« Reply #157 on: October 13, 2020, 01:18:48 AM »
“
Mr Stanbury said an independent psychologist's report, commissioned by Bamber's solicitors, concluded he had met the test for downgrading a Category A prisoner - considered the most dangerous to the public - and that these conditions were "no longer necessary" for managing him”https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-54512137Wonder if the ‘independent’ psychologist is Ruth Tully or someone from Tully forensics?
Dean Kingham, Head of Prison Law, Public Law and Crime, Swain & Co. Parole Board Lead for the Association of Prison Lawyers (APL):
“Swain and Co specialise in dealing with prisoners stuck in the system, high profile, and complex cases. We instruct psychologists regularly and require forensic psychologists at the forefront of their profession. We have always found Tully Forensic Psychology to be leaders in the world of forensic psychology. The team is lead by Dr Ruth Tully, whom has developed psychological research applicable to prisoners and rehabilitation. The reports are of great assistance to us in arguing that prisoners should move through the system, progress to open conditions, or be released. The team often face very probing questions from The Parole Board and are able to explain and develop the evidence within their reports extremely well. We have found the assessments and reports to be key components in arguing clients’ applications to The Parole Board. They are leaders in the world of forensic psychology.”
https://tullyforensicpsychology.com/testimonials/
“On Monday 10th December, I attended the House of Commons at the Progressing Prisoners Maintaining Innocence (PPMI) Annual Lecture, ‘Is the Parole Process Fit for Purpose? Releasing Safe Individuals Promptly.’ This event was attended by guest speakers, Dean Kingham, Head of Prison and Public Law at Swain & Co, Ruth Tully, forensic psychologist from Tully Forensic Psychology and two ex-prisoners, Chris and Cookie.
It was a thought-provoking evening and it was great to meet so many passionate people who work helping those wrongly convicted, and as well many inspiring families who have been gravely affected by miscarriages of justice.
Dean Kingham was the first to answer the ever-important question, ‘Is the Parole Process Fit for Purpose?’ Dean was instructed by Mr Worboys in the Judicial Review, is in front of the parole board daily at oral hearings, and has been involved in many poignant cases in the past few years, namely The Queen (on the Application of Wakenshaw) v The Secretary of State for Justice, where the High Court made a declaration that the Justice Minister had interfered with the independence of the parole board. This is a clear example of how the Justice Minister has no respect for constitutional values that are deep rooted in this society, namely the doctrine of the separation of powers and Dicey’s Rule of Law.
Dean stated in reply to the question,
“It is not about whether the parole board is fit for purpose for those maintaining innocence, the question is whether the Secretary of State for Justice is fit for purpose.”
Dean exclaimed that although we are not where we would ideally like to be with the parole board and how it effects those who maintain innocence, improvements have been made and the parole system is better than it used to be, in that the likes of HORIZON and KAIZEN are now offered as offending behaviour courses, where one will not have to discuss the index offence. Ultimately however, the problems of the system seem to always fall back into the Justice Minister’s hands, and problems with parole are the same. When one is recommended for open conditions by the parole board, the Secretary of State inevitably has the final decision, which in a case we worked on recently was turned on us negatively.
Dean spoke at length about the troubles with progressing those who are category A, and the issues with the category A team in that they essentially penalise those who maintain innocence. Dean also discussed the major cuts on probation and the effect that this has had on the parole process itself, and moreover discussing that HMPPS in its entirety completely misunderstand maintaining innocence. Often it is naturally assumed that maintaining innocence equates to risk, but it has been evidenced that maintaining innocence is often a protective factor.
It was also mentioned that despite the slight dip in release rates post-Worboys, release rates have in fact gone up, and the number of oral hearing have rocketed, given the rulings in Osborn, Booth and Reilly. Only today did we at Swain and Co get a release decision for someone maintaining innocence.
On a final note, Dean mentioned the cost of keeping people incarcerated… £40,000-£60,000 per year, and £70,000 for those in the high secure estate. Thus, he detailed how necessary it was to progress those in prison to be able to have their risk managed in the community, and moreover the importance of progressing prisoners maintaining innocence.
Following on from Dean, Ruth Tully, a forensic psychologist of Tully Forensic Psychology, discussed the linked with psychology and progressing prisoners maintaining innocence. Ruth is an independent psychologist who often creates psychological reports of offenders who go in front of the parole board, at the instruction of solicitors representing them. An independent psychological assessment is an assessment by a psychologist who is independent of the system that detains them, and an assessment which is conducted by those who will present their truthful professional opinion of the offender.
Ruth depicted an often-common situation in which a prisoner may have had a very bad experience of prison psychology, and how that will often affect their engagement with psychology in general. Ruth clearly stated that the relationship between denial and increased risk is objectively unclear, and that denial doesn’t necessarily increase risk - the research is inconclusive overall. Ruth also spoke at length at about enabling a good rapport with offenders to be able to complete a full assessment of them, and this involves progressing those who maintain innocence, who often do not want to discuss the index offence they maintain they have never committed. Psychology often involves discussing the index offence, but an understanding of their stance and their view that they have never been involved in that, will improve the quality of report writing.
Offending behaviour courses are often ‘sold’ as being the only way to reduce risk in many prisons, however, Ruth discussed that offending behaviour work is not the only pathway to progression and thus a reduced risk of serious harm.
The event then heard from Chris, who was released 6 weeks ago after spending 20 years incarcerated for Joint Enterprise. The injustice of Joint Enterprise is well known, from the old case of Derek Bentley to the most recent case of Laura Mitchell and is brought to public knowledge and fought against daily by the wonderful grassroots campaign that is JENGbA.[/i]
Read more here: https://www.swainandco.com/prison-law/progressing-prisoners-maintaining-innocence-annual-lecture-10th-december-2018-at-the-house-of-commons/
« Last Edit: October 13, 2020, 01:39:39 AM by Nicholas »
Logged
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation
