Gransnet forums

Chat

Baby P's mother to be released

(357 Posts)
snowberryZ Thu 05-May-22 17:59:51

Who makes these decisions?confused

news.sky.com/story/baby-p-tracey-connelly-set-to-be-released-from-prison-after-government-challenge-rejected-12606001

OakDryad Fri 06-May-22 11:16:47

We just don't know Callistemon21 . There was a 2018 Review of the law, policy and procedure relating to Parole Board decisions presented by David Gauke the then Secretary of State for Justice which states:

First, we will immediately increase the transparency of the parole process by amending Rule 25 to remove the blanket ban that prevents the Parole Board from disclosing information about its decision making. While this initial action is in line with the ruling of the judicial review on the Worboys case, we envision more transparency in the system in future.

Gauke resigned from post following the 2019 Tory leadership election.

Did those proposals get any further? Does anybody know? I don't have time today to follow this up.

Annaram1 Fri 06-May-22 11:20:39

It is not only Connelly but a lot of other people who have been in the news over the last year and found guilty of torturing and killing young children. For some reason judges are very lenient towards them and never seem to give adequate sentences.

These people are murderers and deserve life in a harsh prison where other prisoners can get at them.

Silvertwigs Fri 06-May-22 11:22:13

@ NotSpaghetti. My daughter is a senior social worker, I’m a paramedic and most of my fam are medical. We are constantly up against this rhetoric that you spout! When do they ever learn, bring on privatisation and accountability!! ?

Growing0ldDisgracefully Fri 06-May-22 11:22:57

I suspect that she will soon be recalled again, given her history of being unable to live without transgressing whilst on licence. I have serious doubts about the monitoring of any tagging she may be subject to, given the poor record of previously contracted-out tagging monitoring companies.
Being on licence means she will have to have regular frequent meetings with her privation officer. Unfortunately, that is not always a guarantee of success, though in many cases it is effective.

Silvertwigs Fri 06-May-22 11:24:22

@ Annaram1 just lump them all together in one disgusting dump.

I wouldn’t condone letting other prisoners get to them though. That would ruin the chances of some peoples rehab

JdotJ Fri 06-May-22 11:26:56

Volver, Will you be inviting her to Babysit???????

volver Fri 06-May-22 11:30:48

I don't have any children. Never have.

Maybe that helps me avoid having clouded judgement.

maddyone Fri 06-May-22 11:36:25

I don’t think people who have had children have clouded judgment per se, any more than I think people who don’t have children have clouded judgment per se. People don’t have clouded judgment, they have opinions. We may or may not agree with those opinions.

volver Fri 06-May-22 11:37:42

It was just a thought maddyone.

Doodledog Fri 06-May-22 11:41:25

Not being a suitable babysitter does not equate to being beyond redemption, does it? I know a few people who I wouldn’t leave with small children, but none of them is a criminal, so I don’t see the equivalence there at all. I’m sure that there are many hardened criminals who are great with children, too.

There will be reasons why the people who have arrived at the decision to release Connolly have done so. Unless we all think that we should be able to overturn their decision based on some sort of superior instinct, but without having a background in criminology, or child protection, and without access to the relevant reports, we have to accept that they know more than we do.

MissAdventure Fri 06-May-22 11:42:54

As I have said, the minister for justice would disagree with you.

volver Fri 06-May-22 11:46:56

The minister of justice can ask for review of the case, I'm sure.

The minister of justice shouldn't be allowed to overrule the judiciary based on public opinion.

We're not living in an authoritarian or populist-run state yet.

MissAdventure Fri 06-May-22 11:49:30

Dominic Raab launches scathing attack on the Parole Board after it rejected his appeal against the decision to free the mother of Baby P, who died after months of abuse.

The justice secretary had claimed that the decision to release Tracey Connelly, who was jailed indefinitely with a minimum term of five years in May 2009, should be reconsidered on the grounds of irrationality, but a judge upheld the original decision.

It means Connelly, 40 – who was convicted of causing or allowing the death of her 17-month-old son, Peter, at their home in Tottenham, north London, in 2007 – could be out within weeks. Raab reacted angrily, proposing a “fundamental overhaul” that would curb the board’s independence.

Raab, who is also the lord chancellor, tweeted: “Tracey Connelly’s cruelty towards her son, baby Peter, was pure evil. The decision to release her demonstrates why the Parole Board needs a fundamental overhaul – including a ministerial check for the most serious offenders – so that it serves and protects the public.”

When it announced its initial decision in March, the board said that all professional witnesses supported Connelly’s release in evidence at the hearing and the secretary of state’s representative confirmed this recommendation was accepted. It added that witnesses told the panel Connelly posed a low risk of reoffending.

Connelly was released from jail in 2013 but was returned to prison two years later for breaching her parole conditions. She was subsequently refused parole in 2015, in 2017 and again in 2019.

The board said in a statement on Thursday: “Following the reconsideration application from the secretary of state, a judge has ruled that the decision made by independent Parole Board members to release was not irrational, as stated in the reconsideration application, and the original decision is upheld.”

Her release will be subject to her living in designated accommodation and strict limitations on her contacts, movements and activities.

Raab had also claimed that there was a failure to take account of all the evidence, excessive weight was given to the purported effectiveness of external controls and that insufficient reasons were given, but the judge rejected all of those arguments.

A power to seek reconsideration of a Parole Board decision if a party believes the decision was irrational or unfair was introduced in 2019 after the uproar surrounding its decision to release John Worboys, the black-cab rapist.

The decision to release Worboys was overturned by the high court in March 2018 after two of his victims challenged it and in November of the same year, the board overturned its own decision. But the political row led to the then chair of the board, Nick Hardwick, losing his job. He later accused the justice secretary at the time, David Gauke, of chasing headlines and compromising the integrity of the justice system over his handling of the case.

The legacy of the Worboys case was also behind the decision announced by the Parole Board on Wednesday to allow victims to attend parole hearings, after a government manifesto pledge. Trials will begin next month.

Connelly’s boyfriend, Steven Barker, and Barker’s brother, Jason Owen, were also jailed in 2009 for causing or allowing Peter’s death.

In 2020-21, the Parole Board released 4,289 offenders and directed that 12,154 remain in prison (74%). Of those released, 27 committed a serious further offence, a rate of 0.5%. Official statistics show that life-sentenced prisoners are significantly less likely than those who did not receive a life sentence to commit a serious further offence after release by the board.

MissAdventure Fri 06-May-22 11:49:54

He did.

Chestnut Fri 06-May-22 11:50:01

I would happily pay more for Social Services if I thought it would make them more efficient in protecting babies and children. But they would need to find staff who are capable. With every case we've seen there were countless missed opportunities where injuries were ignored, visits refused and the condition of the child overlooked. Excuses excuses excuses.

I also have very little faith in their ability to follow and monitor all these hundreds of child murderers once they're released. For years and years.

Camille333 Fri 06-May-22 12:03:10

She let an innocent child be bullied and murdered and now she's to be let out ,on benefits and housed at our expense ,able to have another defenceless little child.Wheres the justice?Can't understand why these dreadful women are not sterilised .

Nannashirlz Fri 06-May-22 12:07:43

Life should mean life and she should be given an hysterectomy or something like that to stop her from having more children. You can’t expect to kill someone then let loose two years later. Like nothing as happened. That poor little girl will never get a chance to live so why should she. Totally disgusting and anyone who thinks it right really needs to take a good look at themselves for thinking it’s right for her to be let out.

maddyone Fri 06-May-22 12:10:14

So she’s 40 now is she? The probability of her having another child is poor, but not impossible.

maddyone Fri 06-May-22 12:13:44

volver I know it was just a thought but best to think of it as opinions that we do/do not agree with.

I think that every single poster on here abhors what happened to little Peter. It’s how society moves forward with these very difficult cases isn’t it?
Nonetheless I feel that five years minimum sentence was very lenient but as history has shown, she’s served a lot longer than that.

nahsma Fri 06-May-22 12:19:21

I have no doubt that the Parole Board understands what it is there to do - carefully sift the information, look at the history - before making an UNbiased, NON political decision. Occasionally they get things wrong, which is unfortunate, but the Board members, like us, are human, and mistakes are sometimes made. Dominic Raab weighing in with a clearly political dog-whistle is vile. Remember Tories calling High Court Judges “enemies of the people”? When the government of the day complain because they don't like judicial decisions, we're on a very slippery slope - the Nazis used to complain about German judges… until they got rid of the ones who didn't toe the party line. That worked out well. Not.

HannahLoisLuke Fri 06-May-22 12:22:09

volver

MissAdventure

All if those things sound pretty reasonable for someone involved in the torture and death of their own child to me.
Nothing at all like a fictional TV programme, sadly for Peter.

Reasonable?

Sorry, I didn't realise we'd moved back to medieval times.

What she did to that helpless little boy was worse than medieval.
I’d have gone for the death penalty, there are just too many of these awful crimes, but of course we’re more civilised than that.
At least sterilise her.

volver Fri 06-May-22 12:33:54

maddyone

volver I know it was just a thought but best to think of it as opinions that we do/do not agree with.

I think that every single poster on here abhors what happened to little Peter. It’s how society moves forward with these very difficult cases isn’t it?
Nonetheless I feel that five years minimum sentence was very lenient but as history has shown, she’s served a lot longer than that.

But maddyone some opinions are not to be respected. Sorry. But that's my opinion wink

Anybody who argues for assassination, or forced sterilisation, or complains about how much it costs to keep someone in prison, has moved beyond rational discussion. And look at this thread; there are people raging about this woman; people who don't really know anything about the case, when it happened or even the sex of the victim.

It seems that there is a switch that goes off inside some people's heads that makes them irrational, and off they go, on the "string 'em up" pathway sad. And anybody who disagrees is considered some sort of apologist for criminals.

Daisend1 Fri 06-May-22 12:34:46

Any human being can do what this person did is worthy of ever again becoming a parent be it their own by birth or adoption.

volver Fri 06-May-22 12:35:05

nahsma

I have no doubt that the Parole Board understands what it is there to do - carefully sift the information, look at the history - before making an UNbiased, NON political decision. Occasionally they get things wrong, which is unfortunate, but the Board members, like us, are human, and mistakes are sometimes made. Dominic Raab weighing in with a clearly political dog-whistle is vile. Remember Tories calling High Court Judges “enemies of the people”? When the government of the day complain because they don't like judicial decisions, we're on a very slippery slope - the Nazis used to complain about German judges… until they got rid of the ones who didn't toe the party line. That worked out well. Not.

We're not allowed to mention Nazis apparently nahsma. Even when the comparison is very accurate indeed.

MissAdventure Fri 06-May-22 12:37:53

That is what babies tend to do to rational people.
Rationally, we should probably give up on them after being woken up every night for months on end.
Or when they have a tantrum because we won't let them eat sweets and watch "tellytubbies" at 2am.
It's a basic human response to want to nurture children and protect them.