Miscarriages
of JusticeUK (MOJUK)
|
Requiem for Charlotte Nokes and All IPP Prisoners
and Their Families
[Charlotte
was 38 when she was found dead in her cell in HMP
Peterborough on the morning of 23 July 2016. She was
serving an indefinite Imprisonment for Public Protection
(IPP) sentence and was over seven years over the minimum
tariff when she died.]
As we rapidly approach the fifteenth Anniversary of
the Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection, more
commonly known as IPP, launched on 4 April 2005. Sadly, our
minds and attention are drawn to the 124 IPP prisoners who
either by natural causes or suicide have lost their lives
while serving the highly controversial and discredited
prison sentence.
Moreover, we learn, fifty-four of those self-inflicted
deaths were recorded and investigated by the Prison and
Probation Ombudsman between 2007 and 2018.1 One death in
these tragic circumstances is unforgivable. Fifty-four
deaths are inexcusable, and 124 deaths are downright
criminal.
To give the reader a flavour of the injustice IPP prisoners
suffered and endured during the formative years of IPP
provisions. In correspondence from Lord McNally to Lord
Lloyd of Berwick dated 24 August 2013, Lord Lloyd told the
House of Lords: "Thirty-seven [IPP] offenders were given
tariffs of six months or less. Of these, 11 are now more
than four years over tariff. The remaining 26 of that group
are five years over tariff, in other words, 10 times the
tariff they were originally given.
"One hundred and eight [IPPs] were given tariffs between 6
and 12 months; 46 are for years over tariff, and 59 are five
years over tariff. "Two hundred and eighty [IPPs] were
given tariffs between 12 and 18 months; 110 are four years
over tariff and 98 are five years over tariff. "Three
hundred and forty-eight [IPPs] were given tariffs of between
18 and 24 months. Of these, 124 are four years over tariff
and 92 are five years over tariff."
All in all; Lord Lloyd went on to say: " that these figures
speak for themselves - something very serious has gone
wrong". More scandalously, taken altogether, we learn, the
IPPs were 2,539 years over tariff.
One can only imagine, the overwhelming sense of hopelessness
and dread that some of those I PP prisoners felt as they
contemplated taking their own lives in a bleak and
unfriendly prison cell within a harsh and draconian British
prison system. One wonders what was going through their
minds as they put their plan in motion to end their
existence.
The most prominent thought must have been the all-pervading
sense of injustice and unfairness at being sentenced to a de
facto and de jure life prison sentence for an offence that
would not otherwise attract an indefinite sentence.
Unfortunately, some IPPs were young enough to be our sons
and daughters when they tragically took their lives; the
vulnerable and inexperienced prisoners who can barely get
through an average day of incarceration, let alone a
sentence with no perceivable end or determination in sight.
Without doubt, also at the forefront of their minds, would
have been their instinctive thoughts and feelings for their
partners and sweethearts, love ones and close friends, who
after years and years of visiting often unpleasant prisons
across the England and Wales, had unwittingly succumbed to
either neglect or exhaustion or both. As a direct result,
the regular fortnightly visits may have slipped into one a
month and then segued into one every three months; the rest
becomes history.
The sense of abandonment and isolation is further
exacerbated by the passing of elderly family members over
the years. The grandparents are first, then parents and
in-laws, followed by aunts and uncles and even favourite pet
animals, all of whom have stood by the IPP like a Colossus
of reliability and strength, but are no more.
As each precious member of IPP's family passes away, the
sense of injustice and unfairness intensifies by the fact
that the IPP will never see their beautiful and smiling
faces again. The only consolation the IPP has is that he or
she knows the love ones who have passed away are looking
down and giving them the power and purposefulness to carry
on in pursuit of that elusive release date on licence; to be
reunited with their family once again.
Arguably, one of the unseen and least addressed by-products
of the IPP sentence is that it replicates an infectious
virus in the way that it slowly, bit by bit, drains the IPP
and the family of their natural strength and resistance. Not
only is this seen in the way it renders the IPP helpless and
hopeless, but also in the way it breaks down the family bond
until the IPP is left vulnerable and isolated.
One of the symptoms of the IPP malaise is when IPP
becomes a continuous strain on the scarce resources of the
family. Then the IPP wants to hear the voice of his partner
more than the partner wants to hear the voice of him or her.
Prison phone calls with partners become tense and tetchy.
Before the IPP knows it, the visits are drying up, birthdays
are not celebrated, and inter-family correspondence becomes
non-existent. The final coup de grace occurs when partners
neglect or forget to wave goodbye at the conclusion of
visits. Cut adrift on a tide of loneliness and isolation,
the IPP has to dig deep into his or her resolve and climb
out of that trough of despair and oblivion. In all honesty,
who can blame the partners and family, as they are serving a
sentence as well. Deprived of the all-important release date
they too are floundering looking for something concrete to
grasp.
One such remedy to the IPP contagion, however, is the
irreplaceable loyalty, support and companionship of the
wider family and that is why "the family" has been formally
identified and recognised as imperative to the successful
survival, rehabilitation and release into the community. It
is absurd that the IPP virus pervades and destroys the very
sustenance he or she needs to survive. Consequently, that is
why so many IPPs self-harm and take their own life as they
ultimately feel discarded and abandoned, cast adrift on the
high seas of the British penal system.
Rarely has there been a more disgraceful travesty of justice
than the IPP sentence. Inasmuch as the IPP is serving a life
sentence for a non-life sentence offence or crime. More than
anything else, this is what aggrieves the IPP, the family,
human rights activists and selected members of the legal
profession the most, as they cannot reconcile the fact that
154 Specified Offences worthy of a fixed and determinate
prison sentence had been politically upgraded to the most
punitive sentence in the courtroom; a sentence of life
imprisonment and life licence on release through IPP. It
is all well and good pointing to the human rights abuses
of North Korea, Saudi Arabia and China when we echo the
self-same human rights abuses on our doorstep. For let us
not forget, by definition, IPP sentences are life
sentences albeit by another name. The only difference
being, IPPs have not killed or murdered anyone, otherwise,
somewhat paradoxically, the IPP would face a life sentence
which he or she is already serving?
Destiny forbid if the IPP is simultaneously fighting a
substantial miscarriage of justice where the police have
manufactured or hidden evidence that would irrefutably prove
that the accused is a victim of gross police misconduct and
malpractice. In some perverse way, however, in essence, that
is what keeps some IPPs afloat. Not the fact that the Court
of Appeal or the risible Criminal Cases Review Commission
(CCRC) will investigate the case properly and come to the
IPP's assistance, no chance! The IPP can forget about that
train of thought immediately, as no matter what legal avenue
he or she travels down; it will invariably lead to a
carefully crafted legal cul-de-sac.
What becomes most important is the fact that the IPP has
secured the moral high ground and their conscience will not
let them forget that they are serving a double whammy of
ill-justice; the wrongful conviction and, indeed, the
unacceptable and insupportable open-ended sentence.
More positively, however, by dint of the herculean efforts
of great politicians, such as, the former Justice Secretary
Kenneth Clarke QC, Lord David Ramsbottom, Lord Simon Brown,
Lord McNally and even Lord Blunkett, who is genuinely
contrite over the introduction of the indefinite sentence
provisions. We learn, they were all instrumental in the
abolishment of IPP in December 2012, but sadly not
retrospectively.
We learn, in October 2019, therefore, there were
still 2,598 IPP prisoners languishing in the British Prison
System, and that figure excludes the 600-plus recalled IPP
prisoners in the last year. 3
What is more, disconcerting BBC News reported: "The rate of
self-harm by inmates serving indefinite prison sentences in
England and Wales has risen by almost 50% in four years"
[2012-2016]. More disturbingly, "Last year [2015] there were
more than 2,500 acts of self-harm by prisoners serving
imprisonment for public protection ... at a higher rate than
those serving fixed sentences".4
This is not surprising given the incidence of self-harm
among IPPs had risen directly after IPP was abolished in
2012, but not retrospectively. No doubt what aggravated
matters was the stark fact the Criminal Justice System was
operating a two-tier justice system. One caught under the
IPP regime and an alternative one under the fixed sentence
provisions, but all ironically for the same offences.
To compound this issue further in June 2019 the Justice
Minister Robert Buckland QC proclaimed that he could not
give a timescale for the release of I PP prisoners, "because
not all would be released". Alas, we have now reached the
absurd situation where an offender may be sentenced to (i) a
fixed determinate sentence; (ii) an indefinite sentence and,
indeed; (iii) a "natural life" prison sentence all for the
same offence. And this all depends on whether or not the
offender was unfortunate enough to have been convicted and
sentenced within the IPP window of 2005-2012!
Quite clearly, not only does this type of sentencing tombola
bring the Criminal Justice System into disrepute, it also
questions the purpose and validity of public protection
sentences which has been partially abolished in 2012 and can
also be increased at will into "natural life" sentences by
an Uber-Punitive executive.
To conclude, in normal circumstances, the death of prisoners
in prison would not usually deserve mention. In fact, in
today's political climate, most of the politicians and
public would no doubt celebrate and rejoice over such a
loss. But it is only when we examine, evaluate and analyst
the savage and cruel circumstances and context of the IPP
deaths in custody and the concomitant loss of their family
members while they were serving that sentence, that we can
wholly appreciate and understand the demonstrable political
scandal of indefinite sentences for public protection.
On that basis, and with all due respect, it is suggested, on
the fifteenth Anniversary of IPP sentences, the 4 April 2020
that we should hold a Service of Remembrance. Or create a
Garden of Remembrance, small tablet or token monument with
the names of those that perished while serving a sentence
thereon. So that the people of this nation will never allow
such an ill-designed or ill-thought-out legislation to be
passed by Parliament ever again.
Of equal importance, it is high time parliamentarians
revisit the scourge of IPP, and it is abolished entirely as
per the wishes of the former Justice Secretary Kenneth
Clarke QC who has denounced the IPP legislation as "a
disgraceful introduction into criminal law".
Lastly, when future social historians and
criminologists put pen to paper or finger to laptop, to
discuss and debate the Pythonesque absurdity of IPP, one
hopes, in conclusion, they will pick up a Bible and turn to
St Luke, chapter 23, verse 34 and print the following:
"Father, forgive them, for they knew not what they did".
Terry Smith A8672AQ, HMP Highpoint, Stradishall, Newmarket,
CB8 9YG
|
|