Judge rejects sex offenders' claim
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Judge rejects sex offenders' claim
Five convicted sex offenders who deny they are guilty yesterday lost a test case challenge to the way Home Secretary Michael Howard has handled their cases.
A judge rejected their claim that Mr Howard was operating a "rigid and over-strict" policy which unfairly and unlawfully blocked early parole and enhanced privileges because their claims of innocence meant they could not take part in the prison sexual offenders' treatment programme (SOTP).
Rejecting their application for judicial review, Mr Justice Laws said "the very gravity" of the original offences meant that the starting-point for improving their conditions, or considering the question of parole, had to be whether they posed an "unacceptable future risk". He said: "It could only be dispelled by some material to show that the offender has changed, is motivated to avoid such conduct if and when he is released."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments