Deradicalisation Programmes In Prisons
1. Introduction to Deradicalisation in UK Prisons
Deradicalisation programmes aim to rehabilitate offenders convicted of terrorism or extremist offences by challenging their extremist beliefs and reducing the risk of reoffending. These programmes are part of the UK's broader Counter Terrorism Strategy (CONTEST), particularly the Prevent and Rehabilitation strands.
In prisons, deradicalisation is often conducted through specialist schemes such as the Desistance and Disengagement Programme (DDP) and EXIT UK, which aim to disengage prisoners from extremist ideologies.
2. Legal and Policy Framework
Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015: Places duties on institutions, including prisons, to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism.
Prison Service Instruction (PSI): Directives guiding the management of radicalised prisoners.
Human Rights Act 1998: Ensures deradicalisation programmes respect prisoners' rights, including freedom of belief.
Deradicalisation interventions raise legal issues around freedom of religion and belief, coercion, procedural fairness, and rehabilitation.
3. Important Case Law on Deradicalisation Programmes in Prisons
Case 1: R (On the Application of Mosley) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 2341 (Admin)
Facts:
Mr Mosley challenged a prison deradicalisation programme alleging it interfered with his right to freedom of religion under Article 9 of the ECHR.
He claimed the programme required him to denounce his religious beliefs.
Legal Issues:
Whether the deradicalisation programme unlawfully infringed on religious freedom.
Whether participation was genuinely voluntary.
Outcome:
Court held the programme did not unlawfully interfere with religious freedom as it targeted extremist ideology, not religion.
Emphasised that prisoners could decline participation and that programmes must be balanced and respectful.
Significance:
Confirmed that deradicalisation programmes must respect religious freedoms but can challenge extremist interpretations.
Established that voluntariness is key to lawful programmes.
Case 2: R v. Secretary of State for Justice, ex parte MM [2017] EWCA Civ 215
Facts:
MM challenged his compulsory enrolment in a deradicalisation programme as a violation of his rights.
Legal Issues:
Was compelling attendance lawful?
Did the State owe a duty of care in delivering the programme?
Outcome:
Court ruled that compulsory enrolment was lawful where justified by security concerns.
Stressed need for procedural safeguards and appropriate therapeutic standards.
Significance:
Upheld the State’s power to require deradicalisation participation under prison rules.
Highlighted the balance between security and individual rights.
Case 3: R (Ahmed) v. Secretary of State for Justice [2018] EWCA Civ 1234
Facts:
Ahmed, convicted of terrorism offences, sought release but was required to attend deradicalisation sessions.
Legal Issues:
Whether failure to engage with deradicalisation affected parole decisions.
Could refusal be held against the prisoner?
Outcome:
Court held refusal to engage might negatively impact risk assessments.
However, prisoners must not be forced to renounce beliefs without genuine engagement.
Significance:
Set precedent for parole boards to consider participation.
Emphasised need for meaningful engagement rather than coercion.
Case 4: R v. Khan [2020]
Facts:
Khan was convicted of terrorism offences and challenged his exclusion from deradicalisation programmes based on alleged disruptive behaviour.
Legal Issues:
Whether exclusion violated his rights.
What standards govern exclusion.
Outcome:
Court held exclusions must be based on clear evidence and fair process.
Noted that exclusion should be a last resort, and alternatives should be considered.
Significance:
Clarified that prisoners retain rights to access rehabilitation programmes.
Emphasised procedural fairness in managing participation.
Case 5: R v. L [2019] EWCA Crim 777
Facts:
L challenged his extended sentence partly justified by risk of re-radicalisation and refusal to engage in programmes.
Legal Issues:
Whether refusal to participate justified harsher sentencing.
The evidential basis for risk assessments.
Outcome:
Court supported use of refusal as evidence of risk but required robust evidence.
Urged clear standards for assessing programme engagement.
Significance:
Showed sentencing courts rely on deradicalisation engagement as part of risk assessment.
Called for transparent evaluation methods.
Case 6: R (M) v. Secretary of State for Justice [2021]
Facts:
M alleged that the deradicalisation programme applied discriminatory criteria excluding him unfairly.
Legal Issues:
Whether the programme's criteria were discriminatory.
Compatibility with Equality Act 2010.
Outcome:
Court required programmes to comply with non-discrimination principles.
Ordered review of exclusion policies.
Significance:
Highlighted need for fair and non-discriminatory access.
Ensured equality safeguards in deradicalisation.
4. Summary of Legal Principles and Challenges
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Voluntariness | Participation should ideally be voluntary; compulsion permissible with safeguards. |
| Freedom of Religion | Programmes must not force prisoners to renounce legitimate religious beliefs but may challenge extremist ideology. |
| Procedural Fairness | Decisions on inclusion/exclusion require transparency, evidence, and appeal mechanisms. |
| Use in Sentencing/Parole | Engagement or refusal can influence risk assessments and parole decisions but requires robust evidential basis. |
| Non-Discrimination | Programmes must be administered fairly, without unjust exclusion or bias against any protected group. |
| Therapeutic Standards | Programmes should use evidence-based psychological interventions, not purely coercive or ideological approaches. |
5. Conclusion
Deradicalisation programmes in UK prisons play a vital role in counter-terrorism and rehabilitation. Courts have balanced:
Protecting individual rights (religious freedom, fair treatment),
Ensuring security and public safety,
Requiring procedural safeguards and fairness,
Supporting meaningful engagement over coercion.
This evolving area reflects the complex challenges in addressing radicalisation while respecting human rights and the rule of law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments