Category A Prisoner

[guest2181]

But the solicitors aren't representing him in a criminal trial they are representing him in relation to prison law.. Bit of a difference. I would have expected the solicitors to have checked their facts before presenting them.
The solicitors would have known about JB's prison files - all they had to do was ask for copies from JB regarding this aspect i.e. his OASyS report...  https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/psipso/pso/PSO_2205_offender_assessment_and_sentence_management.doc

To be honest, I don't know the answer. Maybe course applications aren't recorded in the offender assessment files.

Or maybe the solicitors were a bit rubbish.   

[Stephanie]

Again I suggest the Campaign Team/Trudi Benjamin and co request to see a copy of JB's OASyS report this will give them some idea of what the prison system think of JB.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offender_Assessment_System

[Stephanie]

To be honest, I don't know the answer. Maybe course applications aren't recorded in the offender assessment files.

They most certainly are or should be. That's the whole point of risk assessment or the offender assessment system (OASyS).

It was 1998 and the OASys system was implemented in 2002 (I think) but prisons had a paper based system before this.

[guest2181]

They most certainly are or should be. That's the whole point of risk assessment or the offender assessment system (OASyS).

It was 1998 and the OASys system was implemented in 2002 (I think) but prisons would have had something else in place.

As I said, I don't know the answer.

The point I was making (not very clearly) was that maybe APPLICATIONS for a course are not recorded but only actually TAKING the course, is recorded.

Other than that, I'm back to the solicitors being a bit rubbish. 

[Stephanie]

As I said, I don't know the answer.

The point I was making (not very clearly) was that maybe APPLICATIONS for a course are not recorded but only actually TAKING the course, is recorded.

Other than that, I'm back to the solicitors being a bit rubbish. 

But you agree Bamber must have lied to his solicitors?

[guest2181]

But you agree Bamber must have lied to his solicitors?

I'd agree that it is a possibility, but I do not agree that we can say for certain that it is the case.

[Stephanie]

I'd agree that it is a possibility, but I do not agree that we can say for certain that it is the case.

Fair enough you are entitled to your opinion but I believe he knowingly lied to his solicitors - manipulated them into believing he had applied to do courses. I believe Bamber to have exploited everyone he has come in contact with.

[guest2181]

Fair enough you are entitled to your opinion but I believe he knowingly lied to his solicitors - manipulated them into believing he had applied to do courses. I believe Bamber to have exploited everyone he has come in contact with.

I have no problem with seeing him in that way, however the wording is a little bit vague.

I'm actually swaying back around to Neils way of thinking.

"The committee noted that while your solicitors had stated on your behalf that you had applied to undertake various courses, reports from Long Lartin and Wakefield indicated that you had been unwilling to undertake offence related courses"

Rightly or wrongly, they do clearly seem to differentiate between "applied to undertake various courses" and "unwilling to undertake offence related work".

You are suggesting that the two are one and the same, therefore Jeremy must have lied to his solicitors.

Whilst I can certainly see your interpretation, I can also see another.

[Stephanie]

I have no problem with seeing him in that way, however the wording is a little bit vague.

I'm actually swaying back around to Neils way of thinking.

"The committee noted that while your solicitors had stated on your behalf that you had applied to undertake various courses, reports from Long Lartin and Wakefield indicated that you had been unwilling to undertake offence related courses"

Rightly or wrongly, they do clearly seem to differentiate between "applied to undertake various courses" and "unwilling to undertake offence related work".

You are suggesting that the two are one and the same, therefore Jeremy must have lied to his solicitors.

Whilst I can certainly see your interpretation, I can also see another.

I can also see the interpretation you have described but this was an application to the courts to downgrade his prison status in which he would need to show his risk had decreased. What would the relevance of say education type courses have on this application? It was about his risk not his intellectual ability.

[Stephanie]

The application to the courts would be interested in offender focused courses not educational course - do you see what I mean?

[guest2181]

I can also see the interpretation you have described but this was an application to the courts to downgrade his prison status in which he would need to show his risk had decreased. What would the relevance of say education type course have on this application? It was about his risk not his intellectual ability.

Upon further reading, it is very clear.

The solicitors are putting forward arguments for him not having undertaken offence related work due to his claims of being innocent.

Therefore "applied to undertake various courses" and "unwilling to undertake offence related work", must relate to two different things.

My conclusion is that this does not in any way show JB to have lied to his solicitors about applying to undertake various courses.

Neils post earlier in this thread appears to be the correct interpretation.

It says that he had applied to do various courses.  His solicitors didn't claim that he had applied to undertake 'offence' related courses. 

That's how I read it, anyway!

[Stephanie]

Upon further reading, it is very clear.

The solicitors are putting forward arguments for him not having undertaken offence related work due to his claims of being innocent.

Therefore "applied to undertake various courses" and "unwilling to undertake offence related work", must relate to two different things.

My conclusion is that this does not in any way show JB to have lied to his solicitors about applying to undertake various courses.

Neils post earlier in this thread appears to be the correct interpretation.

Did you read the entire point 6 in the judgement? It is clear from this that the courts are referring to offence related courses only and how dangerous they perceive JB is. Other courses - non offence related - wouldn't show this.

[Stephanie]

Upon further reading, it is very clear.

The solicitors are putting forward arguments for him not having undertaken offence related work due to his claims of being innocent.

Therefore "applied to undertake various courses" and "unwilling to undertake offence related work", must relate to two different things.

My conclusion is that this does not in any way show JB to have lied to his solicitors about applying to undertake various courses.

Neils post earlier in this thread appears to be the correct interpretation.

It doesn't matter to me either way as I believe he's where he should be but I cannot understand why his solicitors would be referring to Jeremy having applied to undertake various courses - referring to non offence related courses in their application on his behalf? That's my opinion anyway..

I should add that at the beginning of point 6 of the judgement the committee have clearly taken on board the fact he is an appellant and referred to this.

[guest2181]

Did you read the entire point 6 in the judgement? It is clear from this that the courts are referring to offence related courses only and how dangerous they perceive JB is.

Yes I've read the whole document several times.

The solicitors are not going to say that:

A: JB has applied to undertake offence related work.

and then.....>

B: Put together an argument for the reasons why JB hasn't undertaken offence related work and this shouldn't effect the decision to downgrade him.


There is no confusion here, A is simply not compatible with B, therefore your interpretation of A must be incorrect.

[Stephanie]

Yes I've read the whole document several times.

The solicitors are not going to say that:

A: JB has applied to undertake offence related work.

and then.....>

B: Put together an argument for the reasons why JB hasn't undertaken offence related work and this shouldn't effect the decision to downgrade him.


There is no confusion here, A is simply not compatible with B, therefore your interpretation of A must be incorrect.

Wanna bet? It happened in the SH case.

I stand by my interpretation at this point as I haven't been persuaded to believe in yours and Neils interpretations at this stage.