Back

Newsletter Number 3
(26/01/2009)

You are getting this email because you are already aware of, and may be actively involved in, Frank's case. If you want to be removed from the newsletter distribution list, just send an email saying so. Otherwise, you will continue to receive it from time to time with news of any developments. Past newsletters can be viewed from the Newsdesk page on the web site.

Frank news

• February 20th - Third Mandatory Lifer Panel

  Once a life sentence prisoner's tariff has expired, a Parole Board panel meets every year to consider three points:
  1. Should the prisoner be released?
  2. Should the prisoner be moved to open conditions?
  3. Are there continuing areas of risk that the prisoner needs to address?
  The Parole Board will hold its third such meeting - an oral hearing at HMP Whitemoor - on February 20th and Frank will be at that hearing. The Board's remit here is fairly narrow - it is being asked to advise the Secretary of State only and is not being asked to consider areas such as security classification. It should be noted that the assessment of Frank's progress made in the last panel report was significantly more favourable in tone than that made by the Category A Team in the Ministry of Justice - the team that actually has the power to downgrade his classification. While we don't expect the panel to recommend either release or a move to open conditions, the report setting out the reasons for their decision always makes interesting reading and will be sent to Frank within 7 days of the hearing.




• March 9th - Frank's twenty-third anniversary

  March 9th marks the twenty-third anniversary of Frank's arrest for the murder of Alan Raffle. Frank has always maintained his innocence and the case against him was entirely circumstantial. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a tariff of 17 years which was later adjusted upwards to 20 years. This tariff elapsed almost 3 years ago. However, a life sentence is an indeterminate sentence and the tariff is only the recommended minimum that should be served. Since the system still sees him as unrehabilitated, it judges that he presents an unacceptable risk to the public if released. (Indeed, he is still a Category A prisoner.) We maintain that this judgement is flawed and that prisoners like Frank, who maintain their innocence, are severely disadvantaged in the current risk assessment regime. The figures received from NOMS for prisoners currently over tariff (see below) suggest that Frank's may be a typical story. We would like to mark Frank's anniversary in some way so as to highlight such stories. If any of our readers have any suggestions as to how best this might be achieved, we would be delighted to hear from them




• March 24th - Judicial Review: Category A Decision

  Frank's case against the 2007 security category review conducted by the Category A Team at the Ministry of Justice will be heard at the Administrative Court on March 24th. In Judicial Review proceedings generally, the case is normally argued on the basis of documentary eveidence and looks at whether the correct procedures have been followed.




• Frank's Blog

  Frank is now producing entries for his blog on a more regular basis - currently about once a week. I can recommend them - they always make interesting reading. You can read his latest blog entry here: Welcome to my world

Campaign news

I am currently engaged on a letter campaign to highlight two aspects of Frank's case:

1. His case illustrates the Catch 22 situation of prisoners maintaining innocence and over tariff.
2. Unlike some prisoners in that situation, Frank has undertaken offending behaviour work but this is not accepted by the system as any indication that his risk has been reduced.

Here is an update on this campaign:

House of Commons

Our group of four MPs have continued to demonstrate their willingness to get involved as follows:
• David Howarth (Liberal Democrat Member for Cambridge and Shadow Solicitor General)
  Having considered further the answers he received from Maria Eagle on 8 December to his two written questions (see Newsletter Number 2), David last week tabled two follow-up questions for the Minister of Justice:
  1. What records are kept concerning prisoners' appellant status; and, according to available records, how many prisoners are currently appealing against their sentence.
  2. Pursuant to the Answer of 15/12/08 (Official Report Column 481W), what assessment he has made of the consequences of the absence of central recording of prisoners maintaining innocence; and if he will make a statement.


• Malcolm Moss (Conservative Member for North East Cambridgeshire - HMP Whitemoor is in his constituency)
• Richard Benyon (Conservative Member for Newbury - has previously been involved on another case with my mother which had a successful outcome)
  Both Malcolm and Richard have written to Jack Straw about Frank's case and both have received the same reply from Shahid Malik MP in the Ministry of Justice (you can see the letter here). The reply sets out in a little detail the Ministry's position as regards the role of risk assessment in determining the progression of any life prisoner. There are a couple of points I want to take up about this position. For instance, the evidence of risk reduction that is accepted as such by the system seems very limited. Frank's good behaviour in prison, his educational achievements, the unfailingly good reports from those who spend most time with him seem to count very little compared with completing an "accredited programme addressing core risk factors", or having "interviews with specialist staff" and so on. Personally, I would be more inclined to trust the former than the latter as a set of "risk reduction indicators" and I regard the quasi-scientific language used and the dependence on specialists as misleading in the extreme. (Frank tells me - and he is usually right about these things - that the rate of recidivism amongst prisoners who have attended such courses is higher than amongst those who have not. It would be interesting to get some hard figures out of NOMS in this regard.) And anyway it is surely about time that Frank's good behaviour were tested in less secure conditions - as was recommended in July 2007 by the Local Advisory Panel at HMP Whitemoor. I shall be writing to Mr Malik along these lines in due course.


• Chris Mullin (Labour Member for Sunderland South)
  Chris met with the Chief Executive of the Parole Board, Christine Glenn, on January 13th to discuss Frank's case. In her letter to him accepting the invitation to meet, she says:
  We would not pretend that the Board's job is not made more difficult when it is faced with a prisoner who says he is innocent. There are those who refuse point blank to work with staff and some offence related programmes are not available to prisoners in his situation. That leaves a gap when it comes to assessment of risk to the public and it is true that proportionally fewer prisoners are successful in their applications for parole than those who admit their guilt.
  I find this a much more believable response than those received from the Ministry of Justice or NOMS (pace Shahid Malik above or the Category A Team below).
  At that meeting, it was suggested that Chris approach the Chief Operating Officer of NOMS for a meeting to discuss Frank's case and he has already written to him requesting such a meeting. Once again - thank you Chris for your dogged efforts on Frank's behalf.

House of Lords

The response from the House of Lords continues to impress.
• Lord Ramsbotham, with Lord Hilton and Baroness Stern, had a meeting with Bridget Prentice of the Ministry of Justice to discuss the whole issue of prisoners who are still inside long after the end of their tariff. A further meeting is due to take place early this year. I have sent Lord Ramsbotham the answer I recently got from the NOMS Data Access & Compliance Unit (you can see the letter here ) in the hope that it might provide some matter for discussion at that meeting.


• Lord Judd wrote to the new Chairman of the CCRC in December about Frank's case and received a reply last week explaining that the case has been accepted for review and that "it is likely to be allocated to a caseworker within the next few months". On a more promising note, the Chairman writes "I can assure you that we are prepared to take a fresh look at this case, and I shall make certain that you are informed of the outcome of our review in due course."


• Lord Williamson wrote to me last week expressing concern in general about cases where imprisonment exceeds a prisoner's tariff. He has already been in touch with Jack Straw about another prisoner and is considering going back to him about this more general point. To this end I have sent him a copy of the response from the NOMS Data Access & Compliance Unit.


• The Archbishop of Canterbury's Secretary for Public Affairs also wrote to me last week expressing sympathy and interest and a willingness to do something on our behalf. He is consulting with colleagues and with the Archbishop precisely what that something might be.

Thank you to all of you - long may there be an upper house!

National Offender Management Service

• In response to the answers provided by Maria Eagle to David Howarth's first set of written questions, I wrote to the Open Government Unit at NOMS requesting further details under the Freedom of Information Act. I received a reply last week. The full letter is attached below, but the essential facts brought to light are as follows:
  
  The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) records showed that on 30 December 2008 the number of life sentence and indeterminate sentence prisoners in custody and beyond the date of their tariff was 3,860.
  Table 1, below, provides a breakdown of these tariff expired prisoners according to the length of time they have spent in custody beyond their tariff.
  

  Table 1

  Years over tariff	Total
  Less than 1	1165
  Over 1	2695
  Over 2	1970
  Over 3	1613
  Over 4	1332
  Over 5	1121
  Over 6	928
  Over 7	783
  Over 8	656
  Over 9	581
  Over 10	494
  Over 11	419
  Over 12	356
  Over 13	305
  Over 14	268
  Over 15	230
  Over 16	193
  Over 17	165
  Over 18	133
  Over 19	103
  Over 20	77
  Over 21	56
  Over 22	45
  Over 23	29
  Over 24	16
  Over 28	5
  Over 29	2

  
  Table 2 below records the breakdown by length of tariff.
  

  Table 2

  Current tariff (Specified Part)	Total
  Less than 5 yrs	2026
  5 yrs - 10 yrs	773
  10 yrs - 15 yrs	748
  15 yrs - 20 yrs	224
  20 yrs - 25 yrs	82
  Over 25 yrs	7

  
  At first glance, these figures suggest an astonishing situation in which it almost seems that the notion of a tariff is, in effect, ceasing to exist. I wonder what justification the Ministry can give for the substantial length of time beyond tariff of a substantial number of prisoners? I am also surprised by the statement in the letter that: "There is no central record within NOMS of the number of prisoners beyond tariff and who are currently in the process of appealing against their conviction." Perhaps the telling adjective here is "central"? I can't think that it's impossible to get some sort of figure out of the Ministry for the number of prisoners over tariff who are appellants.


• The Category A Review Team wrote to me last week (you can see the letter here) in response to letters I wrote to various figures in NOMS specifically about the offending behaviour courses that Frank attended in 1995. Although I think the tone of the letter means we are not going to get any further with this line of approach, I am going to write back to make more general points about the risk assessment regime currently in operation and about the situation of prisoners over tariff suggested by the statistics above.

Back