Result of Category 'A' Review - 19 July 2005

Steve Easton
Category A Review Team Operations Unit
Directorate of High Security Room 635, Cleland House Page Street
London SW1P 4LN
Direct Tel No: 020 7217 2841 Direct Fax No: 020 7217 6839

19 July 2005

CHARLES BRONSON (ALI AHMED) BT1314
WAKEFIELD PRISON

REVIEW OF SECURITY CATEGORY

The Director of High Security reviewed your case on 24 June 2005. When considering your case the Director took into account all the reports prepared by prison staff and your submitted representations.

The decision is that you are to remain Category A (Standard Escape Risk).

The attached report is a summary of the facts considered and the reasons for the decision. A copy of the local panel's recommendation is also attached.

Yours faithfully,

Steve Easton
Category A Review Team
Directorate of High Security

Steve Easton
Category A Review Team Operations Unit
Directorate of High Securtity Room 635, Cleland House
Direct Tel No: 020 721 7 2841 Direct Fax No: 020 7217 6839

19 July 2005

CHARLES BRONSON (ALI AHMED) - BT1314 (WAKEFIELD)
TARIFF: 3 yrs
AGE: 52

A. 14 September 1993 at Luton Crown Court.
B. 22 November 1994 at Luton Crown Court.
C. 8 October 1997 at the Central Criminal Court.
D. 17 February 2000 at Luton Crown Court.

 

A. Having a firearm w/i		8 yrs
A. Possessing a firearm when prohibited		2 yrs conc.
B. False imprisonment (x 2)		4 yrs consec.
B. Blackmail		4 yrs consec.
B. Threatening to kill		3 yrs conc.
B. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm		12 mths conc.
C. Blackmail		7 yrs (reduced to 5) consec.
C. Threatening to kill		(x 3) 7 yrs (reduced to 5) conc.
D. False imprisonment		Life
D. Damaging property		No separate penalty

Circumstances of the offences:

Mr Bronson was released in November 1992 from a seven-year sentence for robbery. During this sentence his behaviour was violent and disruptive and he was downgraded from category A only shortly before release. Shortly after he was arrested apparently in the throes of committing an armed robbery and was convicted in 1993 of firearms offences.

Since that time he has been involved in a series of violent hostage-taking incidents and become one of the Prison Service's most notorious prisoners. These have involved taking hostage prisoners, a solicitor and members of staff. He received the current life sentence after he took a civilian teacher hostage at Hull prison in 1999.

Background:

He has previous convictions for burglary, theft, robbery, aggravated burglary, assault with intent to rob, carrying a firearm, unlawful wounding and wounding with intent. These include convictions for attacks upon a prisoner and on patients during his periods at Rampton and Park Lane special hospitals.

Present circumstances:

His overall recent behaviour within the CSC has been settled and he has received no adjudications. He continues to have outbursts of verbal threats and aggression, and shows open disdain for certain individuals, including some members of staff. However, staff have tried to resolve problems through communication rather than placing him on report.

He attended his last sentence-planning board in 2004. He acknowledged the reasons for his placement in the CSC and said he was willing to work towards progression. He has also discussed his offending with specialist staff and shown some awareness of the wrongfulness of his offending. At the same time he greatly minimises his responsibility and has poor insight into his risk or the effects of his actions. He has taken part in no accredited offence-related work and, as he does not accept he is violent or needs category A, remains reluctant to engage with specialist staff in more depth.

Although communication with staff has normally been good, there is also recent evidence of the intransigence and sudden hostile reactions shown in his offending. Since the reports he has broken off contact with both the psychologist and probation officer. Towards his probation officer he showed a worryingly angry reaction as a result of a perceived slight over a Christmas card.

The prison notes he has yet to address his offending or have his risk level accurately assessed through formal work. His general behaviour has improved slightly, but evidence of his capacity for violent overreaction and therefore similar reoffending continues to be shown. The prison recommends he should remain category A.

Representations:

From Mr Bronson dated 10 February 2005.

His crimes do not warrant category A. He has never killed, raped or gone out of his way to harm an innocent person. He is category A only for his behaviour in custody.

He accepts his past behaviour was atrocious but he has been out of trouble for five years now. He has moved on and now wishes to go home. He is anti-crime, anti-drugs and does not smoke or drink. He is no danger or threat to anyone and now only wishes to turn his life around and help stop kids from drugs and crime.

Reasons for the decision:

The Director noted Mr Bronson had received no adjudications during the reporting period. He noted some small improvements had been noted. At the same time the Director noted there remained evidence of Mr Bronson's aggressive and hostile attitudes in his dealings with others.

However, the Director also recognised that Mr Bronson's custodial behaviour should not by itself be conclusive in determining Mr Bronson's level of risk, and that other factors should be taken into account.

The Director noted Mr Bronson had attended sentence-planning boards and had discussed some aspects of his offending with specialist staff. However, he noted that Mr Bronson's insight into his offending and his level of risk was very limited. He noted Mr Bronson had yet to complete substantial offence-related work on his offending behaviour. He also noted that Mr Bronson's custodial behaviour strongly suggested that risk factors and attitudes underlying his offending remained undiminished.
The Director considered that Mr Bronson's offending behaviour evidenced a high level of potential dangerousness. He considered that Mr Bronson's downgrading could not be justified until there was convincing evidence that he had significantly reduced his risk of reoffending in a similar way if unlawfully at large.

The Director was satisfied that no such evidence was yet available, through offence-related work or otherwise, and that Mr Bronson should therefore remain category A at this time.

Name: BRONSON    Number: BT1314    Wing: CSC   HMP WAKEFIELD

Section 6 - Governor's Recommendation
(To be completed by the Governor/Deputy Governor and based on information detailed in sections 1 - 5)

A Category A prisoner is a prisoner whose escape would be highly dangerous to the public or the police or the security of the state and for whom the aim must be to make escape impossible.

In deciding whether Category A is necessary, consideration may also need to be given to whether the stated aim of making escape impossible can be achieved for a particular prisoner in lower conditions of security, and that prisoner is categorised accordingly. However this will only arise in exceptional circumstances since escape potential will not normally affect the issue of categorisation as it is rarely possible to foresee all the circumstances in which an escape may occur.

Has the prisoner demonstrated evidence of a significant reduction in his risk of re-offending in a similar way if unlawfully at large?
Taking all the evidence into account, including responsibility of offending, insight and remorse, progress on offending behaviour work and current behaviour, do you consider the prisoner still poses a serious risk of re-offending in a similar way if unlawfully at large i.e. with no supervisor or support?

If your recommendation is that the prisoner should remain Category A
Please give reasons for recommendation

Mr Bronson has co-operated with sentence planning to the point of attending boards. He has also had sporadic engagement with both Psychology and Probation, currently requesting no contact with Probation. It is generally noted that Mr Bronson's custodial behaviour has improved although he is prone to verbal outbursts against some members of staff and tends to over react to points of perception he has that would otherwise be minor issues. Custodial behaviour is not a sole monitor of risk but can indicate triggers and the likelihood of reacting to situations in an offending way. No offending behaviour work has been undertaken and there has been no measured reduction in risk.

If a reduction in the prisoner's security category is not recommended in which areas does the prisoner still need to demonstrate a reduction in risk?
Highlight any coursework or areas of improvement that can assist in demonstrating a reduction in risk. Does this further progress need to be made before downgrading can be considered and can it be carried out in his current location?

Mr Bronson should work towards engaging fully with sentence management at Wakefield to evidence risk reduction.

If your recommendation is that the prisoner should be downgraded please give reasons for recommendation

Signed: 
Print Name: M FLINTON, DEPUTY GOVERNOR
Date:         21st March 2005