Life after Life

Life after Life

By: Charles Hanson

Recently released Lifer Charles Hanson finds he is destined to be defined by his past, "shackled by a criminal identity", yet remains committed to challenging injustice and oppression



Having been released on life licence in July 2009, one of the takeaway pieces of advice I was given by a fellow prisoner on the evening before release was that I should walk away from prison and ‘move on with my life’; leaving the struggles of life behind bars to those still incarcerated. However this is easier said than done, as I continue to be defined as a ‘criminal’ and ‘convicted murderer’, and an arguable risk to the public depending on any perceived circumstances.

I seem destined to be imprisoned by labels, defined by my past and never allowed to forget. The life licence confirms that.

Should the prison authorities punish prisoners who blog?

Should the prison authorities punish prisoners who blog?

In Professor David Downes Contrasts in Tolerance (Post-war Penal Policy in the Netherlands and England and Wales), there is a reference to Rijksen’s Prisoners Speak Out (1958) its publication “was clearly an event of major importance in the history of Dutch post-war criminal justice”. The volume consisted of a collection of letters written by serving prisoners which “covered their experiences of the administration of criminal justice. Most contained considerable criticisms of judges and public prosecutors, but also of lawyers and probation workers. The result was a storm of public indignation: the different functionaries were, for the first time, confronted with the implications of their own actions and, for awhile, their self-confidence seemed to be shaken. What had been achieved in any case, was the first piercing of the hermetically closed prison situation. For the first time, prisoners could let their voices be heard from captivity”.

Professor Downes goes on to say: “The Ministry of Justice first tried to suppress the book, thus perhaps guaranteeing an even greater impact. Even 20 years after it’s publication in a fresh edition in 1961, judges and prosecutors named this more than any other book as the source of their belief that too long a sentence of imprisonment would embitter and damage prisoners, both socially and psychologically”. What emerges here is that society can benefit from prisoners speaking out. And yet, the authorities in the Netherlands feared this so much that they at first attempted to stifle the debate.

The position for serving prisoners in the UK was pretty much the same, with the authorities seeking to silence prisoners from speaking out until the Human Rights Act 1998 provided the opportunity to challenge the status quo. The Daily Telegraph reports:

Prisoner wins phone rights case

A PRISONER today secured a legal victory for jail inmates after he won the right to talk to journalists on the telephone on "matters of legitimate public interest".
John Hirst's application for judicial review against Home Secretary David Blunkett and the Home Office was successful at the High Court sitting in Cardiff.
Mr Justice Elias ruled that the Home Office policy on dealing with access to the press by phone by serving prisoners was unlawful.

That should have been the end of the matter, especially as my legal argument referred to Article 10 of the European Convention:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers”.

However, in the Letters Page of the June 2009 issue of Inside Time – the national newspaper for prisoners, I found this rather disturbing report:

Writing blogs

NOEL ‘RAZOR’ SMITH - HMP
BLANTYRE HOUSE

“The prison system has strictly forbidden me to write for publication or have any contact with the media therefore my query for the prison service (or whatever bunch of initials they are calling themselves these days) is this: according to Standing Orders and Prison Rules, convicted prisoners are not allowed to write for publication for payment, however there is no mention reference prisoners writing a blog on the internet; for which there is no payment but merely a chance to express an opinion.

So as a serving prisoner can I write a blog? And if not, can they point out the rule or Standing Order which forbids it? Obviously I do not have direct access to the Internet, but I have someone outside who will convert my typed words for the web, so I am anxious to find out what the objections might be.

I believe this is an important issue which may open up a new avenue for serving prisoners to express their opinions, so I look forward to hearing their reply; though they'll probably draft a new rule forbidding it as soon as they are asked the question. Cynical? Moi?”.

The Ministry of Justice writes:

“There is no specific Prison Service policy on prisoners using or posting blogs, as they do not have direct unregulated access to computers or the Internet. However, in terms of the restrictions placed on the contents of prisoners’ correspondence, PSO 4411 Prisoner Communications Correspondence, paragraphs 7.1 (10) (a) to (e) specifically covers the issue of publishing or broadcasting material by newspaper, radio or television transmission. Whilst the policy does not explicitly mention publication or broadcasting on the Internet, such activities would be viewed similarly to any other form of media outlet, as previously mentioned.

Therefore, if any part of a prisoner’s correspondence on a blog contained material which fell under any of these paragraphs, appropriate disciplinary action could be taken for breaching these restrictions.

As for the setting up of a blog, by a third party on behalf of a prisoner, paragraph 7.2 of PSO 4411 states that ‘a prisoner may not ask, in writing or otherwise, another person to make on his or her behalf a communication which he or she would not be allowed to make directly, or which would contravene this Prison Service Order’. While this has often been interpreted in the context of one prisoner asking another prisoner to write/send something out illegally on their behalf, this could be applicable to anyone outside of the prison”.

At least one serving prisoner has chosen to defy the ban on prisoners speaking out. Yesterday Iain Dale, in his Daley Dozen, highlighted the rather excellent blog post from Ben’s Blog “Should prisoners be allowed to blog?”.

In Ben’s profile he writes: “I am a lifer sentenced for murdering a friend when I was 14. I am into my 30th year of a 10 year recommendation”. That is, the trial judge set a tariff of 10 years. He should have been released at the 10 year stage if he no longer poses a risk to the public of re-offending. In the comments section Phil said: “My initial comments are that I find the thought that a 14 year old convicted and incarcerated beyond the recommended years, has something about it that beggars more questions I am guessing than answers - right now anyways”. That observation is spot on because Ben points out he is an activist who legitimately criticises and challenges the system.

In the September 2009 issue of Inside Time, in the Letters Page, we find this:

"Beware of retribution

From: John Bowden – HMP Glenochil

I thought it important to warn prisoners who contribute with articles to the media that are critical and disparaging of the prison system that a real possibility exists of retribution from the authorities in the form of adverse parole reports and denial of release.

In July, a month before a critically important Parole hearing to determine my suitability for release after 28 years of imprisonment, I was issued with a dossier of reports that were to be submitted to the Board for consideration. Included was a report from the prison’s Intelligence Management Unit, which stated that its purpose was to provide a summary of intelligence records held on me that were relevant to risk. Usually this file will contain information about behaviour or activity considered prejudicial to prison security and discipline. This information can and often does have a direct and critical impact on Parole decisions, sentence management and security categorization.

In my case the report listed that ‘Prisoner Bowden had an article published in the August 2008 issue of Inside Time’. Apart from completely misinterpreting the content of the article in question, the IMU report also implied that Inside Time had been used as a vehicle to disseminate material deliberately intended to ferment unrest and disturbances within prisons. More ominously, by equating articles critical of the prison system with a risk to security the intention clearly is to both punish the author and discourage the voicing of critical points in a public forum such as Inside Time.

The question has to be asked as to why a prison intelligence unit should consider a piece of writing, largely of academic interest, so threatening that the release of its author should be prevented?”.

Similarly, in Erwin James’s Guardian article about me The Devilish Advocate he writes: “He eventually received a tariff of 15 years, but served a total of 25 before being released in October last year. He believes his activities as a litigant against the Prison Service and Home Office are the main reason he had to serve the extra years”.

Wrapped up in the question “Should prisoners be allowed to blog?” Is the hidden question of: “Why are the prison authorities using the concept of risk to the public as a means to punish and silence prisoners freedom of expression to criticise the regime?”.

Judicial Review to challenge Government over prisoners right to vote

Judicial Review to challenge Government over prisoners right to vote

By: Eric McGraw

A legal challenge to the Government’s refusal to give prisoners the vote is being planned, Inside Time has learnt.

The European Court of Human Rights published its judgement in HIRST v UK five years ago in March 2004. The Court decided that the UK Government’s blanket ban on convicted prisoners having the vote in General and local Elections breached their human rights. The Government lodged an appeal with the Grand Chamber and lost.

They then spent 2 years on a ‘consultation’ exercise but have refused to publish the results. It has now decided to run a second consultation but declines to give a date as to when the consultation will begin or end.

To add to the Government’s troubles, Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights has gone so far as saying:

“The Government must give prisoners the right to vote or the next General Election will be illegal under European Law, ministers have been warned”.

Inside Time understands that a Judicial Review is planned in an effort to shove them along’.

The initial focus of the legal challenge will be to get the High Court to rule that the current voting law is out of step with the Human Rights Act, and to force the Government to enact legislation before the next General Election which has to be held on or before 3rd June 2010.

If the Government fails to act, an injunction will be issued to prevent the General Election taking place and that alone will create a major constitutional crisis.

Gerard McGrath, in this issue of Inside Time, acknowledges that giving prisoners the vote is not a vote winner for any major political party, but argues that disaffection and alienation can themselves be a cause of crime. His proposal is for the Ministry of Justice to roll-out a citizenship course, which imparts an understanding of the relationship of the rights, duties and responsibilities of all citizens. He adds that accepting personal responsibility and duty is a core offending behaviour issue for many prisoners.

Ballot box bandits

Ballot box bandits



By: Gerard McGrath - HMP Haverigg

Gerard McGrath says the enfranchisement of prisoners could go a long way towards removing the sense of exclusion that many feel

A contribution in the January issue of Inside Time informing readers that Minister of Justice Jack Straw had initiated a 'consultation process' regarding the matter of prisoners and their legal right to vote was the catalyst which prompted the following that Jack et al might care to consider.

It seems reasonable for those opposed to allowing prisoners to vote to hold the opinion that, having offended against society, the offender is not only ostracised but disenfranchised. However, there is an alternative opinion which appears to be far more reasonable and desirable; and readers are invited to consider whether or not they agree the alternative better serves the public interest in terms of the rehabilitation of offenders.

With the enfranchisement of prisoners, it seems to me that the Prison and Probation Services are gifted the opportunity of drastically reducing the rate of re-offending and prison overcrowding of. To this end, the rolling-out of purpose designed citizenship courses which dovetail with existing offending behaviour courses holds great potential. The content of a citizenship course could incorporate a number of elements, including unbiased political education in terms of imparting an understanding of the philosophies and manifestos of political parties and explaining the methods of voting in this country. Of greatest importance, such courses must impart an understanding of the symbiotic relationships of the rights, duties and responsibilities of all citizens in a democratic society. Accepting personal responsibility and duty is a core offending behaviour issue for many prisoners.

Writing as a prisoner who now has the right to vote pending the government enacting overdue legislation, I feel less alienated. Though I share the view that the only people ever to enter Parliament with honourable intent were Guy Fawkes and his crew, how I decide to cast my vote is of consequence to those seeking office and thus elevates my self-esteem. I value the autonomy of my right to vote and I appreciate the privilege. Exercising a right to vote is a pro-social act. Voting is an act of belonging. The enfranchisement of prisoners has the potential to go a long way towards eradicating the sense of exclusion that many feel and in breaking the pernicious cycle of re-offending.

Not surprisingly, many prisoners experience a sense of alienation from society the moment prison gates close behind them. This sense of alienation is reinforced and compounded by the day-to-day experiences of a prisoner and the longer the sentence, the greater the sense becomes. Release does not see the sense of feeling different dissipate. A con merely becomes an ‘ex-con’ with a sense of alienation. Self-evidently, there is risk to the well-being of society where people with such negative feelings are concerned. Alienated people are often antisocial, angry, bitter and cynical. The sense of ‘not belonging’ all too often leads to re-offending and further imprisonment. Sadly, the cycle is self-perpetuating.

Prisoners’ issues have never been regarded as a vote winner by any political party. At best there is middle-ground ambivalence amongst the general public where anything to do with prisoners is concerned. The extreme opposed opinions of the rabid right-wing 'whip ‘em and hang 'em’ brigade and of the ultra-liberal lefties are well known. Former Home Secretary Michael Howard, he of …’something of the night’ about him, was right in one regard when he famously said that ‘prison works’. Self-evidently, when offenders are in prison they are not offending, ergo prison works. However, given that all but a few prisoners will be released at some point in time, what most concerns the public is how effective has prison been in facilitating the rehabilitation of prisoners to reintegrate back into society? Given the current rate of re-offending, it can be safely argued that prison does not work in that regard.

Whatever the conclusions of Jack Straw’s consultation exercise are, the fact will remain that a prisoner's right to vote is a fait accompli – therefore my grateful thanks to the European Court. Straw and his colleagues need to enact the legislation expeditiously otherwise, whether or not his party is returned to power, the election result will be rendered illegal and invalid. My opinion is shared by Prisons & Probation Ombudsman Stephen Shaw, who is happy to be quoted in the following terms: ‘I must emphasise that my office has no formal position on prisoners' voting rights and is awaiting the Government's decision following its consultation exercise after the European Court judgment. However, my personal view is that taking part in elections is an important way of encouraging prisoners to think of themselves as citizens attached to society, not criminals at war with society.

Disaffection and alienation can be causes of crime and the goal should be to repair and restore prisoners’ links to the community against which they have offended. The right to vote can be a small but important part of that objective, as has been acknowledged in many other countries around the world’.

NARK LEECH

NARK LEECH

The one thing that is consistent about Mark Leech is his overblown ego and
posturing as some kind of self-appointed spokesman for prisoners as though noone else's opinion counts and such a sensitive guy is this parody of a man called Mark
Leech that like a big girl's blouse he launches into the world of the conspiracy
theorists that everyone is out to get him and to him that is unforgivable as he lets
loose with vitriolic abuse even against the more diplomatic and civilised criticism
of him. Gentleman (or gentlewoman) he is not, but a hate filled individual who is
consumed with rage and rant.

I cannot help but notice how he has clashed with the widely read prisoner's
newspaper Inside Time which relies entirely on prisoner's contributions be it
articles, letters, queries even poetry and so forth but what does Leech produce? The
paper Converse which [is] so full of solicitor's adverts that there exists little room for anything else except the word according to Mark Leech and aimed at believers in him.

Naye, a platform for abuse, for how else does he explain the play on the title of
Inside Time in his 2008 Converse issue - 'Inside Slime', so tragic, so petty oh so
childlike and so inane?

Grow up Leech.

That he can get personal about people and in this case I mean prisoners shows why
people hold him in contempt. He abuses Ben Gunn a regular writer for Inside Time
and labels him a columnist with a small c and waves him goodbye as he plans a
holiday in Thailand where he has a house (a house?). Well, as someone suggested
recently, people especially men go to Thailand for one of two reasons. One, for
cheap drugs,' and the other for cheap under age sex and Leech has no history of
drug misuse.

Of course, we cannot leave out his main supporter and quite disgracefully so a
prisoner, Dee Wilde-Walker of HMP Low Newton.

Now, we cannot ever imagine the basis of such a relationship. A gay HIV (Heavy
Into Vitriol) wannabe a 'prisoner expert and spokesperson' (person?)' and a female
who perhaps might be a fag hag or child abuser (yes! the NSPCC reported back in
the 1990s that most child abusers are mothers which makes sense for they are the
ones children spend most time with especially single mothers and abuse can be
anything can it not including emotional and mental abuse) who shares Leech's
contempt for male prisoners.

Naye, men in general perhaps, for why should she assume that Benn Gunn is a
domestic violence perpetrator. In any event, so what? He is doing his time and it
might be good advice that she should focus on hers and doesn't allow herself to
become as bitter and twisted as her mentor Leech.

Now to Converse.

What does it represent to prisoners apart from being a platform for personal attacks
and mouthy Leech at play.

Take for instance the current issue of Converse where Leech claims not to take a
penny in salary or otherwise from the paper. What the fuck does he want?
An accolade? He takes plenty from other sources relating to prisoners which
enables him to swan around the country in a helicopter like the time he visited
Grendon and landed nearby. Was he there to talk to cons? No he was there to arse
lick and found cons walking out of a meeting at which he was giving a talk or
rather rubbing shoulders with the prisoner's captors - the screws. I would have
puked.

Leech goes on to attack the Directors of Inside Time and somehow shows his
ignorance of the law and here is someone who claims he is a fucking Perry Mason
and a marvel to modern jurisprudence. For Leech's information, a person can draw
a salary from a voluntary organisation including registered charities. You see there
is a difference between a statutory body like the Job Centre and a voluntary body
like MIND which I am certain Leech is only too familiar with. Those at MIND
including their charity fund raisers do draw a salary as do charity shop managers.
The body is a voluntary body in that it exists on public donations and fund raising
and not Government funding. Would you believe that the boss of OXFAM earns a salary which would disgrace Leech's?

On second thoughts perhaps not.

I would suggest that anyone wanting to know what Leech might derive in income
to look at the websites associated with him. Books, DVDs, courses etc. etc. and of
course consultancy fees for putting himself as a self-appointed expert on prisons to
such likes as the media.

Some time ago, a friend of mine sent an email to Leech asking if there was a
discount for prisoners on his Prison's Handbook. No reply. My friend followed it through with an undertaking to buy 30 copies for prison libraries if there was a discount. Yes! you have guessed it, Leech answered almost immediately with an offer to reduce the cost. Now we have it an entrepreneur first and foremost, fuck the cons.

A bit like when he recently sacked the distribution firm which distributed Converse
for him so that he could cut costs and do it himself and why not?

After all, the supposedly 44,000 copies he claims to circulate is entirely suspect and bogus and that is from the horses mouth. More like 5,000 we are reliably informed.

He makes great play on the silly OK logo as representing those solicitors who have
completed the Prison Law Course of his as if it's the pinnacle of legal practice.
No it's not anymore than a practitioner in Mental Health Law needs to undertake a
two bob course in psychiatry or psychology. Good practice and knowledge comes from experience and there are many many good prison law lawyers whose reputation and skills derive from exactly that. They have trod the path of both prison law litigation and the representation of prisoners and an OK logo is no substitute for that. In fact, the logo is all the evidence one should need to steer clear
of those whose names and firms appear alongside the symbolic tick and OK for his
very name and attitude towards certain prisoners creates a definite conflict of
interests between solicitors who he is favourably disposed towards because he has
given them a tick and an OK and the client.

Moreover, the Prisoner's Advice Service in London a long and well established
prisoner's legal rights body which offers FREE legal advice and in some cases
legal representation for prisoners runs its own prison law programmes and seminars
for solicitors and barristers. Indeed, the PAS is made up of barristers, solicitors,
academics and representatives of government departments and non government
bodies.

Professionals indeed, not a tick and logo brigade.

In addition, the Prisoner's Legal Rights Group Bulletin a highly informative
publication and published periodically for prison lawyers by the PAS is entirely
FREE to prisoners and there we have it, a proper legal body that truly represents
prisoners.

The full time solicitors who work for the PAS which is a registered charity are paid
employees so there you are Mr Leech, a confirmation that those who work in the
voluntary sector are able to draw a salary but then they are lawyers and should
know shouldn't they?

Mark Leech displays all the features and would no doubt meet the criteria of a
diagnosis of personality disorder which might explain why he served a period in
Grendon Psychiatric prison at one time. Either he was sent there or volunteered but
either way it is clear there was something psychologically wrong with him he
should join the therapy freaks where he was no doubt encouraged to grass people
up as is common in Grendon and cry in his coffee as he confessed his past
misdemeanours, again another common feature of Grendon. So fucking sad really.

I would recommend those looking for something to brighten their day to read, 'A
Product of the System' a self-pitying narrative of Leech's life and oh yes! when he
was nicked in Scotland for robbery and jailed he joined the thousands of innocent
prisoners in UK jails for he didn't do it. He didn't do it because he said so. He was
innocent and just another fucking victim says he.

Well, he came out good didn't he? for he arse licked Martin Narey the one time
Director General of the Prison Service who according to Leech brought about many
beneficial changes in the lives of prisoners. God pray, can you give us a clue Leech? What fucking changes?

What planet are you on Leech and where was you when all these changes came
about? Or did you hear about those changes from Narey himself who you quite
boldly and in print call your friend (friend?). Is Leech so sad and so short of friends that he needs the one time head of the Prison service as one?

Perhaps he really is deluded and needs a shot of therapy again. There are names and
descriptions given to people who appear to be favourably disposed to one side
whilst serving the interests of the other and when I hear that Leech is a called a 'wrong un' by some people, I have to make them right.

Now that Narey has left the Prison Service, Leech no longer has any remit for
downplaying all that which is very Wrong with the Prison Service. He has no
Martin Narey to answer to now but if he thinks he can claw back any reputation he
thinks he might have he is sadly mistaken. It really is too late.

Sign up for that therapy now Leech which clearly you so desperately need and do
us all a favour.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note the above is from an anonymous author and was sent to me, and I felt it deserved a wider audience. It is not a personal attack from me upon Mark Leech. Therefore, Mr Leech might prefer not to read it and I suggest he does not do so. You have been warned you might be offended by the content. This notice comes better late than never.

Technical note the copy and paste does not appear to have worked out very well, and attempts to rectify it have so far defeated me.

John "Ben" Gunn is no pirate, he's a lifer who can write...

Life in the Slammer

Ben Gunn highlights an overlooked part of daily prison life instinctively known to prisoners yet rarely written about.

I once had to put up with a real 'dog' of an SO. A mean-spirited, mean-faced short-arse whose first response to everything was a determined and mindless "no". We engaged in a daily battle of needling each other. I happily despised him, and I daresay he felt pretty much the same.

Until the day he got off his arse to hit the landings, and ended up being the screw to bang me up. My lock was quite a stiff one, and the door a tight fit. Every screw slammed it shut, except this SO; he managed to pull it to and lock it with hardly a sound. This small act changed the way I perceived this mean bastard.

To call a great slab of bolted hardwood or steel ‘a door’ seems to understate the weight of it. It is the very essence of imprisonment, the ever present barrier that marks the rhythm of our daily lives. There should be a more pertinent word for it, one that captures its significance more precisely.

Door will have to do for now. Its movement, the rhythm of its opening and closing, reveals the state of the specific prison. A cell door that is left open for long periods of time will be a more amenable prison. The door that is opened and closed in short, sharp bursts is one that is oppressive and fearful.

When you are able to sit in your cell, door ajar, being sociable and open to visitors, then you are in a prison that allows you some of the supportive aspects of life. When you have to wedge-up during association, you don't need me to tell you that you are in a totally messed-up nick.

While the cell door speaks loud and clear about the state of your environment, it also speaks very clearly about the nature of the screws.

When opening a cell door, the screw can unlock and move on; or unlock and throw it open. He might even throw in a few words to nudge you into some sort of movement. Which of these he chooses reveals his temperament, demonstrates his understanding. Cells are the only semblance of private space available to us; some regard them as home, in a more or less temporary sense.

Throwing open the door on unlocking destroys that pretence of privacy in a thoughtless instant. It is a deeply ignorant act that screws dealing with long-term prisoners learn not to do on their very first day. Similarly, shouting "work" or whatever as the door opens is like saying, "you moron, even though you do the same thing every day, you need to be told what to do". Well, we really don't. We know exactly where we need to be, and being reminded of it is just annoying. The way the screw opens the door is an invariable barometer of whether he has crossed that line into being a dog. Unlock it, don't throw it open, and don't rise to any urge to shout anything. In this way you give a small sign that your imagination may stretch to imagining what it is like to live on our side of that piece of steel.

The way the door is closed also speaks to a screw’s character. Not that it is always left to them - some inmates prefer to bang themselves up; their way of depriving the system of the privilege. But when left to the screw, it can go several ways. He can stick his head in, ask if you’re done, and pull the door to without slamming it. Or he can slither along and slam your door without so much as a by-your-leave.

The chosen method is as revealing of a screw’s character as the way he opens it. Asking "all done?", or "alright?" before he closes it isn't a genuine question. The last thing he wants you to say is “no”, I've got a mission left to run first. Rather, it is a nod across the divide that separates us, a thread-like bridge between those who exist on either side of the lock. With some screws, that final exchange has even taken on the character of being absolution for what he is about to do, a recognition from one human being to another that there is something not wholly right in what must nevertheless be done. That mutual verbal dance reveals the moral character of the screw.

Which brings me back to the dog of an SO. He slid my difficult door closed almost silently; when I had fully expected him to slam it shut without a thought. He took a little extra time to do this all along the landing. He's not on my Xmas card list, but from then on I recognised that he wasn't rotten to the core. A miserable git, maybe, but he still
recognized - for a few moments - that locking a man in a concrete box needn't be done carelessly or harshly. It is a matter of importance. When you lose sight of that, you have lost a part of yourself.

• Ben Gunn is a lifer currently resident in HMP Shepton Mallet

SO is short for Senior Officer, the rank between basic grade and PO (Principal Officer).