Total Pageviews

Friday, 17 May 2024

House of Lords to vote on crucial IPP amendments: tackling decades of injustice. The upcoming vote occurs amid mounting pressure on the Secretary of State for Justice, Alex Chalk, to urgently address the IPP issue. Various stakeholders, including the Head of the Prison Governors' Association and UN torture chief Dr. Alice Edwards, have condemned IPPs as inhumane and indefensible.The proposed amendments aim to rectify the flaws in the IPP system, offering a glimmer of hope to thousands of individuals trapped in a legal quagmire.




Update on IPP amendment tabled for the Victims and Prisoners Bill -May 2024

House of Lords proposed several amendments to the Victims and Prisoners Bill, which were debated on 12th March 2024 .These amendments are in addition to Clause 48—the amendment on IPP licensee form which was proposed by the Government. The addition amendments are intended to strengthen Clause 48; and make changes for unreleased people serving IPP

Since the debate, a revised set to amendments have been out forward for  vote at the next stage of the bill. This is likely to be in Mid-May. The government has put forward. Two new amendments, ann the other have been proposed by members of the House of Lords. Some of them. Some of the previous proposed amendments have been dropped.

What is Clause 48?

Clause 48 would drop the period people must wait for review of their licence for 10 years after first release to 3 years.  The year point is known as the qualifying period. It would also introduce automatic ending of an IPP sentence for people who avoid recall for 2 years after the start of the qualifying period. This is known as the sunset clause. Sunset clause, what does sunset clause mean - Search (bing.com)


What are the new revised amendments?

Amendments proposed by the Government.

Power for the Secretary of State to release recalled IPP prisoners with that reference to the parole board, if they believe it is safe to do so.

This power used to be known as Executive Release. It is known now called Risk Assess Recall Review. Under current law, the only applies to people serving in determinant. Sentence is.Tabled by. Lord Bellamy representative in the house of lords. 

Power off the Secretary of State to dismiss an IPP recall for purposes of termination of an IPP licence.

This power would allow the SOS. To disregard a recall which would otherwise. Affect the sunset clause., in cases where the person has been “executively rereleased or released by the parole board. It is not yet clear under what circumstances this power would be invoked. Tabled by: Lord Bellamy (Government representative in the House of Lords. 

A legal the Secretary of State to lay an annual report before parliament stating what has been done to progress IPP prisoners towards release or licence termination. The report must have particular regard to DPP prisoners, and to women IPPs.


Revised amendments relating to licence termination and the sunset clause.

Amendments

134,135,136: Provision for a prisoner to apply to the Parole Board  for a licence termination review following expiry of the qualifying period on an annual basis(rather than just once). Tabled by:  Lord Thomas Lord Garnier Lord Blunkett Baroness Burt

Government's response during the debate

The Government was not convinced on these amendments but they were open to hearing further evidence on them.

Amendments

134,138: Provisions to ensure the sunset clause will still apply where the recall has been rescinded by the Secretary of State and where there has been an inappropriate recall and the person has been released. Tabled by:  Load Carter, Lord Garnier, Lord Blunkett, Baroness Burt, Lord Thomas.

These amendments might be addressed by the amendments they have tabled give the SOS additional discretionary powers in the case of recalls.

Amendment

139: Amendments to stop the Government being able to extend the length of the qualifying period without the consent of parliament.Tabled by:  Lord Thomas, Lord Garnier, Lord Blunkett, Baroness Burt.

Government's response during the debate

The Government stated that they would come back with a position on this at next stage of the Bill once they have heard further evidence.



Revised amendments relating to recall and executive lease.

Amendment

146: Additional power of executive release of recalled IPP prisoners. Executive release (now known as Risk Assessed Recall Review) is when the Secretary of State  gives permission for a recalled  prisoner to  be released  without a parole hearing. It currently only applies to people serving a determinate sentence. Tabled by: Lord Carter Lord Garnier Lord Blunkett Baroness Burt

Government's response during the debate

The Government has proposed their own amendment, broadly similar to  this one, indicating that they are supportive.

Amendment, New amendment added at report stage.

148: New mandatory requirement for the Secretary of State to refer recalled IPP prisoners to the Parole Board within 28 days of recall. This currently only applies to people serving a determinate sentence. Tabled by: Lord Carter Lord Moylan Baroness Burt Baroness Fox.

Government's response during the debate

This amendment has been added since the last debate. The Government has not yet commented.



Revised amendments relating to progression.

Amendment

141: Place the IPP action plan on statutory basis with stated purposes and annual progress report to parliament. This means HMPPS would be legally obliged to carry out the plan. Tabled by: Lord Blunkett Baroness Burt Lord Garnier Lord Hope

Government's response during the debate

The Government said they can see the benefit of this amendment. Shofar, they  have proposed their own amendment requiring annual  progress report

Amendment

142: Establish an independent scrutiny panel on IPP, with oversight of the IPP action plan. Tabled by: Lord Blunkett Baroness Burt Lord Garnier Lord Hope

Government's response during the debate

The Government said they can see the benefit of this amendment.

Amendment

140: An additional after care duty to IPP prisoners who have become  stuck in the  system for three or  more years after their tariff has expired. The aftercare package would be modelled on the care offered to people leaving secure hospital, which includes practical and health-related support. Tabled by:  Baroness Burt Lord Moylan Lord Bishop of Gloucester Baroness Fox.

Government's response during the debate

The Government was not convinced on this amendment, but they are open to hearing further evidence.

Amendment

147: Appointment of persons to represent IPP prisoners’ interests. Tabled by: Lord Garnier Baroness Burt Baroness Fox 



Revised amendments relating to the release test and re sentencing.

Amendment

145: Amending the release test for IPP prisoners 10 or more years beyond tariff, or who have served the maximum equivalent determinate sentence for their offence. This means placing an increased burden of proof on the State that the person serving IPP would present a serious risk of harm if released. Tabled by: Lord Moylan Lord Blunkett Lord Hope Baroness Burt.

Government's response during the debate:

The Government is not convinced on this amendment.



Revised amendments relating to Detention for Public Protection.

Amendment

138a: Amendment to shorten the qualifying period for people serving a DPP sentence from 3 years to18months.Tabled by: Lord Blunkett Baroness Chakrabarti Lord Bishop of Gloucester Lord Hodgson.

Government's response during the debate

The Government does not support this amendment.

Amendment

144: Amendment on annual referrals to the Parole Board for people on DPPs. Tabled by: Lord Blunkett Baroness Chakrabarti Lord Bishop of Gloucester Lord Hodgson.

Government's response during the debate

The Government stated that the new Parole Board policy giving priority to those serving DPP was sufficient, and annual Parole reviews were not needed.

Amendment

143: Amendment on twice-yearly sentence planning reviews for those serving DPP, who have not been released. Tabled by: Lord Blunkett Baroness Chakrabarti Lord Bishop of Gloucester Lord Hodgson.


Government's response during the debate

The Government agreed with the general spirit of the amendment (enhanced support of DPP prisoners) but did not agree that increasing sentence planning reviews was the answer. They indicated that they were open to a revised amendment mandating priority of DPP prisoners.

Which amendments are not being taken forward? The main amendment that has not been taken forward at this stage is resentencing. The next House of Lords debate on these amendments is likely to happen in early to mid-May….. There will then be a vote on which ones to include in the Bill. The Bill will then have to clear another passage through the House of Commons before it becomes law. This is the first Bill since IPP’s abolition.   

Ipp prisoners total in Prison: 2,796. Unreleased - under tariff: 13. Unreleased, over tariff: 1,166. On recall: 1,616 as of March 2024

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

10 April 2024

Coroner calls for review of all IPP sentences.

A senior coroner has condemned the “inhumane” and “indefensible” treatment of a man who killed himself 17 years into a sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP).

Tom Osborne, senior coroner for Milton Keynes, has written to Prisons’ Minister Edward Argar calling for a review of all prisoners serving the sentence.

Scott Rider had been convicted of grievous bodily harm in 2005 with a minimum term of 23 months, but had IPP added so had no fixed end date. The Coroner heard that he had given up all hope of release before he took his own life at HMP Woodhill in June 2022, aged 45. Just days before he died, he told a prison worker that he had lost hope he would ever be freed. He said it was “disgusting” he was still locked up, his crime had not warranted a never-ending punishment, and IPP had ruined his life.

In a prevention of future deaths report, sent to the Prisons Minister, the coroner warned that without urgent action more people could die. He said he had been told by the governor of Woodhill that she believed IPPs were “indefensible” and that she and her fellow governors would welcome an intervention.

“One has to conclude his treatment was inhumane and indefensible, and that if action is not taken to review all prisoners sentenced to IPP then there is a risk of further deaths,” the coroner wrote.

Mr Rider’s sister Michelle Mahon  he deserved to be punished but he didn’t deserve,” adding IPP robbed her brother “of the chance to have a family and turn his life around”. In 2003, he was jailed for assaulting their father and, when released, went on to clean up his life and find a girlfriend.

debate on the Victims and Prisoners Bill when amendments calling for fundamental changes in the sentence will be proposed.

Prevention of Future Death Reports (Regulation 28)

After an inquest, the coroner can write a ‘Prevention of Future Death’ or ‘Regulation 28’ report.

This happens especially where the coroner has heard evidence that further avoidable deaths could happen if preventative action is not taken. The report is sent to the person or authority who have the power to make the changes that are suggested. They have to respond to these within 56 days showing how they have made changes according to the coroner’s recommendations, or how they intend to. All Prevention of Future Death reports and responses are sent to the Chief Coroner and are usually published on the 

During your loved one’s inquest, your lawyer might want to ask the coroner to consider making a Prevention of Future Death report. You can ask your lawyer if they think this might be possible.

Total deaths who were given an Ipp sentence 90. ‘Indefensible’: UK prisoner jailed for 23 months killed himself after being held for 17 years | Sentencing | The Guardian


The Coroner

The government are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report, namely by March 15, 2022. I, the coroner, may extend the period. Your response must contain details of action taken or proposed to be taken, setting out the timetable for action.

 Otherwise you must explain why no action is proposed. 8 COPIES and PUBLICATION I have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following Interested Persons; Mr Radford’s family HM Prison and Probation Service Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (Prison mental health care providers) Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust The Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police The Chief Constable of Derbyshire Police The victims of conduct on 19 April 2019 (who have expressed an interest in receiving this report)

I have also sent it to The Governor of HMP Ranby The Independent Monitoring Board for HMP Ranby Prison and Probation Ombudsman HM Inspectorate of Probation, Chief Inspector, Care Quality Commission who may find it useful or of interest.

 I am also under a duty to send a copy of your response to the Chief Coroner and all interested persons who in my opinion should receive it. I may also send a copy of your response to any person who I believe may find it useful or of interest. 

The Chief Coroner may publish either or both in a complete or redacted or summary form. He may send a copy of this report to any person who he believes may find it useful or of interest. 

You may make representations to me, the coroner, at the time of your response about the release or the publication of your response by the Chief Coroner.  Miss Laurinda Bower HM Assistant Coroner.   

link:  https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Terance-Radford-Prevention-of-future-deaths-report-2022-0014_Published-1.pdf

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

Apr 15

Irredeemably flawed? The IPP prisoner scandal, the death of Matthew Price

Warning – this article contains distressing content. I have used Matthew’s own words because he wrote publicly, and he wanted people to understand the pain of the IPP sentence.

My name is Emma McClure. I am a solicitor and I represent people before the Parole Board of England and Wales. I used to say I represent prisoners but these days not everyone I represent is in prison; some people who the Parole Board deal with are in the community with you and I. I am going to tell you about one of them: my client, Matthew.

This is a story about how you try to keep going and keep motivated when things seem to be going backwards or look bleak.

It is also a story about what happens when you fail to listen to evidence, and the unintended consequences that can arise when policy decisions are poorly thought out or institutions refuse to change their mind.

In relation to Matthew, I had new experience of being on the other side of a court proceeding. I am used to being the advocate, asking questions of witnesses and making submissions in hearings. But back in January, I was the one being questioned as I gave evidence at the inquest into Matthew’s death.

Coroner’s courts are courts which investigate unnatural deaths. They are inquiries, rather than criminal or civil trials, with a judge - known as the coroner - who will investigate a matter and arrive at a conclusion about the circumstances of a death.

They aren’t designed to apportion blame – though criminal proceedings can be instigated as a result of a coroner’s findings. A famous example of that would be the, ultimately unsuccessful, prosecutions that followed the inquests into the Hillsborough disaster in 2016.

An article about Matthew from 28 February 2024 on the BBC website includes this summary:

A coroner has raised concerns about the mental health of offenders serving indefinite sentences after a man died.

Matthew Price took his own life while on licence under an imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentence 10 years after his release from jail.

Mr Price, 48, who spent three years in jail after being convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, died on 16 June 2023.

The article goes on to mention how Matthew died which I am choosing to omit.

IPP sentences are a type of life sentence given out between 2005 and 2012, originally part of Labour’s attempts to appear tough on crime in the late 90s and 00s. They were given out for a very wide range of offences, and often had tariffs measured in months or even days.

The tariff is the minimum period someone has to serve before the Parole Board considers whether the person is safe to be released. Life sentences used to be designed for the most serious of offences, like murder. For IPPs, these were for offences less serious than murder, and it was envisaged by the law-makers that they would apply to a few hundred people; a small but persistent group of serious offenders. During sentencing, the judge had to first decide if the conduct warranted a standard life sentence and if it didn’t, they would go on to consider an IPP.

IPP sentences were given out for 153 different kinds of criminal offence. Initially, judges used no discretion as to when they were given out. A lot of these offences were comparatively minor and weren’t necessarily violent. If a person ticked the right offence boxes, they automatically got an IPP. Instead of the anticipated hundreds of IPPs, judges gave out thousands. More than 8,000 were given out over 7 years.

This was a real problem, because there was no corresponding increase in resource in prisons to enable these prisoners to address the reasons for their offending. Many prisoners got stuck. Many are still stuck, well over a decade later. There are still around 1,200 IPP prisoners who have never been released. It is now 19 years since IPP sentences began. A large proportion of IPP prisoners had tariffs of less than two years; some were measured in months or days. Even those who were given longer tariffs have served at least twice as long as those terms.

IPP sentences were deemed unlawful in 2012, and were therefore abolished, but this abolition was not retrospective. Everyone who received an IPP sentence still had one.

There have been growing calls since then to get rid of the sentence entirely. Successive governments, and Justice Secretaries - including David Blunkett, who was instrumental in introducing the sentence - have recognised it as a stain on the justice system. But, once out of office, they are no longer able to do anything about it other than to express regret or call for action from their successors.

There has been a lot of focus on those who have found themselves stuck in prison, or in the revolving door of recall to prison. They must “prove” they are safe before being released, but the lack of resources devoted to supporting them has resulted in people losing hope and in many cases losing their minds. Many have become intensely frustrated and have acted out, which, in turn, damaged their chances of release. They have got stuck in a cycle of hopelessness. Many, many of them have at this point taken their own lives in despair. There is a report by the Independent Monitoring Board which captures this painful cycle.

If an IPP prisoner does manage to get released, they remain on licence, where the slightest perceived infraction can result in being recalled to prison.

It is possible for an IPP prisoner to apply for their licence to be terminated 10 years after their first release. The right to apply became an automatic right in 2022.

There was a Justice Select Committee report completed in September 2022 – a cross party report that looked at 17 years of evidence about this sentence. This declared the sentence to be ‘irredeemably flawed’ and recommended that all IPP prisoners should be resentenced. This was rejected by the government and Justice Secretary Dominic Raab in February 2023. The select committee also recommended that the 10 year period before IPP prisoners could apply for the termination of their licence should be cut to 5. This was also rejected by the government.

So back to my client, Matthew. He had one of these sentences. Unlike many, he had been out of prison for a very long time. Very nearly the 10 years required before being able to apply for termination. He was in the community. He was working; he hadn’t committed any further offences. So, what happened? Why has the coroner linked Matthew’s IPP sentence with his death?

I could explain what happened, but I would actually prefer to let Matthew do that in his own words – he sent this message several weeks before he died, and it is how I came to be his solicitor and to help him with his application to terminate his licence. It is edited slightly for length:

“Back in 2010, at the age of 35, I committed a Section 18 wounding on my friend.

There was no justification whatsoever for my actions and my friend should never have been subjected to that whatever the circumstances. I still feel bad to this day for the impact my actions had on my friend and my family and others.

After pleading guilty, I was sentenced to prison for the first and only time in my life on a IPP sentence with a 3 year tariff.

I my time in custody, I never really did any accredited offending behaviour courses… this was because I was below the required risk threshold to meet the criteria for such courses but spent my time doing other positive activities instead, including gaining employment… and was released in November 2013.

I continued to make good progress in the community and had the supervision element of my licence suspended in August 2019.”

I will just note here that this means that he didn’t have to keep in touch with probation anymore – he could still be recalled to prison, but he wasn’t being closely supervised.

“The never-ending nature of when or if my sentence will ever come to an end eventually took its toll on my mental health and after trying to throw myself off a bridge in March 2020 before being talked down by police. (Even the police didn't appear to be familiar with the sentence I said I was under and it was as if they thought I was imagining that I was under a sentence that couldn't be true).”

I note here that the police officer who called me to ask if I knew why Matthew may have taken his own life was surprised to hear that these sentences were still a thing.

“Following this, I spent 3 months in a mental health hospital, had my medication restarted, and had the supervision element of my licence reinstated. On being discharged from hospital, I received support from community mental health nurses. Their support and medication helped me greatly but in the greater scheme of things, I knew being under mental health treatment was going to impact greatly on the chances of my sentence ever been brought to an end.”

I want to flag that as a result of his mental health crisis, Matthew was put back on supervision. He was essentially punished for having poor mental health.

“Eventually I came off medication gradually and discharged myself from this support that was helping me because I knew I had to try and find a way to pretend I didn't still have mental health issues when really I did.

Since August 2022, I've had to pretend that losing my father hasn't affected me as much as it really has, as well as pretend I don't have mental health issues when I do, and not to go back on medication because seeking mental health support and being on medication can be classed as poor coping and behaviour by HM Prison & Probation Service in assessments.”

And it was – I have seen those assessments.

“The only way I can keep my risks LOW is to live this pretence that everything is ok when I know it's not.

The truth is, I need mental health support and I feel I need to be back on medication to be able to cope with this sentence but I'm too scared to ask for it because doing so will go against my chances of ever bringing my sentence to an end.

…I'm stuck in a never-ending cycle of which suicide is quite possibly really the only way out. Asking for help will go against me, not asking for help will most likely kill me.

I've never denied my offending and taken full responsibility.

Of course I needed to go to prison as a result of my actions but how can it be right that I'm being expected to cope on a irredeemably flawed sentence, that's inhumane and was abolished in 2012 and also be on a potentially lifelong licence that might never end, and feel fearful to ask for mental health support help.

…The fact is the never-ending and never knowing nature of this sentence feeds poor mental health.

Even those on whole life orders or on any other sentence at least have a sentence that brings clarity for both victims and offenders of the sentence that's being served.

Even if they'd hung me there would have been a definite ending.

The truth is that this long abolished IPP sentence has proved to be capital punishment through the back door in many cases with those who have seen taking their own lives as the only way out growing rapidly recently.

This is a cry for help because this never-ending sentence and the not knowing has crushed and broken me and I don't know what to do for the best anymore.

I've now been released from prison for almost 10 years, yet I'm no nearer knowing when or if this nightmare will ever end.”

Matthew died four weeks after sending that email to a large number of people, including the current Justice Secretary, Alex Chalk; members of the JSC; his probation officer; and several law firms - including mine, which is how he became my client.

Gven I had been representing Matthew, he had messaged people with my details prior to his death, and as I was the last person to speak to him, I was asked by the coroner to provide a witness statement. I wanted to give the best evidence I could, and so I provided the coroner with the email above, the Justice Select Committee report, and a recent report of the Independent Monitoring Board of prisons which had examined the welfare of IPP prisoners.

I also had a response from the Ministry of Justice to an email sent by my boss, to all of the recipients of Matthew’s original email, informing them that he had died. Matthew had received encouraging responses from many of the JSC and peers from the House of Lords but nothing from the Secretary of State or his officials. The response from the Ministry of Justice was generic, and wrongly assumed Matthew had been in prison when he died.

I was told that I wasn’t needed for the inquest hearing itself, but I felt it was important for me to go anyway - for Matthew, for his family and maybe for all the other IPP prisoners out there. I felt it was important to show up. Matthew may have died, but there are still thousands of other Matthews still out there.

I’m very glad I did, because the coroner had a lot of questions for me about my statement, and about other aspects of the evidence he was considering. I did my best to answer and to explain the wider background about the IPP sentence. I could not have done this had I decided not to attend the inquest.

The result of the inquest was that the coroner issued what is known as a Regulation 28, or Prevention of Future Deaths report. This is something that a coroner can issue when the evidence they have been presented gives rise to concern that there could be future deaths unless action is taken by the body that the report is directed to. In this case, the SSJ.

 

The report included this:

The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows. It was apparent from the evidence that I heard and read at the inquest that there are serious concerns about the welfare of individuals who remain subject to IPP sentences. For example, the Independent Monitoring Boards (‘IMB’) completed a report with key findings entitled ‘The impact of IPP sentences on prisoners’ wellbeing’ in May 2023. This report was written following the rejection by the government of the recent Justice Select Committee’s recommendation for a re-sentencing exercise to take place for anyone serving an IPP sentence.

Whilst the key findings of the IMB report are focused upon the impact upon serving prisoners and the prevention of recall, I was deeply concerned about the evidence I heard in relation to the clear impact that the on-going IPP sentence had had on Mr Price. He had served a three year tariff and at the time of his death, he had been released back into the community for nearly ten years

Mr Price was anxious about the ever-present potential for recall to prison. Furthermore, he had conveyed in communications to others that he felt that seeking help with his mental health by way of support and medication might count against him when seeking to be successful in discharging the IPP. Whilst Mr Price was engaged with legal support in navigating the review process, the on-going impact of uncertainty of being on an IPP sentence was clearly apparent.

As a consequence of undertaking Mr Price’s inquest, the on-going wellbeing of those serving IPP sentences, be that in prison estate or in the community, is a matter of concern to me as a coroner.

The Ministry of Justice is fully apprised of the IPP context and whilst matters have been raised by the IMB, I am concerned that specific focus upon the welfare of individuals living in the community should be appraised by those who may be able to take appropriate steps to further support an evidently vulnerable section of society.

 

The Secretary of State is required to respond to the coroner. He doesn’t necessarily have to do anything, but he does have to respond. At the time of writing, there has been no official response, but an MOJ spokesperson has responded to the BBC article about Matthew’s death:

“Our thoughts remain with the friends and family of Matthew Price. We have taken decisive action to curtail licence periods to give rehabilitated people the opportunity to move on with their lives and have mental health support in place for IPP offenders living in the community who are at risk of self-harm or suicide."

That is a reference to the recent announcement, following Matthew’s death, that the government are proposing to change the licence period rules. There is an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill that is currently crawling through parliament, which will reduce the period before the IPP licence can be terminated from 10 years to 3 years. If the Parole Board reject the application, the person under licence needs to avoid being recalled for a further 2 years for their licence to be terminated automatically.

Matthew’s IPP sentence would have been terminated in 2018 under the proposed new rules. The announcement of this proposed change came a couple of weeks before Matthew’s inquest; by that time, the Ministry of Justice were already aware of his death.

The first sentence of the MOJ response to the BBC article says that their thoughts are with Matthew’s friends and family. Matthew didn’t have any friends. His offence had been against a friend, and so he deliberately avoided making friends for fear that something would happen to lead him to be returned to prison. His fear of returning to prison was so strong that he was condemned to a lonely, seemingly-endless period of supervision in the community, under constant threat of being pulled back to prison - on a sentence that had been abolished before he was even released from prison.

Progress on righting this irredeemably flawed policy is very slow and painful. I am not going to presume that my assisting with Matthew’s inquest has moved the dial, but it is important that we do what we can, when we can, to move it - however slowly, however painfully. Even where things seem to be going backwards, or we lose people.

I am aware of other community IPP death since Matthew’s. We need to keep showing up, even at the darkest points.

Matthew wanted me to tell people what had happened to him and why. I hope I have done an adequate job.

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

When life is difficult, Samaritans are on call – day or night, 365 days a year. You can call them for free on 116 123, email them at jo@samaritans.org or visit samaritans.org to find your nearest branch.

 


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



INQUEST into death of IPP sentenced prisoner Lewis Powter

The below media release is reshared from Bhatt Murphy solicitors. The inquest concluded with critical findings, see media coverage. 

18 July 2022

The inquest into the death of Lewis Powter is to be heard before HM Assistant Coroner Lorna Skinner at Cambridge and Peterborough Coroner’s Court in Huntingdon on 18 – 19 July 2022. Lewis Powter was 36 years old when he died on 10 May 2020 at his home in Sawston.

Background
When he was 23 years old Lewis was given an indefinite sentence for public protection for GBH; his minimum term was set at just two years. Despite his tariff expiring in 2009 Lewis was not released until 2011. He was released and then recalled five times prior to his death.

Lewis had epilepsy and complex mental health needs including EUPD, PTSD, substance misuse and anxiety. In prison he was assessed as high risk of death by misadventure. On 18 January 2017 Lewis was assaulted by three Sodexo officers at HMP Peterborough. Those officers were subject to disciplinary proceedings leading to the dismissal of one officer, another officer receiving a final warning and a third officer receiving a warning. Since the assault Lewis experienced PTSD symptoms including hypervigilance.

In June 2019 Lewis was recalled after being out in the community for four days following being late back for his curfew due to cancelled public transport. The National Probation Service in a report stated that the recall was “inappropriate” but despite this Lewis was not released until November 2019. Upon his release he experienced extreme anxiety and fear about being recalled to prison.

In 2008 HM Prisons published a thematic report into IPP sentences which highlighted the impact of serving an IPP sentence on prisoners’ emotional and mental health, including self-harm. In 2008 the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health also published a report which highlighted the negative impact that serving an indeterminate sentence had on prisoners’ mental health and wellbeing. In 2012 the IPP sentence was abolished; but for those IPP prisoner like Lewis there was no change to their sentence.

Leah Biamonti, Lewis's mother, said: "The IPP sentence my son was serving at the time of his death was insufferable both for him but also the family who supported him, taking a great toll. His two children, growing up without him, were confused by his multiple recalls to prison.

Although released from prison for the first time in 2011, it felt as if it was just the beginning , never given the opportunity to adjust to anything that could be recognised as a semblance of a ‘normal’ life, before being recalled for rule breaking, to start the protracted cycle again of working towards another potential release. Each release characterised by a lack of practical support and , in my view, especially with early release’s, a lack of understanding of the extent to which the IPP sentence impacted on the mental and emotional health of individuals, extreme feelings of uncertainty, hopelessness, depression , and as we know now high rates of suicide in the IPP population, and in my sons case extreme and immobilising anxiety.

In our experience there are insufficient support systems in place to support those with complex needs as a result of, or exacerbated by an IPP sentence, relying heavily on family to help rebuild a future in the community. Although it no longer exists , the IPP sentence remains in place for many who are utterly stuck within a sick and broken system.

Release from prison is not the end, it is a time when knowledge and understanding of the impact of this inhumane sentence matters, and when the most intensive support is needed to aid both practical and psychological readjustment to life outside prison, and to support the prevention of what is currently an almost inevitable recall to prison."


Lucy McKay, spokesperson for the charity INQUEST, said: “The evidence on the harmful impacts of unlawful indefinite prison sentences is clear and well founded. Yet thousands of people are still languishing in prison with IPP sentences, or living in the community with the endless threat of recall for the most minor slip ups. IPP sentences were rightly abolished in 2012, so why in 2020 was Lewis still forced to live with this unjust sentence on his shoulders? We hope this inquest offers necessary scrutiny of the circumstances of his death, and considers ongoing issues for those in a similar position”.

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

 links

University of Huddersfield research with the help of family's

https://pure.hud.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/14009510/McConnell_and_Raikes_FINAL.pdf

Decades long of injustice 

https://howardleague.org/blog/the-decades-long-injustice-of-ipps-needs-to-end/

IPP and their families. sentences were ruled a violation of human rights. 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/660bec9b38f66c001e84a8f6/Annex_C_Observer_Guidance_IPP_Families. 

https://insidetime.org/comment/requiem-for-ipps-and-their-families/

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2017/08/im-blame-blunketts-indefinite-prison-sentences-and-thousands-still-locked

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2017/08/im-blame-blunketts-indefinite-prison-sentences-and-thousands-still-locked
https://pure.hud.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/14009510/McConnell_and_Raikes_FINAL.pdf
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)