Mother jailed over Southport post has bid to see daughter rejected
A mother jailed over last summer's riots has been refused temporary leave to spend time with her daughter and sick husband.
Lucy Connolly, who was jailed for 31 months for inciting racial hatred in a tweet, has been told by prison bosses she will not be released on temporary licence (Rotl) despite being described by one prison expert as an 'ideal candidate' for such home leave.
Documents seen by The Telegraph have previously suggested the 42-year-old childminder from Northampton faced being refused Rotl amid concerns over public and media interest in her case rather than any apparent failure to meet the criteria for temporary release.
In her plea for Rotl, Connolly cited a deterioration in her 12-year-old daughter's school behaviour which is 'totally out of character' and the stress being placed on her sick husband, Ray, a Tory councillor, who is suffering from bone marrow failure.
A HM Prison Service spokesman declined to comment on individual cases but said: 'To be eligible for temporary release, prisoners must be compliant with all prison rules.'
The prison service refused to say why Connolly had been rejected for Rotl but noted there are rules that dictate any contact with the media needs to be signed off by the prison governor.
Adam King, Connolly's barrister, who is leading her legal attempt to appeal against her sentence, said: 'We don't have the full details but this strikes me as very unfair and needs to be challenged.'
Connolly's husband said: 'I am very disappointed that my wife Lucy has yet again been denied Rotl. I'm disappointed this is what our country is becoming. Our 12-year-old daughter is struggling and she needs her mummy at home.
'This decision is not based on evidence in my opinion. Lucy is a good and kind person who has been a model prisoner. She has helped other inmates on the path to reform.
'Lucy has been entitled to Rotl since November but they have turned down every request. It's not nice to think they've got it in for Lucy but when she sees other prisoners who have done far worse crimes – like killing a child by dangerous driving – getting out, you think they're still making an example of her.
'Lucy was really calm when they told her she didn't get Rotl this time and would only be able to apply again in 12 weeks. Lucy has asked to be transferred back to Peterborough prison which is much nearer us. I hope they grant that so I can take our daughter to see her mummy once a week.'
Rotl is not a straightforward legal right but is considered a privilege. Prisoners can appeal against a decision through the jail's internal complaints procedure and ultimately to the prisons and probation ombudsman. It cannot, however, be typically challenged in court but inmates can sue for alleged abuse of prison powers.
Connolly was arrested after posting on X hours after the Southport killings. She spoke of mass deportations and setting fire to asylum hotels 'for all I care'. 'I feel physically sick knowing what these [Southport] families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist so be it,' she added.
She took it down within four hours after thinking better of what she had written in the heat of the moment but not before it had been viewed 310,000 times and screenshot. She was interviewed by police on August 6 and charged three days later. She has been in jail since, having pleaded guilty and then been sentenced in October.
Connolly has been eligible for Rotl since last November based on her prison time served. Rotl is open to inmates as a way to 'rebuild family ties' and allows for up to two overnight home stays a month.
The only offenders who are excluded under prison rules include category A prisoners, many serving time for violent, terrorist and sexual crimes; those formally listed as escape risks; and suspects facing extradition.
Asked to assess the process by The Telegraph last week, former prison governor Ian Acheson, who has advised the Government on extremism in jails, said: 'It can't be right that someone who is otherwise eligible is not being considered because of either the prison's failure to properly risk assess or her 'notoriety'. It would be perfectly possible for prison authorities to set conditions that precludes any media exposure.
'In my opinion and given the offence details and the background to her custodial behaviour I have seen, she ought to be an ideal candidate for early release to allow her reintegration to start. Many more risky individuals are walking free as a result of Labour's emergency mass release legislation.'
Rotl is decided by the governor of HMP Drake Hall in Staffordshire where Connolly was transferred at the start of the year.
Last week, a Ministry of Justice spokesman said: 'These are discretionary schemes, and each case is rigorously scrutinised, considering the severity of the offence, the prisoner's conduct and the potential impact on victims and the community.'
It is believed Connolly has qualified for an enhanced regime, a reward for good behaviour. Probation documents suggest her application for Rotl at her previous prison HMP Peterborough was delayed until a risk assessment was done.
One internal note said: 'It is not necessarily going to happen due to the public interest.' Another said: 'The media interest has been raised as an issue in terms of any future ROTL applications.'
She is also not automatically eligible for home detention curfew (HDC), where prisoners can be released as little as a fifth of the way through their sentences by being placed on electronic GPS tags with restrictions on the times they can leave their home.
Offenders convicted of racially aggravated offences are excluded from HDC unless they can show there are exceptional circumstances to override the ban.
Connolly is also seeking to appeal against her sentence, with a hearing due on May 15. Mr King, her barrister, is expected to argue the judge miscategorised her offence with a sentence wrongly based on intending to incite serious violence.
This meant she received a longer sentence than she should have done.
If it had been 'correctly' categorised under sentencing council guidelines, she could have been jailed for less than two years, which would have made her eligible for a suspended prison sentence.
Mr King will also argue the judge failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors.
These included an unblemished record, positive good character references, messages that she also sent saying violence was not the answer, that she deleted the post in 3.5 hours, and her emotional sensitivity to children's deaths after the loss of her 19-month-old son 10 years earlier in a major hospital blunder.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Yahoo
It's time meddling councils were put in their place
The days when a law-abiding Englishman could go through his life barely interacting with the state beyond the policeman and the postman are long gone. Even so, it is dispiriting to see the eagerness with which minor government apparatchiks seize every opportunity to infringe on personal freedoms and impose inconveniences on the population. Labour-controlled Hammersmith and Fulham Council's decision to fine a resident £1,000 for putting out his bins a few hours early before travelling away from home is a perfect example of the type of small-minded bureaucracy that permeates life in modern Britain. It fits all too neatly into a schema containing the proliferation of anti-driver Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and 20mph zones imposed against the wishes of residents, the excessive taxation of those who dare to own a second home, and the impression that local officials are all too willing to interfere and meddle in the daily lives of their residents with little sense of self-restraint. Hammersmith and Fulham has taken this logic further than most, with uniformed enforcement teams patrolling the borough and issuing fines 'day and night, seven days a week', without providing the safety and security of police officers. But establishing a specialist unit of jobsworths is merely a logical continuation of a broader trend across the country as a whole. A stranger arriving in Britain for the first time could be forgiven for believing that the primary role of local government is to restrict choice and wage war on convenience. It is hard to otherwise explain the sheer extent to which councils delight in imposing their whims on residents, and the sheer number of rules weighing down daily interactions with the public sector. Rather than viewing their role as providing services to the taxpayers who fund them, however, it seems to be that councils see their job as ensuring adherence to the most rigid interpretation of the rules possible, enforcing ideological conformity with ambitions such as net zero or biodiversity improvement, and – potentially – levying fines to help balance the books. The result is an unending war on convenience, and ever greater state intrusions into daily life that should rapidly be reined in. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
The tightrope Farage is walking on race – and why he can only lose
What were Reform playing at this week, apparently allowing their newest MP Sarah Pochin to ask Keir Starmer at Prime Minister's Questions whether he would follow other European countries and consider banning the burka? After all, it seems to have led to the resignation of their successful chairman Zia Yusuf. To answer this question, it is worth looking at Reform's other interventions on cultural issues in recent times. For there have been a number of occasions when senior Reform politicians have brutally engaged in the most sensitive and controversial cultural areas. There is a clear pattern. Just recently, Nigel Farage made clear he felt Lucy Connolly, the mother jailed for posting offensively on social media about the riots that followed the appalling murders of children in Southport, should not be in jail. Last July, Connolly posted on X hours after Axel Rudakubana murdered three girls in a knife rampage at a Taylor Swift-themed holiday club in Southport. She wrote: 'Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f---ing hotels full of the b------s for all I care, while you're at it, take the treacherous government politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these [Southport] families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it.' Politicians from across the political spectrum have said that the punishment meted out to Connolly was disproportionate. Farage went further than most, saying: 'The sentence that was given to her was absolutely excessive and while she should not have said what she said, understand there were millions of mothers at that moment in time after Southport feeling exactly the same way.' The Reform leader also recently said we need to choose which migrants from which countries come to Britain. At the same time, he has been vocal about the grooming gangs that existed across northern England, refusing to condemn some of Elon Musk's increasingly-bizarre social media commentary about the issue at the start of the year (Musk falsely claimed that the Home Office had sent a memo to police ordering them not to investigate alleged abuse because young women had 'made an informed choice about their sexual behaviour'). There are many other examples of Farage seeking to intervene on cultural issues, while carefully walking along a tightrope. In the past, when Farage was merely the most prominent politician in two start-up parties – Ukip and the Brexit Party – his strategy was obvious: simply to generate attention. At that time, he could say things which many (even most) people found offensive, because all that mattered was going up a few points in the polls by attracting small numbers of people who agreed with him. But Reform now engage in these sorts of culturally assertive interventions for a different reason: to provoke a reaction from opposing politicians, putting them in a hopefully impossible position with some of their working-class voters. That mentality was clearly at play when Pochin asked Starmer this week whether he would 'follow the lead of France, Denmark, Belgium and others, and ban the burka' – and Yusuf, before he resigned, seemed all too aware of it, writing on social media: 'I do think it's dumb for a party to ask the PM if they would do something the party itself wouldn't do'. And for interventions that don't involve a public question to the Prime Minister – such as Farage's pronouncements in speeches and Q&As – Farage and his team know full well that their influence in the media is such that political opponents will be asked for a response. The ideal scenario for Reform is for Keir Starmer, Kemi Badenoch, and their collective MPs to say, no, they do not agree with Reform's latest cultural pronouncement. The resulting clips, usually without the context of Reform's original comments, can look as if the politicians in question were going out of their way to, for example, support Lucy Connolly's imprisonment, or, in this week's case, for the normalisation of the burka. Reform seem to think there is no risk in campaigning like this. They assume their core and prospective voters will not be offended by their own comments, but might be irritated watching opposing parties disagree. And, to be fair, you could see that Starmer did not want to engage on the burka this week, presumably for fear of looking like he was going out of his way to support it. But this is another example of Reform being stuck in their own past. They still campaign like a little party, as if their primary objective was to get to 15 or 20 points in the polls, not to form a government. This week's intervention was a mistake, and not just because it cost them a competent chairman; it risked making the party look eccentric at best and sinister at worst. On the specifics of the burka, the opinion research is hard to read, not least because voters are nervous talking about it. While there has been little recent polling, in 2017, a YouGov survey found that 48 per cent would support a burka ban while 42 per cent would oppose it. My very strong impression is that most voters would not like to see significant numbers of people wearing the burka, because of the physical barrier it places between the wearer and everyone else; it is obviously also something which has barely been seen in this country, even as multi-racial Britain grew post-war. However, if they were asked to consider the implications of a legal ban, I suspect most voters would not want the state to get into the business of policing clothing, because they believe personal choice should be respected (yes, there is a debate about how much choice wearers have, but this will be lost on the majority of voters). Most voters would, in turn, be horrified to see women in burkas being physically barred from particular places, let alone arrested. While 'classical liberalism' in Britain is dying – and with it the belief in a small state – this would still cross a line for most people. More broadly, this cultural intervention, and others like it, will only dissuade Reform's next set of target voters to back them. Given their objective is to form a government, they need to get to 35 points at least in the polls to give them a chance (they are currently probably just shy of 30 points). This means significantly expanding from their base of disaffected working-class voters (who will always be their most important) and going after people who only recently voted Tory or Labour. The primary barrier, for these voters, is absolutely not that Reform is insufficiently Right-wing, or insufficiently patriotic, or culturally assertive. The primary barrier for them is whether or not Reform looks professional, mainstream (of sorts), and will focus on things that really matter and that other parties fail to engage on. This group of voters will not vote for a party which looks like a European populist party, or indeed the Trump administration. A recent poll suggested Reform's lead over Labour had narrowed by a couple of points. You cannot make this assertion from one poll; polls move all the time. But there is no doubt Reform has had a bad couple of weeks. Firstly, their implausible mini policy package which promised massive spending paid for by cutting waste; and now a pointless row over the burka which appears to have cost them a chairman. Their focus on cutting conventional immigration, changing asylum laws, stopping small boats, reducing the influence of woke and getting the police focused on real crime will appeal to most voters; and the other parties are struggling badly to answer these policy challenges. When it comes to winning over the public, they would be well advised to stay focused on these issues and leave the cultural commentary to others. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Post Office compensation chief let go after criticism by Sir Alan Bates
The Post Office director responsible for compensating victims of the Horizon scandal has been let go amid criticism of the process by Sir Alan Bates, The Telegraph can disclose. Simon Recaldin, who headed up the Post Office's Remediation Unit, is understood to have taken voluntary redundancy and left the organisation earlier this week. His departure comes ahead of the expected publication of the first part of a public inquiry report into the scandal, which will examine the compensation process and the impact on victims. Sir Alan, whose efforts to uncover the truth about Horizon, featured in an acclaimed ITV drama, criticised the overall compensation process last month and accused the Government of presiding over a 'quasi kangaroo court'. On Friday, a Post Office spokesman said Mr Recaldin's departure was a result of a review of its operating model and a subsequent 'Post Office-wide organisational design exercise'. The Telegraph understands that Joanne Hanley, who worked at Lloyds Banking Group for more than 20 years, is now covering a large part of Mr Recaldin's previous work. Before leaving for the Post Office, Ms Hanley was a managing director and global head of client servicing, data and operations for Lloyds' corporate markets. More than 900 sub-postmasters were wrongfully prosecuted between 1999 and 2015, when Fujitsu's faulty Horizon software incorrectly suggested that they were stealing money. A public inquiry into the scandal finished hearing evidence in December 2024 and the first part of the report is expected to be published in the coming weeks. Sir Alan has been highly critical of the various compensation schemes, which he described as 'quasi-kangaroo courts' in The Sunday Times last month. Speaking to The Telegraph on Friday, Sir Alan said: 'It's not so much as throwing out the people working on the scheme, it's more about throwing out the schemes – that would be my preference. 'We have got serious concerns about the transparency and the parity across the schemes.' Sir Alan, who won a High Court battle against the Post Office in 2019, said his latest compensation offer was on a 'take it or leave it' basis and amounted to less than half of his original claim. The campaigner and more than 500 other sub-postmasters who joined him in a court action have to apply for compensation through the Group Litigation Order scheme, now administered by the Government. Separately, the Post Office runs the Horizon Shortfall Scheme, set up for victims who were neither involved in the compensation scheme nor convicted as a result of false shortfalls. Mr Recaldin, who attended the inquiry for the second time in November last year to give evidence in its final phase, apologised when it emerged that staff involved in Horizon prosecutions were given jobs managing compensation claims. A former NatWest and Royal Bank of Scotland manager, he took on the position as head of the then-Historical Matters Business Unit in January 2022. When asked about former Post Office investigators, he told the inquiry: 'So my regret – and it is a genuine regret – is that when I came in, in January 2022, that I didn't do that conflicts check, check back on my inherited team, and challenge that. 'And that I absolutely apologise for, because I think that's something that should have been done.' A Post Office spokesman said: 'As part of the Post Office's commitment to deliver a 'new deal for postmasters', we have undertaken a review of our operating model to ensure we have the right structure in place. 'We have been in consultation with a number of colleagues from across the business, including the Remediation Unit. As a result of this Post Office-wide organisational design exercise, Simon Recaldin has left the business.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
