IslingtonTribune

Plea to MPs: Don’t throw away the key

Indeterminate sentences ‘rob young boys of their lives and families’

Friday, 25th November — By Anna Lamche

A recent photograph of Yusuf Ali

CAMPAIGNERS want MPs to end indeterminate prison sentences as they respond to a landmark Justice Committee report on ­Monday, warning that thousands of inmates are lost in the jail system with no idea when they will ever be released.

The practice of not ruling how long prisoners have to serve was introduced in 2005 but then abolished in 2012. Anybody sentenced during this time are stuck with IPP (Imprisonment for Public Protection) orders.

These include Yusuf Ali, who has spent most of his adult life in prison, and his mother Jacqueline, from Barnsbury, says she fears he will never live in “normal society” again.

Speaking to the Tribune this week, Ms Ali said: “They have to understand the implications of what has been done. These young boys have been robbed of their lives and their families.”

She had Yusuf when she was just 14 – the product of abuse while she was living in Islington’s care homes during what has been described as the “worst chapter” in the borough’s history.

He grew up in care until his mother could look after him independently. As a teenager Yusuf was caught up in a series of crimes including robbing a betting shop with an imitation firearm that eventually saw him put in prison, aged just 19.

Jacqueline Ali’s graduation photo in 1994 – Yusuf is beside her

Now 49, he is still there and has spent over a decade serving an indefinite sentence that sees prisoners held without a release date.

Next week MPs must respond to a report by the Justice Committee which described IPP sentences as “irredeemably flawed” and called on the government to undertake a “large-scale resentencing exercise” to give straightforward sentences to all those currently serving a term under IPP.

Speaking ahead of that debate, Ms Ali said Yusuf has “turned… into a zombie” after losing all hope that he will ever be released.

Ms Ali, who grew up in Barnsbury, said: “They’ve smashed any hope out of him of ever being released – they’ve murdered him, he’s walking dead. The shell of my boy is what’s there. It’s so painful.”

IPP sentences have become known as the “seven-year trap” – due to the window in which they were handed down – or “a life sentence through the backdoor”.

While judges no longer hand down IPP sentences, all those given the sentence before 2012 did not have their jail terms changed retrospectively when the IPP scheme was abolished.

According to the Prison Reform Trust, there are 1,661 people in prison still serving an IPP sentence who have never been released.

In the landmark report by the Justice Committee published in September, the government was urged to “address the unique injustice caused by the IPP sentence” by undertaking a “re-sentencing exercise in relation to all IPP prisoners”.

Fourteen-year-old Jacqueline with an infant Yusuf

Ms Ali said: “Re-sentencing, definitely, that would be great for anyone under IPP. Those convictions should not still be standing.

“All these cases should be looked at again, and they should be looked at independently.”

According to his mother, Yusuf now lives in a state of despair, and has developed a series of complex mental health conditions.

And her son’s sentence has impacted the rest of the family too, Ms Ali added. “It’s the complete dismantling of a family – the destruction of a family,” she said.

“He’s never going to be able to be in normal society,” Ms Ali said of her son. “[IPP prisoners] are going to need support, they’re going to need counselling, they’re going to need training and rehabilitation, and not just on a shoestring. They need to do this on a big scale.”

After being sent to prison as a teenager for the betting shop robbery, Yusuf escaped from custody during a six-year sentence and, according to his mother, “went on the run” for two years.

In the late 1990s, Yusuf handed himself in, and was given a life sentence with a minimum term of five years and seven months in 1999 for a series of crimes including robbery and driving offences.

Yusuf was still in prison in 2008 when he seriously injured another prisoner during a fight. Instead of being sentenced for grievous bodily harm, Yusuf was re-sentenced with an indefinite “Imprisonment for Public Protection” (IPP) jail term with a three-year minimum tariff. He is still in prison to this day.

In his letters to the Tribune, Yusuf described the criminal justice system as “sub­humanising”.

“I am trapped in a system,” he wrote. “A decrepit system, completely broke.

Yusuf as a teenager

“[The] system I subsist within [is] a machine of oppression, suppresses any efforts I try to make people outside aware of what is being done to human beings within the prison system.

“People really need to understand the true picture,” he wrote.

While Yusuf’s case has been considered by the Parole Board five times since 2011, he has had several hearings without any form of legal representation.

“Since the government did all the cut-backs, if you’re lucky enough to get legal aid, most solicitors don’t have the time to deep-dive into complex mental health and criminal law cases,” Ms Ali said.

“If I contact 50 solicitors, they’ll come back and say: ‘no, sorry, we can’t take your case.’ That’s happened to me. I’ve gone through the whole list.

“My barrister suggested I try to go pro bono, but nobody was touching it.”

A MoJ spokesperson said: “The number of IPP prisoners has fallen by two-thirds since 2012 and we are continuing to help those still in custody to progress towards release. These sentences were handed down by judges who decided offenders posed a significant risk to the public.

“Under the PCSC Act we have committed to automatically review IPP prisoners’ sentences 10 years after they are first released.”

• Contact IPP Committee in Action for support with IPP sentences

The Report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse October 22 p277-8

Under the Data Protection Act 2018, victims and survivors have a legal right to request copies of records containing their personal information. This is known as the right of access or subject access request… A record may need redacting if it contains sensitive information about another individual and if it is not reasonable to disclose that information.  As a result, accessing personal records can be a lengthy and complex process where the time limits set out in the 2018 Act are not met.

Victims and survivors have faced difficulties when requesting their records from institutions… Issues may involve long delays, procedural hurdles, and poor communication and explanations from the institutions… For some the search for records and the lack of communication and explanation was difficult and upsetting.

Victims and survivors may also need practical and emotional support when accessing their records. Reading records may bring back traumatic memories and cause distress. Records that are redacted may also cause frustration particularly if there is no explanation as to why they are redacted.

Recommendation 17 Access to Records

The UK government should direct the Information Commissioners Office to introduce a Code of Practice on retention of and access to records known to relate to child sexual abuse.

The code should set out that institutions should have:

• Retention policies that reflect the importance of such records to victims and survivors and that they may take decades to seek to access such records
• Clear and accessible procedures for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse to access such records
• Policies, procedures and training for staff responding to requests to ensure that they recognise the long term impact of child sexual abuse and engage with the applicant with empathy.

The Report of the Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse October 2022 p 277-8

Jewish child abuse victim recalls how a school pastor ‘made me admit guilt for death of Jesus’

Mike Bralowski, who says he suffered racist abuse at a council-run home in Essex during the mid-1950s, tells the JC both the Church of England and the local authority have denied responsibility

BY GEORGIA L GILHOLYOCTOBER 27, 2022 13:56

Abuse: Hutton Residential School in Essex, where Mike Bralowski was sent

A Jewish man who says he suffered antisemitic and sexual abuse from a pastor at a council-run children’s home has said the church denied responsibility when he appealed for redress.

Mike Bralowski, who lived at Hutton Residential School near Brentwood in Essex between September 1955 and 1956, also came up against a brick wall at Islington council, which sent him to the school.

It told him he was not eligible for a payment scheme set up for survivors of abuse between 1966 and 1995 because he was at Hutton prior to that period.

Mike Bralowski today

Mr Bralowski, 79, told the JC the school pastor made him admit in front of the congregation he was personally responsible for the death of Jesus, and later subjected him to sexual assaults.

He added that he was regularly subjected to a “kill the Jew-boy” chant at the school, whose headteacher told him he was a “worthless Jew” and beat him.But when he contacted the Diocese of Chelmsford in 2019 about the abuse, Mr Bralowski claimed it denied responsibility, stating that the minister accused of abusing him, Pastor North, was not employed by the diocese.

“He was a Church of England-ordained priest and his actions took place in a building consecrated by the C of E; the diocese’s excuses are nonsense,” said Mr Bralowski. “I recently attempted to contact Lambeth Palace [the Archbishop of Canterbury’s headquarters] about my experience, but they also stressed that Pastor North was not employed by the Church but by Islington Council.”

When Mr Bralowski reported his horrific experiences to Islington in 2020, he was told that he was ineligible for compensation because at the time of the abuse the borough was under the remit of the now-abolished London County Council.

Mike Bralowski as a young boy

A spokesperson from Islington Survivors Network (ISN), which campaigns for victims of child abuse from the borough, told the JC that it was “unjust” that survivors of abuse that took place before 1966 are not covered in an existing payment scheme for victims.
ISN also confirmed that 12 other people had come forward to them about abuse at Hutton Residential School.

Mr Bralowski, who has gone on to forge a successful photography career, said he suffered extensive physical and emotional abuse from his parents, and spent his childhood in and out of social care.

“My earliest memory is of a bitterly cold winter night being led along a country lane covered in snow somewhere in Kent, I must have been between two and four years old.

“My mother handed me over to an austere lady who forbade me to speak or show any emotion when my mother departed, made me strip and get into a very cold bed in a dormitory full of other children like me, unwanted and frightened.”

Aged 12 he recalls being moved to the “really horrific” Hutton Residential School. “The home was vast with probably 200 to 300 children, most of whom were from East London. I was the only child from a Jewish background in my house and suffered frightening racial abuse.

“Most of the staff and children were antisemitic and I would often be subjected to a chant of ‘Kill the Jew boy’, which terrified me.

“The headteacher, often ranted about how I was a worthless Jew-boy and beat me. On Sundays, we all had to attend church on school grounds where Pastor North was in charge.

“At Easter he made me stand in front of the congregation and admit that I was personally responsible for the death of Jesus, which earned me yet another bad beating and another night of absolute terror as the chants went on and on.

“Other students and staff including Pastor North also subjected me to extensive sexual abuse. I eventually ran away back to my parents but they phoned the school, demanding they take me back.”

Mr Bralowski reported still “waking up screaming at least twice a week” after experiencing vivid nightmares about the abuse he faced.

In October, a Lambeth Palace safeguarding officer told Mr Bralowski that they were “sorry for the distress and suffering” he had experienced, and suggested that he may be eligible for financial support through a redress scheme the church was developing.

They added that Mr Bralowski may receive an official apology from the church, though they could not confirm whether or when this would happen.

A spokesperson for the Diocese of Chelmsford said: “We looked into this case and offered support when the issue was raised with us in 2019.

“The priest concerned, now deceased, was employed by the local authority to run Hutton Residential School, and we provided details of a survivor network which includes a redress scheme for survivors of abuse at this school.

“The priest concerned never held a Church of England appointment in the Diocese of Chelmsford or any authority from the Bishop of Chelmsford to exercise ministry in the Diocese.

“We are aware of the courage it takes for survivors of abuse to come forward and share their story. The cases of abuse perpetrated by clergy and others in the Church of England over many years are a cause of great shame and we are committed to supporting anyone who has suffered abuse.”

A spokesperson for Lambeth Palace said: “We can confirm that a safeguarding officer at Lambeth Palace was contacted about this case and signposted the Church of England’s National Redress Scheme.”

In March 2021 Islington Council launched a £10,000 payment for people abused by paid staff and volunteers across 41 Islington children’s homes between 1966 and 1995 but Mr Bralowski is not eligible for this payment.

A spokeman for the council said: “We’re deeply sorry for the council’s past failure to protect vulnerable children in its children’s homes, which was the worst chapter in this council’s history.”

Islington Tribune, 25.06.2022

By Anna Lamche

FOR those in Islington’s childcare system before 1966, the “worst chapter” in the borough’s history has not yet drawn to a close, a man who suffered child abuse during the 1950s warned this week.

The council’s recently-launched scheme, which offers a £10,000 “support payment” to every survivor of the scandal, is open to anyone who suffered abuse between 1966 and 1995. But those whose abuse took place before 1966 are not eligible for the payment.

This is because, before 1966, London County Council (LCC) ran Islington’s childcare service. The London Borough of Islington was created in 1965, becoming responsible for the area’s childcare system the following year. This week, John*, 72, who was in Islington’s care system between 1950 and 1965, has decided to tell his story publicly.

A committed campaigner for justice with the Islington Survivors Network (ISN), he hopes to highlight the “unfairness” of his exclusion from the current support payment scheme. John was born in Holloway Prison in 1950. He remained with his mother for roughly eight months before being taken into Islington’s care system.

Throughout his childhood he was moved between abusive children’s homes, and foster care placements. At all times, John’s care was overseen by “childcare officers” based in 75 Mildmay Park, N1. In the 1950s he spent several years in Langley House, a care home where Islington children were placed, based in South Ockendon, Essex.

ISN recognises this address, open between 1952 and 1973, as a home in which abuse took place. John escaped Islington’s system aged just 15. “My life took off from there,” he said. As far as John is concerned, Islington Council should take responsibility for the abuse he suffered as an Islington child.

“They should man up and take their responsibilities seriously, at least pay some form of compensation to the people they hurt,” he said. “It’s not just me – all of them.”

John’s childhood abuse has cast a long shadow into his adult life.

“Any abuse, at that age, through your childhood – you remember all your life,” he said. “I used to have serious flashbacks to what happened until I was about 35. I feel I was completely and utterly used as just a piece of meat.

“They reckon 90 per cent of what you learn in life you’ve learned before you’re ten. So it never goes away. Some days what happened is quite vivid. Other times you suppress them.”

John said he was “furious” when he discovered he could not apply for the council’s scheme. “

They need to be brought to some sort of justice, or accounta­bility,” he said. ISN co-ordinator Liz Davies said: “This was supposed to be a goodwill gesture by Islington Council, having fully acknowledged the severe abuse that children suffered, going right back to the 50s. They’ve acknowledged that this abuse took place.

“Why on earth would they not be flexible in their approach, and honour their responsibility to the few [remaining] survivors who were in care during the 50s and early 60s? John came to Islington Survivors quite early on, and has been campaigning continually to get some justice.”

An Islington Council spokesperson said: “We’re deeply sorry for the council’s past failure to protect vulnerable children in its children’s homes, which was the worst chapter in this council’s history. All abuse is absolutely and equally legitimate and valid.

“The Islington Support Payment Scheme is open to applications from people affected by abuse while placed by Islington Council in its children’s homes between 1966 and 1995. The scheme was specifically designed for survivors who experienced abuse when placed by Islington Council in its children’s homes. It is legally and financially complex, and has taken a long period of time to develop.

“As set out in the report to Executive in October 2021, exploring the viability of further extending the scheme would have led to significant delays in opening the scheme to applications.”

* Last name withheld to preserve anonymity.