SATPAL RAM

Mr Ram’s incarceration arose as a result of an incident in which Mr Ram attempted to defend himself from a vicious, racist and totally unprovoked attack. During the incident, Mr Ram had glasses hurled at him by six thugs; he was verbally abused; physically attacked and was finally glassed in the face and on the arm. His main attacker died after he refused treatment for two stab wounds inflicted by Mr Ram in fear for his life. During the course of his trial, Judge Ognall, appeared to accept Mr Ram’s defence of provocation when he commented to the jury that “It is a matter for you but you may think that in those circumstances for you to reach a different conclusion (from provocation) would be fanciful to a degree.” After his conviction for murder, the trial judge expressed surprise at the verdict and accepted that Mr Ram had been attacked.

At Mr Ram’s unsuccessful appeal, the then Lord Chief Justice Lord Lane made a recommendation that Mr Ram should serve 10 years in prison. Mr Ram was convicted in June 1987 and the tariff date set by the appeal judge for his sentence expired in November 1996. Mr Ram is now in his 12th year of incarceration. Given that the trial judge was apparently sympathetic towards Mr Ram and that he has served the sentence recommended by the appeal judge, I urge you to accept that Mr Ram should not be further punished for his apparently uncooperative behaviour.

Since his conviction, Mr Ram, whilst accepting responsibility for the killing, has consistently declared his innocence of the charge of murder. Mr Ram believes that he was wrongly advised and poorly represented by his barrister at trial. Mr Ram firmly believes that if the circumstances of the incident had been examined by the jury from the point of view of a defence of self-defence, then the jury would have reached a ‘not guilty’ verdict. In fact, Mr Ram has unsuccessfully attempted to pursue a complaint against his barrister and appeal against his conviction on the grounds of his barrister’s failings (as well as other matters).

Mr Ram’s belief in his innocence has prompted him to spurn the prison regime. As a result, Mr Ram has received rough treatment at the hands of the Prison Service. During the past 4 years, Mr Ram has been subjected to the continuous assessment scheme which has often entailed a prison move after a 28 day period of behaviour assessment. During his incarceration, he has been moved 54 times. He has spent much of that time in segregation and has also had the number of visits allowed him severely restricted.

Mr Ram’s harsh treatment has discouraged him from cooperating with the authorities with the result that Mr Ram has been subjected to further punishment regimes. This, in turn, has severely limited the opportunities to Mr Ram to take up courses, work, voluntary work and develop positive relationships with staff whilst in prison. The prison system has, thereby, restricted the openings available to Mr Ram to show his full potential in these areas of skill. The large number of prison moves has also prevented Mr Ram from taking up any jobs or voluntary activities.

Professor Sashidharan (Director of North Birmingham Mental Health Trust and a professor at Birmingham University) who prepared a report to the Parole Board on behalf of Mr Ram, as part of Mr Ram’s application for parole, stated that, in his opinion, Mr Ram is emotionally stable and mentally healthy. In fact, he considers that Mr Ram presents no issues of concern emotionally or intellectually. He is a non-violent person and his release on parole licence will not imperil the safety of society at large.

In conclusion: given the circumstances which resulted in Mr Ram’s incarceration; the trial judge’s reservations about Mr Ram’s conviction; the fact that he has served his tariff; and the difficulties Mr Ram has experienced as a result of his incarceration, I urge you to accept that Mr Ram’s apparently uncooperative behaviour has, in part, been caused by the prison regime to which he has been subjected. I would also ask you to accept that Mr Ram has been more than adequately punished for the offence of which he was convicted and as such deserves an opportunity to be assessed for parole. In addition, I would appeal to you to accept Professor Sashidharan’s findings that he does not pose a danger to the community.