Editorials

Issue Whether it is appropriate that someone sentenced to life could be released after a minimum sentence? Facts Colin Pitchfork was sentenced to life after murdering Lynda Mann in 1983, and Dawn Ashworth in 1986, both aged 15, in Leicestershire. Pitchfork is the first man to have been convicted of murder due to the introduction of DNA confirmation, however, he initially managed to escape the tests by asking a colleague to do them. Pitchfork plead guilty to two offences of murder, two of rape, two of indecent assault and one of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in 1988. He was convicted to serve a minimum of 30 years, decreased on appeal to 28 years. A parole hearing was held via video link on 22 March 2021 to deliberate whether he was in character for liberation. Pitchfork had first been rejected for parole in 2016, then a second time in 2018, however, he was moved to an open prison – the procedure taken which prepares a long-term prisoner to be released back into the community. The decision was published at the beginning of June. Thereafter, the examination of the offenses’ circumstances, the progression during the custody, the oral hearing, probation officers, psychiatrists, and psychologists’ data, and other reasons, the board was convinced that Mr. Pitchfork was ready. This outcome was called into question by the victims’ families. They were also astounded by the Labour party leader Sir Keir’s statement who suggested last week that Pitchfork’s deliverance must be admitted for the plain reason that ‘he had served the sentence imposed on him by the court.’ The Parole Board ‘reconsideration mechanism’ was brought in 2019 after campaigning by Carrie Johnson, who was the target of a rapist at 20 years old. It provides people with the right to ask for a judgment to be reviewed if they have arguments to demonstrate that there was a procedural unfair or irrational. The decision is provisional for 21 days until the Justice Secretary, Robert Buckland, approves or appeals against the verdict. A petition launched by Lynda Mann’s family requesting Pitchfork’s release failed was signed by more than 20,000 people online, and 7,000 in a paper version. Although he has no power to do so, Mr Buckland said he saw no reluctance to interfere with the family’s appeal, describing Pitchfork as ‘a psychopath who should be kept in the prison he came from.’ He is revising legislation implicating a ‘basic and branch’ appraisal of the parole scheme to broaden the grounds for challenging a release decision. Life Sentence In some situations, judges have to deliver precise types of sentences, for example, where someone is found guilty of murder, they must receive a life sentence. When a life sentence is ruled, judges must decide the minimum term (sometimes called the tariff) an offender is required to stay in detention before being authorised to apply for parole. Nonetheless, if someone is given a life sentence, they are subject to that sentence for the rest of their life, regardless of the length of the minimum term; it means that when wrongdoers are granted parole, but commit a crime, or are just deemed dangerous for the public, without having recommitted any crimes, they can be sent back to prison. Whole Life Order In murder cases considered as being serious, a criminal may be sentenced to a life sentence with a ‘whole life order.’ This signifies that their crime was so atrocious that they will never be released. A whole life term means there is no minimum term set by the judge, and the offender is not considered for compassion. The Parole Board The Parole Board is an independent body established in 1968. The sole aim of the Parole Board is public safety and so to gauge whether prisoners can be without danger dropped into society – they assess a significant risk to the public after discharge. The risk assessment is based on the dossier and oral hearing evidence. Pitchfork’s absolution is subject to harsh limitations: living at a nominated address, wearing an electronic tag, limits on contact with children, using technology, and many others. The Chair of the Law Society’s criminal law committee observed that under the actual law, Pitchfork’s crimes would get a whole life order, but he said that, in his experience, ‘The Parole Board would not have made this decision lightly!’ So what happens after? Colin Pitchfork was granted parole by the decision of the parole board on 1 September 2021 but was remanded to prison on 19 November. Without having committed an offence since his release, he however violated the conditions of his licence by approaching young women during walks from his bail hostel. He was also blamed for having a ‘bad attitude’, because ‘he was not as engaging and open as they would want him to be, and probation staff accused him of cheating detector tests by using breathing techniques.’ The case was referred to the Parole Board to determine if he should return to prison. It would be if they had proof. Colin Pitchfork was released despite experts’ concerns about the killer’s ‘ability to manipulate and deceive’ and his inability to show remorse for the killings. Under the terms of the Parole Board’s review mechanism, introduced in 2019, Justice Secretary Robert Buckland had a right of appeal to request a review if he felt the decision was ‘procedurally unfair’ or ‘irrational’; the appeal was rejected on 13 July 2021. There have been complaints that the Parole Board was not careful enough in authorising Pitchfork’s release. What The Story Doesn’t Say? Who is Colin Pitchfork? Pitchfork was born and raised in Newbold Vernon and attended schools in Market Bosworth and Desford. He was convicted of indecent exposure at the age of 17 years old. Indecent exposure is the deliberate public display by a person of any part of their body in an inappropriate manner. He was referred for therapy to Carlton Hayes Hospital, Narborough, which was Leicestershire’s mental hospital from 1907 to

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) Bill 2021 introduced in September 2020, pursue to entitle ‘the police and courts to take more effective action against crime and lead to a fair justice system. Yet, JUSTICE, a human rights charity working to reform the UK justice system believes that certain of Bill’s plan presented a troublesome situation to the UK’s domestic and international human rights obligations. Besides, it seems that there is no rationale for the establishment of these measures. One of the main discomforts has to do with juvenile justice. Early release has been changed, and the rates at which incarcerated minors are forced to spend time in jail before being released on license have been increased; these alterations would unfairly affect Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic people (BAME), hinder the rehabilitation of those currently imprisoned and induced serious financial costs, as a result of prolonged duration of imprisonment. As the Bar Council asserts, youthful justice necessitates above all different reforms. In lieu of being a new radical approach to sentencing, the bill should have been an opportune time for problems within the juvenile prison system. The government assures that the Bill aims ‘to recognises the unique needs of children and intervene early to divert them where possible; custody will be used for serious crime only. The Bill supposedly insists on ‘restoration and rehabilitation’, however, restorative justice programmes in general response to juvenile delinquency are established in England and Wales since 1970s, notably the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which introduced based family group conferences modelled on New Zealand, reparation orders for offenders aged 10 years and over or consultation with victims before any restorative intervention is organised. Anxiety on the intensification in juvenile delinquency began in the 1990s with the murder of two-year-old James Bulger by two ten-year-old boys. Political parties were imposed to reconsider their attitudes on crime and punishment, known as the populist punitiveness. For example, the principle that young under a certain age were doli incapax, incapable of evil was a common law hypothesis, incorporated in law since the 14th. It was abrogated in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, ‘to help condemn young offenders who ruin the lives of many communities’, with the argument that, ‘children between 10 and 13 years undoubtedly could make the difference between good and bad’. This appealed to comments. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights advised that the criminal age of responsibility to be adjusted ‘in accordance with the standards in force throughout Europe’. It has never been possible to determine which standards have importance in operating a children best interests. It was frequently maintained that what was exercised was solely ‘a very subtle form of social control.’ Antisocial Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) were instituted by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Some questioned whether the concept of antisocial behaviour was fantasised. The at issue facet is that a violation of order permits incarceration to five years, even if the initial offence was not hit with custody. 42% of ASBOs are disregarded, and 46% of non-observance meet with a jail decision. 50 children per month were sent to prison under ASBO. An investigation indicated that 35% of the ASBO imposed under 17 years old since 2004 were on children with mental health disorders or learning difficulties. For example, there was the case of a 14-year-old child with the cognitive abilities of a 7-year-old child, who had a curfew imposed but couldn’t tell the time. 90% of minors have mental health or substance abuse problems; a quarter have literacy and numeracy skills under those a 7-year-old child or have endured physical and sexual violence. Activists critiqued the continued use of custodial sentences for young offenders, saying that, ‘”the government’s obsession” with street-corner teens contributed to increase the number of young people in prison’. One of the deplorable consequences of the incarceration of young teenagers is death. In 2004, Adam Rickwood, 14 years old, became the youngest child to die in the penitentiary. Between 1990 and 2005, 29 children died. Two of them were deliberate. And between 1998 and 2002, 1,659 incidents of self-harm or attempted suicide were reported. In 2020, it was reported that Annelise Gordon, 18 years old, had committed suicide in her cell. This makes it clear that the penal institution is an event emotionally harmful. The physical restraints procedures employed in houses of correction; methods varying depending on the detention centre; such as, inserting a prison officer’s knuckles into a child’s back to exert pressure on their lower ribs, or using the back of an officer’s hand in an upward motion on the child’s nose, can lawfully be utilised to up to half an hour. Hundreds of children are still exposed to these admonitions, undeterred by Gareth Myatt’s case, 15 years old, choked to death on his vomit while three staff members held him down on his bed through a control method appellate a ‘double-seated embrace’, in Northamptonshire in 2004. No-change despite an inspection on juvenile offenders’ treatment, denouncing the systematised practice of physical restraint, strip searches, and forced seclusion to handle children’s comportment. In 2005, a 16-year-old boy died while in isolation in the Blackburn segregation unit. Further, there is racism issues. Zahid Murabek’s was murdered in 2000 by his white racist cellmate in Feltham. The government rejected family’s demand for a public inquiry, but an independent one found evidence of a culture of racism within the house, and throughout the prison system. For example, a game called ‘gladiatorial’: officers place white and black prisoners in a cell, and bet on how long it will take them before violence sets in between them. The deaths of African-Caribbean in police custody stem from the fact that prison staff have a tendency to overreact to their disruptive behaviour, justifying it with a ‘Big, Black and Dangerous‘ stereotype. In 2019, UNICEF determine that the UK juvenile justice system were failing in its duty to uphold children’s human rights and protect them from harm. 45

  In February 2019, the Secretary of State for the Home Department Sajid Javid, took the decision to deprive Shamima Begum of British citizenship. The resolution was based on the fact that she travelled to Syria in February 2015 to join Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Immigration Act 2014 The Secretary of State has a practice of not depriving individuals of British citizenship when they are not within the UK’s jurisdiction for ECHR purposes if she is satisfied that doing so would expose those individuals to a real risk of treatment which would constitute a breach of article 2 or 3 if they were within the UK’s jurisdiction and those articles were engaged. Special Immigration Appeals Commission UK (SIAC) described a two- stage test which it drew from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights: (i) a test of ‘direct consequence’ as the criterion for establishing state responsibility, liability being  incurred if a state act which as a direct consequence exposes the individual to the relevant risk; and (ii) a test of ‘foreseeability’ as the criterion for establishing whether there are substantial grounds for believing the individual would be exposed to the relevant risk. The risk must be both foreseeable and a direct consequence of the deprivation. It was concluded that, ‘there are no substantial grounds to believe that a real risk of mistreatment contrary to articles 2 (right to life) or 3 (prohibition of torture) will arise as a result of Begum being deprived of her British citizenship while in Syria”, and that “we do not consider that any potential article 2/3 risks that may arise in countries outside of Syria are foreseeable because of the deprivation decision.’ Wow! It is worth change LinkedIn  to say that in January 2022, ten Britons said they had been detained and tortured after their citizenship had been confiscated. What is citizenship? Citizenship is the right to live in a country. In the UK, citizens have rights to things like welfare, education, healthcare and vote. Some people have the right to live in the UK permanently, which means that they have the same rights as a citizen but who are not citizens. You might become a British citizen if you or your parents are born in the UK, you live in the UK for a period, normally five years, marry a British citizen and have been in the UK for three years. In the UK, someone can have its citizenship stripped by the home secretary, for the following reasons: for the public good, and would not make them stateless; the person obtained citizenship through fraud; its actions could harm UK interests, and they can claim citizenship elsewhere. In many cases removing citizenship involved threats to national security such as terrorism, or serious organised crime. Miss Begum was stripped of her citizenship for the public good reason. In common with other countries, the UK let people to be citizens of more than one country. In February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum’s citizenship was lawful because she was ‘a citizen of Bangladesh by descent, but Bangladesh stated that was not the case, and that she would not be authorised to enter the country. A Home Office spokesperson said: ‘The government’s top priority remains maintaining our national security and keeping the public safe.’ The Home Secretary considered that her return to the UK would present a risk to the national security of the UK. In a 2021 interview, Javid reaffirmed his decision to revoke Begum’s citizenship, emphasizing that classified evidence would lead any sensible person to believe that she posed a risk to national security. This classified evidence needed to be disclosed to decide whether Shamima Begum was a peril. It wasn’t enough to declare she was.   In July 2019 it estimated that about a fifth had returned home or were trying to do so. There are also thought to be several hundred women and children from EU countries who have made their own way back. Some countries such as Russia and the Central Asian states have taken back hundreds of their nationals. But Western European countries have generally taken back far fewer, and those they have allowed to return are often children.’ In 2019, Shamima Begum’s mother wrote to the Home Office to ask for a reconsideration for her daughter, as an ‘act of mercy’. Begum was 15 when she and two other schoolgirls went to join IS. The mother also said that the decision was unfair since thousands of Britons were authorised to come back from Syria. The letter says: ‘It is extremely unlikely that Shamima to be in a fit state to make any rational decisions.’ The St Albans’ bishop said: ‘She should come back, be properly interviewed and, if it is found that she has broken the law, she should face the law. If it is found that she has been radicalised, she should be given help and support.’ Critics said that the UK should have helped all of its citizens stranded in Syria to be repatriated even if they were to face criminal charges; just as other nations have done. Shame on the UK! I make fun of them! Bums! Complete idiot! How did other countries deal with returning IS members? ‘After fighters travelled to Syria and Iraq, many countries changed or introduced anti-terrorism laws. Most EU countries managed the return of IS fighters through criminal investigation and prosecution and use deradicalisation programmes to challenge their views. Child returnees were generally seen by childcare professionals or placed in juvenile detention.’ Shamima Begum’ s Appeal In November 2022, The Special Immigration Appeals Commission settled by judgement of 22 February 2023, after ministers took advice from national security about Ms Begum’s threat to the UK, that the decision taken by the then Home Secretary Sajid Javid in 2019  to deprive her of her citizenship was confirmed. Yet, Begum’s lawyers  presented conclusive arguments to prove that the decision was unlawful. First, that the home secretary had ignored that Shamima