The IPP Disgrace

Probation Officers have long known about the disgraceful IPP situation and the subject has been discussed on several occasions, such as here in 2016. Like so many other criminal justice issues, the matter rumbles on with little sign of a solution in sight, despite many in Parliament trying their best. However a campaigning group, UNGRIPP,  is cautiously optimistic according to these Tweets and following a recent House of Lords debate:-

We are deeply disappointed that the proposed amendments to the IPP sentence did not pass, but we think there are important reasons to still hope for change. This thread contains a factual summary of the debate, what it means in plain English, and what may happen next.

Who’s who? the amendments were tabled by Lord Blunkett, Lord Brown & Lord Moylan. Lord Blunkett introduced the IPP sentence, but now advocates for change. Lord Wolfson is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, who represents the Government in the House of Lords.

We thank Lords Blunkett, Brown & Moylan for their continued support for change. All spoke about the injustice of the sentence, the incomprehensibility of its continued existence, its pain to families, & the moderate but nevertheless hope-restoring nature of their proposals.

Lord Blunkett thanked family campaigners & parliamentarians, & expressed the hope of agreement for ‘a modest way forward’. He commented on the ‘dispiriting’ evidence at yesterday’s inquiry session, underscoring why today’s opportunity was so important.

Lord Blunkett referenced the great number of psychologists & psychiatrists who have written to peers stating that, in their view, IPP is making it less likely that people will be able to change, and get out of this terrible, unsustainable revolving door.

Lord Blunkett expressed trust in Lord Wolfson’s commitment to finding a way forward, but indicated that the Government would not be willing to let the amendments pass when the Bill returns to the Commons.

Lord Blunkett emphasised the impact of collective action: “What has happened with the campaign, and with the pressure, and with the interest of people in this issue has transformed the climate and the landscape for going forward.”

Lord Blunkett called for a new guidance & procedures that took what is happening seriously, instead of “mouthing platitudes about an action plan”. Rather than a “trimming of the sail”, such changes would be “a lifeboat for individuals who deserve justice.”

We also thank Lord Judge, Lord Garnier, Viscount Hailsham, Lord Beith, Baroness Jones & Baroness Burt for their supporting remarks. Nobody spoke against the amendments. They had cross-party support.

Lord Wolfson gave the Government’s response. He stated that he wanted on record that he had read all the emails sent to him by families of people affected by IPP sentences, even if he did not reply to them personally.

Lord Wolfson stated that the Government recognises more work needs to be done, & that it intends to bring another amendment forward at the third reading of the Bill, to automate referral to the Parole Board after 10 years in the community.

Lord Wolfson stated that the IPP action plan was successfully reducing risk & rehabilitating people serving the IPP sentence. He referenced the inquiry & said the Government is looking forward to hearing its recommendations, but believed they were already doing effective work.

Amendment 79: an independent Commission to consider replacing IPP with other options. The Government believes that legislating to resentence people serving an IPP would cause an unacceptable level of risk to public safety.

The Government does not believe a Commission is necessary, given that officials already consult widely on measures needed to reduce the IPP prison population.

Amendment 80: reversing the release test. The Government does not believe this would have a material impact on release. It believes that altering the burden of proof would be unlikely to matter, as these decisions are made on the basis of a risk assessment.

Amendment 81: At the moment people can apply to have their licence lifted (i.e. their sentence removed) 10 years from first release from prison. This amendment sought to make that referral automatic, & reduce the time to five years (known as the “qualifying period”).

The Government will bring forward an amendment for automating referral to the Parole Board after 10 years in the community, for termination of an IPP licence.

The Government will not accept a reduction in the qualifying period from ten years to five, but they will return to this issue after the report & recommendations from the Justice Select Committee IPP inquiry.

Lord Wolfson stated that in order to provide reassurance to the House and particularly to the families of IPP prisoners campaigning for change, the Government is willing to look at guidance for the Probation Service, to minimise licence breaches & promote the rehabilitation.

The Government believes it is the role of the Parole Board to assess risk, but they are mindful of “the injustice of the revolving door”, and therefore to take the representations made seriously.

Based on the assurances made by the Government, the peers withdrew the amendments. Lord Blunkett said he withdrew on the basis of “not wanting a victory that would end in defeat and even greater hopelessness for those we are seeking to help.”

What this means is that the proposed changes to the IPP sentence will not go through to the next stage of the Police, Crime and Sentencing Bill.

The amendments could have been put to a vote, but they were withdrawn instead. The reason is that if they were voted in, they would still need to be approved when the Bill returns to the House of Commons. The Government indicated that this was unlikely to happen.

Lord Blunkett explained that, in light of the Government’s lack of support, a different route to change is now needed, one which stands a greater long-term chance of success.

What could that route be? We are still digesting the information, but we think there are some clues, and signs of hope. Here’s what they are.

First, the Government will table an amendment at the next stage to automate referral to the Parole Board 10 years after release. This is an extremely small concession, but it is the first time the Government has conceded to any legislative change since the sentence was abolished.

Second, the Government has made a public commitment to return to the idea of reducing the qualifying period from ten years to five years, when the inquiry reports. The inquiry may also make other recommendations, of greater substance than the amendments just defeated.

Third, the Government has – publicly – acknowledged that the sentence is unjust. Although it continues to talk about public protection, acknowledging injustice is a significant shift in its response.

Fourth, families were an integral part of today’s dialogue, including from the Government. The plight of families has become increasingly impossible for those in power to ignore.

Fifth, Lord Blunkett indicated that psychologists have written to peers to say that the IPP sentence doesn’t help people. They join Parole Board officials & judges in speaking out. We are approaching a place where everybody involved in the sentence condemns it.

We do not think that the Government goes far enough in relieving the desperate circumstances of people affected by the IPP sentence who need swift action, not vague assurances. We know there are no words to describe how people will be feeling.

We do not know what will happen next, but we think that the five signs we referred to genuinely offer some hope, and reason to carry on. We will carry on campaigning together, in the hope that the small change today will lead to bigger changes in future.

We would like to sincerely thank people serving the sentence, and their families, who put their trust in us. We will always act on your behalf, and we could not do it without your collective input, courage, dignity and determination.

We’re also grateful to the many criminal justice staff, parliamentarians, organisations and members of the public who support our efforts. Your actions send a message that the IPP sentence is condemned on all sides.

There has never been a more important time for everybody with a stake in the justice system to unite in sending a collective message that the IPP sentence needs to change. The sentence sows division between ‘dangerous’ and ‘public’. We are ALL the public, and we do not want this.

--oo00oo--        

Our submission to the parliamentary inquiry on the IPP sentence: End indeterminacy. Restore justice.

On the 9th anniversary of the IPP sentence’s abolition, we have published our submission to the Justice Select Committee IPP inquiry. This is made on behalf of people affected by the IPP sentence who contacted us. This post summarises the evidence they gave, and you can read our full submission here: UNGRIPP's full submission to the Justice Select Committee.

31 people submitted evidence to us – a mix of people serving the sentence and their families. Many more spoke to us informally. We ask everyone to take the time to read their words, their views, their painful & traumatic experiences, and what they would like to change.

Many people were too scared to submit evidence in case it had repercussions for their sentence, or they felt there was no point. This in itself is a damning indictment of the IPP sentence: it controls through fear and it undermines faith in the justice system.

3,125 people live under the IPP sentence in the community. 1,722 people have never been released from prison. 96% are post-tariff. A further 1,322 are re-imprisoned indefinitely on recall, often without further convictions. 276 people are in secure hospitals.

235 people serving the IPP sentence have died in prison. 70 of those took their own lives. An unknown number have died in the community, including through suicide.

On this day, we commemorate the people who have died while serving the IPP sentence. And we uplift the voices of people still living and affected by the sentence every day, including families.

In their evidence submitted to us, people used deathlike metaphors with tragic frequency. ‘Buried alive’, ‘served a death warrant’, ‘death is the only escape’, ‘grieving for someone still alive’. For this reason, we argue that the IPP has come to resemble a living-death sentence.

People were clear that the worst thing about the sentence is indeterminacy. Its devastating effect is the elephant in the room. The behaviour of people serving an IPP sentence is explained away by everything except the sentence they are serving. This needs to change.

People told us three things about indeterminacy. It is unjust, it is harmful, and it is not rehabilitative. The sentence has failed to deliver the balance of punishment, rehabilitation, and public protection that it was intended for.

People told us that the IPP sentence departed from common-sense notions of justice & punishment. People unfamiliar with it struggle to comprehend that it exists. Nobody disagreed that they (or their loved one) deserved a prison sentence. They wanted to seek justice, not evade it.

By breaking the social contract of punishment, the IPP sentence has produced a generation with no faith in the justice system. People serving the IPP sentence, their families and their children, live in a state of deep fear, mistrust and disenfranchisement.

People told us that the IPP sentence had harmed them emotionally, mentally, physically, financially & socially. People serving the sentence consistently describe a psychologically harmful triad of alienation, perpetual anxiety and hopelessness. Their families experience the same.

The harm caused by the IPP sentence does not end at the prison gate. It continues under the perpetual threat of recall. Under such circumstances, the deathlike metaphors used to describe the IPP sentence are unsurprising.

People told us that the IPP sentence made rehabilitation harder. They were frightened to be honest about problems, experienced extra strain on resettlement and family relationships, and it encouraged coping mechanisms (self-harm, drug use) that excluded them from receiving help.

The IPP sentence does not assist rehabilitation, it undermines it. Fear, mistrust, extra trouble securing resources, strained relationships, a push towards self-harm and increased exclusion all distort the effect of any rehabilitative help on offer.

The person who spoke to us who would be depicted as the most ‘successful’ by the sentence’s logics (released the soonest after his tariff expiry and the only one never to be recalled) described himself as “a broken man”. This is not success, but survival at great cost.

A public protection-based sentence without fair punishment or rehabilitation is nothing more than warehousing & surveillance. Moreover, families of people serving the IPP sentence are members of the public. The sentence has not protected them, but harmed them.

People were clear about their favoured solution to the IPP sentence: end indeterminacy. Any solution that falls short of this will not address the problems of the sentence. It is the single most damaging source of injustice, harm, and failed rehabilitation.

When presented with several solutions, people strongly favoured resentencing. We comment on which variants may address the problems people described. We urge the Committee to consider such an exercise, to restore a balance of punishment, rehabilitation & public protection.

People were also clear that post-release support needs to be fit for purpose. People serving the IPP sentence cannot simply be abandoned. They and their families need, and deserve, substantial help in overcoming the damaging impact of the sentence on their lives.

UNGRIPP was, at times, overwhelmed by the suffering reported to us. We would like to thank everyone who submitted evidence for their courage & dignity in telling their stories. This is our effort to raise their voices in a united message. End indeterminacy: restore justice.

In the coming weeks, both the Justice Select Committee, and peers debating the IPP-related amendments to the PCS Bill need to know what people think. Please use our evidence. Quote it, tweet it, tag people who need to know. Especially let your MPs know about it.

We especially need help from professionals & members of the public. We need to show that the sentence lacks legitimacy across agencies, communities, & anyone with a stake in the justice system. Whatever your relationship to IPP is, please unite with us to change it.