The Ministry of Justice has at last set the date for the abolition of Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection (IPPs), in accordance with the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act of 1 May 2012. From 3 December 2012, no more IPPs will be handed down. But abolition, however welcome, is not retrospective: it doesn’t affect those currently serving IPPs, nor those who may receive IPPs between now and the 3rd of next month, although there seem to be some signs that the processing of applications for release by IPP prisoners who are past their tariffs is being quietly speeded up and improved.
This is the most welcome culmination of years of campaigning against a huge injustice in our penal system, supported by every significant civil rights organisation and expert but passing almost unnoticed in parliament and the media. It has been the subject of numerous posts on this blog and elsewhere and of literally many hundreds of comments on them, mostly from the relatives and other loved ones of IPP prisoners suffering justified fears that they may never be released, despite never having committed any offence serious enough to warrant a sentence of life imprisonment.
The problems facing those now serving IPPs are not by any means resolved, but at least we know that the relevant ministers and their department are aware of them; and it’s probably unrealistic to suppose that there will be a single dramatic identifiable move to resolve them. It will now be for each individual IPP prisoner and his family and solicitors to do whatever they can to remedy specific shortcomings in the management of their cases, appealing to their MPs and the Justice Secretary and their prison authorities and the Independent Prison Monitors and the local newspapers as appropriate for support, and doing everything possible to satisfy their parole boards that they have reduced the risk of reoffending on release to acceptably low levels. It’s bleak and obvious advice but probably the most realistic that can be offered.
Meanwhile it will be of some comfort to know that a major blot on our system of justice is within sight of being removed. If there’s one thing about it that’s a matter for deep regret, it’s that this long overdue reform owes absolutely nothing to the Labour party in parliament, whose leaders have been consistently ambiguous or even openly hostile to the abolition of this evil and unjust régime. The LibDems have remained almost entirely silent, and the sole credit for a brave and necessary reform belongs to a handful of Conservative ministers, including notably Ken Clarke and now Chris Grayling, the present Justice Secretary and his immediate predecessor.
(Hat-tip: Lorna Elliott, once again.)
Brian
So pleased this pathetic ill thought out sentence has been abolished, and not before time. Courses can still be given outside of prison, so, there should be no excuses now to free all IPP prisoners as soon as their punishment tariff is up.
Brian writes: Thank you for this. Yes, it’s a really welcome event, or will be on 3 December, next month. But I think it needs to be recognised that every case will still be assessed individually, that there will be no automatic releases of post-tariff IPPs even if they have completed and passed the courses prescribed for them, and that there are bound to be some disappointments in cases where the likelihood of re-offending looks strong. (Please also see my response to Mary’s comment here.)
This is indeed good news of a long overdue reform. Although many have fought strongly against this injustice, I believe, Brian, that your campaign will have contributed to the stirring of consciences – even if these are mainly Conservative ones! So well done and thank you. Let us now hope that those still held under IPPs will be dealt with expeditiously and humanely.
Jeremy
Brian writes: Thank you for these kind words, Jeremy. Sadly, I’m afraid you’re right, and that it has been Conservative ministers who have been the driving force behind the reform, and “New Labour” home secretaries who were responsible for introducing this appalling system in the first place — and for failing to abolish it when its fatal flaws became so glaring that they could not be ignored. But much credit also belongs to anonymous officials in the Ministry of Justice who discreetly worked hard to abolish IPPs, and who I suspect are now working to try to improve the management of those currently serving IPP sentences.
Brian, you have given credit to the people you think deserve it but I would like to add you to the list of people who have worked hard in this connection and deserve a whole load of credit. Thankyou on behalf of the people with IPPS and their friends and relatives – I myself have been one of the people affected by an IPP, as does one of my dear friends and we both appreciate all your efforts.
Like you say – there are still people being affected by the IPP and will continue to do so for a long time – we must all keep up the pressure to get these people released. The IPP has, and still is, negatively affecting hundreds of people and somehow the Government have to find a way of releasing people – particularly the ones who were sentenced prior to the change in the Law saying the the minimum tariff should be 2 years or more.
Thank you again Brian.
Brian writes: Thank you, Mary. In fact the hundreds of people like yourself who have contributed their personal experiences of IPPs to this blog and in other forums have made a much deeper impression on the decision-makers and opinion-formers than anything I have been able to say or write. I agree of course with what you say about the need to speed up the processing of applications for release by those who are still serving IPPs and who are well past their tariffs. But each of these 6,000 + prisoners will inevitably have to be individually assessed and that’s bound to take time, even if the requirement to do courses can be made much more flexible and other delays reduced.
My son has done 3 and a half years over his tariff and he wont’s come.This is a cruel sentence no only to the prisoner and their loved ones.my young children have missed out on 7 years of seeing their brother.They have not done anything wrong but feel they are being punished as well. please let our son out he has served his time and deserves to be home.
Brian writes: Thank you for this, Julie. I sympathise with you and your family. Obviously I can’t offer advice on individual cases such as that of your son. I can only repeat what I said in my blog post at http://www.barder.com/3826:
“he problems facing those now serving IPPs are not by any means resolved, but at least we know that the relevant ministers and their department are aware of them; and it’s probably unrealistic to suppose that there will be a single dramatic identifiable move to resolve them. It will now be for each individual IPP prisoner and his family and solicitors to do whatever they can to remedy specific shortcomings in the management of their cases, appealing to their MPs and the Justice Secretary and their prison authorities and the Independent Prison Monitors and the local newspapers as appropriate for support, and doing everything possible to satisfy their parole boards that they have reduced the risk of reoffending on release to acceptably low levels. It’s bleak and obvious advice but probably the most realistic that can be offered.”
Again, adding my thanks to you personally Brian, for all your hard work in keeping the injustice of IPP sentences on a front burner. We shall be writing again to our MP, as you advise. Our son has just received a disappointing – to put it mildly – knock-back at his parole, in spite of being nearly 4 years beyond his 18 months tariff. And his OASys risk of re-offending is assessed as ‘low’. So goodness knows what else he can do to satisfy the Parole Board. We really need to lobby for the proposed change in the release test to take affect, I think, before real progress can be made.
Brian writes: Thank you for this. I’m sorry that you have such disappointing news. However, my guess is that individual representations on behalf of your son (as you are doing) are more likely to be fruitful eventually than public lobbying for changes in the system. Have you or has your son sought advice from his prison’s Independent Monitoring Board, I wonder?
can you please tell me why a indeterminate sentence was handed down yesterday
Brian writes: Thank you for this. Can you please supply some details (in a further comment here or, if preferred, by email to brianlb [at sign] ntlworld [dot] com, without spaces)? If it’s a press report, which newspaper and if possible the full text of the report and a website address if it’s online? Otherwise the place, name of the court, name of the accused and of the judge and as much detail as possible of the offence and words used in sentencing?
If this was really an IPP handed down after 3 December, it should be possible to get it overturned. It will also be interesting to find out what guidance on the subject has been issued by the MoJ to judges and magistrates.
thanks for reply Brian, bbc digital teletext,two brothers from south cumbria were given indeterminate sentences with 6yrs 18 days minimum terms,if these sentences have been abolished,how and why can a judge still use this punishment? new sentencing guidlines should of been in front of him,clerk of the court,countless barristers and many other judges would of discussed this all week over a cup of tea,how come nobody mentioned it to him? Brian why why why should it mean going to court of appeal,more time more money more mistakes.
Thank you for all your help you have been great
Brian writes: Thank you for this further information, Al. I’m afraid that I now have informal legal advice that the abolition of IPPs with effect from 3 December applies to the date on which the offence or offences were committed, not the date on which sentence is pronounced. So if, as seems certain, the two brothers committed their offences before 3 December, and if their offences were ones for which IPPs were mandatory, the judge would have had no option but to hand down IPPs. If however the judge had discretion to choose between IPPs or ordinary determinate sentences, it would seem highly questionable, even perverse, that he should have chosen to impose sentences of a kind that have been almost universally condemned, including by the present government, and indeed that had been formally abolished before he pronounced them. No doubt the brothers’lawyer will consider whether this might afford grounds for appeal, although on the face of it the judge probably acted legally and I assume that an appeal can only succeed if it’s on a point of law (or new evidence, which is not relevant here). A more promising approach might be to appeal to the Justice Secretary or the Home Secretary to exercise whatever discretion they might have to commute the IPPs to determinate sentences, perhaps after consulting the judge. But I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know whether that would be feasible.
This is bad news. It means that IPPs will probably continue to be passed for offences committed before 3 December for many months yet. This poisonous snake is dead but it continues to bite.
PS: It is now established that IPPs may no longer be imposed for offences of which the offender was convicted before 3 December 2012 — please see later comments.
fascinating stuff,just when we think someone somewhere has listened, someone has had the courage to get the courts\gov\ lords to take note,another hurdle, another finishing line put in place,for some monday would of been a big stamp on the calender,no more mad sentences handed down only just ones,seems fair,or so we thought,those awaiting trial now will no longer be confident of any predicted sentence,could judges now interpret these latest sentencing guide lines wrongly? where by we might see indeterminate sentences handed down for offences committed before 3rd dec 2012 and in some parts of the country they decide not to,Brian could you tell us what about pre 2008 and 2003 and then 1997\1998? if an offence was committed in between these changes and sentenced now,guessing i would imagine the same as above, the judge can only by law hand down whats in the book,Anymore information would be very helpful ,see just when you thought you could put your feet up and have a rest we’ve got you at it again,
arise sir Brian and sir ken,mr Grayling the jury is still out on you.
Later: It Seems someone beat me to awarding the knighthood,I may be a bit late,next one up then.
Brian writes: Thank you for these. I don’t think there are any outstanding questions demanding further researches, for the time being anyway! Except that I would welcome an authoritative explanation by one of the lawyers who read this blog of whether judges have discretion to opt for or against an IPP for offences committed before 3 December, or whether for some or all such offences an IPP is mandatory.
Sentencing and dangerous offenders.
cps site
legal aid sentencing and punishment of offenders.
act 2012 transitional arrangements
hope this is helpful
Brian writes: Thank you very much for this. You refer to http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_and_dangerous_offenders/index.html, which says among other things:
This confirms that the key cut-off date is conviction before 3 December 2012.
Hello Brian, and happy Christmas to you! I wondered if anyone had heard whether or not the Government was going to appeal the European Court of Human Rights order to pay compensation to the 3 IPP prisoners who are unable to progress towards release due to the failure to provide sufficient offending behaviour courses? I understand the government was given 3 months to appeal, and the ECHR ruling was 18 September 2012. Many thanks.
Brian writes: Thank you for this, Helen, and a happy Christmas to you, too. I’ve seen nothing recently about this. Has anyone else?
Later: I have now heard on very good authority that the government has appealed. Regrettable, but not surprising, especially considering the potential cost to the taxpayer.
Hello, Please can you tell me if the Government are still intending to appeal against the 3 IPP prisoners compensation claims, and are they helping prisoners progress towards their release at tariff point yet? Thank-you.
Brian writes: Thank you for this, Martina. I understand that the government has applied for leave to appeal against the compensation judgement — not surprisingly, in view of the potential cost to the taxpayer of accepting it. I’m afraid I have no reliable recent information about any changes in the arrangements for processing post-tariff IPPs’ applications for release. I have heard that there may be some increase in the number of IPPs being transferred to open prisons but I don’t know if that is true. Have you tried putting your questions to your MP with a request that he or she might ask the Justice Secretary for the answers?
Hello again, Brian. Further to your response to Martine, 5 January, I feel that until the proposed Releast Test is imposed on the Parole Board, there will not be much movement of post-tariff prisoners, even towards open prisons. In my experience, and I attended my son’s last hearing just 3 months ago, the panel members are so risk-averse, that unless there is direction from ‘above’, nothing will change. Probably we can start writing to MPs (again), to ask the government, when – if ever – the release test will be enacted as well.
Brian writes: Thank you again. It’s obviously impossible to generalise on the basis of a single case. I simply don’t know the facts. It’s possible that those in Whitehall who want to speed up IPP releases prefer to do it discreetly, case by case, without stirring up controversy in the way that issuing a blunt instruction to the parole boards would be certain to do. By all means write to your MP again inviting him/her to ask the Justice Minister what action is being taken, now that IPPs have been abolished as being unfair and ineffectual, to reduce the delays in approving the release of IPPs as they pass their tariffs and where there is no specific justification for keeping them in prison (or words to that effect). But I would hesitate before either referring to a new “Release Test” or trying to encourage a general campaign for such a test, since either could easily produce the opposite effect to what we all want. It’s better to do good by stealth than not to do it at all.
Helen, Thank you. We will keep on campaigning.
Thank you Brian and Martina. I know what you mean about doing this with stealth. However, patience is wearing thin, and pejrsonally, I don’t think anything will change until the Release Test in LASPO is enacted. The members of the Parole panels are working to such narrow guidelines with the bar for release set so high, it is virtually impossible to get over it. For example, in our son’s case, the parole decision letter firstly acknowledges the following:-
1. Overall, he had been a ‘compliant prisoner with enhanced status and no adjudications.’
2. He had ‘completed accredited work and received positive reports, as well as benefitting from both courses’.
3. There was ‘no evidence of offence paralleling behaviour’.
4. He has been assessed using the OASys process as a ‘low risk of re-offending’.
5. There is no efidence that he is ‘likely to abscond from open conditions.’
Yet, release was not recommended, as he had ‘resisted the Better Lives Booster programme’, (which he did so as he could go for parole, it having been delayed over a year, and it being 3 years since his last.). So there is ‘no wholly reliable objective evidence that he has changed’.
So, still the emphasis just on course completion, and then more assessments, which would recommend more courses, and on and on. No-one dare put their head above the parapet, and recommend release. So our son now has a target date of at least March 2015, for yet another parole, when he will have served nearly 7 years, for an 18 months minimum tariff. I am sory, but this is not just. It is essential we keep on campaigning, as Martina says.
Helen, are you in the facebook IpP campaign, we are holding an awareness campaign in London on 14rh Feb. If you go on the site you can find details
http://www.ippprisonerscampaign.com/
Brian writes: Thank you, Martina. This is a useful and informative website, well worth a visit. But the e-petition to which it links seems to be closed.
Hi Brian, I will see if there is going to be another petition starting up soon, Thanks for taking time to check out the web site though.
Petition of IPP Prisoners Campaign:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/154/325/838/abolition-the-ipp-for-all-still-serving-the-ipp/
Not sure if this link can be accessed?
Brian writes: Thank you for this. Yes, the link seems to work!
Hello again, Brian. Back to IPPs, and the apparant reluctance of the government to enact the power to change the release test, (section 128 LASPO Act), and that there are now over 6000 prisoners, of which over 3000 are past their minimum tariff. Also, even though the release rate has improved, given that there were only 204 releases in the first 6 months of last year, so assuming there is a similar year on year increase, in another 4 years only half of the currently over-tariff prisoners will be released! I wondered therefore what your thoughts were on maintaining pressure on MPs etc, to ask the government to look again at this issue. Do you think it would be of any use our writing to Chris Grayling to ask him why he has decided not to use the power given to him by Parliament to change the Parole Board release test? Many thanks.
Brian writes: Thank you for this, Helen. I shan’t have time to go into this with the thoroughness it deserves (I’m about to go overseas for several weeks, mostly without internet access), but from a quick look at Sec. 128 of LASPO it looks to me as if it will not be enough simply to press the Justice Secretary to exercise his powers under the section: it will be necessary to give an indication of the sort of changes in the test for releasing IPPs that you hope for. You might for example urge the adoption of the kind of wording used by the former Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, in a discussion paper at least a year ago, possibly more (I’m afraid I can’t immediately find the text). I suggest that it will be a waste of time to demand that all IPPs should be automatically released on completion of their tariffs: even Ken Clarke gave a pledge that there would be no automatic releases and that every case would continue to be individually assessed before release could be ordered. I also suggest that instead of writing direct to the Justice Minister, Chris Grayling (which will probably get you a standard reply from an official saying that your views have been noted, you might write instead to your own MP asking him or her to find out from the Justice Secretary when he intends to exercise his power [etc] so as to ensure that in future parole boards will be required to [etc] unless [etc]. An MP will always get a proper reply from a minister to pass on to you, unlike ordinary members of the public, in most cases anyway.
You will have noticed that any change in the release test under sec. 128 will require approval by affirmative vote of both houses of parliament. A liberalising change such as we would both like to see, even if the hardline Mr Grayling were to propose one, might have difficulty getting approval from the house of commons as at present constituted (it’s unlikely that MPs would be given a free vote and Labour couldn’t be relied on to order its MPs to support a liberalising change, on past form). It’s at least equally likely that any change proposed by Mr Grayling would make it more difficult, not easier, for parole boards to release IPPs.
Thank you again Brian for your usual thoughtful and balanced response. I agree with you that we have such a hardline government now, and it is highly unlikely they are going to back down. However, I just feel we have to keep on bringing to the attention of people the injustice of what is happening. A psychologist recently admitted to our son, that it is not for what he did, that keeps him in prison, but for what he might do if released. This cannot be right. Anyhow, I wish you a safe journey and return from your trip abroad, and an enjoyable and interesting time whilst there.
IPP Awareness campaign 14th Feb 2013 meeting at Victoria Station, London at 11.00 a.m
IPP SENTENCE PLANNING. Please can anyone sign the realistc and acheivable petition, on the direct.gov.uk E-Petitions. web site ? Thank you.
Brian writes: It would be helpful if you could give the website address of this petition, so that visitors to the blog may judge for themselves whether they agree with the the terms of the petition and decide whether to sign it.
Hello Martine, My husband and I have just signed the petition, (under actual names). Wish there was more we could do.
Hi Helen, there is a Facebook campaign group if you would like to sign up. Also, you could write to express your concerns with yoyr M.P and Chris Grayling if you’ve not already done so.
Brian writes: Thank you for this. I suggest that you quote the website address of this group, since there are at least two Facebook groups dealing with IPPs, and many of us would not wish to join one of them.
Sorry Helen, after re reading what I just wrote, I’ve repeated myself. I have had a few responses from my M.P and Grayling, one of them through Twitter, last month through his Questions debate being:
Question: Please ask him about the IPP prisoners (indeterminate sentences) clogging up the prisons, with no hope of help or release.
From @anittina. Martina who has campaigned for the release of those serving indeterminate sentences.
The Minister’s response: “The abolition of the IPP sentence through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and
Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act has not been applied retrospectively: prisoners currently
serving IPP sentences will not be released unless the Parole Board authorises it, as now. However, I
know there is concern that those currently serving IPP sentences should be supported in
progressing through their sentence and reducing their risk. We will be using our best efforts to
improve the progression of these prisoners through sentence, including improvements to
assessment, sentence planning and delivery, and parole review processes and will continue to
monitor outcomes to ensure further improvements in this area.
IPP prisoners continue to be included amongst priority groups to receive rehabilitative
interventions, in order that their risk of harm is addressed and so that they are provides with the
opportunity to demonstrate to the Parole Board that they may be effectively managed in the
community.
The IPP population has now begun to decrease, whilst the number of releases continues to grow
year on year. As at 31 December 2012, the IPP population in custody stood at 5,920, down from
6,020 at 30 September 2012. There were 312 IPP releases in the first three quarters of 2012. This
is in comparison with 300 releases in 2011, 97 in n 2010 and 53 in 2009.
It is important to remember that the ECtHR, in its judgment of 18 September 2012 did not find
that the IPP sentence in itself was unlawful and the court found that there was no violation of
Article 5(4) of the Convention (access to an independent body to review the lawfulness of the
detention) as the Parole Board had been capable of ordering release of an IPP prisoner if satisfied
that the individual was no longer dangerous.”
Brian writes: Thank you very much for this important information, Martina. Mildly encouraging, but a long way from the kind of radical shakeup and redefinition of the criteria for post-tariff release that Ken Clarke obviously intended to introduce.
epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/46004 .
Just a follow-on from Martina’s posting of the 28 March, as our MP has today forwarded to us what looks like the standard response about IPPs from Chris Grayling. There is an additional paragraph, ‘The future indeterminate prison population is projected within the modelling for the ‘Prison Population Projections for England and Wales’ which were last published in November 2012. The population of IPP prisoners is projected to decrease with around 3300 IPP prisoners remaining in custoday at the end of 2018, in the central estimate.’ So a heck of a way to go yet then.
Helen, How slow can they go, 2018?