From: UK IMC
The review process itself, known as an ‘Oral Hearing’, at which the
lifer is present, is conducted like a semi-judicial hearing where
reports by social workers, prison staff and psychologists are considered
and assessed, and the lifer is given the opportunity to present their
own case for release.
Is the Parole Board deciding on the continued detention of life sentence prisoners before their hearings?
Periodically reviewing life sentences by the Parole Board is a
process required by law and such reviews, known as Tribunals, are
intended to assess the current level of risk presented by life-sentence
prisoners at the expiry of Tariff point of their sentence; Tariffs are
the minimum length of time trial judges specify a lifer should spend in
prison to satisfy the interests of retribution and punishment. Once the
tariff point has been reached or exceeded by the lifer then the Parole
Board has a legal duty to review and make an informed decision on the
lifer’s continued imprisonment.
The review process itself, known as an ‘Oral Hearing’, at which the
lifer is present, is conducted like a semi-judicial hearing where
reports by social workers, prison staff and psychologists are considered
and assessed, and the lifer is given the opportunity to present their
own case for release. It is from these hearings, or Tribunals, that the
critically important decisions are made about the lifer’s future,
especially the one regarding whether to release or not. It would be
absolutely wrong, as well as unlawful, if a decision regarding release
was made BEFORE the ‘Oral Hearing’ had taken place and the paper work
regarding that decision was written up to convey the impression that the
decision had been made following such a hearing. In the case of a lifer
called Malcolm Legget there exists indisputable evidence that such an
unlawful practice took place and its discovery was purely by accident
and incompetence on the part of the Parole Board.
On the 6 February 2012 a parole hearing took place at Shotts prison
in Scotland to consider the case for release of Malcolm Legget who has
been in jail since 1986. During the hearing Mr Legget asked that a
prison-based psychologist, Sharron McAllister, be produced as a witness
at the hearing to explain what Mr Legget claimed were significant
inaccuracies in her report regarding him. The panel agreed to Mr
Legget’s request and the hearing was adjourned for a period of six
months.
On the 21 February the Parole Board for Scotland wrote to Mr Legget
saying the panel had made a definite decision regarding his continued
imprisonment and had decided not to direct his release. It claimed the
reason for its decision was that it still considered Mr Legget a risk to
the community. Understandably, Mr Legget was concerned and confused by
what appeared to be a final decision of the Parole Board when in fact
his hearing had been adjourned and not yet concluded. Then on the 24
February Mr Legget received a second letter from the Parole Board
informing him that the information in the previous letter had been what
it called ‘an error’. Mr Legget is convinced that in fact the letter
from the Parole Board of the 21 February was a pre-prepared decision
made before the hearing on the 6 February and the real ‘error’ was that
it was delivered to Mr Legget before the definitive conclusion of his
hearing.
If Mr Legget’s suspicion is true, and the letter from the board on
the 21 February suggest it is, then it indicates a serious and unlawful
abuse of Parole Board procedure and power, and the rubber-stamping of
the continued imprisonment of life sentence prisoners without proper
procedure.
It also constitutes a clear breach of human rights under Article 5[4]
which states that, “Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest
or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the
lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his
release ordered if the detention is not lawful”. This clearly
stipulates that a proper, legally-based hearing should take place to
sanction the prisoner’s detention, and in the case of the lifer the
parole hearing is constituted to consider the continued detention, or
not, of the life sentence prisoner who has reached or exceeded the time
stipulated he should remain in jail. The so-called Oral Hearing is the
forum where reports and evidence is considered by the panel, which is
usually composed of a judge or legally qualified person, and a
psychologist and senior probation officer or criminologist. It is from
the evidence presented at these hearings, conducted in the presence of
the lifer, that the final decision to release or detain is made. The
letter Malcolm Legget received from the Parole Board on the 21 February
would suggest that a decision to continue detaining Mr Legget was made
in private and before the Oral Hearing itself. Clearly, if this did
happen then ether a unique and unlawful precedent was created, or the
rubber-stamping in private of the continued detention of life sentence
prisoners is an established practice and the Parole Board is operating
on an unlawful basis.
John Bowden 6729
HMP Shotts
April 2012
Iscriviti a:
Commenti sul post (Atom)
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento