

• 28. I accordingly conclude that the first Ground succeeds and that is enough to justify the quashing of the Decision. I will now however turn to consider the further Grounds argued before me. 

VI. Ground 2: irrationality and reasons 

29. I have set out the evidence before the Panel at some length above. That was necessary in order to properly assess the rationality challenge. The essential submission is that in the light of that evidence the Panel’s conclusion that Mr Well’s risks could not be safely managed in the community was irrational. 

As I explain below,

 I prefer to approach this Ground 2 (the rationality challenge) and the Ground 4 challenge (reasons challenge) together. 

30. As is obvious, a rationality challenge in public law is always a substantial challenge for a Claimant; and particularly so, when dealing with a specialist quasi-judicial body which will have developed experience in assessements of risk in an area where caution is required.
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. R (Wells) v Parole Board


31. A modern approach to the Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 K.B. 223 (CA) test is not to simply ask the crude and unhelpful question: was the decision irrational?
32. A more nuanced approach in modern public law is to test the decision-maker’s ultimate conclusion against the evidence before it and to ask whether the conclusion can (with due deference and with regard to the Panel’s expertise) be safely justified on the basis of that evidence, particularly in a context where anxious scrutiny needs to be applied.  

33. I emphasise that this approach is simply another way of applying Lord Greene MR’s famous dictum in Wednesbury (at 230: “no reasonable body could have come to [the decision]”) but it is preferable in my view to approach the test in more practical and structured terms on the following lines: does the conclusion follow from the evidence or is there an unexplained evidential gap or leap in reasoning which fails to justify the conclusion? 
34. This may in certain respects also be seen as an aspect of the duty to give reasons which engage with the evidence before the decision-maker. An unreasonable decision is also often a decision which fails to provide reasons justifying the conclusion. 

35. I should also emphasise that under the modern context-specific approach to rationality and reasons challenges, the area with which I am concerned (detention and liberty) requires me to adopt an anxious scrutiny of the Decision: see Judicial Review (Sixth Edition), Supperstone, Goudie and Walker at para.8.12. 

36. Applying the above approach, I consider that both a rationality and reasons challenge succeed in this case. 

37. My reasoning is as follows:
(i) Both psychologists assessed the Claimant as presenting a low to moderate risk of future offending and did not consider risk as imminent (this assessment of imminence was accepted by the Panel); (ii) A recent OASys assessed that the Claimant presented a medium risk of general and violent reoffending, this was not an increase from previous assessments; (iii) Both psychologists, the offender manager and the offender supervisor supported release, no professional supported a referral to open conditions instead (notably, there was no evidence being presented to the contrary); (iv) 

• The Panel seems to have failed to indicate what conclusion they reached regarding risk,
• simply stating that they ‘considered that [his] risk of further violence may be underestimated’; there is a lack of a specific conclusion on risk from the Panel itself in this regard; (v) The Panel did not apparently conclude that risk had increased since the previous decision to release; (vi) There had been no allegations that he has acted in a violent manner either inside or  outside custody since 2014; 
•  (vii) The Claimant had not been arrested for committing any violent offences whilst released, despite being unlawfully at large for two months; (viii) Points (vi) and (vii) are particularly powerful and needed to be engaged with by the Panel.

Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. R (Wells) v Parole Board


(ix) The Claimant had completed a full range of offender behaviour  programmes during his incarceration, including in the period between recall and the panel date, so much so that he has been described as “saturated” (see the report of Dr. Morton to which I make reference at para. [11] above);  (x) Importantly, the Panel did not identify any further courses that needed to be undertaken prior to any future panel meeting; (xi) Although of course not binding, I have set above that at an earlier oral hearing 19 October 2017, another panel carefully analysed all the evidence and risk assessments and directed release. 

• They confirmed that they did not identify any benefits of returning to open conditions. 
• They could only have reached their conclusion to release having satisfied themselves that there were no outstanding areas of core risk that needed to be addressed. 

• 38. I accept that the Panel was not bound by the expert evidence before it but I consider that the extent of the reasoning given by the Panel for coming to conclusion that the risks posed by the Claimant could not be managed in the community fell below an acceptable standard in public law.  

39. Although made in the context of general civil litigation, the observations of Henry LJ (for the Court of Appeal) in the well-known case Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies Limited [2000] 1 WLR 377 (CA) at 381B-D are apposite (see also the helpful summary in the notes to CPR Part 35 at para.35.05.5 of the White Book, Vol.1).  

• 40. The duty to give reasons is heightened when the decision-maker is faced with expert evidence which the Panel appears, implicitly at least, to be rejecting.
•  I also consider that departure from an earlier reasoned recent decision from another Panel required some explanation. 

• 41. I accordingly conclude that the Panel’s decision failed to reflect the evidence before it or to explain in more detail why such evidence was being rejected. 

 The rationality and reasons challenges as formulated above under Ground 2 succeed.
 

VII. Ground 3: relevant considerations

• 42. I can deal with this Ground more briefly. It is argued that little consideration appears to have been given to assertions that there is a low level of intellectual functioning

and the associated capacity to benefit from mainstream offending behaviour work (which goes directly to assessing the most supportive environment to reduce risk).

•  It is complained that the Claimant’s intellectual capacity is mentioned just once in passing in the Decision as follows:

“You have been assessed having a borderline / extremely low level of intellectual functioning although have been able to engage in mainstream programmes.” 

43. I reject this challenge. I do not consider the Panel needed to address this point again. It referred to the matter sufficiently and I do not accept it failed to consider a relevant matter.
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. R (Wells) v Parole Board 


44. A separate matter concerns the fact that it was indicated in the oral hearing that the Claimant would be willing to wear a tracking device or monitoring bracelet to alleviate fears of the panel. 

• "It is argued that the Panel failed to place any weight on this potentially significant protective factor, instead just remarking that a device could just be removed. 
• It is said that the Panel did not take into account the safeguards and security invariably in place, that removal of a bracelet can be charged as criminal damage, an offence in itself, and that removal would inevitably alert the relevant team. 

45. I reject this challenge. I consider that the Panel would have been well aware of the fact that removal of a device would not be straightforward and that adverse consequences would follow if the Claimant took such a step. 

46. Finally, it was argued that the Panel placed too little emphasis on the fact that the Claimant had not been arrested nor committed any violent offences during his time in the community, even when unlawfully at large. Counsel however accepted that this was simply another aspect of the rationality challenge which I have addressed under Ground 2 above.
47. I accordingly dismiss the Ground 3 challenges. 

VIII. Ground 4: inadequate reasons
48. The argument under Ground 4 is that the Panel failed to indicate what conclusion they had reached regarding level of risk, simply stating they, ‘considered that [his] risk of further violence may be underestimated’.   

49. The Claimant argues that given that the assessment of potential risk is fundamental to the decision regarding release, the review process and indeed the decisions of potential future panels, this reasoning is wholly inadequate.
50. As I have concluded above, I consider that there is merit in the reasons challenge which I considered as an aspect of Ground 1. The complaint about the failure to make a finding on level of risk falls within that Ground. See paragraph [34(iv)] above. 

IX. Conclusion
51. For the reasons given above, I will make an order granting the Claimant the following relief: 

(i) The decision of the Defendant dated 2 April 2019 is quashed; (ii) The Interested Party shall refer the Claimant’s application for release to a fresh panel of the Defendant; (iii) Detailed assessment of the Claimant’s publicly funded costs.  (iv) Permission to apply to vary para. (iii).
52. The permission to apply to vary para. (iii) in relation to costs is given in the light of the fact that I am informed by Counsel for the Claimant that R (on the application of
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. R (Wells) v Parole Board 


Gourley) v Parole Board [2017] EWCA Civ 1003 is subject to a further appeal on the question of the Parole Board’s liability for costs when it remains neutral in judicial review proceedings.
53. Finally, I would respectfully suggest that the reconsideration take place on an expedited basis given that the Claimant will at the date of my judgment have been in prison for almost 14 years in circumstances when his minimum tariff was 2 years. 

…...………………………………………………………….

Justice officials in England and Wales are facing renewed calls to deal with thousands of prisoners still jailed under an abolished Kafkaesque sentencing regime that a report has branded “deeply harmful” for families.

The imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentence, scrapped in 2012, was a form of indeterminate sentence in which offenders were given a minimum jail tariff but no maximum for a range of crimes.

Those given an IPP sentence are placed on licence indefinitely after release, and are only eligible to have their licence removed after 10 years.

There are 2,223 people serving IPP sentences who have yet to be released and a further 1,206 serving an IPP sentence who are back in prison having been recalled while on licence. Despite its abolition in 2012, 93% serving an IPP sentence are still in prison having passed their tariff expiry date.A joint report by the Prison Reform Trust and Southampton University has called for legislation to be introduced to “end the injustice it represents for those serving it” and for the government in the meantime to provide support to alleviate the “painful burden” it places on families of IPP prisoners.

Peter Dawson, the director of the trust, said: “The suffering caused by this disastrous sentence goes on and on. It extends far beyond the people still unjustly held in prison, affecting parents, partners and children, all totally innocent.

“Legislation is needed to finish the job of putting right the injustice done to so many by the IPP sentence. But in the meantime there is scope to do more to support families, reducing their pain and helping them to help their loved ones make a success of life after release.”

The most recent statistics show that among the unreleased IPP prison population there are 187 inmates who were given a minimum tariff of two years who have been behind bars for more than 10 years.
The figures show for the first time more IPP prisoners were returned to custody after licence recall than were released from custody in the past 12 months. In the year to 30 June, there were 433 releases of IPP prisoners, but 636 IPP prisoners were returned to custody after licence recall.
The report, A Helping Hand: Supporting Families in the Resettlement of People Serving IPPs, found that the pain caused to families of people serving IPP sentences had not been addressed by criminal justice agencies.
This meant that the contribution families could make to the rehabilitation and resettlement of IPP prisoners was not being realised, the report said.
The report’s authors have recommended more consistent communication and the provision of specific support for families.
Dr Harry Annison, one of the authors, said: “Families of people serving IPPs carry considerable burdens in supporting their relative through their sentence. All criminal justice organisations should avoid inadvertently placing further burdens on those who have often given years of devoted support to their relative.
“Additional information, guidance and support for families, and actions to ameliorate some of the pains experienced, would help to ease the burden on families and enable them to better support their loved ones in prison and on release.”
Introduced in 2005, IPPs were designed to detain indefinitely serious offenders who were perceived to be a risk to the public. The Home Office initially estimated that the sentence would result in 900 people going to prison. However, more than 8,000 IPP sentences were imposed, placing severe strain on prison, probation and parole board resources.
As a result of these concerns and mounting legal challenges, the IPP sentence was abolished in 2012. However, its abolition was not retrospective.

...………...…………………………………………………………….

10 NOV 2019

Crises prison Boss quits after inmates revolt

The director of a crisis-hit private jail has left his job amid claims that warders are struggling to control the high-security prison.

Ian Whitehead resigned from his role at HMP Addiewell on Friday – days after prisoners staged a protest at ­conditions caused by a staff ­shortage.

A female officer quit her job on Tuesday after failing a drugs test. Five trainee officers also left their jobs in October after failing drug tests when cocaine was detected.

The West Lothian jail – ­managed by Sodexo Justice ­Services – has been hit by ­problems leading to a prisoner revolt.

We revealed last week how low staff numbers had led to prisoners being kept in cells up to 22 hours.

Inmates have set two cells on fire and some refused to carry out duties, including ­serving food at meal times, in protest

Management have had to bring in officers from two private jails in England – HMP ­Northumbria in Morpeth and HMP Forest Bank in Salford, near Manchester – as auxiliary staff

“The prison officers are ­relying on the inmates toeing the line. But there would be a big problem if they didn’t – the staff would lose control.”

An Addiewell spokesman said: “We can confirm a prison officer resigned on Tuesday due to not meeting the high ­standards we require.

“We can also confirm that a small number of prison custody officers were brought in from HMP Northumberland and HMP Forest Bank to assist at HMP Addiewell as we were short  in staff.

They weren’t involved in the direct management of ­prisoners and have since returned to their prisons.

“Ian Whitehead has decided to leave the company. Emma ­Stuart is ­acting ­director while we recruit a ­permanent ­successor.

"Last month, almost 100 letters laced with a so-called ­zombie spice drug were ­intercepted at Addiewell.

 "Two officers were ­suspended in July over claims they forgot to lock a ­cell, resulting in a prisoner being attacked.

In January, a report by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland Wendy Sinclair-Gieben expressed concerns over staffing levels and the use of inexperienced staff. The report also said some inmates were being routinely locked up as long as 23 hours a day.

Inmates at Hmp Addiewell protest over conditions and putting those a risk.

Liam Kerr, Scottish ­Conservative justice spokesman, said: “This is a very ­concerning ­situation. However the wider ­pressures of staffing, under­funding and overcrowding are across the prison estate.

“Prison officers have been ­operating under extreme pressure for years but this seems to be a significant escalation in chaos and staff issues.”

HMP Addiewell has been run by Sodexo since 2006 with the contract due to expire in 2034. It was built under the controversial private finance ­initiative and the contract will cost the taxpayer £995million.

…………………………….........……………………..

Prison and Autism

Dr. Natalie Engelbrecht BA MSc ND RP; Registered Psychotherapist, Naturopathic Doctor, and Researcher

A young man with autism and an IQ of 69,was waiting outside a library

in the early morning.A policeman asked him what he was doing.His response was literal, Waitin’ for it to open’The officer did not believe him. No way a black kid in a hoodie was going to a library,The officer restrained Neli for a cheeky answer. Seven years later Neli is still in prison, due to meltdown after meltdown.The last one that landed him in jail was because they took him off his meds and he threatened  suicide . Neli is never getting out. those with disability do double the time more than any other prisoner in turn sent mad and end up in mental hospitals its an outrages practice.

---

Meanwhile, he is being punished in the most severe manner the criminal justice system can concoct. He has spent most of the last year in solitary confinement and has lost almost 50 pounds from an already trim frame.“In effect Neli spends 24 hours a day locked in a segregation cell with minimal human contact for the ‘crime’ of being autistic,”

---

His journey through the criminal justice system began four years ago,when he assaulted and badly injured a police officer who had demanded to know why Latson was sitting outside the public library. (Answer: Waiting for it to open. Hint: He was a young black man wearing a hoodie.)

That launched a self-defeating, seemingly perpetual cycle of imprisonment, release to a group home, and re-incarceration after police were summoned to the home to deal with an agitated Latson.

Next month, he is to stand trial on the most ridiculous charge of all: that he assaulted a correctional officer when, after being taken off his medications and threatening suicide, he was being transferred from a solitary confinement cell to a “crisis cell” with no mattress .[2]

“This is the sort of situation that an autistic young man simply cannot comprehend — he had done nothing wrong and yet the officer was restraining him — and the actions of the officer seemed threatening to Neli because he does not understand social roles the way others do.”

People with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are more vulnerable to being bullied, manipulated and sexually abused.

In addition, they will have difficulty interpreting facial expressions and body language, which can cause them a number of problems. Non-literal language make communication confused.

Then there is the problem with prison being too noisy — doors opening and closing, prisoners shouting and all sounds being magnified by the closed environment causing reverberation of sound.

Another issue is that people with ASD like sameness — having their room ransacked during an unannounced prison room search can cause them significant distress.

Although autistic’s studies show the percentage of autistic prisoner’s are around 4.5%.

one prison in  2015 Feltham Young Offenders Institution in the UK was awarded Autism accreditation (and therefore deemed to be “autism friendly”).

Also in 2015 Feltham Young Offenders Institution in the UK was known as Britain’s most notorious and violent prison, making headlines for its organised ‘fight club’ brawls many other prison are not  “autism friendly” .

Ff you have Autism  ADHD Learning difference's, personality disorder or other hidden differences   you will be the last to leave the  prison estate. prison  discriminates  your  disability's and tries to knock out the disability  behaviour  from you though you will still have the disability when you leave.  

Health correspondent teen-girl-locked-up-24-hours-a-day

https://news.sky.com/story/autistic-teen-girl-locked-up-24-hours-a-day-shes-not-an-animal-says-father-11849347?fbclid=IwAR2mwKmneETQrBHvNXD_ESrYaltkEh4XtPQmjr8wPOhtdM5U0C6n5pnxpDA

……...………………...……………………………………………….

10 things I found of interest. 

What has the MoJ been up to and how did it spend its £8.4bn budget?

Last week (19 July 2019) the MoJ published its Annual Report and Accounts for 2018/19.

1: Expenditure has increased

The MoJ spent £8.4bn last year, £700 million more than in each of the last two years. “It has to be said that the MoJ make no real attempt to make this information accessible.

What most of us would like is an idea how much the MoJ spends on prisons, probation, courts, legal aid etc. I reproduce two graphics from the report, the first from the Chief Financial Officer’s review of the year, the second hidden away in an appendix in the 206 page report. You can at least find out some things from the second chart, such as the MoJ spent £16.8 million on the Parole Board, £84.6 million on the Youth Justice Board and a smidge over £4 billion on HMPPS. 

2. The MoJ has four strategic objectives

These are:

1. A prison and probation service that reforms offenders 
2. A modern courts and justice system 
3. A Global Britain that promotes the rule of law 
4. A transformed department.

5.    So now you know.

3. Prison officer recruitment continues

In 2018-19 there was a net increase of 4,675 full time equivalent prison officers in post between October 2016 (when the commitment to increase staff numbers was made) and March 2019. This increase in prison officer numbers has enabled all 92 closed male prisons to continue the rollout of the Offender Management in Custody (key worker)
model with 15,000 prison officers now trained as key workers.

4: Reoffending for adults increased

For adults commencing a court order or released from custody in 2016‑17 the annual average proven reoffending rate was 37.8%, compared to 37.2% over the previous reported period.

5: Reoffending for young people fell

The annual average proven reoffending rate for children and young people released from custody in 2016-17 was 64.6%, compared to 68.1% for 2015-16.

6: Crown courts are less busy (again)

Receipts for all cases in the Crown court fell by 7% during 2018-19 compared to the previous year. This had led, in part to all outstanding cases reducing from 37,035 at the end of 2017-18 to 31,916 at the end of 2018-19. The effectiveness of all crown court trials has remained constant, between 49% to 52% over the period 2016-17 to 2018-19. The trends for cracked and ineffective trials has remained relatively stable compared to the previous year’s position, from 36% to 35% and 15% to 13% respectively.

7: And so are Magistrates’ Courts (also again)

Both receipts and disposals fell during 2018-19 compared to the previous year, while the number of outstanding cases has remained constant. The effectiveness of trials at the magistrates’ court has remained constant, between 45% and 46% over 2018-19. Similarly, the trends for cracked and ineffective trials have also remained constant at around 39% and 15% respectively for 2018-19.

8: The MoJ as grant giver

The MoJ issued grants totalling £170.1m last year, a cut of £9.6m on the year before.

9: Civil servant bonus payments

Sir Richard Heaton, MoJ Permanent Secretary, received a bonus payment of less than £5,000 last year. Mike Driver, Chief Financial Officer; Mark Sweeney, Director General Justice and Courts Policy Group; and Susan Acland Hood, Chief Executive of HMCTS all received bonus payments of between £10k-£15k.

10: Total wage bill for the judiciary

The total wage bill for the judiciary (including wages, social security and pension costs) was £524.9m last year of which “senior judicial salaries” made up £198.2m.  

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

 

 Justice Minister  I hope your listening  life is not disposable 

In episode 1 of the programme, we saw a self-harmer’s reactions to waiting for the authorisation of the Emergency pin-phone credit to be facilitated.

A prisoner will not have to wait for funds to roll over, or for a manager’s authorisation for Emergency pin-phone credit, as their outside support network can buy pin-phone credit for them on the HMPPS website.

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

Crime is a record low

The number of people punished for crimes in England and Wales has hit a new record low, despite a rise in offences recorded by police.

Statistics released by the Ministry of Justice showed the figure fell by 2 per cent in the year to June, while recorded crime rose by 6 per cent in the same period.

“The total number of individuals formally dealt with by the criminal justice system in England and Wales is at the lowest since records began,” a document said.

Of the 1.58 million people dealt with, 1.37 million were prosecuted and the others were handed out-of-court disposals like fines and cautions.

The number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates’ courts has been falling since 2016 and fell by 2 per cent in the year.

The rate of people jailed has fallen to 6.5 per cent, and the number given immediate prison sentences is at its lowest in a decade.

But the average length of terms has increased to the highest level in 10 years, standing at 17.4 months.

Separate statistics show that prosecutions are dropping for every type of crime, down to just 7.4 per cent of all recorded offences – a fall of 41,700 in a year.

Courts ‘may fail to cope’ with impact of 20,000 extra police officers

Only 1.4 per cent of reported rapes offences resulted in a charge or summons to court in the year to June, 3.3 per cent of all sex offences, 5.4 per cent of thefts, 7.8 per cent of violent crimes and 7.1 per cent of robberies.

The overall proportion of investigations that were closed as a result of “evidential difficulties” have risen to a third, and almost half end with no suspect identified.

Richard Burgon, Labour’s shadow justice secretary, accused the Conservatives of “creating a crisis in our criminal justice system”. said: “It has left our communities less safe and victims less supported,” he added.

Christine Jardine, of the Liberal Democrats, said: “Our criminal justice system is under-resourced and over-stretched, right from the police on the frontline to the courts, prisons and probation. The Conservative government is failing victims.

“Even worse, the government is wasting hundreds of millions locking people up on short prison sentences, even though the evidence shows they make people more likely to re-offend. That means more crime and more victims.”

The latest figures follow warnings that the justice system “will break down” and allow crimes to go unpunished if the next government does not provide hundreds of millions of pounds in investment.

Boris Johnson discusses harsher prison sentencing with police and prosecution chiefs

A union said there are not enough crown prosecutors to deal with current cases, and that the situation will worsen if the 20,000 new police officers promised by Boris Johnson solve more crimes.

“It isn’t just about bobbies on the beat, it’s about the entire system,” FDA national officer Steven Littlewood told The Independent.

“If they do recruit all these extra police, who is going to prosecute the criminals they catch?

“The court system is crumbling, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is under-resourced. It needs a huge cash injection.”

A total of 127 courts have been closed since 2015 and 77 more are set for the axe, amid calls for urgent funding to maintain ageing buildings.

The number of days on which the remaining courts sit has been cut by almost 15 per cent in a year, leaving many sitting empty despite a backlog of cases waiting to be heard.

The CPS is currently attempting to recruit 390 crown prosecutors that it hopes will start by June next year “to meet current and future business priorities”, as well as 40 specialist casework lawyers and additional posts.

The government announced that it would increase CPS funding by £85m in August, but Mr Littlewood said the boost was a “drop in the ocean compared to the cuts since 2010”.

While Mr Johnson has positioned crime and justice as a central pillar of his tenure as prime minister, and the Conservatives’ election manifesto, campaigners are concerned that commitments “will not be backed up” with the funding needed to fulfil them.

Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee has also sounded a warning over the knock-on effect of the recruitment of 20,000 police officers and moves to lengthen prison sentences.

“Given the operational and financial pressure that court, prison and probation services are already under, it is far from certain the Ministry of Justice will have the capacity and capability to cope with a significant rise in demand,” said a report published last week.

“The government has a track record of changing one element of a system without fully recognising the consequences for the rest of the system, or across other government departments.”

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

Campaigners have called for an urgent investigation into the number of people committing suicide while on probation after new figures showed a record rise.

In the year to March, 1,093 people died while under probation supervision, either following release from prison or under a court order. At least 337 of the deaths were self-inflicted, according to figures from the Ministry of Justice – a rise of 19% on the previous year’s total.

The true number who took their own life is likely to be higher because many of the deaths were still under investigation.

Deborah Coles, executive director of INQUEST, said the incidents called for “urgent scrutiny” and criticised the “current lack of independent investigation”.

She said: “What is known is that people are being released into failing support systems, poverty and an absence of services for mental health and additions. This is state abandonment. This is the violence of austerity.”

Also among the deaths, 47 men were victims of homicide – meaning that men on probation were 10 times more likely to become victims of murder or manslaughter than men in the general population.

Family and Campaigner say enough is enough the deaths of IPP needs urgent  investigation 

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

To: The Rt Hon Robert Buckland QC MP

Release the Remaining IPP Prisoners
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/free-the-remaining-ipp-prisoners
……………………………………………………………………………………...






Campaigners and relevant policymakers continued.
Annison, H. (2015) Dangerous Politics: Risk, Political Vulnerability, and Penal Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press Note that people under the age of 18 at time of sentencing were sentenced to 'Detention for Public Protection'(DPP)

By default, the individual remains on licence for the rest of their life. However, the ex-prisoner can apply for the licence to be ended after 10 years. In addition, it is possible for most of the conditions of licence to be suspended after four years (10 years for those convicted of a sexual offence).

Annison, H. (2015) Dangerous Politics: Risk, Political Vulnerability, and Penal Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press p. 182: quoting policy makers involved in the creation of the IPP sentence.
Prison Reform Trust. (2007) Indefinitely Maybe? How the Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection is Unjust and Unsustainable. [online] Available at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Indefinitely%20Maybe%20-%20IPP%20briefing.pdf [Accessed 10/06/2019]. The Howard League for Penal Reform. (2007) Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection [online] Available at: https://howardleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/IPP-report.pdf [Accessed 10/06/2019]. Centre for Mental Health. (2008). In the Dark: The Mental Health Implications of Imprisonment for Public Protection. [online] Available at: http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/sites/default/files/in_the_dark.pdf [Accessed 10/06/2019]. Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection: A Joint Inspection by HMI Probation and HMI Prisons. [online] Available at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/probation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/03/IPP_report_final_2-rps.pdf [Accessed 10/06/2019]. Alden, B., Ranns, H., Sullivan, S., and Taflan, P. (2016). Unintended consequences: Finding a way forward for prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection p. 9. [online] Available at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/11/Unintended-consequences-Web-2016.pdf [Accessed 10/06/2019]. Beard, J. (2019). Sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection House of Commons Library. [online]. Available at: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06086/SN06086.pdf [Accessed 10/06/2019].

5Hansard: HC Deb 11 June 2019, col. 288WH. [online] Available at: http://bit.ly/2M13rpo [Accessed 10/06/2019].6Jacobson, J., Hough, M. (2010). Unjust Deserts. Prison Reform Trust. p. 3 [online] Available at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/uploads/documents/unjustdeserts.pdf [Accessed 10/06/2019].7Jacobson, J., Hough, M. (2010). Unjust Deserts. Prison Reform Trust. p. vi [online] Available at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/uploads/documents/unjustdeserts.pdf [Accessed 10/06/2019].8This project adopted an expansive notion of ‘family member’ to encompass blood relatives but also (for example) close family friends who are primary supporters, in order to capture the variety of individuals heavily involved in providing ongoing support to IPP prisoners, and who consider themselves to be, or to be acting akin to, ‘family’.9Maruna, S., Mann, R. (2019). Reconciling Desistance and What Works. HM Inspectorate of Probation. [online] Available at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2019/02/Academic-Insights-Marunaand-Mann-Feb-19-final.pdf [Accessed 10/06/2019].10Lord Farmer. (2017). The Importance of Strengthening Prisoners’ Family Ties to Prevent Reoffending and Reduce Intergenerational Crime. Ministry of Justice. [online] Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/642244/farmer-review-report.pdf [Accessed 10/06/2019].11Jacobson, J., Hough, M. (2010). Unjust Deserts. Prison Reform Trust. p. vii [online] Available at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/uploads/documents/unjustdeserts.pdf [Accessed 10/06/2019].12Prison Reform Trust. (2018). Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile: Autumn 2018. p. 29 [online] Available at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Bromley%20Briefings/Autumn%202018%20Factfile.pdf13Liebling, A., Laws, B., Lieber, E., Auty, K., Schmidt, B.E., Crewe, B., Gardom, J., Kant, D., Morey, M. (2019). Are Hope and Possibility Achievable in Prison? The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice. 58(1), pp.1-23.14 Liebling, A., Laws, B., Lieber, E., Auty, K., Schmidt, B.E., Crewe, B., Gardom, J., Kant, D., Morey, M. (2019). Are Hope and Possibility Achievable in Prison? The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice. 58(1), pp.1-23.218. EndnotesIPP_families.qxp_ipp_and_family 25/10/2019 10:44 Page 21

15Ashworth, A., Zedner, L. (2019). Some Dilemmas of Indeterminate Sentences: Risk and Uncertainty, Dignity and Hope. in Keijser, J., Roberts, J.V, Ryberg, J. (eds). Predictive Sentencing: Normative and Empirical Perspectives. Oxford: Hart Publishing. Maruna, S., Mann, R. (2019). Reconciling Desistance and What Works. HM Inspectorate of Probation [online] Available at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2019/02/Academic-Insights-Maruna-and-Mann-Feb-19-final.pdf [Accessed 10/06/2019]. Maruna, S. (2001). Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.16Lord Farmer. (2017). The Importance of Strengthening Prisoners’ Family Ties to Prevent Reoffending and Reduce Intergenerational Crime. Ministry of Justice. [online] Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/642244/farmer-review-report.pdf [Accessed 10/06/2019].17Hansard: HC Deb 1 November 2011, col. 785–787. [online] Available at: http://bit.ly/321Y1zU [Accessed 10/06/2019].18Hansard: HC Deb 23 April 2019, col. 581. [online] Available at: http://bit.ly/2XDLwrV [Accessed 10/06/2019].19Annison, H., Condry, R. (2018). The Pains of Indeterminate Imprisonment for Family Members Findings and Recommendations: Extended Report. Southampton: University of Southampton. [online] Available at: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/423560/1/IPP_Families_Extended_Final.pdf [Accessed 10/06/2019].20The initial meetings and dissemination of the research findings were funded by the Southampton Law School Impact Fund Award 2017-18.21Our participants were mostly – but by no means all – mothers and female partners.

It should be noted that families of people serving IPP sentences have been particularly active in campaigning about the situation they face, and engaging directly with relevant policymakers. See, for example, ‘IPP Prisoners Family's Campaign: Justice for IPP Prisoners, lobbying group’ http://ippfanilycampaign.blogspot.com/   

‘SmashIPP:Fighting for prisoners serving IPP sentences. https://smashipp.org.uk/Annison, H., Condry, R. (2018). The Pains of Indeterminate Imprisonment for Family Members Findings and Recommendations: Extended Report. Southampton: University of Southampton. [online] Available at: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/423560/1/IPP_Families_Extended_Final.pdf [Accessed 10/06/2019].24 The project received university ethics approval, number ERGO II 47431.25Many of these insights on the nature and quality of secondary pains experienced by family members of IPP prisoners echoed those previously established by Annison and Condry (2018). See: Annison, H., Condry, R. (2018). The Pains of Indeterminate Imprisonment for Family Members Findings and Recommendations: Extended Report. Southampton: University of Southampton. [online] Available at: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/423560/1/IPP_Families_Extended_Final.pdf [Accessed 10/06/2019].26Durose, C., Richardson, L. (2015). Co-productive Policy Design. in Durose, C., Richardson, L. (eds) Designing Public Policy for Co-production: Theory Practice and Change. Bristol: Bristol University Press.27For detailed discussion of these pains, see: Annison, H., Condry, R. (2018). The Pains of Indeterminate Imprisonment for Family Members Findings and Recommendations: Extended Report. Southampton: University of Southampton. [online] Available at: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/423560/1/IPP_Families_Extended_Final.pdf [Accessed 10/06/2019].28For more detailed discussion of this, see: Annison, H., Condry, R. (2018). The Pains of Indeterminate Imprisonment for Family Members Findings and Recommendations: Extended Report. Southampton: University of Southampton. p. 11 [online] Available at: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/423560/1/IPP_Families_Extended_Final.pdf [Accessed 10/06/2019].29For a discussion of similar concerns refer to: IAP (2017). Keeping Safe – preventing suicide and self-harm in custody.Prisoners’ views collated by the IAP. [online] Available at: http://iapdeathsincustody.independent.gov.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2017/12/Keeping-Safe-FINAL-Dec-2017.pdf [Accessed 10/06/2019].30For a discussion of similar concerns refer to: IAP (2017). Keeping Safe – preventing suicide and self-harm in custody. Prisoners’ views collated by the IAP. [online] Available at: http://iapdeathsincustody.independent.gov.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2017/12/Keeping-Safe-FINAL-Dec-2017.pdf [Accessed 10/06/2019].31As Ashworth and Zedner (2019: 13) have noted, ‘IPP prisoners were effectively consigned to an enduring state of hopelessness.’ See: Ashworth, A., Zedner, L. (2019). Some Dilemmas of Indeterminate Sentences: Risk and Uncertainty, Dignity and Hope. in Keijser, J., Roberts, J.V., Ryberg, J. (eds), Predictive Sentencing:Normative and Empirical Perspectives. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Lord Farmer (2017). The Importance of Strengthening Prisoners’ Family Ties to Prevent Reoffending and Reduce Intergenerational Crime. Ministry of Justice. [online] Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/642244/farmer-review-report.pdf [Accessed 10/06/2019].33 These strategies are required to be published on the National Information Centre on Children of Offenders (NICCO). See: NICCO (2018). Directory of Services. [online] Available at: http://www.nicco.org.uk/directory-of-services [Accessed 10/06/2019].34Please see: Ministry of Justice (2018). Minister announces ‘10 Prisons Project’ to develop new model of excellence. [online] Available at: http://www.gov.uk/government/news/minister-announces-10-prisons-project-to-develop-new-model-of excellence [Accessed 10/07/2019].35 Some of which can be found in the following document: HM Inspectorate of Prisons. (2017). Children and families and contact with the outside world. [online] Available at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/ourexpectations/prison-expectations/rehabilitation-and-release-planning/children-and-families-and-contact-with-theoutside-world/ [Accessed 01/06/2019].36 In 2018, 40% of prison staff had less than 3 years’ service. See: Prison Reform Trust (2018). Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile: Autumn 2018. [online] Available at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Bromley%20Briefings/Autumn%202018%20Factfile.pdf [Accessed 10/06/2019].37 Garside, A., Grimshaw, R., Ford, M., Mills, H. (2017). UK Justice Policy Review. 8(8). [online] Available at: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/UK%20Justice%20Policy%20Review%208%2C%20April%202019.pdf [Accessed 10/06/2019].38See: Corcoran, M., Carr, N. (2019). Probation Journal special issue: Five Years of Transforming Rehabilitation: Markets, management and values. 66(1).39See: HMPPS (2018). Manage the Custodial Framework. [online] Available at: http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/manage-the-custodial-sentence [Accessed 01/06/2019].40R (Osborn) v The Parole Board [2013] UKSC 6.41 Jones, M. (2017). IPPs, recalls and the future of parole. Russell Webster. [online] Available at: http://www.russellwebster.com/martin-jones2/ [Accessed 14/06/2019].42See: Parole Board (2019). Annual Report and Accounts 2018. p. 16 [online] Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/818677/The_Parole_Board_for_England___Wales_Annual_Report_and_Accounts_2018-19.pdf [Accessed 19/08/2019].43 Prison Reform Trust (2018). Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile: Autumn 2018. p. 29 [online] Available at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Bromley%20Briefings/Autumn%202018%20Factfile.pdf [Accessed 10/06/2019].44See: Annison, H., Condry, R. (2018). The Pains of Indeterminate Imprisonment for Family Members Findings and Recommendations: Extended Report. Southampton: University of Southampton. [online] Available at: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/423560/1/IPP_Families_Extended_Final.pdf [Accessed 10/06/2019].45Parole Board (2016). Annual Report and Accounts 2015/16. p. 3 [online] Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/571930/Final _Version_PB_ARA_2015-16.pdf [Accessed 14/06/2019].46Similar findings have been put forward in the thematic report by the HM Inspectorate of Prisons. See: Alden, B.,Ranns, H., Sullivan, S., Taflan, P. (2016). Unintended consequences: Finding a way forward for prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection. HM Inspectorate of Prisons. p. 9 [online] Available at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/11/Unintended-consequences-Web-2016.pdf [Accessed 10/06/2019].47See: Annison, H. (2015). Dangerous Politics: Risk, Political Vulnerability, and Penal Policy. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress; Zedner, L. (2012). Erring on the Side of Safety: Risk assessment, expert knowledge and the criminal court. In: Dennis, I., Sullivan,G.R. (eds), Seeking Security: Pre-empting the Commission of Criminal Harms. Oxford: Hart Publishing. 48See: Annison, H., O’Loughlin, A. (2019). Fundamental Rights and Indeterminate Sentencing in England and Wales: The value and limits of a right to rehabilitation. In: Meijer, S., Annison, H., O’Loughlin, A. (eds), Fundamental Rights and Legal Consequences of a Criminal Conviction. Oxford: Hart Publishing.23IPP_families.qxp_ipp_and_family 25/10/2019 10:44 Page 23

49Hansard: HC Deb 11 June 2019, col. 288WH. [online] Available at: http://bit.ly/2M13rpo [Accessed 10/06/2019].50Hansard: HC Written Question 8 May 2019, 248729. [online] Available at: https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2019-04-29/248729/ [Accessed 10/06/2019].51Hansard: HC Written Question 8 May 2019, 248729. [online] Available at: https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2019-04-29/248729/ [Accessed 10/06/2019].52See: POPs (2019). Intensive Alternative to Custody. [online] Available at: http://www.partnersofprisoners.co.uk/intensive-alternative-to-custody/ [Accessed 10/06/2019].53Annison, H., Condry, R. (2018). The Pains of Indeterminate Imprisonment for Family Members Findings and Recommendations: Extended Report. Southampton: University of Southampton. [online] Available at: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/423560/1/IPP_Families_Extended_Final.pdf [Accessed 10/06/2019].54See, for example, Condry, R., Scharff-Smith, P. (eds). (2018). Prisons, Punishment and the Family: Towards a New Sociology of Punishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.55 See, for example, Social Exclusion Unit (2002). Reducing Re-offending by Ex-Prisoners. London: Social Exclusion Unit.56Liebling, A., Laws, B., Lieber, E., Auty, K., Schmidt, B.E., Crewe, B., Gardom, J., Kant, D., Morey, M. (2019). Are Hope and Possibility Achievable in Prison? The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice. 58(1), pp.1-23.57Setting up an emergency contact line for families and friends has also been recommended by the Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody (IAP) report. IAP (2017). Keeping Safe – preventing suicide and self-harm in custody. Prisoners’ views collated by the IAP. [online] Available at: http://iapdeathsincustody.independent.gov.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2017/12/Keeping-Safe-FINAL-Dec-2017.pdf [Accessed 10/06/2019].58 Annison, H., Condry, R. (2018). The Pains of Indeterminate Imprisonment for Family Members Findings and Recommendations: Extended Report. Southampton: University of Southampton. p. 3 [online] Available at: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/423560/1/IPP_Families_Extended_Final.pdf [Accessed 10/06/2019].59Hansard: HC Deb 1 November 2011, col. 785–787. [online] Available at: http://bit.ly/321Y1zU [Accessed 10/06/2019].60Hansard: HC Deb 11 June 2019, col. 288WH. [online] Available at: http://bit.ly/2M13rpo [Accessed 10/06/2019].

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/nov/10/ipp-sentencing-regime-in-england-and-wales-branded-deeply-harmful?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Gmail https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/nov/10/ipp-sentencing-regime-in-england-and-wales-branded-deeply-harmful?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Gmail
://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/portals/0/documents/A

http://www.russellwebster.com/mojar19/?utm_source=ReviveOldPost&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ReviveOldPost

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/nov/10/ipp-sentencing-regime-in-england-and-wales-branded-deeply-harmful?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Gmail

file:///C:/Users/KATHER~1/AppData/Local/Temp/871491.pdf

file:///C:/Users/KATHER~1/AppData/Local/Temp/871491.pdf

https://medium.com/@drengelbrecht.rp.nd/how-would-a-quiet-person-with-aspergers-survive-in-prison-a187e6998d7

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/crisis-hit-prison-boss-resigns-20848855

https://insidetime.org/sorting-the-phone-system-out/

https://insidetime.org/probation-deaths/

 %20helping%20hand.pdf://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/PressPolicy/News/vw/1/ItemID/757..http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/portals/0/documents/A%20helping%20hand.p