The hanging’s-too-good-for-them school of thought on penal reform will probably be unsympathetic, but a recent case shines a spotlight on how inadequate medical care in prison can lead to jail sentences that never end.This is a scandal that mental health lawyers have known about for a long time. Richard Charlton, chairman of the Mental Health Lawyers Association, says intellectually impaired or mentally ill prisoners have been failed by the system for many years. He says: ‘The courts usually impose a reasonably short tariff upon such offenders with the intention that a prison sentence will expose them to rehabilitation work and reduce the risk of their reoffending. In practice, such offenders do not react well to group sessions; they are mocked or embarrassed. They respond best to one-to-one psychiatric treatment, which very few institutions have the expertise or budget to provide.’

The result is ‘perpetual imprisonment’, Charlton says, with society footing the bill as offenders, unable to engage in rehabilitation work, remain in jail indefinitely. It’s a harsh punishment for being mentally ill or intellectually weak.

The case that has most recently highlighted this was brought by London civil liberties firm Bindmans on behalf of Dennis Gill, who had been given a life sentence, with a tariff set at four years, for wounding a prison officer. Gill has now served more than twice his tariff. This is because, and this is a depressingly familiar story, his learning difficulties have prevented him from taking offending behaviour programmes to prove that he is no longer a risk to society.

Effectively, when the case was brought, Gill was no nearer to being released after eight years in jail than he was on the day he was sentenced. He had made no progress towards liberty at all.

The case was heard in the High Court before Mr Justice Cranston, who ruled that steps should have been taken to provide Gill with ‘some type of offending behaviour work to give him the opportunity to demonstrate, eventually, his safety for release’. This had not happened. Cranston said: ‘It is clear to me that this failure cannot be justified. In the circumstances of this claimant’s case the secretary of state (for justice) has unlawfully breached the statutory duty imposed on him to take steps so that his practices, policies and procedures do not discriminate against this intellectually disabled prisoner.’ The justice secretary will now assess the claimant and take steps to provide him with suitable offending behaviour work.

Bindmans public law and human rights solicitor Sara Lomri says: ‘This is an important ruling and will go some way to improving the treatment that disabled prisoners receive nationwide. It is undoubtedly in the best interests of prisoners and public alike that offending behaviour work is provided to all prisoners, regardless of their disability.’

A Ministry of Justice spokeswoman, noting the judgment, said that the National Offender Management Service seeks to ensure that sentence plans identify appropriate opportunities for offenders to demonstrate a reduced risk of reoffending. ‘We are committed to providing fair and decent treatment for all prisoners,’ she said.

This is all good news. Something at last is being done to ensure prisoners with learning difficulties or mental illness no longer languish in jail indefinitely because they can’t cope with the intellectual rigour and social challenges of the offending behaviour courses.

Or that’s what we hope. Thousands of this country’s prisoners suffer from some sort of learning difficulty or mental illness. Is there the political will to do something about it? It won’t necessarily be a vote winner.