This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/may/01/court-payouts-violent-prisoners-parole-delays
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Supreme court upholds payouts to prisoners over delayed parole hearings | |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| The UK supreme court has cut the compensation awarded to a life sentence prisoner whose original release was delayed by 10 months from £10,000 to £6,500, in a test case that will nonetheless lead to payouts for scores of convicted murderers, rapists and other violent prisoners. | |
| The justices also upheld a £300 payout to a convicted killer for the "anxiety and distress" he endured over six months waiting for his delayed parole board hearing even though it did not lead to him being released from prison. | The justices also upheld a £300 payout to a convicted killer for the "anxiety and distress" he endured over six months waiting for his delayed parole board hearing even though it did not lead to him being released from prison. |
| The supreme court ruling follows payouts totalling more than £300,000 to almost 80 offenders, half of them convicted murderers, over the past three years who have been awarded sums of between £300 and £10,000 each because of parole board delays. | The supreme court ruling follows payouts totalling more than £300,000 to almost 80 offenders, half of them convicted murderers, over the past three years who have been awarded sums of between £300 and £10,000 each because of parole board delays. |
| The ruling sets out a benchmark for those claims – as well as scores more that are in the pipeline – that substantial compensation will be paid at the rate of about £650 a month if delays in their parole board hearing leads to delays in their actual release. | |
| The justices also make clear that a "modest" award of damages should be made to prisoners who have suffered "frustration and anxiety" who have faced delays of more than three months in their parole hearings even if they did not lead to their release. | The justices also make clear that a "modest" award of damages should be made to prisoners who have suffered "frustration and anxiety" who have faced delays of more than three months in their parole hearings even if they did not lead to their release. |
| The supreme court ruling said the delays stemmed directly from the introduction of the indeterminate sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) in 2005 under which the parole board was given the task of determining their release dates. More than 6,000 prisoners are serving IPP sentences which have led to a massive increase in the parole board's workload without an increase in resources. | The supreme court ruling said the delays stemmed directly from the introduction of the indeterminate sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) in 2005 under which the parole board was given the task of determining their release dates. More than 6,000 prisoners are serving IPP sentences which have led to a massive increase in the parole board's workload without an increase in resources. |
| The supreme court justices said this led to delays in the consideration of the release dates of life sentenced prisoners as well as IPP inmates. | The supreme court justices said this led to delays in the consideration of the release dates of life sentenced prisoners as well as IPP inmates. |
| The first test case was brought by Daniel Faulkner, who was sentenced to life in 2001 for a second violent offence involving grievous bodily harm. The supreme court says his original release date was delayed by 10 months due to "administrative errors for which the secretary of state was responsible". | The first test case was brought by Daniel Faulkner, who was sentenced to life in 2001 for a second violent offence involving grievous bodily harm. The supreme court says his original release date was delayed by 10 months due to "administrative errors for which the secretary of state was responsible". |
| The appeal court awarded him £10,000 compensation but the supreme court has now reduced that to £6,500 or £650 for every month he was imprisoned beyond what might have been his earlier release date. In the event, Faulkner was twice recalled to prison in respect of allegations of which he was acquitted and he remains in custody. | The appeal court awarded him £10,000 compensation but the supreme court has now reduced that to £6,500 or £650 for every month he was imprisoned beyond what might have been his earlier release date. In the event, Faulkner was twice recalled to prison in respect of allegations of which he was acquitted and he remains in custody. |
| The second test case involved Samuel Sturnham who was jailed for manslaughter in 2007 after killing a man in a pub brawl. His initial award of £300 by the high court was quashed by the appeal court but has now been reinstated by the supreme court. | The second test case involved Samuel Sturnham who was jailed for manslaughter in 2007 after killing a man in a pub brawl. His initial award of £300 by the high court was quashed by the appeal court but has now been reinstated by the supreme court. |
| The justices said that even when it was not established that an earlier hearing would have resulted in an earlier release, there is a "strong presumption" that the parole board delays caused the prisoner frustration and anxiety and a modest award for damages should be made. | The justices said that even when it was not established that an earlier hearing would have resulted in an earlier release, there is a "strong presumption" that the parole board delays caused the prisoner frustration and anxiety and a modest award for damages should be made. |