7 Nov 2017
Green light for Court of Appeal ruling on prisoners’ access to justice
Almost seven months after the Court of Appeal ruled government cuts to legal aid for prisoners are unlawful because they are inherently unfair, the Ministry of Justice has written to the Supreme Court withdrawing its application to appeal the decision.
The Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prisoners’ Advice Service (PAS), who brought the legal challenge, (Tuesday 7 November) written to the Lord Chancellor asking for immediate action to give effect to the judgment, which was handed down in April.
The government’s withdrawal of its application means that the Court of Appeal’s decision is final.
In reaching its decision the Court heard that prisons were overcrowded and the cuts had profound consequences for prisoners, including “the mentally unwell, those with learning or other disabilities, the illiterate, those who do not or hardly speak English, and young people”. The government must now take action to rectify the shortfalls in the system.
Since cuts to legal aid for prisoners came into force in December 2013, violence and self-injury in prisons have risen to record levels.More prisoners than ever before have called the Howard League and PAS to seek help. Calls to the two charities’ advice lines have increased by almost 50 per cent since the cuts were imposed.
Laura Janes, Legal Director at the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: “For the past seven months, hundreds of prisoners have been stuck in the system without the legal support they need to move forward, even though the Court of Appeal made it clear that this was inherently unfair and therefore unlawful.
“We are pleased that the Lord Chancellor has now withdrawn his appeal and hope that urgent steps will be taken to give effect to the judgment.”
IT'S OFFICIAL!
We have received confirmation that the government has withdrawn its application to challenge the Court of Appeal's ruling that cuts to legal aid for prisoners are unlawful. Jez.
Deborah Russo, Joint Managing Solicitor of the Prisoners’ Advice Service, said: “After a long wait and years of battling through the courts we at PAS very much welcome the Secretary of State’s decision to finally accept the Court of Appeal’s ruling of inherent unfairness of the legal aid cuts imposed on prisoners back in December 2013.
“We believe that urgent action is now required to reinstate legal aid for some of the most vulnerable members of our society.”
The legal challenge by the Howard League and PAS began in 2013. At that time, prisoners were completely shut out from any possibility of getting legal aid for a wide range of problems.
In the time between then and the cases coming before the Court of Appeal in January and February this year, the government conceded on four areas of concern. This left five key problems for the Court of Appeal to consider and, in three of the five, judges found the cuts to be inherently unfair
The charities’ arguments challenging the cuts were heard by three Court of Appeal judges in January and February 2017.
Before the hearing at the Court of Appeal, the government agreed that
legal aid would be available for cases concerning: mother and baby
units; resettlement; licence conditions; and segregation through an
exceptional funding scheme. This left five key problems for the court to
consider: pre-tariff reviews by the Parole Board where the Board does
not have the power to direct release but advises the Secretary of State
for Justice whether the prisoner is suitable for a move to open
conditions; categorisation reviews of Category A prisoners; access to
offending behaviour programmes and courses (“OBPs”); disciplinary
proceedings where no additional days of imprisonment or detention can be
awarded; and placement in close supervision centres (“CSCs”).
In a
detailed judgment,
the Court of Appeal carefully scrutinised the full run of cases that go
through the system and whether the existing alternative processes and
procedures were capable of filling the gap left by the removal of legal
aid in a way that would ensure fairness. The court found that the high
threshold required for a finding of inherent or systemic unfairness has
been satisfied in the case of pre-tariff reviews by the Parole Board,
Category A reviews, and decisions as to placement in a CSC.
In a
detailed judgment,
the Court of Appeal carefully scrutinised the full run of cases that go
through the system and whether the existing alternative processes and
procedures were capable of filling the gap left by the removal of legal
aid in a way that would ensure fairness. The court found that the high
threshold required for a finding of inherent or systemic unfairness has
been satisfied in the case of pre-tariff reviews by the Parole Board,
Category A reviews, and decisions as to placement in a CSC.
In a
detailed judgment,
the Court of Appeal carefully scrutinised the full run of cases that go
through the system and whether the existing alternative processes and
procedures were capable of filling the gap left by the removal of legal
aid in a way that would ensure fairness. The court found that the high
threshold required for a finding of inherent or systemic unfairness has
been satisfied in the case of pre-tariff reviews by the Parole Board,
Category A reviews, and decisions as to placement in a CSC.
Pre-tariff reviews are where an indeterminate sentence
prisoner has been referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of
State for Justice before the expiry of his/her minimum term for advice
on a move to open conditions.
Pre-tariff reviews are where an indeterminate sentence
prisoner has been referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of
State for Justice before the expiry of his/her minimum term for advice
on a move to open conditions.
Category A is
the highest security category. It is defined as prisoners “whose escape
would be highly dangerous to the public, or the security of the State,
and for whom the aim must be to make escape impossible”. Decisions to
move prisoners from conditions of high security are complex and
important.
CSCs were introduced to deal with
the most disruptive or dangerous prisoners, who pose a risk to other
prisoners. The decision to place a prisoner in one of these centres,
which creates a serious restriction on the prisoner at great expense to
the public purse, is complex and important.
The
court was not persuaded that the lack of legal aid available in two
areas – for OBPs and prison disciplinary proceedings where no additional
days of imprisonment or detention can be awarded – is unlawful on the
ground of systemic unfairness.
The Howard
League for Penal Reform and the Prisoners’ Advice Service are jointly
represented in these cases by Simon Creighton of Bhatt Murphy
Solicitors, Phillippa Kaufmann of Matrix Chambers, and Alex Gask of
Doughty Street Chambers.
Reminder
The Justice Committee has launched an inquiry into probation and they are requesting submission from the public before Monday December 2017 in no longer than 3,000 words. They are encouraging members and underrepresented groups to submit in writing.
Form http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/justice-committee/inquiries/parliament-2017/prison-population-2022-17-19/commons-written-submission-form/
Inqiirey https://www.nao.org.uk/report/investigation-into-the-parole-board/
IPP is not fairness
Ministry of Justice
Prison Sentences
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisoners serving imprisonment for public protection sentences there are in each prison; and how many such prisoners have already served their minimum tariff.
Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) is focused on giving IPP prisoners the support, opportunities and motivation they need to progress more quickly, so that once they have completed their tariff and are reviewed by the Parole Board, they have the best possible prospects for securing release.
Unto that end, and as part of a joint action plan with the Parole Board, HMPPS has implemented measures such as individual psychology-led central case reviews and increased access to specific offending behaviour programmes. Additionally, and building upon the success of the Progression Regime at HMP Warren Hill, HMPPS is planning for three new Progression Regimes to be opened by the end of March 2018.
These initiatives are working. During 2016/17, 46% of all IPP prisoners considered by the Parole Board were released and 24% recommended for a move to open conditions. 576 IPP prisoners were released in 2016, more than ever before. 315 IPP prisoners have already been released in the first half of 2017.
The attached table shows how many unreleased prisoners serving indeterminate sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) are located in each establishment and how many have served their minimum tariff.
The stament is laughable and a joke"
| Prison Name |
Number of Unreleased IPPs |
Number of Unreleased IPPs |
|
|
|
| Who are
Past Tariff |
|
|
|
| ALTCOURSE (HMP) |
13 |
12 |
|
|
|
| ASHFIELD (HMP) |
34 |
20 |
|
|
|
| ASKHAM GRANGE (HMP & YOI) |
2 |
2 |
|
|
|
| AYLESBURY (HMP) |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
| BEDFORD (HMP) |
11 |
11 |
|
|
|
| BELMARSH (HMP) |
6 |
5 |
|
|
|
| BERWYN (HMP) |
38 |
29 |
|
|
|
| BIRMINGHAM (HMP) |
9 |
8 |
|
|
|
| BRINSFORD (HMP) |
2 |
2 |
|
|
|
| BRISTOL (HMP) |
9 |
9 |
|
|
|
| BRIXTON (HMP) |
15 |
10 |
|
|
|
| BRONZEFIELD (HMP) |
3 |
3 |
|
|
|
| BUCKLEY HALL (HMP) |
29 |
23 |
|
|
|
| BULLINGDON (HMP) |
42 |
39 |
|
|
|
| BURE (HMP) |
70 |
65 |
|
|
|
| CARDIFF (HMP) |
6 |
6 |
|
|
|
| CHANNINGS WOOD (HMP) |
21 |
20 |
|
|
|
| CHELMSFORD (HMP) |
3 |
3 |
|
|
|
| COLDINGLEY (HMP) |
27 |
20 |
|
|
|
| DARTMOOR (HMP) |
24 |
20 |
|
|
|
| DONCASTER (HMP) |
4 |
4 |
|
|
|
| DOVEGATE (HMP) |
62 |
47 |
|
|
|
| DOWNVIEW (HMP) |
5 |
5 |
|
|
|
| DRAKE HALL (HMP & YOI) |
4 |
4 |
|
|
|
| DURHAM (HMP) |
7 |
6 |
|
|
|
| EAST SUTTON PARK (HMP &
YOI) |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
| EASTWOOD PARK (HMP) |
2 |
2 |
|
|
|
| ELMLEY (HMP) |
30 |
30 |
|
|
|
| ERLESTOKE (HMP) |
47 |
37 |
|
|
|
| EXETER (HMP) |
4 |
4 |
|
|
|
| FEATHERSTONE (HMP) |
16 |
13 |
|
|
|
| FORD (HMP) |
12 |
12 |
|
|
|
| FOREST BANK (HMP & YOI) |
12 |
10 |
|
|
|
| FOSTON HALL (HMP) |
9 |
9 |
|
|
|
| FRANKLAND (HMP) |
74 |
61 |
|
|
|
| FULL SUTTON (HMP) |
37 |
29 |
|
|
|
| GARTH (HMP) |
73 |
61 |
|
|
|
| GARTREE (HMP) |
60 |
45 |
|
|
|
| GRENDON (HMP) |
34 |
27 |
|
|
|
| GUYS MARSH (HMP) |
18 |
18 |
|
|
|
| HATFIELD (HMP & YOI) |
18 |
16 |
|
|
|
| HAVERIGG (HMP) |
4 |
4 |
|
|
|
| HIGH DOWN (HMP) |
16 |
16 |
|
|
|
| HIGHPOINT (HMP) |
50 |
44 |
|
|
|
| HINDLEY (HMP & YOI) |
2 |
2 |
|
|
|
| HMP HEWELL |
25 |
23 |
|
|
|
| HOLLESLEY BAY (HMP) |
19 |
16 |
|
|
|
| HOLME HOUSE (HMP) |
32 |
31 |
|
|
|
| HULL (HMP) |
58 |
56 |
|
|
|
| HUMBER (HMP) |
30 |
27 |
|
|
|
| ISLE OF WIGHT (HMP) |
126 |
86 |
|
|
|
| KIRKHAM (HMP) |
6 |
6 |
|
|
|
| KIRKLEVINGTON GRANGE (HMP) |
15 |
15 |
|
|
|
| LANCASTER FARMS (HMP) |
13 |
12 |
|
|
|
| LEEDS (HMP) |
8 |
8 |
|
|
|
| LEICESTER (HMP) |
8 |
8 |
|
|
|
| LEWES (HMP) |
17 |
15 |
|
|
|
| LEYHILL (HMP) |
152 |
149 |
|
|
|
| LINCOLN (HMP) |
21 |
21 |
|
|
|
| LINDHOLME (HMP) |
37 |
31 |
|
|
|
| LITTLEHEY (HMP) |
104 |
91 |
|
|
|
| LIVERPOOL (HMP) |
17 |
17 |
|
|
|
| LONG LARTIN (HMP) |
13 |
11 |
|
|
|
| LOW NEWTON (HMP) |
6 |
6 |
|
|
|
| LOWDHAM GRANGE (HMP) |
54 |
42 |
|
|
|
| MAIDSTONE (HMP) |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
| MANCHESTER (HMP) |
17 |
15 |
|
|
|
| MOORLAND (HMP & YOI) |
28 |
26 |
|
|
|
| NEW HALL (HMP) |
6 |
5 |
|
|
|
| NORTH SEA CAMP (HMP) |
99 |
98 |
|
|
|
| NORTHUMBERLAND (HMP) |
58 |
56 |
|
|
|
| NORWICH (HMP & YOI) |
12 |
10 |
|
|
|
| NOTTINGHAM (HMP) |
12 |
12 |
|
|
|
| OAKWOOD (HMP) |
41 |
28 |
|
|
|
| ONLEY (HMP) |
27 |
21 |
|
|
|
| PARC (HMP) |
22 |
19 |
|
|
|
| PENTONVILLE (HMP) |
17 |
16 |
|
|
|
| PETERBOROUGH (HMP) |
9 |
9 |
|
|
|
| PETERBOROUGH FEMALE HMP |
2 |
1 |
|
|
|
| PORTLAND (HMPYOI) |
2 |
2 |
|
|
|
| PRESCOED (HMP & YOI) |
20 |
18 |
|
|
|
| PRESTON (HMP) |
3 |
3 |
|
|
|
| RANBY (HMP) |
32 |
31 |
|
|
|
| RISLEY (HMP) |
38 |
37 |
|
|
|
| ROCHESTER (HMP & YOI) |
3 |
1 |
|
|
|
| RYE HILL (HMP) |
43 |
27 |
|
|
|
| SEND (HMP) |
14 |
13 |
|
|
|
| SPRING HILL (HMP) |
19 |
16 |
|
|
|
| STAFFORD (HMP) |
48 |
41 |
|
|
|
| STANDFORD HILL (HMP) |
36 |
32 |
|
|
|
| STOCKEN (HMP) |
25 |
21 |
|
|
|
| STOKE HEATH (HMPYOI) |
14 |
10 |
|
|
|
| STYAL (HMP & YOI) |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
| SUDBURY (HMP & YOI) |
21 |
15 |
|
|
|
| SWALESIDE (HMP) |
79 |
64 |
|
|
|
| SWANSEA (HMP) |
3 |
3 |
|
|
|
| SWINFEN HALL (HMP) |
16 |
13 |
|
|
|
| THAMESIDE (HMP) |
2 |
2 |
|
|
|
| THE MOUNT (HMP) |
31 |
22 |
|
|
|
| THORN CROSS (HMPYOI) |
16 |
12 |
|
|
|
| USK (HMP) |
24 |
24 |
|
|
|
| WAKEFIELD (HMP) |
59 |
38 |
|
|
|
| WANDSWORTH (HMP) |
4 |
3 |
|
|
|
| WARREN HILL (HMP) |
74 |
70 |
|
|
|
| WAYLAND (HMP) |
55 |
50 |
|
|
|
| WEALSTUN (HMP) |
14 |
10 |
|
|
|
| WHATTON (HMP) |
201 |
179 |
|
|
|
| WHITEMOOR (HMP) |
29 |
21 |
|
|
|
| WINCHESTER (HMP) |
2 |
2 |
|
|
|
| WOODHILL (HMP) |
15 |
14 |
|
|
|
| WORMWOOD SCRUBS (HMP) |
5 |
5 |
|
|
|
| WYMOTT (HMP) |
136 |
116 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2017-10-25/109714/
Comments
Jez,
Finally the MoJ have realized that their effort to deny prisoners proper legal support is unlawful and to challenge the court decision is futile. Finally prisoners will soon be able to seek recompense for their appalling treatment. Well done to all those who kept the pressure on.
Those under supervision are more likely to take their own life than die of natural causes
The shocking reality for those on licence.Those under supervision are more likely to take their own life than die of natural causesThe shocking reality for those on licence.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/654856/deaths-of-offenders-in-the-community-2016-17.pdf
Ambrosino
It is morally right sound & equitable that the ability to represent oneself is protected maintained & agreeably defended against Hard right mentality’s lurking in never ending corridors of corruption & power. CAA
Donovan
Can’t believe we actually have a government who wants to challenge this we need to get them all removed
Katherine Gleeson
Well done Howard league. Petition https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/free-the-remaining-ipp-prisoners?source=facebook-share-button&time=1457618246
Nicholson
Hi Katherine, I know exactly what you mean about the MPs replies to letters from their constituants. I wrote some time ago, opn the subject of IPP, to my local MP M/s Allison McGovern, after several weeks, I received a reply which had clearly come from a researcher of helper of some sort. The reply, ignored the question I had asked, which was to be informed on M/s McGoverns stance on the IPP situation, and proceeded to give me a full explanation on the subject of the IPP sentence. This I could have told the researcher, in even more detail than she gave me, because I have first hand knowledge of this stain on the British Justice system.
More recently, I wrote, at Katherine's suggestion, to David Liddington, to ask a similar question, To date I have received no reply to my letter. I would be very interested to know if anyone who supports the Katherine Gleeson campaign for the release of the remaining IPP prisoners, has ever received an answer to a direct question, posed to any MP
Keep up your great work Katherine.
Regards
Arlene Nicholson
http://howardleague.org/news/green-light-for-court-of-appeal-ruling-on-prisoners-access-to-justice/
