Psychologist backs release of prisoner in jail for 18 years for stealing a mobile phone in a street robbery

Martin Shipton

A clinical psychologist wrote a comprehensive report recommending the release of a prisoner who has spent more than 18 years in jail for an unarmed street robbery in which he stole a mobile phone.

Leroy Douglas, now 43, from Cardiff, was told he had to serve a minimum sentence of two years and six months before he could be released, but he remains trapped in a now abolished Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) jail term.

IPP sentences were introduced in England and Wales in 2005. They were intended for people considered “dangerous”, but whose offence did not merit a life sentence. In common with the life sentence it contains three elements:

A minimum term that a person must spend in prison, judged to be a just dessert for the crime committed.

Detention in prison for a potentially unlimited period until the person can prove that they are no longer a threat to the public.

Release back into the community on licence, with the potential of being returned to custody.

Human rights concerns

IPP sentences were scrapped in 2012 due to human rights concerns, but that didn’t lead to the automatic release of those already in prison under the provision. Instead they must await a decision from the Parole Board that they are safe to release. Of 2,614 people still incarcerated on an IPP jail term, 127 prisoners like Mr Douglas have served at least 15 years longer than their original minimum term. He is understood to be one of 186 people who have served at least five times longer than their original sentence.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Dr Alice Edwards, has warned the UK Government that it is “very likely” breaching some IPP prisoners’ human rights. She recently issued a fresh call for the government to resentence those trapped in jail by IPP.

Mr Douglas was denied release at his last parole hearing in 2023, despite a psychologist recommending he be freed.

Nation.Cymru has been given sight of the report, written by clinical psychologist Dr Karyn Mannix.

In the report Dr Mannix describes adverse childhood experiences to which Mr Douglas was exposed.

‘Dock Boys’ gang

She states: “At the age of 14, it is reported that Mr Douglas joined the ‘Dock Boys’ gang, many of whom were older than him, and he became involved in acquisitive crime to fund cannabis use. Mr Douglas has reported that such behaviours were seen as ‘normal’ in his social world and amongst his peer group at the time.

“It has been reported that in the ‘Dock Boys’ gang, the younger members were made to steal by older ones and that as a whole, the gang had a violent reputation and was involved in shooting and stabbings related to drugs. There is no evidence that Mr Douglas was directly involved with this, but he has acknowledged holding drugs and weapons.”

At the age of 21 the seriousness of his offending escalated and he received a four-year sentence for a series of offences which included a robbery, conduct tending to pervert the course of justice and a number of thefts.

A few weeks after being released on licence, he engaged in a street robbery in which he stole the victim’s mobile phone.

The report states: “Mr Douglas was aged 24 at the time and living a chaotic lifestyle, dominated by drug use and pro-criminal attitudes. Mr Douglas has since explained that he committed this offence as he wanted to get arrested so that he could receive a community order for drug treatment.”

Describing his behaviour in prison, Dr Mannix states: “In custody, there has been no reliable evidence that Mr Douglas ever used physical violence towards staff or fellow prisoners (despite being assaulted on occasions).

“In prison, Mr Douglas has engaged in vocational and educational opportunities and has held positions of employment; however, his location in segregation, self-reported fears for his safety, and prison moves have often hindered his engagement in employment.

“ … Throughout his sentence, Mr Douglas has accumulated a long history of warnings, adjudications and segregations, and there was a period when he was moved around establishments every 60 days. There appears to be a pattern to his behaviours whereby he engages in difficult behaviours (such as dirty protests) in response to feeling mistreated, unsafe and targeted, and/or not listened to and wanting to achieve moves to segregation, VP [vulnerable prisoner] wings and/or other prisons.

“ … Mr Douglas presents as someone who continues to feel mistreated by and a victim of the system and who defends against this, using a similar set of behaviours that have been labelled as controlling, forceful, dominating and aggressive. In interview, Mr Douglkas did not attempt to minimise his previous use of violence, but he was clear that he does not feel it deserves him to remain in prison 18 years later. He accepted, to some degree, that he can behave in ways in prison which hinder his progression and potentially exaggerate / confuse professionals’ understanding of his risk, but he feels many of his adjudications have been for ‘petty things’ rather than risk related, and he feels his positive behaviours get ignored, such as all the course work he has completed, the reduction in his anti-authority attitudes and mentality.”

Hopelessness

Dr Mannix concludes her assessment by stating: “In terms of pathways, I~ do not assess Mr Douglas as having unmet treatment needs or needing to remain in closed conditions. I~ feel continued incarceration will only amplify his significant feelings of hopelessness and continue to destabilise him. This would not, however, indicate that he is an increased risk of serious harm to the public.

“Mr Douglas has not engaged in serious violence for many years and in my view meets the test for release … I am supportive of Mr Douglas’s release on licence in principle, but only if there is clarity in terms of a viable risk management plan which prioritises management of his personality traits and resettlement needs.”

Despite Dr Mannix’s recommendation, the Parole Board decided not to release Mr Douglas. His legal team has questioned the decision, pointing out that in the Parole Board’s decision report, Mr Douglas was referred to as Mr Warren – a name he has never had.

In a submission calling on the Parole Board to reconsider its decision, it is stated on Mr Douglas’ behalf: “On the face of it, this looks like a typo or a more general mistake. However, placed into the context of a decision dealing with liberty and refusing progression for Mr Douglas, this is more of a concern. Mr Douglas would expect that in making a decision in his case, the basic facts and his name would be recorded correctly. To make such a basic error in the decision letter throws doubt onto the care taken in deliberating, reaching and communicating this decision.”

Incompetence

In a message to Nation.Cymru from HMP Stocken in Rutland, Mr Douglas said: “I’ve done 37 offending behaviour courses to reduce perceived risks.

“With no violence or drug use in jail, and all drugs tests negative, the Parole Board’s incompetence is what has directly kept me in jail.

“They couldn’t even get my name correct. As the report proves, I’m not Mr Warren. That should have demonstrated that the Parole Board is incompetent. It’s in the public interest to know what they are subjecting me to.”

Speaking generally about IPP sentences, a Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “It is right that IPP sentences were abolished. With public protection as the number one priority, the Lord Chancellor is working with organisations and campaign groups to ensure appropriate action is taken to support those still serving these sentences, such as improved access to mental health support and rehabilitation programmes.”