The Rt Hon. Lord Timpson
House of Lords
London
SW1A 0PW
30 January 2025
Dear Lord Timpson,
The recent scandal concerning the false accusations against more than 1,000 sub-postmasters has highlighted to the general public the fallibility of the UK justice system. The attempts by the authorities to confine the blame to either the makers of the Horizon Software or Post Office management do not reflect the reality that the justice system allowed this to happen. Specific attention has been drawn to the prosecutions brought by the Post Office acting as both police force and prosecution, potentially avoiding some current checks and balances, but this disguises the fact that hundreds were wrongly prosecuted through the “normal” system.
At APMI, we are concerned with the overall problems related to prisoners (and those subsequently released) who maintain their innocence. Our interests include many issues within your responsibilities, such as:
- The progression of prisoners through the prison system
- Appearances at parole board hearings
- Difficulties of access to facilities for those wishing to appeal against conviction
- The tendency to impose remand or custodial sentences, which dramatically reduce the ability to conduct a defence or appeal
- The specific psychological difficulties encountered in prison and on probation by those maintaining innocence
- The impossibility of applying the concept of rehabilitation to a person who is not an “offender”
- The loaded language used by your services, such as “offender,” “victim,” “evidence,” etc.
We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues with yourself, your staff, prison governors, prisoners, or anyone willing to listen with an open mind.
- One suggestion is that we might prepare a sequence of seminars for prison officers, probation officers, or prisoners (as part of the requirement for “useful activity” in prison).
- A number of prison establishments offer “lifer days.” Another suggestion is that permission could be granted for our attendance at any of the HMPPS establishments. We support a number of lifers who maintain their innocence and believe it would be useful for all if we could attend.
- We could also assist by reporting on data currently unavailable to us and, presumably, yourself. Could you confirm what data is held in respect of the following:
- How many prisoners in prison maintain their innocence of the offences committed?
- How many prisoners released by the Parole Board in the last 5 years have maintained their innocence in the Parole Board review that released them?
- Of those prisoners, how many have gone on to seriously re-offend within the definition of a serious further offence?
If the MoJ does not hold this data, please could you confirm whether, moving forward, this is data that you would be prepared to collate.
Over the last 10 years, the research evidence in respect of maintaining innocence has significantly evolved, and we know that maintaining innocence is not an indicator of risk. The serious rate of re-offending for those released by the Parole Board is 0.5%, which suggests that 99.5% of those the Board releases do not go on to seriously reoffend. We are keen to learn how many of the 0.5% effectively maintain their innocence of their index offence, as it is recognized that maintaining innocence is a protective factor.
Finally, let us emphasize that we are a totally self-funded voluntary organization that is willing to help, and our only reward would be the knowledge that more people in the justice system are aware of the issues related to innocence.
Yours sincerely,
Danny Barrs, Chair APMI
Dean Kingham, Committee Vice-Chair – Solicitor, Parole Board Lead for the Society of Prison Lawyers