Crime Solicitors

By Sajid Munir

A prison designated with "units" designed to house the worst criminals and those with the highest risk of escape features as the most stringent form of detention in our prison system. These prisons are more commonly referred to as ‘super-max’, and as its name suggests seeks to ensure that the most dangerous criminals and those who pose the greatest threat to national security do not escape these walls.

That definition however must be qualified to include prisoners on remand. Those still awaiting a decision in their criminal case and are not technically criminals, in line with the principles of due process.

These types of 'prisons within prisons' are found across the globe and are a common feature of the US and UK penal systems. In the United Kingdom there are eight in total. They are HMP Belmarsh (Woolwich, London), HMP Frankland (Durham), HMP Full Sutton (York), HMP Long Lartin (Worcestershire), HMP Manchester (formerly known as Strangeways), HMP Whitemoor (Cambridgeshire), HMP Wakefield and HMP Woodhill.

In recent years the prison inspectorates and the judiciary have expressed concerns about the regime and overall conditions within these units. Most notably Anne Owers, who succeeded David Ramsbotham as HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, voiced her concerns over the treatment of Muslim prisoners at HMP Belmarsh. While those concerns echo throughout the other super-max prisons within the UK, the conditions within HMP Belmarsh are particularly worrying.

In summary the High Security Unit (HSU) at HMP Belmarsh consists of four separate spurs, each containing twelve single cells, with a thick caged external exercise yard to which inmates are only permitted one hour of exercise per day. For recreation there is a small gym and telephone calls are all monitored. Social visits take place in the presence of an officer. Where family members do not speak English, inmates are only permitted to speak through a prison appointed interpreter. It means that many are unable to have a full conversation with their loved ones for many years.

Perhaps the worst aspect of these units is the seclusion and fear. Most of every day is spent confined to a single cell. Prisoners are expected to occupy their time with their case papers, a limited number of books and by watching television. In addition, inmates live in a climate of fear. They are always worried that anything said or done may impact on their criminal case. It is now well known that the prison guards are always snooping and have no reluctance in informing the prosecuting authorities of anything they think they may have heard.

The only other place where an inmate can expect a degree of privacy and peace of mind is in conference with his legal advisors. Anything said or done is subject to the normal rules of legal and professional privilege. This is a fundamental right that goes to the heart of the conduct of a fair trial. However the revelation that came when Sadiq Khan MP complained in the House of Commons over his conversation with Baber Ahmed being monitored and recorded by the security services at HMP Wood Hill confirmed what clients and lawyers believed all along. That the authorities are listening and using privileged information in order to further prosecutions.

Some prisoners bury their heads in the sand while others obsess over the minutia of their criminal case. As a result, skilled prosecutors prey on those repressed emotions, during the course of their cross examination of defendants. The result is clear for anyone sitting in court – the client is seen by the jury as being either too angry and impulsive or too pensive and calculating.

The courts are supposed to take a holistic view in relation to the circumstances of each defendant and the impact to the overall fairness of the proceedings. Yet it fails to properly cater for the psychological effect borne out from these harsh conditions of detention. The destruction of their personality renders clients unable to fairly and properly present their case before a jury. In this light the prosecution itself is nothing more than a charade aimed at publically boasting what is otherwise known to be inherently unsafe convictions.

It is important to highlight a serious issue that affects prisoners within the criminal culture that are looked down upon by the others, due to the nature of their offending. For example anyone either convicted of, or found to be on remand for a child sex offence, including possession of indecent images, is treated to random acts of violence by other inmates.

Another example of those who are looked down upon by others is those charged or convicted of terrorism offences. They are victims of stabbings and 'oiling'. In relation to the latter, oil is heated until it is very hot and then thrown at the victim. The consequences are devastating. It leaves permanent damage to the skin and destroys the victim mentally. The reality is that prisoners on remand are not only worried about the imposition of a lengthy custodial sentence. They are also deeply concerned that once in dispersal they will always have to fight to remain safe. Regrettably the difference of the latter example is being singled out in this way by virtue of the simple practice of their religion.