|
LETTER FROM DI STEFANO TO THE PAROLE BOARD - 24 November 2006
The Parole
Board
Grenadier House
99-105 Horseferry Road
London SW1P 2DD
UNITED KINGDOM
24th November 2006
Sirs:
MR CHARLES BRONSON-BT1314 HMP WAKEFIELD
We have been requested by the above to advise and represent
him on an application to the Parole Board for an urgent ex
improviso review. We note that the Board ‘considered’ the
case of the above and on the 13th July 2006 with a sixteen
paragraph decision refused to recommend to the Secretary of
State either a transfer to open conditions or release on
license.
Based upon the documents we have seen we do not feel that
the above was given a reasonable and fair opportunity at
making the necessary representations. In making decisions
the Parole Board are governed by Statute which must be
properly applied and not interpreted. The following as
conceded at being the criteria to be used when the Parole
Board arrive at any decision for such decision to be deemed
‘effective’ and fair:
2. Before recommending release on parole
licence, the Parole Board shall consider:
a) whether the safety of the public would be
placed unacceptably at risk. In assessing
such risk, the Board shall take into account:
i) the nature and circumstances of the index
offence including any information
provided in relation to its impact on the victim
or victim’s family;
ii) the offender’s background, including the
nature, circumstances and pattern of any
previous offending;
iii) whether the prisoner has shown by his
attitude and behaviour in custody that
he is willing to address his offending behaviour
by participating in programmes
or activities designed to address his risk, and
has made positive effort and
progress in doing so;
iv) behaviour during any temporary release or
other outside activities;
v) any risk to other persons, including the
victim, their family and friends;
vi) any medical, psychiatric or psychological
considerations relevant to risk
(particularly where there is a history of mental
instability);
vii) if available, the indication of predicted
risk as determined by a validated
actuarial risk predictor;
viii) that a risk of violent or sexual offending
is more serious than a risk of other
types of offending;
b) the content of the resettlement plan;
c) whether the longer period of supervision that
parole would provide is likely to
reduce the risk of further offences being
committed;
d) whether the prisoner is likely to comply with
the conditions of his licence and the
requirements of supervision, taking into account
occasions where he has breached
trust in the past;
e) the suitability of home circumstances;
f) the relationship with the supervising
probation officer;
g) the attitude of the local community in cases
where it may have a detrimental affect
upon compliance; and
h) representations on behalf of the victim in
respect of licence conditions.
3. Each individual case shall be considered
on its merits, without discrimination
on any grounds. |
It is noted that the above Directive commences with the
mandate that the Board “shall” and as such the
Board are duty bound to consider all of the above elements.
In our submission even if a single factor has not been
considered then any decision made is and must be deemed a
nullity and reconsiderations effected.
It is also imperative that no discrimination must be
evidenced or apparent failing which again in our submission
the decision made becomes a nullity.
One of the factors visible absent from the considerations
was the transcript of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
that sat on 2nd April 2004 presided by the then Vice
President of the COACD Lord Justice Rose: R v Bronson :
[2004] EWCA Crim 903
Analysing with care and attention the Parole Board should
have, in our submission been guided by the following passage
accentuated by Lord Justice Rose:
“But it is of importance that we add this: because of the
life sentence properly imposed, as we have held, the date at
which the appellant is fit for release will now be a matter
for the Parole Board. Although the material before us, in
the form of psychiatric reports, character references and
the evidence from the appellant's wife, may afford an
incomplete picture, it does suggest that the
appellant, in the light of his increasing age, maturity and
marriage, may now be a rather different person from the one
sentenced by the trial judge. It may also be of significance
that, until the incident giving rise to this appeal, he had
clearly, for some 2 years, been making very good process in
Hull Prison. Throughout this appeal he has behaved calmly
and with dignity.”
We have emphasized the key words which in our view the
Parole Board have inadvertently missed those words being
“and may afford an incomplete picture.”
In our submission the very reports presented to the Parole
Board have failed to paint a complete picture and whilst
Lord Justice Rose in his wisdom realised such (and made a
comment aimed at the Parole Board) the very Parole Board
failed to consider such.
Mr Bronson is penalized, for example, in para.12 of the
Parole Board Decision for failing to make and maintain
contact with his Probation Officer. It could also, of course
be stated that the Probation Officer failed to maintain
contact with Mr. Bronson. Afteral, Mr Bronson was hardly in
any position to travel and ‘knock on the door’ of the said
Probation Officer from his secure Category A cage.
Para.12 of the said Parole Board decision makes concerning
reading. It derives at a conclusion without any kind of
probative evidence. It states: “In the opinion of this
panel you want to achieve your discharge on your own terms:
at the present time (as witnessed by this deferral
application) and to ignore what the prison system has to
offer you.”
We must ask the question of what does the prison system have
to offer a person that has remained in prison, mostly in
isolation and inhumane conditions, for the past 28 years? We
have read the Medical Report of Dr Bob Johnson dated 7th
February 2003 for which in an unprecedented manner a High
Court Order was required for Mr Bronson to be attended by a
physician. We understand that document was not before the
Parole Board and on that basis alone the criteria for
evaluation was not achieved and as such a new review
ordered. However, reading the said report makes disturbing
reading. This is the conclusion and recommendation from Dr.
Johnson:
“On the wider issues, it is clear to me, and has been for
some time, that the current policy of moving him on, at
random, with no notice from one maximum security wing to
another, for shorter or longer periods, apparently at whim,
is entirely counterproductive. This is not only on medical
grounds, humanitarian grounds, but also on simply pragmatic
grounds”.
Dr. Johnson concludes:
“Surely it is time to combine humanitarian strategies
with prison security strategies. It must be obvious that to
build a measure of permanence into this man's prison stay
together with increased contact with his new family, must
surely make the prison staff's job easier. Is this a case
where legal, penal and medical strategies can come together
to stabilise this man's condition for the first time in his
26 years in custody?”
We cannot but agree with this view yet neither the words
from Lord Justice Rose from the Court of Appeal, Criminal
Division or Dr. Bob Johnson were taken into consideration.
Instead the Parole Board came to the conclusion that a
request for an adjournment of the Parole Board Hearing was
deemed to be manipulative on the part of Mr. Bronson and
that he sought release on his own terms. That simply is not
and could never be sustained as a matter of fact or law.
We must also remind you of the principles to be applied by
the Parole Board must be of “Rebus sic stantibus” and
that decisions are based upon the specific circumstances as
presented. However, when circumstances change or are visible
diverse from previous then matters must be reviewed. It was
what Lord Justice Rose explained in his judgement namely,
that Mr. Bronson was a different man to ‘the man that was
sentenced on 14th February 2000’. Circumstances having
changed required a review.
Mr. Bronson was sentenced on 14th February 2000 and HH Judge
Machin sentenced him to life imprisonment with a 3 year
tariff as it then was. With the time that technically Mr.
Bronson had spent on remand counting, even though he was
serving a sentence, his first review should have been in
2002. That did not occur. The review occurred in 2006 and we
cannot quite understand why Mr. Bronson was not reviewed at
least four times. In any case it is now evident that the
July 2006 review cannot be described as ‘effective’ and
certainly was incomplete. It was the reason why an
adjournment was sought. We cannot accept the conclusions
reached in para.7 of the Parole Boards decision and since
the request for a review was from the Applicant, and may
have been critical indeed, no prejudice to the Prison
Service or indeed to the Public would have occurred if such
adjournment granted. Afteral, Mr. Bronson would have
remained in custody and thus no hazard to the public.
We note that a review was made in July 2004 yet no
explanations as to why Mr. Bronson was not reviewed earlier
in 2002. Neither is there any evidence that the Court of
Appeal, Criminal Divisions transcript has been placed before
any Parole Board. Mr. Bronson certainly has been prejudiced
by the said failings.
It is for these reasons we have detailed that we must kindly
request that an ex improviso Parole Hearing be scheduled and
that reports be obtained including the documents that we
attach to this letter:
(1) Transcript from the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
(2) Application to the CCRC for a review of the conviction
(http://www.freebronson.co.uk/docs/2006appeal1.htm)
(3) Report from Dr. Bob Johnson (http://www.freebronson.co.uk/docs/030207-medrep.htm)
As well as fresh reports which both the Prison and we shall
commission. We will require that the said hearing be no
later than 90 days and that in the event the said Parole
Board refuse our more than reasonable request to accept this
as a protocol letter in compliance before action for
judicial review.
We take this opportunity at thanking you for your
consideration and remain
Yours sincerely
STUDIO LEGALE INTERNAZIONALE
|
