8
hours ago ... TheOpinionSite.org can report that the UK government has
been heavily criticised by the European Court of Human Rights in two
major rulings this week involving IPP sentences. The government lost
both cases, Downing Street has not made a statement and needless to say,
the tabloid press have not reported the story.
ECtHR) in two major rulings this week involving IPP
sentences. The government lost both cases, Downing Street has not made a
statement and needless to say, the tabloid press have not reported the
story.
This follows the Court of Appeal ruling against the government two
weeks ago declaring the blanket disclosure of details in CRB checks to
be unlawful.
This week, the government lost its appeal against the court’s ruling in
Wells, James & Lee v UK,
the case which effectively killed off the appalling Indeterminate
Sentence for Public Protection (IPP). Despite government protestations
to the contrary, the government was exposed as being dishonest in not
having put sufficient resources in place to enable IPP prisoners to
realistically stand any chance of release.
The ECtHR also said that the UK senior judiciary was
‘far too narrow’
in its interpretation of Article 5 of the ECHR which says prisoners
cannot be kept in jail indefinitely for purely preventative purposes
unless there are mechanisms in place to allow them a realistic chance of
release by reducing their risk level.
The second case lost this week by the government is that of
Betteridge v UK.
Mr Betteridge had taken all available action through the British
courts to speed up his Parole Board (PB) hearing, which was long
overdue, only to find that British judges were too weak to award damages
for the delay or even to do anything about making the PB hearing
available.
Despite admitting and confirming the obvious failings of the
government, the judges said they were not prepared to ‘fast-track’
Betteridge over those prisoners who had not bothered to take the issue
to the courts and in any case, the government had put measures in place
to deal with the problem.
In fact, the government has done no such thing and when the promised
PB hearing was cancelled yet again, Betteridge took his case to the
ECtHR, the British judges having made it clear that they would not no
longer listen to reasoned argument.
This week – and to the government’s great embarrassment – the ECtHR
not only awarded monetary damages to Betteridge (something that is very
unusual) but also very effectively criticised senior British judges for
taking the government’s word that it would solve the problem when in
fact, the government had no intention of doing any such thing.
There are currently around 6,000 IPP prisoners in jail, 3,500 of whom
are past the date at which release should be considered. The same issue
applies to many life-sentenced prisoners of whom there are about 8,000.
The Parole Board is hopelessly under-resourced and, for purely
political reasons, the Home Office and Ministry of Justice are quite
content to leave things that way.
Having IPP prisoners and ‘lifers’ (there is little difference) remain
in custody generates thousands of jobs; not just for prison staff but
also probation officers, course facilitators and administrative staff.
For the sake of clarity (unlike the Sun newspaper which deliberately misleads people)
TheOpinionSite.org should point out for those who do not know, that the ECtHR has
nothing at all to do with the “EU” or the “Europe” so hated by Tory MPs.
The court is in fact part of the Council of Europe which is a totally
separate body ; the council is subscribed to by 47 countries, including
Turkey and the Russian Federation and under International Law, rulings
from the ECtHR must be adhered to by all subscribed member states.
The implications of the rulings
These two cases are a monumental blow for the government and
especially for the now furious Home Secretary, Theresa may and the
equally irate, seemingly anti-gay, anti-freedom Justice Secretary, Chris
Grayling. This is why neither are making statements about the
judgements.
These latest ECtHR rulings come only a week after the blanket
operation of the government’s flagship CRB checking system was found to
be unlawful. This time the ruling came not from European judges but by
judges in the British Court of Appeal who decided that the ECtHR would also rule against the government.
The Home Secretary, rather predictably, has decided to appeal the
ruling to the UK Supreme Court but it is quite likely that the Supreme
Court won’t even be prepared to hear the case, let alone find in the
government’s favour.
(Read more in our Members Forum. Click Here)
The important connection between the CRB case and the two IPP cases above is that
all three
cases criticise the methodology use by the British government when
formulating public protection policies, especially those supposedly
designed to protect children.
For the last 30 years, successive administrations have used anecdotal
or ‘hearsay’ evidence and opinion to formulate policies such as the CRB
system, the Sex Offenders Register, the various sexual and other types
of Prevention Orders as well as IPP sentences.
Not one of these policies, which affect many hundreds of
thousands of people in different ways, has been based on independent
research or factual reference. Instead, they rely on the ‘opinions’ and
‘professional judgement’ of so-called ‘professionals’, all of whom
directly benefit from having such policies in place.
Furthermore, most UK protection policies were imported from the
United States and have been further developed to satisfy the demands of
the child protection industry and the press, both of which profit from
generating public fear, genuine or not.
The Appeal Court and the ECtHR have now both said – and for the first
time – that the process by which these policies are made should rely on
fact and real
independent research; not on a “what if” basis
or on a desire to generate popular support from the public or lobby
groups and not on research which simply tells ministers what they want
to hear.
The rulings therefore are highly significant. They now open the
door for the State to be challenged when it locks people up without
giving them any real chance of release.
However, the rulings also show that the British courts have been
wrong in interpreting Article 5 (which determines whether or not
detention is lawful) far too narrowly.
Perhaps most important of all though, the rulings
completely
undermine the basis on which successive British governments have
formulated and applied ‘public protection’ policies that when exposed,
seem to be designed solely to give the police whatever they want and to
satisfy the tabloids and charities.
TheOpinionSite.org would therefore hope – and suggest – that having now been severely battered by judges who are
not
afraid of British politicians, ministers will stop making excuses and
do something about the 6,500 IPP prisoners still in jail and who have
been left completely unaffected by the repeal of the disastrous IPP
sentence; a repeal that followed only after the government’s own
embarrassment.
We also suggest that in future, ‘knee jerk’ legislation is
avoided at all costs. The IPP was such a piece of legislation and it has
left the government in a deep and potentially very expensive hole, now
with no chance of escape.
We would also hope that British judges will realise that they are not
duty bound to interpret the ‘Will of Parliament’ regarding law and
order in a manner that is only advantageous to ministers or, to put it
another way, their Lordships should accept that contrary to the belief
of polite society, ministers lie. And they lie a lot.
Judges should never take the word of any government minister
because British governments always lie. They have always lied and
probably always will.
If British governments had to be honest, the government would fall
apart because politicians would be truly accountable. Policemen would
once again have to serve the public instead of the public bowing down to
them, prisoners would get real help to reform and money-grabbing
children’s charities would be put out of business – after having been
convicted for fraud on a grand scale.
Perhaps it is too much to hope for but Cameron and his cronies should
take note of these judgements. Failure to do so will only result in
more embarrassment, more unjust imprisonment and more government by
‘tabloid and charity’.
It is regrettably a fact that the UK locks up more people than any
other country in Europe. It also has more prisoners sentenced to some
kind of life imprisonment than
all the other
EU states put together. It is a country whose so-called ‘Justice’ is
based on revenge, not fairness. It punishes the weak whilst hiding and
protecting the strong.
Every society gets what it deserves and British society is no
exception. Ignorance, selfishness and greed have produced the
incompetent and unfair British Criminal Justice System that exists today
and those who benefit financially and politically from it don’t want it
to change.
However, TheOpinionSite.org believes that after these
latest rulings, it may have to change after all – whether those powerful
beneficiaries want it to or not.
3 Responses to Government loses more court battles over IPP & CRB checks
martina H
February 16, 2013 at 5:16 pm
It’s about time some great news has been set for the IPP Prisoners to
give them hope. They have been for far too long the forgotten prisoners,
with a cobweb of excuses as to why they remain in prison many years
after their tariff. Thank God Helen
February 16, 2013 at 4:42 pm
Thank you, Raymond. Your article is absolutely brilliant. We have been
thinking what you have dared to say for years. Ever since our son was
given an 18 months’ IPP tariff, and is still languishing in prison
nearly 6 years later. His punishment was the 18 months. The rest has
been solely due to the appalling mis-management of his case, by
jumped-up officials and so called ‘experts’, all justifying their jobs
on the back of the Kafke-esque IPP sentence. I have a file full of
letters to the M o J, and no-one has actually ever looked at our son’s
case with compassion. It has been all about ‘we have to protect the
public’. So, why only an 18 months’ tariff in the first place? He is not
dangerous, and never was. Thank you again, Raymond.
February 16, 2013 at 3:52 pm
Thank God for the European Court. But why is it always necessary for
the European Court to tell the government when it is wrong?
Just
like Blair, Cameron is only interested in staying popular with his
supporters, regardless of the misery heaped on others who cannot defend
themselves.
http://www.theopinionsite.org/government-loses-more-court-battles-over-ipp-crb-checks/
