The Trials and Tribulations of a Prison Law Paralegal - Post 1

Like Squeezing Blood from a Stone

This morning, I needed to get some paperwork from a prison. It wasn't particularly special paperwork, not highly confidential or personal. It was two records of adjudication hearings that were held in the prison yesterday. I thought that getting the records would be a fairly quick business, certainly not something that would take up much of the morning with pointless phone calls.

So here’s how it went:

First I called the main prison number and asked to speak to the Segregation Unit. The Segregation Unit were polite as ever, but unhelpful. They said I had to speak to ‘the Secretariat’ (is it me or does ‘the Secretariat’ sound like something from the Soviet Union?), and gave me a number to dial. I called the number they gave, which just rang and rang until I hung up.

So I called the main prison number again and asked to speak to the Secretariat. They were uncomprehending. I asked again:

‘You know, the Secretariat? They, erm, they work with the Segregation Unit?’

‘Oh, the Segregation Unit! Please hold.’

I was left trying to explain that no, I didn’t want the Segregation Unit, I want the Secretariat, to the hold music.

The Segregation Unit pick up and I explain to them again that I want adjudication paperwork. This time I get given a different number.

I dial the second number:

‘Hello, postroom?’

‘Erm, hi. I’m looking for some adjudication paperwork? For hearings that happened yesterday?’

‘I just work in the postroom... sorry...’

I call the main number again. This time I try asking them directly where I should get adjudication paperwork. They say they’re putting me through, and who picks up but –

‘Hello, postroom?’

‘Hi... I think we just spoke... about adjudication paperwork?’

‘Yes, hello.’

‘Sorry to bother you.’

‘I had a thought about that actually. Try speaking to [name]. She might be able to help?’

‘Thank you so much!’

I call the main number again. I ask for [name]. I am put through. Naturally she does not pick up her phone and it just rings and rings.

I make myself a cup of tea and call the main number yet again. I ask for [name]. By some miracle she finally picks up and tells me that I need to fax the request to [number]. I consider asking incredulously why none of the other people I spoke to could tell me that, but I’m too happy to finally have an answer, so I just thank her effusively and hang up.

Cost cutting does not always translate into savings.

Under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, recommendations were made to massively reduce the budget for Legal Aid. The Ministry of Justice has already cut Legal Aid by 8.75% in March 2014 and plans a further cut of 8.75% by spring 2015. Only halfway through the planned total 17.5% cuts then and the Criminal Justice System is already feeling the impact.

The cuts have led to many defendants taking to representing themselves at court, inadequate translation services and an absence of funding for expert reports; all of which have resulted in a rise in adjournments and severe delays to court proceedings. Non-profit organisations who offer legal advice are also feeling the burden as they are overwhelmed with work due to an absence of publicly funded legal representation. The list goes on and on; which poses the question, are these cost cutting measures really translating into savings?

The dramatic rise of Litigants in Person (LiP)

One of the key impacts of the cut to Legal Aid is the rise in people representing themselves in Court (LiP’s). The initial concern with this is that without adequate legal advice, cases are being fully contested at court when they may otherwise have been resolved without having to resort to litigation.

Many LiPs do not fully understand the law, their rights or the Court system. This lack of understanding has a significant impact on the administrative running of Court with staff having to spend time explaining and correcting general procedures to individuals.

Summed up perfectly by the Judicial Executive Board, they state ‘LiPs often do not understand practice and procedure, how to produce meaningful statements focussed on the relevant issues or how to differentiate between appropriate and hopelessly immaterial lines of inquiry. Delay is the inevitable consequence of the requirement for the judge to explain the basics of the statutory framework and the application of fundamental principles.’

All of this contributes to delays in Court proceedings, further costs and further funding spent on appeals. This clearly suggests that if Legal Aid was not cut to begin with, then time, money and the efficiency of Court hearings would have been saved.

The additional strain on non-profit legal advice organisations

Organisations such as The Citizen’s Advice Bureau, law centres and legal advice clinic’s offer free legal advice (but non-representative) to members of the public.  As a result of the rise in LiP’s many of these organisations have become inundated with work as unrepresented parties desperately solicit what advice and support they can, incidentally creating a huge strain on demand and creating financial problems.

Subsequently, Judges have noticed a rise in solicitors and barristers offering pro bono work, or more worryingly, people have been turning to untrained and unregulated ‘McKenzie friends’. The Judicial Executive Board described some Mckenzie Friends as having ‘their own agenda; some are unscrupulous and prey upon the vulnerable.’ See our previous blog post on 20^th May 2014 for further detail of the concerns use of this organisation raise.

Prison Law cuts

Prior to implementing the Legal Aid cuts, George Osborne said, ‘I am reviewing many of the department's policies and will look to identify further savings while ensuring justice is delivered, offenders are properly punished and victims of crime are given the support they need’. Whilst that did sound promising, the reality is somewhat different.

Along with the cuts came a revamp of the scope of Prison law which obliterated most areas which could be handled on a legally aided basis. Prior to the changes, solicitors could deal with treatment matters, sentence progression, categorisation, parole matters, adjudications and sentence calculation discrepancies. Following the cuts it has diminished to only some parole matters (where a prisoner’s liberty is in question), adjudications and some sentence calculations matters.

Although this may help the Legal Aid budget on paper, it’s actually incurring more costs in the long run. Without the ability to assist on parole matters, categorisation and sentence progression it means that prisoners are in the system for much longer than they may necessarily need to be. With the average cost of a prisoner in the UK for the year 2012/13 being £34,766, delays in their progress to release has a very real cost to the country. George Osborne’s apparent only concern is with the punishment and justice part of imprisonment, which also can have a negative effect on the CJS and costs. Without a real and proper focus on rehabilitation in prison with a view to reducing reoffending, there is potential for costs to escalate in line with potential future re-offending rates.

The Howard League for Penal Reform and Prisoners’ Advice Service filed a legal challenge to the decision to cut Legal Aid to prisoners. This was initially denied by the High Court in March 2014, who claimed the issue was a political not legal matter. The Court of Appeal however granted permission to appeal the High Court’s rejection of the challenge in early July 2014.

The challenge was borne out of concern for the impact such cuts will have on serving prisoners and calls into question the justness of the system. It has already been recognised by the High Court that the cuts to Legal Aid may not even save costs, and now with a case for Judicial Review progressing to the Court of Appeal, the forecast savings cutting Legal Aid was meant to bring about are called into question even more.                          

Translation Service Contracts

Additional changes to the Justice system such as the new national interpretation service for Court have been described as ‘total chaos’ by PAC Chair Margaret Hodge.

The Justice Department attempts to save £15m in translation fees by outsourcing the service to a private firm, The Justice Select Committee Chair, Sir Alan Bleith, went so far as to describe the Justice Department’s handling of the outsourcing as ‘nothing short of shambolic’.

The Ministry of Justice signed a contract with Applied Language Solutions to provide a national service for Courts; however they fell short when they were unable to meet demand. Public Finance reported that, ‘ALS had only 280 interpreters on its books rather than the projected 1,200. It was able to meet only 58% of bookings against a target of 98%.’ The Public Accounts Committee, published in their findings that ‘Court officials have had to scramble to find qualified interpreters at short notice; there has been a sharp rise in delayed, postponed and abandoned trials; individuals have been kept on remand solely because no interpreter was available; and the quality of interpreters has at times been appalling.’

The changes to the provision of translation services were an attempt to save the Justice Department money. However, as with many of the cuts, the reverse appears to have happened; longer court proceedings are costing the taxpayer more in terms of barrister, solicitor and expert witness fees, along with the added cost of imprisonment due to extended remand periods.

Real savings or a real shambles?

We appreciate the need for responsible management of the Department’s budget. When the UK economy is in the recovery stages of a double dip recession, it is expected that the purse strings will tighten both on a personal and professional level.

However, the cuts to Legal Aid have resulted in incompetent services at court, risking the reputation of the UK Justice system in an ever international arena, and knock-on effects in all other areas of the CJS. These impacts are being felt after just 5 months since the cuts took place. With another 8.75% worth of cuts still to come in 2015 it is questionable to what extent the Justice Department will make savings from these cuts or whether they will simply further impair the efficiency of the CJS. 

By Chelsea Sparks.

The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the firm or its partners. 

From Prison Law in the UK to Death Row Work in the USA

I left the UK worrying about the prison law clients I was leaving behind. Not because they weren’t in excellent hands but because having worked as a Prison Law consultant for around a year and a half I had a good understanding of the daily injustices faced by prisoners in the UK.

Ill-considered arbitrary transfers to prisons hundreds of miles from their family members; having to face the district judge without the full details of the case against them until 3 minutes beforehand; being told that they can’t progress in prison until they complete a course that is unavailable to them; the list is long, perverse and varied. The prisoners who are treated most unfairly in UK prisons are foreign nationals, often model prisoners who are denied the same pathways of progression because their risk levels are deemed higher -- governors simply won't consider their cases on their individual merits despite clear guidelines that they must.

After my first week at the California Appellate Project, an organisation that challenges convictions and sentences in capital cases, I felt grateful that my clients at home were lucky enough not to be incarcerated in any Californian prison.

Since 1970 there has been a mass incarceration movement in California; the actual crime rate has remained stagnant despite an increase in incarceration. This political move designed to appease voters has resulted in severe overcrowding. Californian prisons began to hold 200% capacity in the late 1990s. The norm in these prisons now is for two or three prisoners to share a space that is barely adequate for one. Gymnasiums, day rooms and recreational areas have been transformed permanently into huge dormitories crammed with triple bunks. These spaces have become incredibly dangerous; they pose serious risks to prisoners' physical and mental health and have the effect of creating criminals.

By the mid 1970s, the concept of rehabilitation was so remote that the criminal justice department was forced to amend its purpose: 'the California legislative now finds that the purpose of incarceration is to punish.' And so it has remained. With armed correctional officers inside housing units, man cages lining hallways, the use of prisoner restraint chairs and almost total sensory deprivation with windowless storage facilities these institutions have the effect of creating mentally vulnerable criminals.

Race gangs rule in prison. You join one for protection. If you do not, you are murdered, or worse, become someone’s prison ‘wife’. In return, you owe your gang permanent allegiance or face your, or your family’s death. I wish I were exaggerating. Members wear their tattoos like body armour, a swastika burned into your skin means ‘leave me alone, I have the protection of a gang’ members are often ignorant as to the what the symbolism means on the outside world.

At Corcoran prison guards were found to deliberately release rival gangs into the yards at the same time. They would then place bets on which members would live and die. If the fighting didn’t begin soon enough, they shot and killed them themselves. Don’t believe me? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/staged-fights-betting-guards-gunfire-and-death-for-the-gladiators-1310849.html

All too often a prisoner begins their career in prison convicted of a petty crime, but by the time they are released they are affiliated with a gang, to whom they owe their life. They are released, criminalised, indoctrinated and institutionalised to do their gang’s bidding and go on to commit an offence that is punishable by death. Of course, they can’t give any evidence in mitigation or plead duress in court, as it will get back to the gang. They are condemned to death and the cycle continues.

I return to the UK in awe of those at CAP who have dedicated their lives’ work to fighting these injustices. It is a slow and arduous process but each success is a milestone.

Julia Wookey is a former Prison Law Consultant at Wainwright & Cummins, who has spent the last several months working with the California Appellate Project  

Cycling from London to Paris: Fundraising to Help the Homeless

On 21^st July 2014, Sebastian Peattie from the Wainwright & Cummins’ Housing Department will be cycling his way from London to Paris in support of people suffering from homelessness. This is a yearly event run by The Big Issue and it is their biggest fundraiser to date. See http://www.bigissue.org.uk/event/london-paris-bike-ride for further details or to sign yourself up!

This is not a light undertaking and there is a grueling itinerary that Sebastian will have to stick to. Day one starts early morning on Thursday 21^st July, leaving Twickenham and making the 70 mile journey down to Portsmouth in time for a well earned sleep! Day two starts bright and early again with a ferry crossing to Caen in France and then the 80 mile cycle begins to Evreux. Day three sees the cyclists on the final 62 mile leg of their journey with an early morning cycle ride from Evreux to Paris. Finally, day four in the schedule allows for some time to relax in the surroundings of Paris before catching a much more comfortable train journey back to London.

Thankfully, Sebastian will not be cycling solo in this venture and will have the company of some 50 others cycling alongside him. This is not Sebastian’s first time on such a long trek. In 2011 he completed the event along with nearly 150 other volunteers, and with a former colleague, Anna Kouma from Duncan Lewis.

As you may have guessed, Sebastian is passionate about supporting and fundraising for causes that impact upon society and our local communities. Both his work within our Housing legal team and his fundraising for The Big Issue demonstrate his drive to fight for and support people suffering from homelessness, helping them get back on their feet and into stable and secure accommodation.

Please help support Sebastian in supporting these vulnerable members of our communities and sponsor him on this grueling ride by donating here: http://www.justgiving.com/Sebastian-Peattie.