Trevor Baines

[Sean South]

It is very unlikely that he will be transferred to an open prison in UK, at IOM taxpayers expense away from home and family.

It would surely make more sense to transfer him to an open prison, given that he's no threat and it would free up a space in the Manx Prison for someone... more deserving?

 

Or make him live in Ramsey?

A bit too harsh... maybe?

[Pragmatopian]

That just seems wrong to me, locking up a very old man at a highish security prison.

 

 

The IoM is too small to maintain prisons at different security levels. I doubt the marginal cost of putting him up in Jurby would be more than sending him to a lower security prison in the UK.

 

He knew the type of prison of accommodation available in the IoM when he committed his crimes: if he didn't want to experience it for himself then he shouldn't have done what he did.

[John Wright]

But it does raise a very important human rights question.

 

it was an abuse of human rights to send IOM prisoners serving sentences longer than 2 years to the UK away from their families, visits and homes, but with the alleged additional educational and training facilities and rehabilitation facilities that there are in UK prisons

 

However for the few with longer sentences to stay here we have had to have a new prison with higher security which unfairly affects the majority of low risk short term, or otherwise qualified for open prison, inmates and infringes their rights.

 

How does the proportionality of the one affect and interact with the proportionality of the other?

 

I remember when Jurby was being planned I was at a meeting of a quasi official body chaired by a deemster and with reps of all sectors of the professionals including the prison governor, probation etc, involved in the criminal justice and penal sectors, and when I asked why, Ms Crosby told me she wanted a secure playing field so that she could have teams of opposing inmates play various teams games against each other. They were all shocked when I asked if Tynwald had commissioned or conducted a review of penal policy (answer no) and that I suggested that I was of the view that if we had a proper penal policy in place there would not be inmates to staff the kitchens and make up one 11 man team, let alone a second team to play against.

 

I can still remember back to the late 1970's and early 1980's when on a occasion there was no one resident in Victoria Road for days on end or only one or two. We now have a crime rate at lower than 1981 levels, why do we have a prison population on average about 20 times what it was then?

[manxy]

But it does raise a very important human rights question.

 

it was an abuse of human rights to send IOM prisoners serving sentences longer than 2 years to the UK away from their families, visits and homes, but with the alleged additional educational and training facilities and rehabilitation facilities that there are in UK prisons

 

However for the few with longer sentences to stay here we have had to have a new prison with higher security which unfairly affects the majority of low risk short term, or otherwise qualified for open prison, inmates and infringes their rights.

 

How does the proportionality of the one affect and interact with the proportionality of the other?

 

I remember when Jurby was being planned I was at a meeting of a quasi official body chaired by a deemster and with reps of all sectors of the professionals including the prison governor, probation etc, involved in the criminal justice and penal sectors, and when I asked why, Ms Crosby told me she wanted a secure playing field so that she could have teams of opposing inmates play various teams games against each other. They were all shocked when I asked if Tynwald had commissioned or conducted a review of penal policy (answer no) and that I suggested that I was of the view that if we had a proper penal policy in place there would not be inmates to staff the kitchens and make up one 11 man team, let alone a second team to play against.

 

I can still remember back to the late 1970's and early 1980's when on a occasion there was no one resident in Victoria Road for days on end or only one or two. We now have a crime rate at lower than 1981 levels, why do we have a prison population on average about 20 times what it was then?

Ask the Liverpudlians, they apparently like it over here!

Personally, if thats the case, either make the UK pay for them to be housed over here, or kick them out for life.

[VinnieK]

But it does raise a very important human rights question.

 

it was an abuse of human rights to send IOM prisoners serving sentences longer than 2 years to the UK away from their families, visits and homes

 

Was it? The Island's Human Rights only came into power in 2006, and European and UK human Rights only go as far as to say that prisoners cannot be denied contact with their families, they say nothing about where they can and can't be located.

 

Specifically: "There is no right to be located close to home" (bottom of the page).

[macmannin]

Every year the police produce statistics(lies) how crime has gone down on the Island.Its a very telling point John about what you say about the populace in prisons in the 80's.

[Barrie Stevens]

But it does raise a very important human rights question.

 

it was an abuse of human rights to send IOM prisoners serving sentences longer than 2 years to the UK away from their families, visits and homes

 

Was it? The Island's Human Rights only came into power in 2006, and European and UK human Rights only go as far as to say that prisoners cannot be denied contact with their families, they say nothing about where they can and can't be located.

Specifically: "There is no right to be located close to home" (bottom of the page).

 

There is no pan-European/UK dictation for human rights as such - just broad principles accepted on the face of it by members of the Council of Europe whose members and adherents include non-European countries (It is not of the EU as such and thus not the "Europe" many love to hate)

 

Cases at Strasbourg vary according to the circumstances and counter arguments of the countries brought to the Court.

 

Importing the Convention into domestic law broadly means that Courts must act within Convention principles and if at all possible interpret law within terms of the human rights convention. (And also declare if law is not human rights compliant/compatible)

 

Public bodies also must act within your Convention rights.

 

This is all still subject to interpretation and opposing interpretation: hence lots of fun for lawyers.

 

The listed Human rights in the Convention are fundmental but most are not absolute. (Other than for example "the right to life" ....hence no judicial execution): NB The state can in principle take your life in action in order to defend the rights and freedoms of others.ie armed persons shot if a threat.

 

Thus one cannot point to "what it says" in the text because human rights do not mean what they say nor say what they mean. Hence the frustration of the "man down the pub".

 

Human rights thus seem prone to bizarre interpretation to those possessed of common sense unless the keys to their principles are fully grasped.(Read a few cases on the HUDOC data base on the Strasbourg website and go cross-eyed!)

 

The example shown in the attachment refers to England and Wales and is for general guidance.

 

The Island has peculiar and unique circumstances and "local needs and requirements" have always been a factor to be considered at Strasbourg subject to "proportionality".

 

Once the human rights Convention is imported into domestic law then courts have greater facility to act in accordance with local needs and requirements subject to "proportionality" ie means justifying the end/vice versa (My interpretation!)

 

Indeed, Strasbourg in principle regards local judiciary as being all the more competent than itself to judge human rights in accordance with local circumstances once the Human rights Convention has been imported via domestic law.

 

I think it was on January 13th 2009 that Deemster Doyle delivered judgement in the case of George Newbery serving life and who had opposed his transfer to a UK prison. (What is a "UK prison?")

 

Four lifers from the Island were then in "UK prisons"

 

Reasons were given as to why Newbery could not be held at Jurby and the then Department of Home Affairs gave explanatory back up as to why Jurby was not suitable.

 

Have there been any further developments consequent upon the subsequent "maturity" of Jurby? Apparently not.

 

Am I broadly correct Mr Wright in my "man on top of the Clapham omnibus" awareness of "My rights"?

[Theodolite]

Every year the police produce statistics(lies) how crime has gone down on the Island.Its a very telling point John about what you say about the populace in prisons in the 80's.

I agree.

 

It would be farcical to have spent multi-millions on a prison just to have a few inmates. At a time when the Isle of Man was awash with cash due to overpaid VAT, the arguments were made for a super dooper top-notch prison (in much the same way we have an exceedingly expensive New Hospital, New Power Station, New 'All-Island' Sewage System, New leisure Centre and New Incinerator. Other stuff too). Put quite simply, all those well-paid prison workers salaries and pension and the huge capital outlay have to be justified.

 

.....lock 'em up.

Edited February 26, 2011 by Theo

[John Wright]

Am I broadly correct Mr Wright in my "man on top of the Clapham omnibus" awareness of "My rights"?

 

Broadly Barrie, No!

 

The European Convention has applied to the IOM since the UK signed up in the 1950's, the individual right to Petition came, went, in the light of the Tyrer case, and was restored by Tynwald, half the time in secret.

 

Repatriation of all but lifers or extremely violent dangerous prisoners was motivated by UK pressure, cost and human rights considerations. I am well aware of the cases you mention. They are on their own facts, or the Manx facts are different and distinguishable and given we are semi independent different considerations apply to location of detention than would apply in the UK to distance from home, here it is exile from our country, however proportionality comes into play for Newberry etc, otherwise we would have to upgrade to a maximum security status.

 

So Human rights did apply to the decision to repatriate everyone over two years sentence, with the minor exceptions,even before we had the HRA and the proportionality argument applies to Newberry, and his rights and the rights of the others as well. There is Manx Court of Appeal case law from the early 1980's that explains how, before the HRA IOM law had to be interpreted and applied in a compliant manner wherever possible to ensure we did not breach our international treaty obligations (O'Callaghan v Teare 1981)

[Bobbie Bobster]

Am I broadly correct?

Broadly Barrie, No!

Preserved for posterity.

[Shake me up Judy]

Could we keep this thread in English please ? The arguments put are interesting and knowledgeable but it's sometimes like listening to a roomful of lawyers (Yes, I do know that John is one). On other threads I have to wade through the barbed wire of acronyms and text speak and end up totally switched off. Don't get me started on the students union politics society either....

[John Wright]

Sorry Judy, and there was I thinking I had tried to put my point in layman's terms in plain English

 

Don't forget I have a post graduate degree in Criminology as well. if I really wrote in lawyer speak and mixed it with sociology speak... well!

[thommo2010]

John to answer your question stats may show crime has reduced since the 80's but you have to rememeber there are a lot of inmates at the prison who are doing 10-15 years for drug offences. I wasn't around in the early 80's but I would say convictions back then for that kind of offence was very rare on the Island, there are also a lot of inmates who are there as they haven't paid their fines etc.

 

Regarding Mr Baines he committed the crime and deserves to be in prison for it none of this put him in an open prison as he is less of a threat. Doesn't matter whether you are a serial killer or a money lauderer/thief, you go to prison to be punished. If I had it my way they would have one TV in a rec room no computers other than in class rooms where the inmates can get educated and aply for jobs when they are released.

[Evil Goblin]

Regarding Mr Baines he committed the crime and deserves to be in prison for it none of this put him in an open prison as he is less of a threat. Doesn't matter whether you are a serial killer or a money lauderer/thief, you go to prison to be punished. If I had it my way they would have one TV in a rec room no computers other than in class rooms where the inmates can get educated and aply for jobs when they are released.

Seems that you (and some others) have never understood the saying "There but for the Grace of God..........."

[Mr. Sausages]

Regarding Mr Baines he committed the crime and deserves to be in prison for it none of this put him in an open prison as he is less of a threat. Doesn't matter whether you are a serial killer or a money lauderer/thief, you go to prison to be punished. If I had it my way they would have one TV in a rec room no computers other than in class rooms where the inmates can get educated and aply for jobs when they are released.

Seems that you (and some others) have never understood the saying "There but for the Grace of God..........."

 

Would you like to explain it?