Parole course access 'unlawful'

**4me2** · 1st February 2008

Some prisoners are not getting proper assessments, judges ruled

Jack Straw acted unlawfully by failing to provide some prisoners with access to courses to show they were safe for release, appeal judges have ruled.
The Court of Appeal said because the justice secretary had not given those on indeterminate sentences such access, their human rights were violated.
The ruling came after two offenders challenged their detention last year.
In another ruling the court found the parole system in England and Wales was not independent enough from government.
Appeal judges upheld an earlier High Court decision that the Parole Board did not comply with the human rights of offenders because it lacked the independence from ministers required to make prisoner release decisions.
Anger management
The ruling on indeterminate sentences for public protection (IPP) - under which offenders must prove they are safe for release - came after an appeal by two prisoners - sex offender David Walker and Brett James, jailed for causing grievous bodily harm - last year.
The Court of Appeal ruled there had been "systematic failure" on the part of Mr Straw to put the resources in place to allow such offenders access to rehabilitation courses - such as anger management and alcohol awareness - needed to prepare for Parole Board assessments.

There has been a systematic failure on the part of the Secretary of State to put in place the resources necessary to implement the scheme of rehabilitation

Lord Phillips

The court warned that if prisoners were detained for a long time beyond their minimum tariff without regular review, they may have to be released.
But the appeal judges threw out the earlier High Court finding that the detention of IPP prisoners after the expiry of the minimum jail term was unlawful.
The two prisoners in this case will therefore continue to be detained even though their tariff expired last year.
Home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said the ruling was a "final warning" to Mr Straw that he must get resources in place so those on indeterminate sentences had a chance of making their case to the Parole Board.
Walker successfully argued in his appeal in July last year he could not be considered for release because his jail did not offer a parole course.
Although he was given an indeterminate sentence with a minimum tariff which expired in October, he was unable to be considered for release until he had gone through the parole procedure, which included going on a parole course.
Change in role
But his lawyers said there were no parole courses for life prisoners at his category of jail. They claimed he was therefore being subjected to arbitrary detention in breach of his human rights.
Appeal judges at the time ruled in his favour and have now rejected an appeal by the Ministry of Justice against the decision.
However, the appeal court allowed the Secretary of State's appeal over the second prisoner, James, whose sentence expired in July last year.
Lord Phillips told the court the two cases "demonstrated an unhappy state of affairs".
"There has been a systematic failure on the part of the Secretary of State to put in place the resources necessary to implement the scheme of rehabilitation necessary to enable the relevant provision of the [Criminal Justice Act] to function as intended," he said.
According to Parole Board figures, there are 3,000 IPP prisoners and 50 new ones every month.
Rejecting another appeal by Justice Secretary Jack Straw over the independence of the Parole Board system, the Lord Chief Justice said the High Court's findings that the board lacked independence were "fully supported" by the evidence.
The cause of the problem, Lord Phillips said, had been the change of function of the Parole Board. It had been transformed from being an organisation which advised the Secretary of State over prisoner release, to that of a judicial body which decided whether offenders could be released if judged safe, the court was told. Lord Phillips added: "Neither the Secretary of State [Jack Straw] nor his department has adequately addressed the need for the Parole Board to be and to be seen to be free of influence in relation to the performance of its judicial functions."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7221789.stm