|
MOJUK: Newsletter �Inside Out� No 77 Our shoddy treatment of victims of injustice Proposals to dock money from the compensation paid to those wrongfully imprisoned, to account for saved living expenses while inside, simply adds insult to injustice Last week's high court review of the levels of compensation received by victims of miscarriages of justice shed some rare light into one of the more shameful aspects of our criminal justice system. Cousins Michael and Vincent Hickey of the Bridgewater Four spent 17 years wrongfully imprisoned and Michael O' Brien of the Cardiff Newsagent Three for his 11 years of wrongful incarceration. Yet the sticking point in court last week centred on the proposed reductions in compensation suggested by the home office appointed assessor to account for their "saved living expenses" whilst the three were wrongfully imprisoned. In effect, this charges them for prison board and lodgings. If he has his way, Lord Brennan QC would reduce Michael and Vincent Hickey's awards by about �60,000 to leave them with �930,000 and �446,000 respectively. Michael O'Brien's award would be reduced by �37,000 to leave him with �613,000. These proposals will strike most people as a gratuitously ungenerous response by the state to those who have been locked up unjustly. Yet there are also broader problems of the way this issues is debated. Compensation awards to victims of miscarriages of justice are generally considered only in the context of specific high profile cases. The last time that there was much media discussion of the issue, for example, followed reports that �1 million was said to have been offered to Paddy Hill of the Birmingham Six for his 17 years of wrongful imprisonment. This tends to give the impression that miscarriage of justice compensation is uncommon and that the payment of compensation to victims of 'justice in error' applies only to a handful of notorious, high profile victims. Indeed, Paddy Hill's offer came 11 years after his conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) (CACD) in 1991, and over a quarter of a century after his wrongful conviction. The much-discussed cases of the Bridgewater Four and the Cardiff Newsagent Three are also somewhat dated. Yet compensation to victims of wrongful criminal convictions, or wrongful criminal charges, is far from a rare occurrence but rather a routine feature of the criminal justice system if the wrongful conviction is derived from 'judicial error'. Over the last decade, for example, there have been over 150 successful applications for compensation that fulfilled the required criteria under the statutory or ex-gratia schemes. This led the the Home Office to pay out a record �8.05 million in compensation in 2000-01, compared with �1.54 million in 1994-95. And, over the five year period, the total cost to the public purse for compensation to miscarriage of justice victims who qualified was almost �40 million, or around �8 million per year. As we also saw last week, the current debate about miscarriage of justice compensation also places victims of wrongful imprisonment have been put on the back foot in attempts to defend the assessed awards against what are seen as inappropriate reductions by the official assessor. As a result, no one has thought to question the general level of the awards compared against the relative value of past awards. Yet the case of Adolf Beck, the first recipient of compensation for wrongful imprisonment at the turn of the twentieth century, sheds further light on just how ungenerous our contemporary treatment of the wrongly convicted is. Beck was twice wrongly convicted for larceny and served 5 years of penal servitude. In response to the public crisis of confidence in the criminal justice system that accompanied the public knowledge of the Beck Affair the court of appeal was established in 1907. For his personal loss of liberty, the government of the day awarded Beck �5000 in compensation. This equates to a sum of almost �310,000 in terms of its current purchasing power, or around �62,000 in today's money for each year of wrongful imprisonment. Yet, even before any proposed reductions, Michael O'Brien's award before any proposed deductions is already around �30,000 short of that awarded to Beck; Michael Hickey's award before reductions is approximately �150,000 less than he might have expected if we apply the Beck formula and Vincent Hickey's award is over half a million pounds too little. This evidence of the the diminishing value of compensation paid to victims of miscarriages of justice is emphasised surely strengthens the challenge against the proposed reductions to the compensation awarded to Michael and Vincent Hickey and Michael O' Brien. And, at the same time, any notion of supposed progress in the treatment of victims of injustice, and the provision of adequate compensation for the harm that they have suffered, is profoundly undermined. Michael Naughton, The Observer Sunday March 16th 2003 ========================== Wrongful Conviction: Compensation Lord Lamont asked Her Majesty's Government: On how many occasions in the past five years compensation has been paid to people who have been wrongfully imprisoned; and what is the total value of the compensation that has been paid.[HL1824] Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Payment of compensation for those wrongfully convicted or charged is as follows: Year Amount � millions 1997-98 6.652 1998-99 5.302 1999-2000 5.647 2000-01 8.051 2001-02 6.172 These figures include payment for interim and final awards. (The latter includes the claimants' legal fees). Reliable statistics on the breakdown of payments are available only for the past two years. Since 1 March 2001, the Secretary of State for the Home Department has authorised the payment of compensation for wrongful conviction or charge to 76 applicants. In 24 of these cases the claims have been settled in full in the sum of �1.5 million (including legal fees). In a further 30 cases interim payments have been made to the claimants in the sum of �2 million. These, together with the remaining 22 cases, await the submission of their final claims. ========================================== Coping with Awkward Prison Staff - It's a waste of time, they all shit in the same pot! Having been a subscriber to the 'Fight Racism, Fight Imperialism' newspaper since 1999 and received every issue since, I was somewhat amazed that the January 2003 issue was withheld from me on me grounds of the 'current political climate', not that this was quantified or explained or that the member of prison staff who ordered it not to be issued was sufficiently intellectually capable of being able to reason out the decision. I doubt very much that the individual responsible had as much read the contents of the newspaper or moreover been able to understand it. The simple solution to not understanding or agreeing with points of view is simply to ban them wherever they raise their head in the hope that they will go away. What after all is meant by the 'current political climate'. I would take it perhaps to mean the Iraqi crisis, which hardly no person is able to escape from and is therefore not entirely unique news or something likely to arouse censure, unless of course one is misinformed and person of low intellect. Conversely it could also mean that the person is informed but disagrees with the views of particular publications and therefore bans them. Given that the Prison's Ombudsman had already upheld another prisoner's complaint of the prohibition of the same newspaper at another prison, I quickly put the wheels into motion to challenge the withholding of the newspaper to me. Having written to this other prisoner, he himself kindly sent me the Prison's Ombudsman's judgement. In addition, the publishers (Larkin Publications) had written to the governor and threatened legal action, the newspaper was released with a letter of apology and an explanation that there had been some confusion. It's unclear what the confusion was or exactly who was confused. Certainly, the issue was very clear to me and most certainly it was not me who was confused. What can one say? Except that the Prison Service is no place for confused people.Indeed, neither is it a place for those who are unable to reason out their decisions or maintain a semblance of balance in decision making, but instead relies on prejudice, easy ill-thought out responses and arbitrary reasoning. 'Fight Racism, Fight Imperialism' is popular amongst prison inmates for its 'prisoner reports page' which unlike many other publications which is funded by the Home Office and subject to their approval isn't afraid to ventilate prisoner issues and arguments in a no-holds barred approach. If I thought that the release of the paper and an apology was the end of the matter, then I was sadly mistaken and should have known better than to have entertained the thought. For some time now, I have suffered from a foot disorder that presents as peeling skin, itchy and excessive perspiring and a general soreness that makes the wearing of shoes significantly uncomfortable. My childhood, and indeed late later years were marred by the periodic disorder that necessitated that I bathe my feet regularly in prescribed solutions, apply ointments and wear only cotton socks and leather shoes and where possible open toed footwear to allow the feet to be exposed to the open air that would accelerate the healing process. Nylon, plastic or rubber footwear items were not advised. Some 6 weeks ago the onset of peeling skin appeared on both feet which has grown increasingly worse. Following a consultation with the medical officer, I was advised to wear open toed footwear whenever possible and to apply a prescribed medication which I have been doing since. The first complication was in collecting my meals, when a prison officer suggested that I could not approach the food servery in sandals and should go to my cell and return in shoes. When I explained the officer himself collected my meal and handed it to me without further ado. I was advised to nominate a fellow inmate to collect my meals in future which I was able to do. The practice of another inmate collecting my meals continued until around the time of my challenge about the newspaper when a new policy came into force that compelled inmates to collect only their own meals which brought my arrangements to an end. I was advised that I should see the medical officer if I wanted my previous arrangement of meal collection to continue. What was so clearly apparent, was that the officer who had first banned the newspaper and had of course been reluctantly overruled by the governor was making all the running about meal collection and intervening when the occasion arose to prevent it.This also included approaching healthcare staff for reasons best known to him or herself. It is open to speculation as to the objectives in interfering in my medical status, though one might suggest that it was to interfere with any decision that would allow my meals to be collected. None the less, I did see the medical officer who prescribed further medication and advised that I wear shoes to collect my meals. Moreover, he advised that I wear cotton socks which the prison does not stock. I am expected to pay for them myself. If the wearing of cotton socks is advantageous to my well-being, then it should follow that as a prescription, the Prison Service should meet the cost. In spite of the doctor ordering the wearing of these socks, it appears that no member of the healthcare staff knows how to arrange it and it may be the case that they are not that interested. It could however be due to the fact that it is out of the 'norm' and therefore complicated. I now rely on canteen goods purchased at my own cost and the occasional sandwiches I get from friends. I find the whole business of changing a perfectly acceptable routine based on a medical condition that was of no consequence to anyone, least of all prison staff to be 'hare brained' and simply little more than one could expect from individuals who would prohibit a newspaper because they themselves didn't understand it. Call it vindictiveness, small-minded, petty or trivial and somewhere in there perhaps lies the answer. Meanwhile, the Prison Reform Trust in their recent quarterly journal Prison Report published a lengthy letter from me that featured amongst other things my age (56) and my deafness (I am totally deaf in one ear with only limited hearing in the other). The essence of the letter was to question the role of me Prison Service in their treatment of the elderly, and especially so those in the elderly prisoners unit at Kingston Prison. Before I had received my own copy of the journal I was approached by the governor who had seemingly taken offence at what I had written. I had 'dared' to criticise me under-funding, lack of resources and lack of objectives in the unit I can add to that inadequate nursing care where the more healthy inmate will shave the more infirm, other elderly prisoners will defecate themselves or have incontinence problems. There is never a rush to do anything about either, and as long as there's no fuss or urgency, the patient will remain caked in or wet from bodily fluids. For living space there are men crowded in three to a room, though in one room there are five inmates whose beds are laid out between partitions. The architecture which is listed, does not permit the addition of windows, there are therefore men who because of the partitioning have no window, they are in effect cocooned in a what can only be described as a box. Their personal possessions remains in cardboard boxes under beds and the day is usually spent sleeping or watching television with little or no attention. So much for the way that society comes to expect the way we should treat the elderly, and indeed the elderly and infirm. What has happened to the Prison Service Order that gives meaning to the treatment of the elderly prisoner which features the word resect? The governor was not amused and suggested that as I wasn't an inmate of the unit that I really knew nothing about its condition. I have never been to Iraq or Afghanistan but I do know quite a lot about the crises in those countries that just happen to be thousands of miles away. Would it not be fair to suggest that I would know a lot about conditions just yards away, and especially so from its inhabitants who are able to venture around the prison. Moreover, from my own personal experiences with healthcare staff. There are many prison officers who simply want a quiet life who are approachable and helpful. This group of staff are unlikely to want to 'make themselves busy' over trivialities' and the irrelevancies of prison life. Many are simply seeking a way to earn a living and are not that career motivated. There does however exist an element who seemingly take pleasure in being the archetypal bullies and vindictive individuals, so much so that any questions relating to their decisions is interpreted as being a challenge to their authority. Discussion is out of the question and even the most simple of requests is too much trouble for such absurdly and limited individuals. It is part of the Prison Service objectives that inmates and staff maintain useful and constructive relationships, that if an inmate has a problem that he or she should feel free to discuss it with members of staff. I would suggest to those who hold such views that perhaps they can give me a clue as to where I should start with particular individuals. Moreover, if I were to adopt the arrogance and bullying attitudes of some staff, I would consider that, rather than having learnt anything positive that I have instead failed in changing my life for the better. Having been an employer as a pub manager and interviewed prospective employees, such individuals would definitely receive the 'thank you for attending the interview, but I regret' letter.Their attitude, arrogance, limitations and small-mindedness would determine that. How could I be responsible for exposing the public to such persons, I would suggest instead that they find a role suitable to their characteristics, perhaps as a traffic warden where everyone can be unfavourably disposed towards them which is something that I am sure they thrive on. I am not one to expect favourable responses to requests or applications all of the time from prison staff and I know that all I can do is ask. Neither do I expect favourable treatment that would place other prisoners at a disadvantage or allow me preferential treatment. However, I believe that I am right to have expectations of respect fair treatment and honesty and that serious considerations are given where there is room for exceptions based on sound reasons. The big problem remains, that the Prison Service can justify anything and excuse any of its members who choose on a whim to implement some arguably unjustifiable and unsympathetic approach to its charges. Time and time again, the Prison's Ombudsman has found against the Prison Service in complaints by prisoners. It should come as no surprise that where the complaint is initially against prison staff, that complaint will be treated with contempt by the governor, area manager and right the way up to Prison Service Headquarters. Prisoners in general have little faith in complaining to prison staff or governors but know that they have to exhaust that avenue before it is likely to be taken seriously elsewhere and by those independent of the prison. Some inmates have a more cynical view of complaining, their usual response to making a complaint to any prison staff or governor is usually, "It's a waste of time, they all shit in the same pot." Charles Hanson, HMP Kingston, March 2003 Charles Hanson VV1638 |