Having spent some time away from the office, what joy it is to return!

Share |


We went to London to see the Queen. Actually only my wife got to see her and the rest of the Royal Family on their "barge" as it floated down the Thames. We all saw Gloriana and the rest of the small boats. Next day we visited the Thames again and saw the tall ships at Tower Bridge and watched that Bridge open and close as ships passed through.

First day back had a long round trip to Hull to meet a client who has a Parole Board hearing soon. He is serving an IPP sentence. He is well over tariff and appears to have been set to one side by the system. Like a large number of prisoners serving IPP he is languishing in jail waiting for someone to confirm that his risk is assessed as low so he can be moved to Open Conditions. Thereafter a period of time will pass-perhaps 1-2 years-before he is released back into the community, subject to licence conditions for at least 10 years if not life. He can then be recalled at any time by Probation. Recall means he is arrested by the police and held in a police cell before being taken back to prison. Once recalled he may start an appeal process but most lilely he will remain in custody until he can show that he has learned his lesson and is again assessed as low risk.

Why so long in custody? (This particular client has served 3 times his tariff of two years) Because the courses do not exist to process IPP's more quickly and a one size fits all approach means that only recently his educational needs have been addressed. Why has it taken nearly six years to address the real, underlying problems?

Recall can be for an actual breach of the conditions imposed o the licence or for a perceived risk of breach.

IPP is costly and although it has been scrapped by LASPO it remains unreformed for those cutrrently serving an IPP. The Justice Secretary Ken Clarke QC is thinking about introducing regulations under LASPO about how IPP prisoners are processed by the system and assessed by Probation and prison staff. A major area of contention is the use of trainee psychologists to assess prisoners for dangerousness. Too much of what is written is subjective opinion as opposed to factual evidence. Opinion of an expert is fine but often the opinions expressed by trainee psychologists could not be said to be the opinions of experts givien the lack of experience and expertise of a trainee psychologist.

The Parole Board and prison staff and probation officers and everyone involved with IPPs is risk adverse. Any excuse to say "no" to a progressive move through the prison estate from Cat A or B, to C and then D (Open) and then Release on Licence is usually taken UNLESS there is no possible reason for saying "No".

Recall rates are high. Indeed recall is usually placing more prisoners back in prison than Magistrates and Judges are sending new prisoners. Probation Officers must be seen to be tough and cannot take a risk. Imagine if a person committed a minor breach of the licence conditions and then went on to commit a crime? What would the papers say? Who would be blamed? Better to recall to prison for a minor breach and then argue for a release. This happens too often. The Probation Officer plays Prosecutor and Advocate at the same time.

It is also true to say that a prisoner who has the beneft of expert prison law advice is usually going to get through the IPP sentence quicker. This is because the expert advice is usually what the prisoner does not want to hear-that IPP is a life snetnec, that progress is achieved through acquiescence and through displaying to everyone in the prsion system that one has learned the lessons that the courses offer. A prisoner serving a determinate sentence can do whatever he/she likes and will be released (subject to recall, perhaps). The IPP prisoner does not have that luxury. Maintaining innocence is the biggest mistake an IPP prisoner can make. Unfortunately there are support groups and "experts" willing to support those maintaining their innocence. It is an easy thing to do if serving a determinate sentence-but for an IPP it is a disaster.

The biggest mistake to make is to assume that discrepancies in the evdience of witnesses is a major flaw in the prosecution case. Surely if one witness says one thing and another says a similar thing but inconsistent to another witness that must mean that the defendant is innocent and any conviction is appellable? Wrong. Grounds for appeal are limited. A Jury has heard all the evidence and convicted the defendant. This is not to say that innocent people are not convicted of crimes that they have not committed. It is to say that maintaining innocence and seeking a route to appeal is a sure fire way of spending longer in jail than is necessary. It depends, I suppose, on what matters to each individual. I have represented people who have, according to them, never committed any of the offences of which they have been convicted and who are unlucky enough to have been accused of similar offences by unrelated complainants over a period of time.

I have also represented those who have been falsely accused. They have not been convicted. Most have not been charged. The good work in relation to such cases starts in the Police Station and in how one communicates with teh Police. Too many people try to undertake this work themselves "because they are innocent" and then seek advice when charged.

However, over 20 years, I can honestly say that I have not represented one person who was not convicted of an offence or who did not plead guilty to an offence that they had in my view committed. Some have reluctantly, and upon advice, pleaded guilty when they have disputed the accuracy of the evidence by undertaking the minutiae analysis of what each witness has had to say described above without being able to view the big picture. It is a bit like being able to analyse spelling mistakes in a sentence or phrase whilst ignoring the author's message. The meaning is clear.

"FUR GOOD SEW LURVED THE WOLD THAT SHE GIVE HIS ONLY FORGOTTEN SUN".

Family and friends usually join in the denial cycle because they too can't or won't see the big picture. Ultimately the prisoner suffers by staying in custody for far too long "to prove a point". What point? Being innocent is one thing. Maintaining innocence after conviction quite another thing.

We are robust at making the Crown disclose the evidence it has and in seeking out further evidence. I am quite happy to advance a defence which is in fact a defence. We robustly defend each and every client's case. We use experts in forensic analysis and in investigation to explore every raesonable possibility.

But we also give realistic advice. Clients decide to plead guilty and they are given time to think about what they want to do. Some choose to have a trial. That is the right of every defendant, however a person convicted after trial serves longer in jail than a person who pleads guilty and a person who maintains his innocence and is subject to life sentence will remain in custody for a very long time.