Kayden hasn't seen his dad, Thomas, since he was a baby. Aunt Clara White is also pictured
Kayden, helped by his grandmother, Margaret White, has written to Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary Robert Buckland - but is yet to get a reply.
The letter said: "Mr Buckland my name is Kayden Wright and my daddy Thomas White has been away for a very long time since I was a baby.
"Sir I'm asking you, can you help me speak to my daddy? I have not seen him since I was a baby.
"Could you help me to speak to my daddy?
"Also when can he come home as my nanny says she doesn't know? Please sir do you think he will be home for Christmas or for my first day at big school? Please please write back sir."
Responding to questions about Thomas White's case, a Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: "These types of offenders were deemed by a judge to pose a high risk to the public and are only released after they demonstrate to the Parole Board they are no longer a threat.
"The total number of unreleased IPP prisoners in custody has fallen by two thirds from 6,080 in 2012 to 2,039 as of March, which is down 15 per cent on the previous year.
"A joint HMPPS and Parole Board action plan has been put in place to help prisoners serving public protection sentences to progress towards release.
"We have also developed progression regimes at four prisons across the country which are dedicated to progressing indeterminate prisoners struggling to achieve release via the usual routes."
Thomas' sister, Clara White, 38, said in order for Thomas to be granted parole he must do a course on rehabilitation.
But she said these courses are only on offer in a handful of prisons, have massive waiting lists, and that she fears Thomas is not in a fit state to complete them.
His family have said that he has spent large parts of his sentence in segregation with only the Bible to read.
"He has spent so much time alone not knowing when he'll be release and it has really had an effect on him.
"When I have spoken to him on the phone all he has done is recite lines from the Bible and talk to me about the devil."
Clara is calling for his release alongside Donna Mooney, whose brother Tommy Nicol took his own life while inside in strikingly similar circumstances.
..............................................
Postdate long delays and deferrals and now remote prison visits for solicitors 'not available for weeks'
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/remote-prison-visits-for-solicitors-not-available-for-weeks/5105238.article
............................................................................................................
Black lives matter Marched demanding their voices be heard and that Britain is a "racist state and the injustice of the IPP sentence".
Scores of protesters took to the city centre streets to march with banners and microphones on Saturday, August 15.
Starting off gathered around the Brian Clough Statue, an open mic was available for 30 minutes where speeches claiming Britain is "institutionally racist" were heard as people shared their experiences.
"I'm proud to be here taking part. Standing against racism and the sentences is not hard. But there are people that don't like what we're doing, which is exactly why we are doing it. Change needs to happen."
I do believe racism and the IPP sentence is embedded into our society and will be unless we make our voice heard and show that enough is enough.
"I'm really pleased people of all ages and races have come out today. This affects everyone. It's not about defining people. It's about humanity.
A LARGE SCALE MARCH WILL WAS AT THE WEEKEND WITH INTRODUCTORY SPEECHES AND AN OPEN MIC FOR PEOPLE TO PROTEST.
They are also seeking for police to release IPP prisoners and for recall to be stopped from 99 years to two years. Marchers....
Demanding the relase of IPP prisoners, stop and search and joint enterprise .Support is growing weekly with protest typicaly culminating in spontaneous marches stations courts in the area where all members are of the public are invited.
Myself and colleague raised some points in 2019 to the CEO of the parole board thanks to IPP prisoners there families and organsations though the meeting was cut short we was promised another date however we have not yet received that correspondence and we will press for anwsers.
The document we haded to the CEO raises our observations and areas of change in the Prison System, and that there should be no one in prison purely because their hearing is delayed- this being a snapshot.
I am sharing minutes of the meeting, more for the families than the public because i feel families could do with useful references and clear picture of the disadvantages those sentence to a IPP goes through which will help strengthen their argument when you write to your MP s and organizations including solicitors.who could do with with useful information. Further you could bring with you on Marches which explains the situation they find them self.. 34,433 Signed https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/free-the-remaining-ipp-prisoners
Full minutes of that meeting
To Martin Jones-CEO
We would like to go through some of the problems that
DPP/IPP prisoners face and the causes that generate a negative influence on
both the prisoner and their family.
We have divided up the stages those sentence to a IPP goes through and refer to
specific areas in the process that cause a detrimental impact on
rehabilitation, mental health and the flaws within the system that discriminate
more against those sentence to a IPPs than the rest of the prison community.
We wish to highlight these areas to you in an effort to steer you within your
remit to be more aware of what IPPs face and hopefully in so doing help you
balance your decisions respectively. We would also welcome improvements to the
system to better help IPPs progress through the justice system.
We have therefore divided this up into five categories:-
1) Oasys reports
The problems with scoring and negativity that discriminate IPPs, Mental health
problems, A report written eleven years ago and how it identifies the problems
we see today
2) The Prison Environment
Disadvantaged and suffering significant mental harm, Poor mentoring, Easy to
manipulate, Why many give up
3) Parole
Stress of the process Why a growing number nolonger want to take part The
change that has created more stress Remaining impartial
4) The Approved Premises
An environment where IPPs are particularly vulnerable and are far more likely
to be recalled
5) The threat of Recall
The disadvantages of being an IPP on licence
Conclusion The things that need to be done to help DPP/IPP prisoners complete
their journey through the justice system
2
1) Oasys report writing.
A quote from PSO_2205 page 45
4.1.6 There is limited evidence about which factors predict the risk of serious
harm. When assessing the risk of further offending, the best predictor of
future behaviour is considered to be past behaviour. This is also a good
starting point when considering the risk of harm.
This small extract explains the negative bias within the base of Oasys report
writing. It is why all Oasys reports will focus for the most part and in
conclusion, about negative aspects.
While it would be true to say that this is the way the reports are written for
all prisoners, the impact on the assessments are particularly damaging for
indeterminate sentenced prisoners. Those that choose to read these reports can
be exposed to some very harmful emotions, the reports themselves can damage the
mental health of the prisoner because every event that happens within the
prison environment will always carry negative implications within the report.
IPPs are in a hostile environment for a period of time that has been
undefined. This causes in itself harmful effects yet the issues are
considerable and were well known as far back as 2008.
The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health wrote a report in 2008 called ‘In the
Dark, The mental health implications of Imprisonment for Public
Protection.
https://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/sites/default/files/in_the_dark.pdf
This report went into considerable detail about the problems this sentence had
and more importantly the effects it was having on the mental health of the
prisoners all those years ago when the sentence was still being issued.
The report highlighted problems that are now all too clear but the problem is,
even after all this time the same problems are still there. They have in
some incidences been addressed but still the problems keep coming up again and
again.
Courses. Limited places, limited availability. For an IPP getting
on a course can have a detrimental effect on family connects as they frequently
have to move to other prisons. Due to the time periods during parole
hearings (18months or so) a course could be completed early on and then as the
next parole hearing looms into view, a new oasys suddenly recommends the need
for yet another course to be completed before release. There is also
inequality within the ability to access a course, prisoners maybe deemed
unsuitable for mental health related issues.
3
There have also been incidents that simply should not be allowed to
happen. I can personally recall an over tariff IPP being turned down for
release because he was physically too ill to attend a course. He was
diagnosed with leukaemia and could barely get out of bed. Regardless of
the reason his probation officer repeatedly told him that he would not be
released because he wouldn’t do the course, the reason for his refusal was
irrelevant. He died from his illness, never securing release.
Mental health is also a barrier and this was picked up on within the Sainsbury
Centre report. It is even more relevant now and so I want to quote the
relevant section to you on page 37:-
It refers to the OASys assessment Oasys is used to assess offenders needs in
ten areas relating to offending behaviour, each of which is scored during an
offender assessment. These areas are: accommodation; education, training and
employment); financial management; relationships; lifestyle and associates;
drug misuse; alcohol misuse; emotional wellbeing; thinking and behaviour; and
attitudes. If an individual offender’s score in any of these areas exceeds the
set threshold, it is recorded as being a ‘criminogenic need’, which means that
it is so significant it must be specifically addressed in order to reduce their
likelihood of reoffending.
Significantly more IPP prisoners have a criminogenic need in all ten need
categories than in the total population or among life prisoners.
Thinking and behaviour needs are there biggest problem area, this has been exacerbated
by the prison environment and the psychological damage the sentence is having
on the prisoner.
This is something the report also picked up on
The indeterminate nature of the IPP sentence seemed to have a significant
impact on the emotional wellbeing and mental health of prisoners. Not having a
release date, and not knowing whether their efforts in prison would have any
bearing on the Parole Board’s considerations, had a forcible impact on
prisoners’ mental health. A great many prisoners spoke of the frustration
caused by indeterminacy, and many said that they had to manage the constant
‘not knowing’. This was described by one prisoner as the ‘stress of
helplessness’. Another said: “I’ve seen this sentence destroy people, people
going off the edge because of what the sentence makes people do.” For one
prisoner the only way to not ‘lose the plot’ was to ‘numb’ himself:” Last
October at The Grange & HMP Hewell four IPPs made it clear they were
struggling to maintain any real hope of release and their mental health was
suffering as a consequence.
So my point here is to make it clear that prisoners are being discriminated by
the Oasys report because at no point in its assessment is it balanced against
the nature of this sentence. The prisoner does not know when they will be
released if ever, this causes potentially significant mental harm. IPPs
either allow the trauma to overwhelm them and many have taken their lives, or
they develop coping mechanisms to help release their distress. Some self
harm, some use Spice.
4
Many immerse themselves into as much as possible to prevent the reality from
bringing on the fear and despair that stalks them day after day. It
therefore is unfair to judge an IPP prisoner so harshly when they get into minor
skirmishes or trouble whilst within a hostile environment. But that’s
exactly what the Oasys does. Any adjudication is brought to bear, even
brought up in parole hearings. Negative Mandatory drug tests are also
pressed against them even though it’s virtually impossible to avoid inhaling
the stuff. Prison officers are frequently affected by passive inhalation
of Spice and passive inhalation is very likely to cause a positive result in a
MDT, despite the misinformation contained within PSO 3601,8.50 page 11.
The research referred to is well out of date. The potential
consequences of a positive MDT affect the IPPs more than anyone as they are
held potential indefinitely. Every knock back damages them and that is
why I would ask all board members to balance events within the estate with a
degree of understanding. The prisoner’s behaviour within the prison
environment does not represent a true reflection of how they would behave
outside it. Indeed I would argue that if one of us was to venture within
their environment and act as we do out here, we would not last very long.
Due to the considerable time many of these prisoners have served over their
tariff dates, a considerable amount will have become institutionalised.
The fear of release becomes just as daunting to them as the fear of never being
released.
The report mentioned in its conclusion At the centre of the debates relating to
IPP and ‘risk’, is the hypothesis that the IPP sentence is conflating
(blending) ‘dangerousness’ with ‘mental illness’, and that the IPP sentence is
an example of ‘reverse diversion’ where offenders with mental illness are more
likely than others to be detained in prison than diverted away (see Rutherford,
2008). Here, eleven years down the road we are seeing the consequences of
this. The more damaged their mental health gets, the more likely they
will remain stuck within the justice system, rather than getting the mental
health support they need in the community.
What can you do? i) There can be occasions where the physical health of a
prisoner should out way the need for a course to be completed; after all we are
now holding prisoners well into their senior years and in deteriorating health,
so promote a more balanced approach, its far more important to get elderly IPPs
out of prison especially if they are in poor health. On licence they will
be able to access better health provisions and ‘offender related work’ can be
done whilst in the community. ii) Mental health related issues
should not impede the progress of IPPs in obtaining release. Currently it
does and it comes into conflict with equality rights. OMs should be asked
to incorporate risk strategies to mediate the risk score as soon as it becomes
known in the pre hearing review.
5
2) The Prison Environment
I have already touched on the prison environment and its damaging effects but
there are a few more points to bring up in this area.
IPP’s are punished more harshly than any other prisoner type within the
estate.
There were 204,715 adjudication outcomes in 2018, up 7%
We have a particularly harsh adjudication system here in England and
Wales. Scotland no longer adds extra time but we do.
Last year a total of 380,169 additional days were awarded as punishment and
added to sentences
Adjudications for an IPP are particularly damaging as they can knock them back
at parole regardless as to whether the punishment warranted extra days or
not. Being knocked back potentially means around another 547 days behind
bars. They can do everything they can to avoid getting into trouble but
the longer they are in the more likely they are to get a nicking. The
fear of this does not help keep them focused on being of good behaviour,
instead it causes paranoia based mainly on the environment they are forced to
endure. Anyone who wants to get them into trouble can and do regularly,
as they are frequently in a poor mental state already. This makes them
malleable to those wishing to exploit them. So they give up on trying to
keep squeaky clean and in so doing reside themselves to the fact that prison is
all that’s guaranteed anyway, so why make their life in it harder than it needs
to be. Doing jobs for free Spice, hiding contraband for free
canteen. The little things that make prison life a bit easier, knowing
that if someone picks on you, that you are protected and others will support
you. Slowly you feel safer in prison and the thought of release brings on
fear, no support and no one watching your back when you’re released.
Inadequate mentoring Prison officers are given 10weeks at best of rudimentary
training, unlike countries like Norway who spend three years training their
officers. How to restrain, How to turn a key, How to count, How to keep
yourself safe, all important things a prison officer must learn but how to
rehabilitate, how to support someone experiencing a mental breakdown. How
to instil trust, all fall at the way side. IPPs need extra support
and that requires time and effort, time that our officers cannot spare.
They are too busy getting movement underway from wings, supervising the
servery, getting wings locked down and so on. Time to sit down and spend
real time with people that need help with transfers, getting listed onto
courses, getting their medication and help contacting family simply isn’t
there. These are issues vitally important to an IPP prisoner; there is no
default release date. Letting go of all these worries is becomes easier
than trying to achieve the things that are needed to comply with sentence plans.
That’s why so many give up and instead focus on the only life that is
guaranteed. Where I am pleased to see a significant recruitment drive
regarding Prison Officers I am disappointed with the quality of training
given. Many experienced officers have left and worryingly a large number
of
6
new recruits leave every year. This is in part to significant shortfalls
in the quality of the training being given.
What can you do about that I hear you ask? As the parole board there is little
you can do but the little you can do still may make a significant
difference. i) Acknowledge the efforts of the prisoner when it is
due but also acknowledge the harsh reality that they are attempting to do it
in. ii) Lower your threshold of required engagement with sentence plans;
instead assess whether the prisoner could do such work in the
community? iii) Ask them whether they are willing to comply with
the strict licence they will be under? Critically these are
fundamentally important questions that need to be answered, ensure they have
the opportunity to answer them directly.
I would advocate a more positive approach to the possibility that people can
adapt in a more therapeutic environment and behaviour work will be much more
beneficial and relevant. We need to rehabilitate not
institutionalize.
Parole
There are of course three parts to parole; all will be traumatic for a DPP/IPP
prisoner who is desperately seeking to obtain release. They will have a
copy of their Oasys and they would have already done everything they could do
to achieve what has been asked of them. As the day draws closer an unwelcome
report will undoubtedly be shoved under their door. A newer, revised
Oasys. This rarely brings good news, there is always at least something
more negative on it, whether it’s the revelation of a nicking that they thought
wouldn’t show up, or perhaps a detrimental statement from an officer that has
taken a disliking to them. A common update involves yet more work,
another course or a revoke in the support for release by either the outside
offender manager or the one within. The prospect of another 18 month
knock back floods like bleach into their minds, Oasys reports delivered without
support bring about suicidal thoughts and sleepless nights.
Then the hearing itself, which usually arrives after days and nights of
anxiety, when you look into their bloodshot eyes what do you see?
During that hearing do you consider what they have had to endure, of course
not? Your remit is trimmed to a specific requirement, an independent
assessment on risk to the public. Whilst you may advice the secretary of
state on a slightly wider remit, your primary purpose is risk to the community
and can any perceived risk be effectively mitigated. But please do
not prejudge even in your mind the person that stands before you. Engage
with them as much as you are permitted too and be understanding if they seem
somewhat distant. Remember the environment they are in, ask them when
they received the latest copy of their Oasys and confirm the date of the
report. Speak to them as an equal, when you evaluate any evidence be sure
to assess its reliability and where possible be sure to get the prisoners
view.
7
Take their evaluation seriously and thank them for it. Don’t dismiss it
likely; give them the benefit of the doubt. Life in prison is tough
enough.
For an IPP that is desperate to do what is needed to obtain release, this
parole hearing is more than its name suggests. It’s another trial to
them; they are back in the court room on trial for crimes they have not
committed. In their own mind they will know whether they consider
themselves a threat to society and where they are certain they are not, the
frustration they will feel can be overwhelming. All they can do to
convince you is courses and do their best to stay out of trouble. If
only, some have told me I could show them a polygraph, to prove to them I am no
danger to anyone.
After the hearing is arguably the toughest period for an IPP, will they grant
me release, will I get a Cat D.? Days of anguish, maybe questions from
family, desperate to know, desperate to hear some good news that perhaps Dad is
coming home at last. A step forward but wait they must. When
it arrives it’s rare that they receive the much needed support that they
need. In most cases it’s a letter dumped on their bunk or pushed under
their door after bang up. There in that envelope lies their fate; at the
precipice of a critical high emotional event they are left alone to face the
reality of your decision. A cell bell there maybe but it rarely can be
pushed without consequences these days. Help is not something that is
openly given especially from the night shift. Whatever the outcome, it
brings on extreme emotions. One recent suicide was an IPP who had been
granted release. As I mentioned before, the longer they are in the more
the uncertainty of how they will cope on the outside will
grow. In light of the changes made to the parole process and
the rights of the victims to challenge your decision if you grant release comes
yet another hurdle and potentially a devastating one for an IPP.
After receiving your decision, after telling their friends and family that
finally they are coming out, there is the very real prospect that you could
change your mind. This potentially could push them over the edge.
Any challenge to a release decision needs to be robustly defended, yet the IPP
has no legal representative to help defend it. This is something you do between
yourselves. Remember this is like being on trial all over again for the
prisoner and they will be in a very vulnerable emotional state.
What can you do? There is potentially a considerable amount that you can do in
this traumatic period for IPPs. i) Recognising their struggle, that this is a
potentially extremely emotional time for those still determined to try and
progress within the system. Confirm when they received their copy of the
latest Oasys report. ii) Always try to involve them as much as you can during
the hearing and engage with them. Give them a clear indication of when your
decision will be made and do your utmost to ensure they are given support at
that critical time, regardless of the decision. I would strongly suggest
that you write a letter to accompany the decision ensuring it is written in a
supporting way.
8
It’s very likely they will have to face your decision alone and it can cause
serious distress. iii) Before making your decision be more mindful of the
environment they have had to endure and be more focused on giving them a chance
to progress. iv) Where release is not granted look at the category, would a cat
D help them, even when a move to a cat D is unlikely, recommending it would
still give the prisoner hope that they are at least making progress. This
can help them to find the courage to carry on. v) When you are forced to look
at a parole decision again, when you know all eyes are watching you and the
tabloids are very much on the victim’s side, it is vital that you remain impartial.
Defend the right to be impartial and gregariously defend your decision where it
is appropriate. Be mindful of the effect of this process on both the
prisoner and the prisoner’s family when a challenge is made. A victim will also
be affected but the views of the victim should not influence an impartial
decision regarding a perception of risk that the prisoner now represents.
Allowing such an influence turns the evaluation of risk into a means to inflict
retribution. Please please remain impartial and do not be swayed by
political interference.
The Approved Premises
A quote from PSI 32-2014 approved premises, page 7 Point 13
Indeterminate-sentence offenders should not be released from prison until their
risk of harm has reduced to a level where it can be managed safely in the
community. This generally means that they will be below the normal entry
threshold for AP residence. Offender managers should be careful to avoid
recommending AP residence to the Parole Board unless there is an overwhelming
reason to. This point is even further strengthened by point 14
Determinate-sentence offenders will be released automatically at a fixed point
in their sentences, regardless of risk. APs are therefore much more
likely to be suitable for these offenders than for those released under
indeterminate sentences
Why then when the PSI makes it clear that the approved premises is not meant
for an IPP sentenced prisoner are they being used so extensively for
them? The answer appears to be that they are being used as a settlement
tool, a place for them to go first in order to seek more permanent
accommodation even when family have offered to put them up. That however
makes curfews more difficult to monitor and reduces significantly the ability
to supervise them effectively, at least that’s the argument. Yet their
perceived risk scores had to be low enough to be considered for release in the
first place. The approved premises have high recall rates; it is
where the prisoner will most likely be recalled.
For a DPP/IPP prisoner, the risk of recall is even higher as they are unfairly
discriminated against in the AP.
9
A quote from Pi_27-2014 page 19. Point 6.2
When making a request to recall an indeterminate sentence offender on licence,
there must be evidence that there is an increased risk of harm to the public
before recall is agreed. The NPS/YOT must take into account the extent
that the offender’s behaviour presents an increased risk of sexual or violent
harm to others, regardless of the type of index offence for which he or she was
originally convicted. Recall to prison does not depend upon a prosecution and
conviction for a fresh offence, nor whether or not the licensee is to be tried
for an offence
The importance of perceived protection of the public has come at the detriment
of fairness with DPP/IPP sentenced prisoners; their index offence should be
taken into account, especially where the index offence warranted only a low
minimum tariff. Sadly the problem is still further exacerbated by:-
6.4 Where the offender displays violent/sexual behaviour which in itself
represents a risk of harm to the public, the need to recall in order to protect
the public is clear and unambiguous. In other cases, the behaviour may not be
of a violent or sexual nature, but does present a clear causal link to the
behaviour exhibited in the index offence(s). For example, the offender
may have resumed substance abuse or re-established contact with other criminal
associates both of which might be identified as critical risk factors, then
invariably recall must be sought.
As many of these prisoners have served significantly long periods in prison
they may have made many friends during that time and most likely lost a lot of
friends in the community. It isn’t at all surprising then that they
may contact people that they know. It is also not at all surprising that
some turn to drugs or alcohol when they return to the community, this could
well be a coping mechanism for stress. IPPs will need support in areas such
as getting benefits sorted, seeking employment and finding suitable
accommodation. All of which the OM needs to be actively involved
in. These are the stress areas; helping them through these areas will
give them a good chance. Many are out of touch with modern technology and
sadly do not get the training they need before they are released so it’s vital
they get this upon release. Local adult learning services can help with
this and OMs need to source placements to help IPPs get back up on their feet
and move forward. IPPs, like life sentenced prisoners will suffer with
anxiety and may feel uncomfortable in some environments so it’s vital
significant effort is invested in helping them.
Yet more often than not, when the IPP is clearly struggling with the pressures
of life in the community, for example after the pressure is building for them
to find suitable move on accommodation, this is the point at which they are
invariably recalled. They exhibit behaviour that constitutes concern,
irritability, short temperedness and perhaps even failing the very low alcohol
limit for residency at an AP, that being the legal drive limit.
10
There is also another problem with APs for IPPs. They are vulnerable here
to bullying by other residence. The residency is populated by other
prisoners’ which creates a prison like environment especially when people are
up to no good. Where drugs are in use there is invariably money related
issues like borrowing, this can lead to disagreements. Where someone on
an IPP sentence is known to others in the residency, this can be used as a way
to control. If the IPP doesn’t want to loan someone money or hide stash
they can be threatened. Most prisoners know IPPs can be recalled much
more easily than determinate sentence prisoners can. Its easy to mislead
staff at an AP by pretending to pass on information about another resident and
whether there is any truth to it or not a report will be written and sent to
the relevant OM.
So here we have a clear inequality problem which is consistent with the
treatment of DPP/IPPs all through their sentence. Here though at this
point is the real cruncher. They got parole down to hard work and
patience yet here they see all that effort come to nothing when they are sent back.
That’s why many feel they are set up to fail from the beginning.
The misused Good Behaviour condition
Quote from Pi20-2012 Licence conditions page 5 2.4 The “Good Behaviour”
condition (listed in 2.3 as vi) is designed to cover the majority of
eventualities. For example, it can be used to deal with activities which are
thought to be leading to reoffending, associating with other known offenders,
inciting hatred in respect of extremist offenders, and any behaviour or
incident that might give rise to an increased risk of serious harm or
re-offending.
This is a licence condition that is used to recall people far to frequently
especially on DPPs/IPPs.
So what can you do? Your remit is clear and the PSI is of course meant to be
followed. What sadly happens, due in part too many offender managers
being young and having limited life experience is that there is no fair
assessment based on the situation in which the alleged breach of good behaviour
has occurred. The Good behaviour condition is so broad and ambiguous it’s
down to interpretation. It also unfairly discriminates against IPPs. So
please:-
i) Promote a tightened remit for the Good Behaviour Condition; you have seen
yourselves at recall reviews the problems of this condition. A proper
assessment should be done before a breach is made using this condition to
ensure there is not undue pressure being placed on the licencee or where
bullying is a likely possibility, where it is evident, a strategy should be
pursued to mitigate the problem. ii) The casual link control
contained within Pi27-2014 Point 6.4 is too ambiguous and the provision within
Point 6.2 needs amending. There are many reasons why someone’s behaviour
can change however it’s rare that it has any connection with the likelihood of
an increased risk of a crime being committed, especially when the index offence
is unrelated.
11
The Threat of Recall
I have already touched on the problems of recall but it’s the threat of recall
that is a real handicap with rehabilitation in the community for IPPs
Many have been recalled more than twice and this has a dramatic effect on their
confidence in the fairness of their supervision in the community. While
some accept they were to blame many feel let down and unfairly treated.
They reside themselves to the reality as they see it, with many negative
experiences it’s not surprising they have a negative outlook on life.
The facts and figures do not help either. The prison Reform Trusts report:
Prison the facts 2019
There are a further 1,063 people serving an IPP sentence who are back in prison
having been previously released — a 26% increase in only a year. There are
2,403 yet to be released as of this summer and 91% (thats 2,198 have served
their tariff and worryingly over 50% of those had a tariff of four years or
less.
As already mentioned many are spending significant
time in Approved Premises and fail to find suitable move on
accommodation. Sometimes IPPs are bounced around different Approved
Premises over a period of many months before finally ending up being
recalled. It would seem at times a vast amount of pressure is being
placed on them to locate suitable accommodation, a daunting task considering
many have spent such a long time in custody and our out of touch with society.
This can push many back into a depressive and defeatist state of mind.
Any wonder so many are on medication for depression and PTSD.
Whilst in the hostel its vital there is a net of support around the IPP to help
them through the gauntlet of obstacles in their way. If family ties are
still strong then family should be invited round regularly and should be
allowed into supervision meetings. This means planning even before
release occurs, firstly identifying if family can be involved with the release
plan and that will involve attempting to locate suitable accommodation near
family to enable them to take a more active part during release. At the AP the
IPP should be able to talk in confidence with their supervising officer; in
particularly there should be more effort to ensure they feel safe within the
premises. Where they are not, no detrimental consequences should affect
them where they have stated they are concerned for their safety.
Seeking medical support within the community The need to seek not just a GP but
in a lot of cases mental health support when released should be a top
priority. However the IPP should not suffer detrimental effects, such as
increasing risk scores where mental health reports are being viewed by the OM.
The fact that mental health support is being sort should in its self show
compliance, Addressing issues relating to mental health can take years to
resolve and in many cases they never are resolved. It’s vital the OM is
very mindful of this, it is better for them to be getting the treatment they
need in the community because they will not get such support in prison.
Currently there is too much emphasis on perceived risk scoring; every last bit
of information appears to be being used to increase the risk scores during the
AP stay. The OMs are requesting almost daily reports, wanting anything
that can be interpreted as negative to be reported. This creates pressure
on hostel staff which can create a bias attitude towards IPPs.
What can you do? i) Actively encourage OMs to seek more involvement where
possible from family. Discourage the use of Approved Premises, it should not be
necessary. OMs should try harder to locate accommodation and where possible
utilise support from family and mitigate the risk to the community using
suitable licence conditions especially where family are willing to help. ii)
Direct OMs to provide more effort in finding the support a DPP/IPP prisoner
needs within the community iii) Request that additional time should be given to
OMs to spend actively helping IPPs to obtain suitable accommodation and where
necessary seek more support through local area provisions, such as charities
and sheltered accommodation.
14
Where the local housing allowance is not enough to secure a flat and the
prisoners’ perceived risk is too high for them to live in a house share,
councils can be approached to provide additional funding under the
discretionary housing payment (DHP).
iv) Discourage an over analytical approach on risk scoring whilst IPPs reside
at the AP. Not every event necessarily needs to effect
scoring. AP staffs focus should be on progressing and supporting the
IPP. MAPPA meetings are there to assess a more comprehensive assessment
of risk, where intelligence can be used to give a more comprehensive picture.
The AP provides a reason to be more tolerant, you know where they will be at
set times and where recall should always remain an option, it should be an
absolute last resort whilst they are at a hostel. All other options should
be tried first and recorded.
Conclusion
Currently we are failing to rehabilitate these prisoners. We are also
guilty of not given them a fair chance. Where the protection of the
public is at the top of your list, it should not cloud your efforts in doing
everything possible to achieve rehabilitation and re-integration.
So I would ask for the following.
Oasys Report writing
i) The health of the prisoner should be considered when assessing the need of
completing courses before release. Its far more important to get elderly IPPs
out of prison especially if they are in poor health. On licence they will
be able to access better health provisions and ‘offender related work’ can be
done whilst in the community. ii) Mental health related issues should
not impede the progress of IPPs in obtaining release. This comes into
conflict with equality rights. OMs should be asked to incorporate risk
strategies to mediate that score as soon as it becomes known in the pre parole
hearing review. Denying release based on a criminogenic need that has not
been addressed in a release plan should be challenged.
15
The Prison Environment
i) Acknowledge the efforts of the prisoner during the parole hearing when it is
due but also acknowledge the harsh reality that they are attempting to do it
in. ii) Lower your threshold of required engagement with sentence plans
whilst in custody; instead assess whether the prisoner could do such work in
the community? iii) Ask the prisoner whether they are willing to comply
with the strict licence they will be under? Critically these are
fundamentally important questions that need to be answered, ensure they have
the opportunity to answer them directly.
Parole
i) Confirm when they received their copy of the latest Oasys report; recognise
their struggle and that it is an emotional time for them. ii) Always try
to involve them as much as you can during the hearing and engage with
them. Give IPPs a clear indication of when your decision will be made; give
them support at that critical time. I would strongly suggest that you write a
letter to accompany the decision ensuring it is written in a supporting way to
minimise the distress that it’s likely to cause. iii) Before making your
decision be more mindful of the environment they have had to endure and be more
focused on giving them a chance to progress. iv) Where release is not granted
look at the category, would a cat D help them, even when a move to a cat D is
unlikely, recommending it would still give the prisoner hope that they are at
least making progress. This can help them to find the courage to carry
on. v) When you are forced to look at a parole decision again, defend the right
to be impartial and gregariously defend your decision where it is appropriate.
Be mindful of the effect of this process on both the prisoner and the
prisoner’s family when a challenge is made. A victim will also be affected but
the views of the victim should not influence an impartial decision regarding a
perception of risk that the prisoner now represents. Allowing such an
influence turns the evaluation of risk into a means to inflict
retribution.
The Approved Premises
i) Advocate a tightened remit for the Good Behaviour Condition; you have seen
yourselves at recall reviews the problems of this condition. A proper
assessment should be done before a breach is made using this condition to
ensure there is not undue pressure being placed on the licencee by another
resident, or where the behaviour can be linked to stress. ii) The casual link
within Pi27-2014 page 19, point (6.4) and the behaviour provision in (6.2) need
to be amended. There are many reasons why someone’s behaviour can change or
become concerning however it’s rare that it has any connection with the
likelihood of an increased risk of the individual committing a crime,
especially when the index offence is unrelated.
16
Threat of recall
i) Actively encourage OMs to seek more involvement where possible from family
and discourage the use of Approved Premises, it should not be necessary. OMs
should try harder to locate accommodation and where possible utilise support
from family and mitigate the risk to the community using suitable licence
conditions.
ii) Direct OMs to provide more effort in finding the support a DPP/IPP prisoner
needs within the community iii) Request that additional time should be given to
OMs to spend actively helping IPPs to obtain suitable accommodation and where
necessary seek more support through local area provisions, such as charities and
sheltered accommodation iv) Discourage an over analytical approach on risk
scoring whilst IPPs reside at Approved Premises. Not every event
necessarily needs to effect scoring.
Thank you for taking the time to listen to the problems that some of the most
vulnerable people in our society face. Please continue your efforts to
improve the system. If we leave things the way they are there will still
be hundreds of IPPs still in the justice system ten years from now. That
is something we cannot allow to happen.
Sourced information
Sentenced for imprisonment for public protection
https://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/sites/default/files/in_the_dark.pdf
https://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/publications/archive-publications
https://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/sites/default/files/blurring_the_boundaries_0.pdf
https://www.justice.gov.uk/offenders/psos
https://www.justice.gov.uk/offenders/probation-instructions
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Bromley%20Briefings/Prison%
20the%20facts%20Summer%202019.pdf
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/PressPolicy/News/IPPs
17
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment
_data/file/805271/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-q4-2018.pdf
https://insidetime.org/adjudication-for-a-failed-mandatory-drug-test/
Relevant news feeds
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/prisoner-whos-served-more-1016777474?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar&fbclid=IwA
R0PcC3ei_IPNnLx0JpZJtpulIaKsZSKDcLuogLDbcYDC7jMpuW-2JpH4_c
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-48885846?fbclid=IwAR3CT2010rJC6hLii7HwlkTqUoJJu6v3JKUDE_gEuZ4nIQqiDoftag_SMg
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-47879038
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-47461779
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jan/10/family-ipp-prisoner-tommy-nicolindeterminate-sentence
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/08/im-blame-blunketts-indefinite-prisonsentences-and-thousands-still-locked
https://mailchi.mp/russellwebster/womenipp?e=20b779e6c8&fbclid=IwAR3i78kwMcbkLiOMcLnhh
Ow0keV-VkWq8hsFrmUDnIbhT3D3ZNIpS5HzoUM
https://ippfanilycampaign.blogspot.com/2019/06/ipp-prisoners-acquiring-mentalhealth.html?spref=fb&fbclid=IwAR1RW5o3mTnDjyfiBgErsf3ExkneyOevYbntAaaTYEIRtUWXN1CUh6Q
hr2k
But there is still more to do in this vital campaign. The more people who sign the petition, the more chance we have to make the changes we all want to see. I’m writing this to ask if you can go one step further and share the petition with your friends and family. Pleased copy and paste this link on Facebook or forward it your friends email.
Reasons for signing the petition
I believe in Law and Order - punishment to be served! But to be held indefinitely for minor crimes is not right! This another example of Government indifference to righting the mistakes that they make!
I have signed because when I was in prison I have seen and witnessed people on ipp and how its affected there mental health they have served there time now what the government is doing basically torching them beyond what they should
Daisy T. 1 day ago
My boyfriend a high ipp he's done this time let him live his life
Laura A. 2 days ago
Everyone sign this up
Moin K. 3 days ago
Because it’s been classed a unlawful sentence in 2012 and yet people are still stuck in custody.
Andre S. 4 days ago
Iz gud wan
Aman J. 5 daysago
My friend was sentenced to 25 months - served over 10years. He was recalled after 11 months, due to a missed probation appointment; We had both telephoned to say he would go in the next morning. Now served nearly 3years on recall, completed the same course twice over & seen other inmates who have been recalled & committed further offence/s, get released, then after a few weeks/months are back inside. He just gets told he is an IPP inmate so is just left there to rot - how is that justice!
kairlan d. 15 days ago
My brother who was sentenced to 4 and a half years is still inside after 11 years with no release date
Signed to help
Yas N. 10 days ago
Because I agree it’s close to our hearts
Leanne C. 3 months ago
my uncles is in prison under ipp since 2003 and he is not able to be released
mohammed a. 1 months ago
Clearly a inhumane sentence, by where thousands of people were given life sentences for crimes that do not warrant a life sentence, disgusting piece of legislation that the British justice system should be ashamed of
Leon H. 2 months ago
This sentence has been abolished yet so many are still imprisoned and the crime doesn't merit the sentence
Dawn C. 1 dayago
Seems a little unfair to have one set rule and a different for others
Rio-raquel R. 1 day ago
Shame on you all for holding people who have complexed Disabilitys who will worsen inside. Shame on you for the massive death of IPP prisoners.
mark smith 2days ag o
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/free-the-remaining-ipp-prisoners
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/can-you-help-speak-daddy-18765719 https://www.post.com/news/nottingham-news/black-livesmatter-4419757
