An important report published today on the scandal that IPP sentences have become. Summary here:-
The Justice Committee has called on the Government to re-sentence all prisoners subject to IPP sentences. In a report published today, the Committee finds that the current regime for managing IPP prisoners is inadequate in supporting their specific needs and calls for swift improvement in the quality of support they are given.
IPP sentences were introduced to prevent serious offenders being released when still a danger to the public. Despite being scrapped in 2012, nearly 3,000 people remain in prison having been given an IPP sentence. In some cases, individuals have been imprisoned a decade beyond the tariff for their original sentence which could be as low as two years or less.
Under the IPP sentencing system, release is based on successful rehabilitation and prisoners no longer being deemed a risk to the general public. However, the Committee has found that inadequate provision of support services inside and outside of prison has led to a ‘recall merry-go-round’, with almost half of prisoners currently serving an IPP sentence having been released previously.
The Committee finds that IPP sentences cause acute harm to those subject to them, with the prospect of serving a sentence without an end date causing higher levels of self-harm as well as a lack of trust in the system that is meant to rehabilitate them.
The report calls for all prisoners currently serving IPP sentences to be re-sentenced, with an independent panel appointed to advise on the practical implementation of what is likely to be a complex task. It further calls for the current time period after which prisoners can be considered for the termination of their licence following release to be halved, from ten years to five.
Chair's comments
Chair of the Justice Committee, Sir Bob Neill said:
“IPP sentences were abolished a decade ago but little has been done to deal with the long-term consequences on those subject to them. They are currently being failed in a prison system that has left them behind, with inadequate support for the specific challenges caused by the very way they have been convicted and sentenced. Successive Secretaries of State have accepted that change needs to happen but little has been done. The decision must be made once and for all to end the legacy of IPP sentences and come up with a solution that is proportionate to offenders while protecting the public.
We appreciate that establishing a resentencing exercise will be administratively complex. That is why we have called for time-limited small expert committee to advise on the practical implementation of the resentencing exercise in conjunction with the senior judiciary.
There must also be adequate support systems put in place to ensure prisoners are prepared for their release and given the right support to reintegrate into the community.
We do not underestimate the complexity of this undertaking, but after a decade of inertia the status quo cannot be allowed to continue.”
IPP Overview
Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences were introduced in 2005 for serious offenders who were deemed to pose an ongoing risk to public safety but did not merit a life sentence. In practice, anyone convicted of any one of 96 serious violent or sexual offences who had also a previous conviction from one of a list of 153 specified offences was liable to an IPP sentence meaning that they could be imprisoned indefinitely beyond their minimum jail tariff.
IPP sentences were abolished in 2012, however there are still 2,926 people imprisoned under IPP sentences, including 1,434 that were recalled to custody having been released. 608 have been in jail for over decade beyond their original tariff, including 188 who were originally imprisoned for two years or less.
IPP prisoners are subject to acute challenges. The psychological impact of an indefinite sentence leads to feelings of hopelessness and despair, resulting in higher levels of self-harm and suicide in the IPP population. Prisoners also feel distrust towards the people and services necessary to support rehabilitation and secure their release.
Current support for IPP prisoners
The Committee is concerned by the lack of impact of the Government’s current action plan for dealing with the unique challenges faced by IPP prisoners. It finds the IPP Action Plan lacks clear strategic priorities and ownership to ensure they are delivered. It calls for a new action plan to be developed to provide greater detail on how IPP prisoners are to be managed and supported, setting out timeframes for delivery and performance measures to ensure standards are met.
At present, provision of offender behaviour programmes and interventions, designed to change attitudes and behaviours that can lead to reoffending, is poor. There is also concern that they are failing to deliver the outcomes they claim and there is a lack of transparency over how these programmes are evaluated. Given the central role successful completion of these programmes plays in the Prison Service and Parole Board assessment of prisoner risk level it is vital that they are accessible and effective.
The Committee calls on the Ministry of Justice to work with the Prison Service to ensure that there are sufficient places on courses to ensure access for all who need them. They should also publish what work has been done to assess the suitability of current rehabilitation pathways, and set out how they plan to improve delivery where inadequate outcomes have been found.
Release and recall
There are concerns that resource issues in the Probation Service and the Parole Board are leading to frequent delays, high staff turnover and inadequate training for board members. There can also be a lack of clarity and uncertainty around next steps following a negative parole decision. The Committee calls on the Parole Board to ensure that people serving IPP sentences are prioritised and only fully trained and experienced board members involved in their cases.
At present, once an IPP prisoner is released they will be subject to licence conditions and risk returning to prison if any of these conditions are breached. The licence term for IPP prisoners is in place for life, but can be terminated at 10 years. It can act as a barrier to the rehabilitation of offenders and be detrimental to their mental health. The length of the licence period may also be disproportionate to the offence for which they were convicted. The Committee welcomes the introduction of an automatic referral for the licence period to be terminated but additionally calls for the qualifying licence period to be halved from 10 years to 5 years.
According to most recent figures, 1,434 of 2,926 current IPP prisoners have been recalled to custody following a release. The Committee finds that much greater priority needs to be given to ending the return of IPP prisoners to jail and ensuring that they are able to live productive lives once they are initially released.
The Government should examine why recalls are taking place and establish a framework that ensures recalls are only used as a last resort. Probation staff should be encouraged to use alternative measures as much as possible, including adjusted reporting requirement, curfews or electronic tags.
Resentencing IPP prisoners
While it is clear that current processes for managing IPP prisoners are inadequate and need to be improved, on their own, the changes the Committee has recommended will not be sufficient to deal with the fundamental problems caused by IPP sentences. The Committee finds that IPP sentences are irredeemably flawed. It calls on the Government to bring forward primary legislation that deals retrospectively with the continued operation of the sentence and initiates a resentencing exercise for all individuals currently subject to them, both in prison and released on licence (except for those who have successfully had their licence terminated).
This will be a difficult, complex exercise and will require care to get right. The Committee recommends that a time-limited small expert committee be established, in conjunction with the senior judiciary, to advise on the practical implementation of the resentencing exercise.
The Committee recognises that resolving the IPP problem will not be easy. It recommends that the approach taken by Government and Parliament should be guided by three key principles. First, it must balance ensuring protection of the public from the risk of further serious offences being committed against ensuring justice for the individual offender. This will require adequate resourcing to be put in place to support offenders’ reintegration into the community. Any measures designed to protect the public from violent or sexual offenders should also follow current sentencing models.
Second, the independence of the judiciary must also be maintained during the resentencing process. Judges must be able to make a fair and independent assessment of the individual circumstances of each case and have discretion to determine an appropriate sentence. Finally, any resentencing exercise must be constrained by the general principle that a person should not be subjected to a heavier penalty than that which applied when they committed the offence.
About time!
ReplyDeleteI was forced to recall an IPP case, three times in just over a 4yr period. Once because an AP refused to give him a bed!!!
The deterioration in this guy whilst in custody was frightening to see. He back so insular and closed off before completing one of the worst pieces of self harm I've seen in my 20+ year career in Criminal Justice....
The whole system is a shambles.
MPs telling judges how to administer the law. Seems back to front to me.
ReplyDeleteI remember the probation training for the IPPs. It was an 'exciting' time. It was seen as putting probation centre stage and drawing on their 'expertise' in risk assessment. Any concerns about human rights and natural justice, or probation values, were brushed aside - or added to the Issues board! Then, when IPPs were introduced, risks were over-inflated and there were few qualms about supporting such sentences. Probation were wholeheartedly part and parcel of the disgrace.
ReplyDeleteThere's something fundamentally wrong with abolishing a type of sentence because it is flawed and damaging, and then just ignoring the plight of those that are subject to that flawed sentencing policy.
ReplyDeleteThe prison and parole system are difficult enough for IPP prisoners, but navigating 10 years of supervision within todays probation service without being subject to recall is neigh on impossible.
As the previous commentator points out being recalled is not always down to an individual's behaviour, but failings by the systems in place that should be there to help not hinder. Can't get a bed in an AP so the answer is recall to custody. That's neither fair or just to the individual nor helpful to the public.
The Government would have done well to look back at the problems caused by the Preventative Detention Act of 1950 (repealed in 1969), before introducing the IPP system which itself is basically about preventative detention.
Now however, having also repealed the IPP sentence, the Government must have a duty to address the issues of those caught up in a now defunct system.
'Getafix
The measures called for don't go far enough all IPP's over tariff should be released within a year. The licence conditions should be near zero with a guarantee of no further recall unless a crime has been committed. They should be given priority housing, purpose built if necessary and all the medical help they need. That would go a little way towards a just remedy for their illegal detention.
ReplyDeleteI know this plan entails risk but those IPP's are owed very belated justice.
I disagree. I don’t know what the solution is. But this is not it. There are lifers and those sentenced under the Crime Sentencing Act 1997 that are also unnecessarily over tariff. Then there are many wrongly sentenced under joint enterprise legislation. I do not believe all IPP’s should be released just like that. I think it’ll be difficult to commute sentences to determine one’s too. The better approach is probably a standardised and expedited assessment process for the parole board to decide who should be released and when.
Delete
ReplyDeleteShoddy review process sees ex-prisoners on probation committing murder and rape
Watchdog report reveals as many as two-thirds of repeat offenders were originally assessed as of low or medium risk of serious harm
Ex-prisoners on probation are committing 10 serious offences a week including murders and rapes, according to a watchdog’s report.
Justin Russell, HM chief inspector of probation, said around 500 serious offences were being committed every year by offenders under probation supervision, with as many as two-thirds of them having been originally assessed as of low or medium risk of serious harm.
His report warned that a third of the reviews into ex-prisoners who committed further serious offences were inadequate or required improvement, even though such investigations could help the authorities learn lessons and avoid mistakes being repeated.
He said “too many” serious further offence reviews were below par, failing to analyse why and how offenders were able to commit serious crimes after being released from prison.
In 2019-20, 74 people under probation supervision were convicted for murder, 54 for rape, 25 for manslaughter, 18 for attempted murder and others for kidnapping, arson and other serious violent and sexual crimes.
They made up around 0.5 per cent of all offenders being monitored in England and Wales, and the majority were being supervised after release from prison.
None of the offenders who went on to commit murder had been assessed as “very high” risk by the Probation Service previously, only a quarter were deemed high risk, 57 per cent medium and 11 per cent low.
Report warns of ‘optimism bias’ by probation workers
Mr Russell said: “Each incident will have a devastating impact on all those involved, which is why it is essential that the Probation Service learns from these awful incidents to improve the way it manages risk of harm and to support a reduction in reoffending.”
The report warned of “optimism bias” among probation workers, saying some were underestimating the danger posed by offenders and relying too much on internal reports.
“This is exacerbated by practitioners focusing on providing support, to the detriment of managing risk and delivering offence-focused interventions,” it added.
Probation workers were also failing to check whether the person was being released into homes with children or partners who would be put at risk of domestic abuse.
When licence conditions are broken, the report said that officials were “not taking enforcement action” and missing opportunities to put dangerous offenders back in prison.
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “Serious further offences are rare but have a devastating impact on victims which is why we conduct thorough investigations into each one.
“We are investing an extra £155 million a year into the Probation Service, helping us to recruit thousands more staff to improve supervision, information sharing with police and safeguarding services, and risk assessment so that the public is better protected.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/29/shoddy-review-process-sees-ex-prisoners-probation-committing/
Probation is significantly understaffed. What do they expect.
Delete