24-4-1998 Hearing Judgement

[Hartley]

This one seems to be concerned with the downgrade of prison category.

[No-Bits]

Bump and discuss

Lol clearly I got the date wrong. It should be 1998 not 2008

[lookout]

" Applicant was in a dilemma whether to plead guilty or not guilty ?" Would that be about a change of position regarding any parole if he'd have pleaded guilty ? I'm not sure I understand that bit.

[No-Bits]

" Applicant was in a dilemma whether to plead guilty or not guilty ?" Would that be about a change of position regarding any parole if he'd have pleaded guilty ? I'm not sure I understand that bit.

No, the Judgement indicates that there is no evidence that Jeremy has reduced his level of dangerousness.

If he had undertaken offence related work, then there may be evidence that they could see his level of dangerousness had reduced (or not).

Jeremy had not undertaken any offence related work as he claimed it would not be appropriate given his position in claiming he was innocent.

The judgement concludes that regardless of the reasons why Jeremy had not undertaken offence related work, the fact remained that there was nothing that the court could rely on to show his level of dangerousness had reduced.

The Wednesbury irrational, or unreasonable, refers to a case from 1947 and is cited as a level of reasonableness.

[lookout]

Okay,Harters. Claire Powell mentioned in her book that he was exempt from work due to a medical condition/s ?

[No-Bits]

Okay,Harters. Claire Powell mentioned in her book that he was exempt from work due to a medical condition/s ?

I don't know how accurate that is. But with regards to the judgement, it wouldn't matter what the reasons were that Jeremy didn't undertake offence related work. He could be ill, simply refused or even if the courses were not offered, even if he applied and the prison refused to allow him to enroll.

The judgement is solely based on the fact that the work was not (for any and whatever reasons) undertaken and they therefore had nothing to examine to indicate whether his level of dangerousness had reduced, or not.

[lookout]

I don't know how accurate that is. But with regards to the judgement, it wouldn't matter what the reasons were that Jeremy didn't undertake offence related work. He could be ill, simply refused or even if the courses were not offered, even if he applied and the prison refused to allow him to enroll.

The judgement is solely based on the fact that the work was not (for any and whatever reasons) undertaken and they therefore had nothing to examine to indicate whether his level of dangerousness had reduced, or not.

I know Jeremy refused to disclose his " medical problems " and nothing further was taken up. Nothing is known about them.

However,what he's doing now in Braille is enough to try anyones' patience, though he'd have been tested on his ability to do boring and tedious work. I'd have thrown it all up in the air by now.
Well done him for doing such vital work for the blind,it's commendable.

[Caroline]

I know Jeremy refused to disclose his " medical problems " and nothing further was taken up. Nothing is known about them.

However,what he's doing now in Braille is enough to try anyones' patience, though he'd have been tested on his ability to do boring and tedious work. I'd have thrown it all up in the air by now.
Well done him for doing such vital work for the blind,it's commendable.

He hasn't got anything else to do and that sounds like a pretty cushy number as far as prison work goes.

[lookout]

He hasn't got anything else to do and that sounds like a pretty cushy number as far as prison work goes.

It would drive me barmy. I had to be on the move at work,which I was, ( like a monkey on a stick )

[No-Bits]

He hasn't got anything else to do and that sounds like a pretty cushy number as far as prison work goes.

I think that may be very true regarding many of his actions/choices.

[nugnug]

" Applicant was in a dilemma whether to plead guilty or not guilty ?" Would that be about a change of position regarding any parole if he'd have pleaded guilty ? I'm not sure I understand that bit.

no his got a whole tarrif so it makes no real diffrence.