Sudesh Amman was shot dead by Police in Streatham on Sunday 2nd February after grabbing a knife on display in a shop and then using it to stab passers-by. He had been released from Bellmarsh Prison on the 23rd January after being sentenced to 3 years 4 months in prison in November 2018 for possessing and disseminating terrorist materials. As a result of the law, he had to be released having only served half of his sentence. He was immediately put under surveillance because he had already made it clear in public pronouncements that he was intent on dying as a martyr to go to ‘Jannah’ (paradise). Fortunately no one, apart from Sudesh, lost their life as a result of his attack but the victims will carry the scars of this attack for the rest of their lives.
A number of other Jihadi prisoners are due for release in the next few months and the government is facing a clear challenge. At present, there is no discretion to keep prisoners like Sudesh in custody for the remainder of their sentence; neither is there a requirement for the parole board to assess a prisoner’s current state of mind and the risk they pose to the public upon their release. This is an unfortunate state of affairs and one that is clearly unsustainable. The previous case of Usman Khan was slightly different. He was released in similar circumstances half way through a 16 year sentence but he had fooled the authorities into believing that he was a reformed character. In that case, even the parole board might have been persuaded that he was no longer a risk.
It is clear to me that we need to adjust the law. The government proposes a ‘solution’ involving longer sentences and taking away the right to automatic release after serving half your sentence. There is some doubt about whether changing these rules for prisoners already serving their sentence can be lawful as the proposed legislative changes operate in a retrospective fashion. No doubt the cases will end up in the Supreme Court where the balance of individual and public rights will be judged.
Our Justice system is in crisis. The Home Office, who are in charge of the police and the Ministry of Justice, in charge of legal aid, the courts, probation and prisons have borne the brunt of austerity. The calculation was that the government could get away with cuts without the public noticing. Now there is an acknowledgement that the cuts must be reversed in respect of policing but there are few signs of the justice department receiving more funding. In the meantime, rehabilitation budgets for serving prisoners and support for the recently released is wholly inadequate. It might be OK to release prisoners on licence after serving half their term if resources are then channelled into support and rehabilitation upon their release; but if release on licence is just a mechanism for dealing with prison overcrowding, we are in real trouble.
At present, all the talk is of longer sentences but what on earth can that achieve? Sudesh and Usman would eventually have got to the end of their extended sentences and ready to start on their plans to commit murderous attacks. The real question is how we change the mind-set of this minority of prisoners and how can we ever be certain they are safe to be released back into the community? I am not sure there is a perfect solution to this problem. Clearly we need more resources for education programmes in prison and more support for offenders when they are released.
Perhaps, for a small category of prisoners, we also need powers to keep them in detention at the end of their sentences if it is clear that they are still intent on committing murder on our streets. Such a system would need clear safeguards and leave open the opportunity of a change of heart. None of this would be risk free but it would be a better balance than now and a shift of focus onto the real problem.