Violent inmates win court battle over sentences

The European Court of Human Rights was unanimous in its ruling that controversial indeterminate sentences for the protection of the public (IPP) sentences – which Ken Clarke as Justice Secretary announced he was scrapping last year – breached prisoners’ rights to liberty and security.

The ruling raises the possibility the Government could have to pay compensation to as many as 3,500 prisoners sentenced to IPPs who have each already served their minimum tariff.

The case concerned three complainants – Brett James, of Wakefield, and two other Britons – Nicholas Wells and Jeffrey Lee – who were given automatic IPP sentences for violent offences in 2005 as a result of their previous criminal history, and are now in line for cash compensation.

Philip Davies, the Conservative MP for Shipley, condemned the decision. “It is a ridiculous situation and the Government should just totally ignore the ruling. These criminals were convicted of serious offences.

“It is a shame they weren’t so focused on their victims’ human rights to be perfectly honest.

“My constituents are sick to the back teeth of the European Court of Human Rights sticking its nose in where it is absolutely not wanted.”

More than 6,500 offenders have been sent to jail without any fixed dates for their release using IPPs since they were brought in by Labour in 2005.

James was told he must serve at least two years before being considered for release after being convicted of unlawful wounding with intent.

He had previous convictions for battery, common assault, affray, disorderly behaviour, racially abusive behaviour and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

Wells, who is back in jail after being recalled in February 2010 for breaching the conditions of his release, was given a minimum tariff of 12 months after being convicted of the attempted robbery of a taxi driver.

He had previous convictions for both violent and theft offences, linked to the misuse of drugs.

And Lee, of Fleetwood, was jailed for a minimum of nine months after being convicted of drunkenly causing criminal damage to a flat while his ex-wife and young children were present. He had previous convictions for assault occasioning actual bodily harm and criminal damage.

All three were recommended to take part in courses while in jail such as anger management, controlling substance abuse and victim awareness, the court said, but by the time their tariffs expired they were all still in local prisons awaiting transfer to jails where the courses were available.

The trio brought judicial review proceedings before the UK courts, leading to criticism over the systemic failure to put in place the necessary resources but their appeals were dismissed in May 2009, with UK judges saying their detention could not be said to be arbitrary or unlawful.

The EU judges said such a large number of people were sentenced to IPPs that they “swamped the system in place for dealing with those serving indeterminate sentences”. The judges said: “It is clear that the delays were the result of a lack of resources.”

The inadequate resources “appeared to be the consequence of the introduction of draconian measures for indeterminate detention without the necessary planning and without realistic consideration of the impact of the measures”, they added

The ruling does not become final for three months, pending any appeals.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “We are disappointed by this judgment and are currently considering our grounds to appeal.

“Public protection will not be put at risk – the judgment does not find that indeterminate sentences are unlawful, and will not mean prisoners currently serving IPP sentences will have to be released.

“The Government has already announced the complex IPP system will be replaced by a new regime of tough, determinate sentences.”