|
UK > History > 2010 > Prison (I)
Give prisoners the vote in six months
or face severe
penalties, UK warned
European court says at least 2,500 inmates
could sue for damages if deadline is
missed
Tuesday 23 November 2010
14.27 GMT
Guardian.co.uk
Severin Carrell
This article was published on guardian.co.uk
at 14.27 GMT
on Tuesday 23 November
2010.
A version appeared in the Guardian
on Wednesday 24 November 2010.
The UK must introduce laws allowing prisoners to vote within
six months or face severe legal and financial penalties, the European court of
human rights has warned.
In a blunt ultimatum to the government and parliament, the court said today that
at least 2,500 prisoners will be allowed to sue the UK for damages if ministers
fail to give inmates voting rights before the deadline.
The court also accused the UK of threatening the effectiveness of the European
convention on human rights by failing to implement an earlier "right to vote"
ruling in 2005, despite repeated warnings and cases involving other EU member
states.
Today's judgment , in the case of two Scottish prisoners, Robert Greens and
"MT", significantly increases the pressure on the prime minister to put new
legislation before parliament urgently. Ministers are expected to table the new
powers before Christmas.
But the court has also put pressure on parliament, effectively warning MPs and
peers who block the reforms that the UK risks swingeing penalties if the
legislation is not passed in time.
Two weeks ago, David Cameron said he felt "physically ill" at the thought of
allowing convicted prisoners the right to vote, but said the government
reluctantly agreed it had to amend the law, no matter how "painful" it was.
Otherwise, the government faced compensation payments of up to £160m.
However, the court's deadline means the new powers do not need to be in force
for the Scottish and Welsh elections next May a blow to human rights
campaigners. The UK has another three months before today'syesterday's ruling
becomes final and the six-month deadline comes into force, to allow it time to
appeal.
Tony Kelly, the solicitor representing the two prisoners, said the court's
judgment was unexpectedly harsh. "The UK has never been given a direction like
this. The court has said in the clearest possible terms that it must fix this
within the timescale given. It must be remedied, and the court is directing the
UK that this must happen," he said.
A Cabinet Office spokesman said: "The government is actively considering the
need to amend the law in light of recent court judgments. We've noted the ECHR's
verdict and will respond in due course."
The court said it had decided to take the unusual step of using the two men as
test cases to give the UK a final opportunity to change the law. After ruling in
favour of both men, it ordered the UK to pay their legal costs but decided
against awarding them damages immediately.
It also suspended a further 1,500 identical cases already registered with the
court to give the UK time to introduce the legislation. But it said all these
cases and another 1,000 applications in the offing would be readmitted if the UK
missed the deadline.
The court also warned that each of the 70,000 convicted prisoners in UK jails at
any one time could have a case if the government failed to act quickly enough.
The UK's failure to act so far was an "aggravating factor" in all these pending
cases, and the legal and financial implications would increase with every missed
election.
It said: "The prevailing situation has given rise to the lodging of numerous
subsequent well-founded applications. [The] number continues to grow, and with
each relevant election which passes in the absence of amended legislation there
is the potential for numerous new cases to be lodged: according to statistics
submitted by EHRC, there are approximately 70,000 serving prisoners in the
United Kingdom at any one time, all of whom are potential applicants."
The UK's failure to make its electoral law compatible with the convention on
human rights "is not only an aggravating factor as regards the state's
responsibility under the convention for an existing or past state of affairs,
but also represents a threat to the future effectiveness of the convention
machinery."
Give prisoners the
vote in six months or face severe penalties, UK warned,
G,
23.11.2010,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/nov/23/six-month-deadline-on-prisoners-vote
Prisoners on indeterminate sentences
'left in limbo' over
parole dates
Call for fast-track review of thousands of inmates
who are judged to be still a
risk to the public
Sunday 31 October 2010
The Observer
Anushka Asthana
This article appeared on p6 of the Main section section of the Observer on
Sunday 31 October 2010.
It was published on guardian.co.uk at 00.08 BST
on Sunday 31 October 2010.
The government should fast-track the parole hearings of almost
2,500 prisoners who have served their minimum sentence but are still being held
in jail for "public protection", a leading barrister has said.
Peter Lodder QC, chairman-elect of the Bar Council, said there were fears
prisoners could face a "Kafkaesque" situation where they had no idea when they
would be released. He warned that the growing numbers placed on indeterminate
sentences threatened the "contract" between prison staff and inmates that
ensured the smooth running of jails.
"One can see how for prisoners in this situation, where there is no light at the
end of the tunnel, there is little incentive and a great deal of frustration,
and that is what leads to the harm to emotional and mental wellbeing," Lodder
said.
"If you have an ordinary sentence a determinate sentence then one-half of
that sentence will not be served upon the basis that you are well behaved. That
is an understanding a contract that makes sure prisons run smoothly. On
these [indeterminate] sentences, there is no such provision."
Lodder, who will take over leadership of the Bar Council in January, added:
"When you disenfranchise people to such a significant extent
you are bound to
create a resentment."
Sentences of imprisonment for public protection or IPPs were introduced in
2005 for offenders deemed to be dangerous. They carry no automatic right to
release and 42% of the 5,500 prisoners serving such sentences have now passed
their minimum tariff. Lodder said the sentences were introduced as part of a
"tough-on-crime" drive.
"The government needs to accelerate the parole reviews for prisoners in this
situation. [It] needs to consider whether once these prisoners have served the
minimum term they can be released, and what appropriate and speedy mechanism
there can be to facilitate that," he said.
He appreciated there would be concern if those who were released reoffended,
"but what should not happen is that there is a disproportionate fear of one of
these prisoners reoffending or a disproportionate reaction when one of them
does. In other words, [the government] need political nerve."
One of the problems was a "risk-averse culture" on parole boards, Lodder said,
because of the difficulty in proving that someone was no longer a danger.
Others warned that prisoners were suffering from mental health issues as a
result of uncertainty over their sentences. A report by the Sainsbury Centre for
Mental Health found that more than half of IPP prisoners have problems with
"emotional wellbeing" and almost one in five receive psychiatric treatment. Many
told researchers the lack of a release date to work towards had damaged
relationships with family and friends.
Dominic Williamson, chief executive of the charity the Revolving Doors charity,
which offers support to offenders, said many felt left in "limbo".
Paul McDowell, the chief executive of Nacro, the crime-reduction charity, said
of his time as governor of Brixton prison in south London: "I have a vivid
memory that one of the most common things was people coming up to me and saying:
'I am an IPP prisoner there is nothing I can do, I feel trapped in this cycle
and I can't get out of it.' Those sort of sentences were ill-thought-out, rushed
through, a kneejerk reaction to a media storm. They are grossly unfair and not
in the tradition of British justice with its fair-play approach."
The Ministry of Justice said it was carrying out a full assessment of sentencing
and rehabilitation policy, including IPPs. A spokeswoman said: "There is no
question that we must protect the public from the most dangerous criminals in
our society. However, we must also ensure the courts have the power to make the
right response to stop people committing crime."
Prisoners on
indeterminate sentences 'left in limbo' over parole dates, G, 31.10.2010,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/31/prisoners-left-in-limbo-parole
Baby Peter stepfather scalded in prison attack
Stephen Barker, jailed over the infant's death, has suffered serious burns
after being attacked by another prisoner
Saturday 13 February 2010
13.17 GMT
Guardian.co.uk
David Batty and agencies
This article was published on guardian.co.uk at 13.17 GMT on Saturday 13
February 2010.
It was last modified at 20.28 GMT on Saturday 13 February 2010.
One of three people jailed over the death of Baby Peter has been scalded in
an attack in prison.
Steven Barker, the boyfriend of the abused infant's mother, was reported to have
suffering scalding to his face and arm after another prisoner threw boiling
water over him.
The Sun newspaper reported that Barker, who is serving a life sentence at high
security Wakefield prison, West Yorkshire, was scarred with a mixture of boiling
water and sugar, known in prison circles as "napalm". The liquid sticks to the
skin and intensifies burns.
But a spokesman for the Ministry of Justice, who confirmed a prisoner was
treated for wounds, said sugar was not used in the attack.
Islamic terrorist Dhiren Barot, who plotted to detonate a series of dirty bombs
in the UK, was moved from Frankland prison, Durham, when he was badly scaled by
another prisoner in 2007.
A source told the Sun: "To say Barker is disliked is an understatement he is
reviled. The other inmates all hate him with a passion.
"When Barker came here everyone knew what he had done to Baby P. Your card is
marked if you have a crime against your name concerning kids.
"After the attack everyone was in good spirits, knowing someone had hurt Barker.
The guy who did it will be getting applauded everywhere he goes now."
A Prison Service spokesman said: "A prisoner at HMP Wakefield was assaulted by
another. Staff intervened quickly and the prisoner received treatment. Police
have been informed."
Barker was jailed at the Old Bailey in May last year for contributing to the 50
injuries Peter suffered in his short life.
The boy had been horrifically abused in the house his mother Tracey Connelly
shared with Barker in Tottenham, north London.
Connelly is serving a minimum of five years for causing or allowing Peter's
death. Barker's brother Jason Owen, who was a lodger in the council house, was
also jailed.
Last month Barker lost his appeal against a further conviction for raping a girl
of two.
Baby Peter stepfather
scalded in prison attack, G, 13.2.2010,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/feb/13/baby-peter-stepfather-burned-prison
|
