We protect our clients as they move through the legal process, from initial advice to courtroom representation.
Day in, day out, Intervene speaks to some of the most vulnerable people in the UK prison system. Many of these individuals have been abused, mistreated, or neglected. This is not what justice should look like. Whilst a justice system should protect victims of crime, it should not abandon those it convicts. We firmly believe human rights apply to all, including people in prison. It is this ethos which drives our advocacy, and we strive to ensure the law and government policies are applied fairly.
The number of people in prison requiring representation is exponentially increasing. Due to relentless legal aid cuts, the need for our service is greater than ever. In the last legal year, we provided some 3983 hours in volunteering, despite the snow, covid, train strikes and more, yet we still cannot meet the demand. If you would like to contribute to our advocacy, and help us represent as many individuals who are in need as possible, have a peek at our volunteering page for further information.
Our Practice Areas
We have provided free representation in a broad range of cases which are either no longer covered by legal aid or require support to gain funded support. These have included:
Equality Act Discrimination
Human Rights Breaches
Lost and Damaged Property
Minor Personal Injuries and Accidents
Poor Healthcare, Dental Care, Nutrition and Mental Healthcare
Ignored Complaints
Verbal and Physical Abuse from Prison Staff
Adjudication Appeals
Lack of Access to Rehabilitative Courses, Education Services and Employment Opportunities
Rule 39 Breaches
Breach of GDPR
Obstructions to Communication with Relatives and Legal Representatives
Re-Categorisation Appeals
Delayed Parole
Poor Disability and Care Management
Poor Living Conditions
Prison Transfer Requests
Our Approach to Advocacy
Intervenes predominant purpose is providing free legal representation to people in prison in need of our services. We strive to take on all cases falling within our ambit and if not, we find them the help they need.
People in prison approach us with their legal issues. Many have been injured due to prison conditions or abuse from prison staff. Some clients have suffered from poor quality healthcare, nutrition, or rehabilitative support. Other clients have had the few possessions they own stolen, lost or mishandled. We listen to them with open minds.
We will then research the relevant law and policy, and ask appropriate follow-up questions, enabling us to develop the best understanding of our clients’ cases. Our aim is to gain the evidence to gain legal aid funding or to gain access for them to other funded statutory services.
Documents, whether prisoners’ complaint forms, medical records or prison records, these are requested and witness statements are drafted.
We will then often informally approach potential defendants: commonly prisons, police forces or the Ministry of Justice. We ask them to urgently investigate and resolve our clients’ problems, without the need for further legal intervention. This is sometimes successful.
Where it is not, we may write Letters Before Action as required by the pre-action protocol. We may file claims, draft Particulars and analyse Defences on behalf of our clients. We may consult qualified solicitors, and, in some cases, will instruct external barristers or experts. Over the years, our volunteers have represented several prisoners in court, applying their skills and knowledge to act fervently in our clients’ best interests.
We prioritise being readily available to assist our clients at all stages of their cases, and they are able to telephone or write to us whenever they need our help. We encourage our volunteers to build positive relationships with our clients, and in doing so, our clients repeatedly return to us for further representation after their initial matter has been settled.
Frances Personal Story
Background
During his trial, Frances* had become intrigued with the law and how his case was handled. He took no time at all to start engaging with his sentence plan and looking to rehabilitate to create a better life for himself when he had duly completed his time in prison. On reflection, he realised he needed to build up his education and started to engage in many courses to increase his knowledge, abilities, and skills. Frances was very keen to get started with an education in law and so whilst completing his first level courses, he chose to self-advocate as much as he could.
Frances was told about the project by a fellow prisoner and soon found we were able to support him navigate the internal processes. In time, he was able to apply for funding to undertake his A level in Law. Frances was ecstatic when a charity agreed to pay for his course and all the material he needed to complete his A level in law. However, when discussing with his Prison Offender Manager he was devastated to find out he could not undertake at his current establishment as the facilities were not available.
Difficulties
In order to be considered for a transfer or recategorisation to another establishment, along with other ‘tick box’ requirements, Frances needed to hold an ‘enhanced’ status and have no negative entries on his record to make him a good candidate for transfer. However, Frances felt he was being targeted by a supremacist group and very often found himself involved in altercation’s which would automatically lead to an adjudication and thus, negative entry on his record.
Support
First and foremost we spoke at lengths with the safer custody team and the governor regarding his safety and well-being. Moreover, we discussed the matter of the adjudications involving the alleged supremacist group with the Offender Manager Unit (OMU) to try and have these incidents disregarded in the decision-making process.
Time and time again Frances was turned down for transfer or re-categorisation due to the day-to-day incidents involving this group and in turn, this was affecting his mental wellbeing as well. Hence, the project started to help him more with the matters he was previously self-advocating on in an attempt to take away some of his distress.
On review Frances had over ten matters he was dealing with regarding issues such as lost property, medical matters, contact with family and much more. Therefore, the volunteers worked as a team to review each matter in turn and seek a quick resolution.
Outcome
Quickly, they were able to resolve and close each matter for Frances, thus reducing his distress and going some way to improve his well-being.
Whilst the OMU could not disregard the day-to-day incidents completely, they agreed to take account for of the situation with the supremacist group in the decision-making process. Moreover, they also agreed the reviews could be bi-annually instead of annually.
The safer custody team agreed to put Frances on a like for like transfer and within weeks, he was moved to an establishment where he is now not only undertaking his A level in Law, but he is also working on the wing and has the opportunity to engage in social activities without fear of harm.
Frances is currently waiting the result of his most recent categorisation review and hopes this will lead to the moving to the next step in his sentence plan.
Lewis’s Personal Story
Background
Towards the end of the COVID-19 pandemic Lewis* was asked by a senior officer on his wing if he could undertake some work in his cell making hygiene packs up for reception to help them reduce the risk within their environment. This entailed Lewis making safety kit packs up by including certain items in a pack and sealing them to maintain the hygiene before use.
When Lewis contacted the project, he had been completing the work for some six months but was yet to be paid for his endeavours. He had exhausted the internal complaints process and asked the project to assist him to get paid for the work he had undertook.
Difficulties
All the information surrounding his work was agreed verbally and there appeared to be no record of the number of packs he had made or the length of time he had spent working on them other than the record Lewis had kept himself.
Whilst it appeared it was not disputed Lewis had undertaken this work, the senior officer who had asked him to help, had since left his employment at the establishment. Therefore, despite his best efforts to self-advocate, he could not achieve redress for his unpaid earnings.
Support
When we first spoke with Lewis he was upset the establishment would not acknowledge his good work and the support he had given them in such unprecedented times. The packs he was making helped them remain compliant to the restrictions implemented by the Government for the COVID-19 pandemic. He had been told he would get paid £2.12 a week for his work and whilst he continued to undertake this role for some 27 weeks, he had only been paid for one.
The project manager reviewed his case and allocated the task to a student volunteer undertaking their undergraduate qualifying law degree (LLB). As the agreement for the work had been made verbally, the volunteer looked to the Prison Service Order (PSO) for employment. During this research they found the minimum wage Lewis should have been paid at this time was £4.00. Hence, they requested all correspondence and complaints regarding his employment.
On review of the communication it appeared the establishment were not disputing he had completed the work, more this task was not on the system as a recognised piece of work. Moreover, as Lewis had not been security cleared to do such work the Learning & Skills manager had suggested a workaround to ensure he was paid.
Therefore, the volunteer worked with the project manager to put forward representations to the relevant officers. Once again no response was received and so we decided to take the complaint to the Governor on Lewis’s behalf, stipulating:
· All parties agree the work had been undertaken
· The issue was down to an internal administration process not being adhered to
· The amount offered was not in line with the PSO minimum wage
Furthermore, we also expressed the distress and frustration this was causing Lewis as his record was not reflecting his good work, which would indeed go some way to showing his engagement and rehabilitation.
Outcome
After a lengthy investigation by the activities hub, and discussions with our project, our client was awarded £135.00 in recognition of the work he undertook.
Jacob’s Personal Story
Jacob was convicted of a serious crime in an English territory. Confusingly for him, subsequently Jacob was moved to a high-risk prison within the UK.
Having not been born in the UK and with no family ties or connections to this country at all Jacob is struggling with his mental health and overall well-being. Furthermore, due to the time differences, it is also very difficult for him to maintain family ties. Likewise, as he has no friends or family in the UK, he does not have the opportunity to engage with them in-person either.
Jacob did not understand how he came to be placed in a prison in the UK and wanted our help to see if he could be returned to a closer environment. More importantly for him, to a prison within the same time-zone so he could maintain his relationships and close family ties whilst he duly served his sentence.
Difficulties
Due to the cuts in funding, following the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO 2012), it was unclear if his legal issue would fall within the remits of the funding as this was the first case of its kind in the UK.
As there was an uncertainty surrounding the funding possibilities, Jacob was having difficulties finding a solicitor who would undertake the case. Unfortunately, due to the considerable amount of research required to confirm if the case was eligible for funding, this would far exceed any free initial advice a solicitor would be able to give.
Support
On investigation, whilst the case was unusual and the first of its kind in this country, the legal parameters were clear, if within the remits of repatriation this is not covered by the funding under LASPO 2012. Therefore, the project manager assigned the task to a team of four student volunteers, currently undertaking their law conversion course, to research the law of repatriation.
After several hours of investigation, their research appeared to be finalised but, there was a policy referred to in the statute which could not be found. Our project manager was aware of a contact at the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple library, and thankfully he was able to locate the suggested document and allow the volunteers to complete the research to provide an opinion to Jacob as to the next steps.
Outcome
The team were able to arrange a video link with Jacob to explain his case did not fall under the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 as he was not :
· a British citizen
· did not have close ties to the UK
· it was not a temporary transfer
Therefore, he was advised to follow the internal procedures to request a transfer to his home country and if denied, he would be able to enlist a solicitor under the rules set out in LASPO 2012.
The project continues to support Jacob through the internal process and in his quest to maintain his family relationships throughout his sentence.
*names have been changed to protect their identity
Support our advocacy, where we help some of the most overlooked and vulnerable people in the UK. For many of our clients, we are their only source of support.
Current Cases
We currently represent 200 clients, and have over 80 prospective clients desperately awaiting referral. See below for an overview of a handful of our cases.
*all names have been changed
Isaac
Isaac was experiencing mental and emotional distress. He had been moved to a ‘constant watch cell’ as he was deemed to be at serious risk of suicide or self-harm. There was a prison officer permanently stationed outside his cell door and his property was removed.
One morning, Isaac requested hot water to wash with. This is usually provided to prisoners in a small flask. On this occasion, however, the officer refused to provide it in the normal manner. He poured boiling water straight into Isaac’s cell through a rolled-up plastic laminate tube.
Isaac was splashed with the boiling water, and suffered severe burns to his hand and foot as a result. He felt demeaned – fed hot water through his door “like an animal”. Isaac reported his injuries to the healthcare staff at the prison and continued to receive medical treatment for several days.
Isaac also submitted several complaints. One response from a prison officer read “given [the] immediate need for the water, it was provided in the only way possible”. Isaac disputes this: his need for hot water was not so urgent that he could not wait for a flask to be brought.
Isaac approached Intervene as the prison was not taking his complaints seriously. He wanted compensation for his injuries, which he thought were directly attributable to the irresponsible actions of the prison officer.
Intervene volunteers requested and collated evidence relating to Isaac’s injuries, including the complaints he filed with the prison and his medical records. We attempted to communicate with Isaac’s prison informally to resolve the dispute, and then prepared and submitted a Letter Before Action, documenting the events and setting out the relevant law. After receiving no response, Intervene filed a claim on Isaac’s behalf through the Ministry of Justice’s online portal.
Isaac has since been offered compensation for his injuries, which he has accepted.
Ahmed
Ahmed was transferred to a privately run prison in Autumn 2020. As the temperature dropped during the winter of 2020-2021, he started to feel very cold in his cell, particularly at night.
Ahmed attested that the heating on his wing was either kept off through the entire night, or only put on for a couple of minutes, at intervals, every several hours. He was not sure whether there was a functional problem with the heating system, or if it was deliberately kept off by prison staff. He shivered through nights, waking to see his property soaked by condensation.
Numerous complaints were submitted to the prison as regards the lack of heating in Ahmed’s cell. Ahmed asked for the temperature in his cell to be monitored to prove that it was falling beneath acceptable standards. The prison refused to do this.
Already an Intervene client on a separate matter related to property, Ahmed only informed us of his heating problems recently. He was particularly concerned as the lack of heating – and resulting coldness and dampness – have been detrimental to his physical and mental health.
We believe that his treatment amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment – two behaviours prohibited by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. We have since received correspondence from several other prisoners on Ahmed’s wing, demonstrating that he is not the only prisoner to face this issue.
Intervene is at the early stages of working on Ahmed’s case. We have asked his prison to cooperate by monitoring temperatures and ensuring appropriate minimums are observed. Our volunteers are currently collecting new evidence on Ahmed’s case and considering how progress can be made.
Joshua
Joshua’s cash, property and documents were seized by the police. These were then unlawfully retained for several years. Communications were ongoing with the police force in question for several years, yet the cash, property and documents were still not returned.
Intervene firstly took steps to resolve the issue pre-action, submitting a Letter Before Action on Joshua’s behalf. However, the police were still uncooperative, and thus, Intervene filed a claim in the County Court.
Shortly after filing their Defence, the police force then made a Part 36 Offer of Settlement, in excess of £23,000. Joshua accepted this settlement.
Zach
Zach wrote to Intervene informing us that he had a cracked tooth and gum infection, leaving him in severe pain. This would be regarded as requiring emergency dental treatment.
Zach's prison did not schedule surgery for over four months due to the prison dental suite's refurbishment. This was despite Intervene urging repeatedly that Zach's prison should simply schedule an appointment at an alternative dental suite. Further, Zach's prison refused to provide him with the strength of pain relief recommended by a previous dentist, despite his desperate pleas for it. Oftentimes, Zach went without pain relief in its entirety. Intervene then repeatedly attempted to encourage Zach's prison to provide him with stronger pain relief.
In response to Intervene's frequent pleas for improvements in our client's treatment, the prison's Head of Healthcare placed a security block on our correspondence. Intervene shall thus be encouraging an investigation of the negligent healthcare provider, and is in the process of sending them a Letter Before Action. Should this not lead to effective resolution, Intervene intends to file a claim on behalf of Zach.
Frederick
It breaches the rules of Frederick’s religion for his prayer mat and religious artefacts to become unclean. Thus, prison rules allow for prisoners to take steps to keep their artefacts out of reach when their cells are to be searched by dogs in their absence.
On one occasion, when Frederick was not present in his cell, a search dog was allowed to rummage through his religious artefacts whilst his prayer mat was exposed. Frederick had no method for determining which of his artefacts were thus unclean and unusable, causing him immense distress. Intervene recognised this likely breach of his Article 9 Human Right.
Intervene then instructed a barrister to assist in drafting the Particulars for Frederik’s case, which was filed in the County Court. The claim is now a Defended claim, and Intervene awaits its outcome.
Samuel
Samuel noticed that his cell mate was in possession of a knife.
Anxious for his safety, Samuel contacted his brother, who was not a prisoner. He instructed his brother to alert Samuel’s prison as regards the location of the knife.
The prison found the knife. However, the prison then decided to unfairly adjudicate Samuel for possession of the knife, alongside his cellmate.
Samuel contacted Intervene for help. Intervene advised Samuel to try and remember the details of his phone call. This then would allow Intervene to contact Samuel's prison, directing them to the exact phone call he made to his brother, which would prove Samuel's innocence. Samuel was able to provide the necessary details. Intervene then collated the evidence and communicated it to Samuel's prison's Governor. Samuel’s prison then located and listened to the phone call audio recording, and subsequently dismissed Samuel's adjudication.
Patrick
Patrick was served two meals, one at lunchtime and one at dinner, which were pest-infested. Both meals contained salad produce and meat produce. Patrick only noticed the presence of the live pests, after consuming the majority of each meal and some of the pests. Patrick believed the pests to be maggots. Patrick showed the pest infested food to officers on both occasions, who agreed that the pests appeared to be maggots. The officers then assured Patrick they had recorded the incidents, and ordered him to dispose of the food. This order was in breach of procedure; the officers should have taken the food away to be properly inspected and processed. Patrick followed the unlawful orders to avoid reprimand.
Shortly after consuming the two maggot-infested meals, Patrick began to feel unwell and suffered serious food poisoning. Patrick alerted officers and requested to be seen urgently by healthcare on three occasions. These requests were refused, and an officer laughed at Patrick when Patrick collapsed on his cell floor in pain. Patrick was eventually seen by healthcare the following evening, but continues to suffer the effects of the food poisoning several months later. Patrick experienced stomach pain, prolonged vomiting and diarrhoea, insomnia, nausea, weight loss, and a sharp decline in his mental health. Patrick’s anxiety significantly worsened, and he must now regularly seek mental health support.
Patrick submitted complaints as regards the presence of maggots in his food, on TWO occasions. He was flippantly told that ‘some things get through the net.’
Intervene then stepped in.
We challenged Patrick’s Governor as regards the food hygiene and safety practices in Patrick’s establishment. It would seem that his establishment does not carry out safety checks after food is prepared, and allows staff to work in the kitchens without the necessary qualifications. We have now submitted a Letter Before Action on Patrick’s behalf. We have asserted that both the preparation of the food, and the officer’s response to the contamination, were negligent.
Bobby and Hugo
Bobby and Hugo have been married for several years. They were sentenced together, and have resided in the same establishment since the start of their sentence. They were permitted to have regular contact with each other, which had an overwhelmingly positive impact on their mental health.
Several years into their sentence, Bobby’s establishment, without warning or justification, decided the spouses were no longer permitted to have contact with each other. Hugo was immediately transferred to a different establishment. Bobby and Hugo’s establishments then blocked all methods of contact, including visits, telephone calls and letters. This was the first time Bobby and Hugo were separated, causing them both to experience a sharp decline in their mental health. Both Bobby and Hugo experienced suicidal thoughts, however, their establishments did not provide them with mental health support when it was requested.
Intervene took on both Bobby and Hugo as clients. Intervene are persistently communicating with the Governors of both prisons as regards allowing, at the very least, the spouses to write to each other. Intervene further makes regular requests to Bobby and Hugo’s mental health teams for improvements in their mental health support.
Keep up to date with us on Twitter:
You can also give us a follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/intervene-project !!