TNAG-0216-FCO40-252-Detainees-and-prisoners-convicted-for-offences-during-the-di-1970 — Page 117

seven and a half years because it is the practice to give prisoners a year's notice of the date on which they will be released in order to enable them to adjust themselves to the prospect and make arrangements for work and accommodation. Considerations which govern the date of release are (not in order of their importance): the seriousness of the offence and any mitigating circumstances; how the prisoner is shaping under training; whether the prisoner is likely to be dangerous to the public; and in relation to young prisoners how far they have matured since their offences were committed. It is not the practice to take account of public opinion in the prisoner's locality in deciding when to release him, though the gravity which the public attributes to the type of crime he had committed is relevant to the assessment of the first of the considerations just mentioned. The prisoner whose case presents no special features is at present detained for an average period of nine years; some serve loss,

If a and a few whose crimes have been particularly grave serve more. prisoner is likely to be a serious danger to the public he is kept until age or ill-health render hin harmless. It has occasionally been necessary to detain a prisoner for as much as twenty years on this ground.

Recommendations and Suggestions

Whilst

11. Fixed Sentences. The Advisory Committee would strongly oppose the discontinuance of periodical reviews of long fixed sentences in the overseas territories, where no body comparable with Her Majesty's Prison Commissioners exists. Moreover, as members of the Committee who have served overseas have pointed out, the morale of long sentence prisoners in overseas territories is sustained, in some degree at least, by the knowledge that their cases are referred at intervals to the Governor himself or at least to a responsible Minister, despite the unlikelihood that the prerogative of mercy will be exercised in their favour. the Committee favours the continuation of periodical reviews of long fixed sentences, it appreciates the tendency for such reviews to become perfunctory. To prevent this tendency it recommends that advantage should be taken of periodical reviews by giving to then a purpose in addition to that of drawing the attention of the Governor or of the Minister concerned to cases where the prerogative of mercy might be exercised. It is recommended that the review should take careful stock of the prisoner's progress, including his health, outlook, behaviour, relations with warders, work, training and aptitudes, together with any other circumstances which may affect decisions as to his treatment as a prisoner or his after-care. It is thought that periodical reviews of this nature would be of special value in any territories where the existence of prisons of various kinds, providing different methods of training and atmosphere, afford opportunities for moving a prisoner from one prison to another in accordance with the requirements of his training and rehabilitation. Feriodical reviews of long fixed sentences could, in such circumstances, serve a useful purpose quite apart from any question of the prerogative of mercy. It may be argued that reviews of this kind are not necessary, for it is the responsibility of the prison authorities, in any case, to see that prisoners are sent to the kinds of prisons nost suitable for then and otherwise provided with appropriate training. Committee considers, however, that periodical reviews, at suitable intervals, of all long sentence prisoners, with the above purpose in view,

The Advisory would serve as an internal check on their progress.

The

Committee recommends that, in the case of adults over 20 years of age, the first review should take place after 4 years of a sentence exceeding that amount has been served and that thereafter there should be a further review at 2 yearly intervals.

/12.