The Association of Prison Lawyers

Sir David Latham says the danger of parole board members making 'skewed decisions' is heightened by a risk-averse society.

Large numbers of prisoners who pose no danger to the public are trapped in jail because society has become risk-averse over whether to release them on licence, the chair of the Parole Board for England and Wales said tonight.

Speaking to the Guardian, Sir David Latham said that public reaction to cases such as Jon Venables, the killer of James Bulger recalled to prison last month, heightened the danger of politicians and parole board members making "skewed decisions" based on wrong assumptions about the risks offenders would pose to the public.

As a result, he said, "large numbers" of prisoners are kept in jail, probably unnecessarily.

"Our release rates have reduced in the last few years in a way which is arguably an over-reaction to public concern about the reoffending by released prisoners," said Latham, who became chair of the board last February. "Actually, the serious further offending rate of released prisoners is just 1-2%; a level that has remained stable for many years."

The risk, said Latham, is that "hard cases, like that of Venables, can end up making bad laws".

Latham spoke as the Parole Board is expected tomorrow to officially begin considering the case of Venables, a process that will involve calling the 27-year-old for interview and hearing evidence from witnesses about the risk he poses to the public.

Latham said he realised his message might be "distorted" by the tabloid press but thought it was important to have the debate out in the open. He said: "Any publicity about something that goes wrong in relation to somebody being released on parole is bound to make it more difficult to present the argument to the public that we have to operate in a way which means that some risk has to be accepted.

"People might think I'm saying we were right to release Venables in 2001 but what I'm saying has nothing to do with the release of Venables. That's a far more difficult and complex debate.

"What I'm saying is: Please, we're a risk-averse society. Don't let that skew us when making decisions and don't let hard cases make bad law."

In the context of the Venables case, he said: "One can only hope that ultimately, people will be prepared to appreciate that those of us who have to make these difficult decisions will do so fully accepting the way the public is likely to react.

"But we have none the less to make our decision based on the material before us and applying the statutory tests imposed on us.

"If we took any other attitude, we would be moving towards simply not releasing anybody unless and until we were certain they were never going to offend again and that's not an acceptable, civilised approach to the job we have to do.

"In this sort of context, we're not talking about whether they're going to misbehave; we're talking about the risk to life or limb. Which may or may not be what we're talking about in the context of Venables."

Latham admitted he was worried about how his message would be interpreted by the public. "I am concerned by the way this [interview] could be used by the tabloids to distort the real value of what I'm trying to say but it is important to have this debate.

"Society needs to realise that we can't create a world which is free of risk. What society has to determine, is what level of risk it is prepared to accept.

"I'm concerned that the society we're presently living in, is becoming too risk averse. That means that society is perhaps unrealistic about the level of risk it should be prepared to accept."

The consequence, said Latham, is that "real injustices" are allowed to occur. Unless society was prepared, he added, to take a "more sophisticated attitude" to the risks posed by prisoners released on licence, the criminal justice system would continue to incarcerate people, who would never reoffend if released, for many years longer than they were sentenced to by the court.

That is unjustifiable, he said. He pointed out that society had agreed it is wrong to deprive people of their liberty for something they might do.

Once the tariff period for the offence has been served, there needs to be a proper and rigorous justification to keep anyone in prison, he said.

"I'm not confident that justification can be honestly made in all cases at the moment. It follows that there are a very large number of people who are in prison and going to remain there who will, in fact, never offend again.

"That seems to me to be an uncivilised approach to punishment on the one hand and a betrayal of society's right to protection from those who offend, on the other."

Keeping prisoners in jail for longer than necessary is not just contrary to their human rights, he argued, it is also detrimental to society in general.

"Firstly, within prisons, the position is that there is a very large population of prisoners who do not know when they're going to be released even though they have completed their tariff period in prison. That's not good for discipline or morale.

"Then, the longer they're in prison the more difficult it is for them to be rehabilitated, which is a very real problem.

"Finally, it costs us a lot of money: you, me, the taxpayer. We have people in prison costing the country a lot of money for no benefit."

While praising the justice secretary, Jack Straw, and his predecessor, Lord Falconer, for defending the independence of the board he also criticised the former home secretaries John Reid and David Blunkett for their interference.

"I think Reid's intervention, particularly in 2006 when he criticised the board for the level of releases, had a significant effect on release rates. The proof is there in our release rates, there's no getting away from it. None whatsoever.

"You can say: 'Ah, but we're independent so are not affected by it,' but we're people. If the Parole Board members feel they will be pilloried if they make a mistake, that's bound to have an effect on the way they're going to decide things."

Written Ministerial Statement by the
Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice

1. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget today that the Ministry of Justice will be moving to bring together Her Majesty’s Courts Service and the Tribunals Service into a new single organisation.
2. Her Majesty’s Courts Service and the Tribunals Service between them provide the administration for the courts in England and Wales and most of the non-devolved tribunals in the United Kingdom. They share the common purpose of providing access to justice, whether in the criminal, civil or administrative justice fields. We aim to bring these broadly similar functions together into a new single organisation for the efficient delivery of access to justice.
3. Creating a unified service holds out the prospect of significant benefits to the users of courts and tribunals, to the taxpayer and to the administration of justice generally. There is the potential for improved service provision for users through joint administration and shared hearing venues. The new arrangements will also facilitate the building of a unified judicial family in England and Wales.
4. The new structure will preserve the unique and distinctive features of both systems while taking advantage of the benefits to users, judges and staff from closer working. We will ensure that the statutory responsibilities of both the Lord Chief Justice for the courts and the Senior President of Tribunals for the tribunals are respected and preserved. There are also a number of important differences between the two organisations which will need to be given careful consideration in planning for the new organisation. These include the different territorial coverage of HMCS and the Tribunals Service, their different governance arrangements and judicial structures and the different regional and jurisdictional structures currently in place.
5. In addition, and following a recent public consultation on the future of the Parole Board, we will consider the opportunities that this new organisation offers to secure the Board’s position in the Justice system, so that it is best placed to deliver timely, rigorous and fair decisions.
6. A considerable amount of detailed planning will need to take place before the new organisation can be formed and we will be working together closely in the coming months to design arrangements that will work effectively and deliver the desired results. There will be full consultation on the developed proposals with those representing users of the courts and tribunals, the judiciary, trades unions and all of those affected in the Scottish and Northern Irish legal systems and wider public before implementation.

Tens of thousands of criminals will spend less time in prison under Government plans to limit the ability of judges to set jail sentences, an official document has disclosed.

It suggests that officials are alarmed that judges are giving criminals longer sentences than proposed by ministers, which they refer to as “upward sentencing drift”. From April, a new Sentencing Council will effectively force judges to follow sentencing guidelines drawn up in Westminster.

An official assessment of the impact of the move concludes that if judges follow guidelines set down by the council it will avoid the need for more than 1,000 future prison places. This represents tens of thousands of criminals being spared jail time over the next few years.

However, one think-tank claimed that the document meant that the Government would need 8,000 fewer places than currently projected and accused ministers of trying to cut the prison population by the back door.

The Sentencing Council will become the body providing sentencing guides for judges and magistrates when it replaces the Sentencing Guidelines Council and Sentencing Advisory Panel. It has greater powers because legislation says courts “must follow” guidelines and have a “duty” to impose sentences within an identified range. Under the previous bodies, courts needed only to “have regard” to any guidelines.

An “impact assessment” for the new council drawn up by the Ministry of Justice said a “closer adherence to sentencing ranges could arrest historical trends in upward sentencing drift”.

“Arresting sentencing drift could potentially mean avoiding the need to build some 1,000 additional prison places,” it said.

The document was unearthed by Max Chambers, a research fellow at Policy Exchange’s Crime and Justice Unit.

“The Government repeatedly claimed that these changes were not an attempt to reduce the prison population by the back door,” he said.

“The reality is that because of a failure to provide adequate capacity in the first place, the Government is going to try to manage down the prison population by up to 8,000 places over the four years.

“The right way to cut the prison population is to rehabilitate prisoners properly and cut reoffending rates, not to undermine the long-standing principle of judicial discretion.”

Simon Reed, the vice-chairman of the Police Federation, had concerns that sentencing was being determined by ministers rather than magistrates and judges.

“Any sentence imposed is already affected by remission for guilty pleas and half-point release,” he said. “I’m sure that there will also be pressure applied for any sentence to be set at the lower end of the band rather than the upper limit.”

Dominic Grieve, the shadow justice secretary, said it was important that sentences were not “driven by the Government’s failure to provide enough prison places”.

Although the Government has pledged to provide 96,000 prison places by 2014, an increase of about 10,000, the Commons justice select committee has suggested that the number of inmates be cut by a third, with courts using jail as a last resort.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said: “The Sentencing Council will develop sentencing guidelines, monitor their use and play a key role in influencing a wide range of decisions relating to sentencing.

“The council will also be required to assess the impact of sentencing practice and promote awareness of sentencing matters.”

The number of inmates in England and Wales' jails should be cut by a third, and the money saved put into community penalties, a report by MPs has said.

The cross-party Justice Committee said evidence showed community punishments would have a better chance at cutting re-offending. The committee said a £2.4bn prison building plans were a "costly mistake".

But the Ministry of Justice said its current strategy was working and reoffending rates had been falling. There are more than 82,000 people in prison in England and Wales, down from a record high of nearly 84,000 in summer 2009.

With a major building programme under way, there are likely to be 96,000 prison places by 2014. People who commit serious offences are going to prison for longer and are being rehabilitated - and the rate of re-offending continues to fall.

But in a detailed and lengthy report, the justice committee says prison should be a last resort, with thousands of criminals dealt with entirely in the community.

It said millions of pounds could be diverted from the prison system into improving local public services that had a more direct affect on cutting offending, including education and drug addiction programmes.

The MPs said: ''We are worried that the government seems to accept the inevitability of a high and rising prison population and remains committed to building larger prisons.
''We are convinced that prison building on this scale will prove a costly mistake.
''The prison population could be safely capped at current levels and then reduced over a specified period to a safe and manageable level likely to be about two-thirds of the current population.'' A Ministry of Justice spokesman said prisons were investing in drug treatment, training and education.

"We have bolstered community punishments to ensure they are tough, innovative and offer locally based alternatives to custody," he said. "People who commit serious offences are going to prison for longer and are being rehabilitated - and the rate of re-offending continues to fall."

The committee said it acknowledged that its proposals to shift funding from prisons to communities were complex - but added reoffending could only be significantly cut if money was put into local authorities best placed to turn around an offender's life.

Chairman, Sir Alan Beith, said: "Whoever forms the next government, they face a choice between unsustainable 'business-as-usual' in the criminal justice system, and making some radical decisions.

"It is the responsibility of governments and Parliament to protect citizens from crime by using the taxes they pay as effectively as possible. And that is not what is happening.

"A demand-led policy of building ever more prison places is being fuelled by political and media pressure for more and longer custodial sentences, diverting resources away from measures which are more likely to prevent future crime."

Parole Board New Oral Hearing Listing Prioritisation Framework and Guidance for Members Published.

Funding cuts are jeopardising prisoner safety in overcrowded jails in England and Wales, Council of Europe inspectors have said.

The Committee for Prevention of Torture visited jails in south-east England, and Greater Manchester and said the state of affairs was "to be deplored".
And they have called for routine strip-searching of young offenders to end.

The government says front-line work is protected from efficiency savings and it is creating extra cell space.

In November and December last year, it visited HMP Manchester; Woodhill, in Buckinghamshire; and Wandsworth, in south-west London, along with Maghaberry and Magilligan prisons, in Northern Ireland. The declared objective of holding all prisoners in a safe, decent and healthy environment is in fact being jeopardised by year-on-year efficiency savings.

Members also visited Huntercombe young offender institution (YOI) in Oxfordshire and the Harmondsworth immigration removal centre. In their report, they noted that 87 of 142 prisons in England and Wales were above "normal" occupancy levels, with too many inmates spending too long "locked in their cells with little access to any meaningful activities".

Of the three prisons visited, the CPT said all were operating at capacities "above what the Prison Service considers as good decent standard accommodation".

It said Maghaberry, the only high security prison in Northern Ireland, had 845 prisoners for an designated capacity of 670 but Magilligan was only about 80% full.
It called for UK authorities to "consider fresh approaches towards eradicating overcrowding as a chronic feature of the prison system".

They said the 3% year-on-year efficiency savings imposed on the Prison Service had reduced the prison working week to four-and-a-half days, with reduced staffing levels from Friday at midday.
"The CPT is concerned that the declared objective of holding all prisoners in a safe, decent and healthy environment is in fact being jeopardised by year-on-year efficiency savings," its report said.

It said this was a particular problem at Hunterscombe, where "juvenile inmates now spend most of their time between Friday midday and Monday morning locked in their cells", although the government contested this.

The committee also raised concerns over the growing numbers spending longer than a year in immigration detention.

In its written response, the government said it was building five new 1,500-capacity jails and expanding existing sites.

'No adverse impact'
It said evaluation had shown changes to working hours had involved "no adverse impact on conditions or treatment of prisoners".

With regard to Hunterscombe, the government said introduction of a new education contract ensured "a regime of daytime activities such as... domestic visits, religious services and gym sessions takes place over the weekend".

It added that it did not consider routine strip-searching there to be "disproportionate".

"It is used to safeguard individuals, other young people and staff in these establishments," it added.

It said the UK Border Agency tried not to hold immigration detainees for longer than necessary.

However, delays were caused by "last minute legal barriers, difficulties in obtaining travel documents and the non-compliance of the detainees themselves".

The Parole Board has responded to a Ministry of Justice consultation paper on the future of the Board by calling for it to remain an independent body but with sponsorship transferred to HM Courts Service.

This change would put the independence of the Parole Board from the executive on a firmer footing, as required by the Court of Appeal, and enhance its ability to secure sufficient judicial resources from HMCS to hear prisoners cases on time.

It would also provide for some efficiency savings through a closer relationship with HMCS without generating the additional costs that a formal move into the courts structure might entail.

The Parole Board argues against the option of a move to the Tribunals Service as being inconsistent with it remaining an integral part of the criminal justice system.

The Board has called for its recommendations on moving prisoners to open prison conditions to be made binding upon the Secretary of State and at the same time for it to be given the power to review the cases of prisoners who have been moved back from open to closed conditions by the Prison Service.

The Board would also like to be given additional powers to enforce the attendance of witnesses and the provision of reports and other written material and to make wasted costs orders for anyone failing to comply with such directions.

"The Board considers that transfer of sponsorship to HMCS would best serve the requirement of independence, would enable its functions to be carried out with the necessary informality and would retain the essential inquisitorial nature of the proceedings. If it became part of the court structure formally, the latter two could be put at risk.

"If HMCS is directly responsible, as the sponsorship body, for delivery of the functions of the Board, the Board will be in a better position to obtain the necessary resources for it to fulfil its functions effectively.

"There are some who would consider that the tribunal system would be the appropriate ultimate resting place for the Parole Board. However, that solution fails to recognise the importance of the functions of the Board as an integral part of the criminal justice system.

"Its functions represent the ultimate conclusion of the legal process which was started by conviction and sentence. Article 5(4) reflects the basic principle that no person should be deprived of their liberty for any longer than is legally justifiable, a question properly the function of a court."

The Parole Board is an independent body that works with its criminal justice partners to protect the public by risk assessing prisoners to decide whether they can safely be released into the community.

The Ministry of Justice published its consultation paper The Future of the Parole Board on 20 July 2009 and asked for responses by 20 November 2009. The full paper is available on the MOJ website.

For further information please call Tim Morris, Head of Communications for the Parole Board, on 020-7217 0564 during office hours, or on 07725-927954 out of hours, or e-mail tim.morris5@paroleboard.gsi.gov.uk

This response to the Consultation Paper The Future of the Parole Board is submitted on behalf of the Association of Prison Lawyers.

Following our consultation on Prison Law earlier in 2009, we will be making changes to funding in this area.

To do Prison Law work from July 2010 you will be required to take part in the application process for a 2010 Standard Crime Contract, which will take place in January 2010.

During the 2010 Standard Crime Contract you will be asked to indicate whether you want to do Prison Law work. If so, you will be asked to complete and submit a supervisor standard form.

You can submit the form either with your application or before the 2010 contract starts. Your firm must employ a Prison Law supervisor to undertake Prison Law work from July 2010.

The Prison Law supervisor standard will be based on a portfolio of cases and 350 hours of Prison Law work per year as well as an initial entry requirement of 350 hours each year over the previous three years or 1050 in total during that period.

More information

More information about the content of the supervisor standard portfolio that Prison Law providers will be asked to submit will be published with the contract documents.

Information about the changes to Prison Law Funding that will come into effect in July 2010 can be found on our consultation pages.

'Prisoners Law and Practice' (Creighton & Arnott) - special offer to APL members

LAG have offered a discount to APL members for copies of the new publication 'Prisoners Law and Practice' which is available from this week. Written by Simon Creighton and Hamish Arnott, this is the most up to date and authoritative guide to prisoners rights and the prison system. It is superbly written and organised and is essential reading for anyone who works with prisoners.

Information about the book and the APL members' order form for the book are in the Shared Documents section of the APL Members only site .

MBL seminars to offer members of the Association a 50% discount on ALL courses...

The Howard League says prisoner-on-prisoner assaults rose by 36%. Violence in jails has risen by a third in five years, according to figures obtained by a prison charity.

The Howard League for Penal Reform says there were 40,000 acts of violence in English and Welsh prisons during 2008 - more than 100 incidents a day. Director Frances Crook said the rise was "far above" what might be expected, blaming overcrowding and the imprisonment of mentally ill people.

But a Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said the figures were "misleading".
The figures were obtained by Liberal Democrat MP Paul Holmes and Conservative MP James Gray in answers to parliamentary questions .

* Young offenders institutions saw an even more pronounced jump in violence with a 58% rise

* Self-harm rose by a quarter, almost half the incidents involving women - despite females making up just 5% of the prison population

Ms Crook said: "This shocking rise in violence is far above what might be expected. "We lock up increasing numbers of men, women and children whose mental health problems and addictions will never be properly treated within our flooded jails.

"As these are recorded statistics, it is likely to be just the tip of the iceberg with real levels of assaults, rapes and arson much higher than the Prison Service is admitting."

The charity says individual prisons saw even higher rises - including a 1,200% jump in cases of arson at Reading young offender's institution.

Ms Crook continued: "Overcrowded and squalid conditions lead to violence and chaos.

"The answer to rising prison populations is not to build more failing jails, which churn out prisoners more dangerous from having spent time in our colleges of crime."
She added: "It is time for the government to look at wholesale reform of the penal system."

But a Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said: "The use of assault and self harm data by the Howard League is misleading. "It is not appropriate to add self harm and assault then infer the total is a measure of prison violence.

"Despite an increase in the number of prisoners convicted of violent offences, the percentage of all assaults that are considered serious remains stable at about 10%.

"There are community mental health teams working in 102 prisons and every prison has a violence reduction strategy."

The APL has today published its final draft response to the LSC's proposals on the future of Prison Law Funding. The response can be viewed in the members' area in the shared documents library. The LSC has kindly extended the deadline for submission from 5th May until the 9th May.

The APL's Executive urges everyone involved in Prison Law to complete their own responses as well and to submit them in time.

The organisation Progressing Prisoners Maintaining Innocence are holding a training event on 19th May 2009. It is entitled Representing Prisoners Maintaining Innocence and will be an all day event taking place at the University of Nottingham. Details of the course, the speakers and a booking form are available on members site. Confirmation that the event will attract 6 CPD points is expected later this week.

Members of the APL will be able to claim a 20% discount of £30 on the course fee.

Members are urged to complete the APL/LSC Consultation Survey on the Members site.

This is a critical part of the Association's consultation process and all responses received will be invaluable in representing Members views, suggestions and concerns.

The latest PPCS contact documents can now be found in the Members shared documents section.

[This forum on the future role of prison officers is open to all, offenders still serving, ex-offenders, families, campaigners etc.]

Press notice 24 March 2009 / No. 22 of Session 2008-09
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/justice.cfm

Committee seeks views on prison officers' role as demands of job change

The Justice Committee is today, 24 March 2009, launching a web forum to seek the views of prison officers, and those they work with, on the challenges facing prison officers working in today's prisons.

An aging prison population, high levels of drug and alcohol abuse and the psychiatric and other problems of many prisoners are all placing unprecedented demands on prison officers, in addition to the workload of an increasing prison population and the serious problem of overcrowding.

This forum will run until 5 May 2009 and the Committee are hoping prison officers and those who work, and have contact, with them will take this opportunity to share their experiences with the Committee. The Committee are seeking views on questions such as what role prison officers have in the rehabilitation of prisoners, how well the training and development currently provided meets the needs of prison officers and what impact the proposed "titan prisons" and workplace modernisation initiative will have on prison officers' ability to do their jobs.

Personal registration details will not be made public. The posts received on the site, along with written and oral evidence gathered during the inquiry, will help shape the recommendations the Committee makes in its eventual report to the Ministry of Justice.
Rt Hon Sir Alan Beith MP, Chairman of the Committee said: "debates about prison overcrowding and the role of prison sentences in crime reduction rarely take account of the increased demands place d on the people who have to balance 'control' and 'care' in looking after prisoners from day to day. A prison officer is not just a turnkey but an enforcer, reformer and, at all times, a potential role model. We want to develop a better understanding of the real demands of the job and we want to hear from prison officers, and others, about their most effective contribution to reducing re-offending and reforming persistent criminals."

Notes:
1. The web forum opens at http://forums.parliament.uk/ on 24 March 2009 and will run until May 5. An introductory page - and the protocol for usage - can be viewed now at http://forums.parliament.uk/prison-officers.
2. People using the web forum are advised to be careful not to reveal private information about themselves or other people when posting.
3. The Justice Committee cannot examine the merits and facts of individual cases.
4. Committee Membership is as follows: Rt Hon Sir Alan Beith MP (Chairman), Mr David Heath MP, Daniel Kawczynski MP, Siân James MP, Jessica Morden MP, Julie Morgan MP, Rt Hon Alun Michael MP, Robert Neill MP, Dr Nick Palmer MP, Linda Riordan MP, Virendra Sharma MP, Mr Andrew Turner, Mr Andrew Tyrie MP and Dr Alan Whitehead MP

Further Information:
Media Enquiries: Jessica Bridges Palmer (020 7219 0724) email: bridgespa lmerj@parliament.uk; Clare Mills (07795 662742);
Specific Committee Information: Tel 020 7219 8196/ 8198, email: justicecom@parliament.uk <mailto:conaffcom@parliament.uk>;
Committee Website: <http://www.parliament.uk/justicecom>;

Justice Committee Select Committee Announcement

House of Commons * 7 Millbank * London SW1P 3JA www.parliament.uk/justicecom
Committee contact: 020 7219 8196/8198 * Email: justicecom@parliament.uk
Media enquiries: Jessica Bridges Palmer 020 7219 0724

MOJUK's email bulletins are an important part of our work in educating the public on Miscarriages of Justice. As part of that work our bulletins hosts news and views from different individuals, organisations and campaigns working in the same field as us.

The contents of this bulletin are the sole responsibility of the author/s and should not be taken as endorsement of any kind.

MOJUK takes no responsibility for the content of external websites linked from our bulletins and links should not be taken as endorsement of any kind.
MOJUK reserves the right to omit or edit the whole or any part of material submitted for publication.

Viruses: Although MOJUK take great care in scanning all emails and attachments with the latest Anti-viirus software before sending. It is no guarantee that the message is uninfected.

We advise all recipients of our messages that they should have the latest Anti-virus software installed.
MOJUK cannot accept liability for any damage your system sustains due to software viruses.

Following on from the below invitation, Matrix Chambers have announced that this will be the first, in a series of joint roundtables, with the Association of Prison Lawyers.

Matrix Chambers are pleased to welcome Andrew Sperling of the Association, as a guest speaker, to discuss the current Legal Services Commission consultation on the funding of prison law. Matrix speakers will be Nick Armstrong, Jessica Simor and Dan Squires, and the discussion will be chaired by Alison Macdonald.

Matrix Chambers look forward to seeing you for a lively discussion over a glass of wine.

If you are yet to reserve your place, please email astapleton@matrixlaw.co.uk. Please note that if you would like to extend the invitation to your colleagues then, subject to space, Matrix will be very pleased to accommodate them but please let them know names/emails in advance.

INVITATION TO THE APL LSC PRISON LAW CONSULTATION MEETING ON 24th MARCH 2009 for PRISON LAW PRACTITIONERS

As you are aware the Legal Services Commission has published its Prison Law Consultation paper about the future funding structure for Prison Law. The details of the proposals can be found on the LSC website at LSC Consultation on Prison Law Funding 9th February 2009 as reported in our news item of the 17th February below. The Proposals include the introduction of fixed fees/standard fees and will directly affect our practice in this area. The APL is currently meeting with our members and has developed a member's forum on our website so that views can be provided prior to fully responding to the consultation by the 5th May 2009.

As a result of the LSC consultation paper we feel it of importance to arrange a meeting for all prison law practitioners' so that we may discuss the proposed changes. We have arranged a meeting on the 24th March 2009 at 6.00pm in the training room at: Doughty Street Chambers, 53-54 Doughty Street, London. WC1N 2LS. If you would like to attend the meeting we would be obliged if you confirm your intention of attending by using the email link below. Please note that we have limited space and we will confirm availability by email in advance of the meeting. Email Re: APL Prison Law Consultation Meeting 24.03.2009.

There are going to be a number of changes in the forthcoming year particularly as the Legal Services Commission is reviewing the provisions of public funding and are committed to introduce fixed fees throughout all areas of public funded work. The Association of Prison Lawyers has been in meetings with the Legal Services Commission and has made numerous requests under the Freedom of Information Act which will form part of the consultation process which is to commence imminently. It is important that we all do present a collective voice in relation to this consultation and are able to negotiate on behalf of the majority of prison lawyers to ensure that there is fair remuneration without having any impact upon the quality of representation available to our respective clients.

The LSC has announced five workshops on their Prison Law proposals to be held in April 2009.

The Association urges its members to attend these please, and feedback via the discussions area in the Members' area soon after the event.

Welcome to the Association of Prison Lawyers

More information