The benefits of killing and raping

[Gob]

Murderers and rapists locked up in psychiatric hospitals are challenging the British Government in a test case at the European Court of Human Rights which could see them win full State benefits.

The criminals detained at Broadmoor and other psychiatric hospitals claim it is discriminatory to prevent them claiming Income Support, pension credits or Jobseeker's Allowance, which are paid to some of their fellow patients.

None of the applicants has been identified but if their case is successful it will have far-reaching consequences.

The psychiatric patients bringing the case for benefits are:

* "FA" who was convicted of murder in 1995 and jailed for a minimum of 22 years. After being transferred to Broadmoor hospital in Berkshire in 1996 he was convicted of attempting to murder a fellow patient, and is now aged 44.

* Another man, "HB", received life with a minimum tariff of 19 years in 2001 for murder. He is now 63 and is detained at Broadmoor.

* "ALF", aged 40, was convicted of rape, attempted rape and indecent assault in 1999 and received life. Although his 10 year minimum tariff expired late last year he is still detained.

* "EM", who is 65 this year, received life for grievous bodily harm in 2003 and is at Thornford Park Hospital in Berkshire.

* The fifth applicant, "SS", 33, was released in 2007 from a 12 year sentence for an unknown crime. He now receives Income Support and Disability Living Allowance and is seeking damages for benefits he claims he is owed for his time in detention.

At the moment the patients receive between £18 and £21 a week in what the hospitals term the "pocket money rate" to spend in the hospital shop or by mail order.

They want Strasbourg to rule they should get full Income Support, worth £65.45 a week, or pension credits if they are old enough, plus damages to make up what they have lost since current rules came into force in 2006.

Peter Mahy, the solicitor representing SS, said: "Our case is simple. People who are in mental health establishments should be entitled to the same benefits whether or not they have been in prison before."

There are believed to be about 780 patients who are paid at the pocket money rate because they were jailed for crimes and later transferred to secure hospitals – such as Brady and Sutcliffe – or were sent to hospital at the time of being sentenced.

By contrast, their fellow patients who have not been convicted of a crime, or who were sent to the hospital by the courts rather than being sentenced, are entitled to full State benefits.

The bill to the taxpayer could be up to £2 million a year if the claimants win their case and all patients are moved on to full benefits.

Paul Bowen, the barrister for all five claimants, said: "I am confident this is a case we ought to bring. What does it say about our society that we are prepared to punish people when we send them to a psychiatric hospital?"

But David Davis MP, the former shadow home secretary, said: "Yet again this is not an issue of human rights but of lawyers trying to play the system on behalf of their clients.

"It is to be hoped that when the State tries to do the best possible thing, both for society and to rehabilitate criminals, that these efforts are not crippled by the meddling of the European Court."

Priti Patel, another Conservative MP who vocally opposed Strasbourg's ruling on the vote for prisoners, said of the latest case: "These are convicted criminals who have done heinous things.

"If you are found culpable, as these men were, you forfeit all rights to welfare benefits or compensation."

The claimants failed last year to overturn the current rules at the Court of Appeal. Last September they were refused Legal Aid for an appeal to the Supreme Court, and they submitted their full application to Strasbourg the next day.

In other claims being considered by the European court, Shaun Stokoe, 30, from Derby, was convicted of a sexual offence against a minor in jailed for three and a half years in 2008.

The Prison Service ruled that he could have no contact with his son, then aged two, while in jail which Stokoe claims interfered with his right to family life.

In the terrorist case, Waseem Mughal was jailed in 2005 for his involvement in websites inciting Muslims to wage war against non-believers in what Mr Justice Openshaw, the trial judge, described as "cyber jihad".

The 28-year-old was sentenced to seven and a half years after changing his plea to guilty part-way through his trial, after the judge indicated he would receive a sentence discount, but the Attorney General challenged the punishment as "unduly lenient" and it was increased to 12 years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... efits.html#

[Scooter]

Are they in psychiatric hospital because they have been judged not criminally responsible due to mental illness? If so, they are just like any other psychiatric patient who is being held due to incompetence and should be eligible for the same benefits.

If, however, their mental illness does not render them incomptent, and they are in psychiatric hospital solely to facilitate treatment which might not be available in prison, then they are prisoners and should only be eligible for the benefits allowed to prisoners.