Ephems of BLB » Blog Archive » Indeterminate sentences: the double scandal

Indeterminate sentences: the double scandal

August 3rd, 2007

The Court of Appeal has ruled that it’s unlawful for someone given an “indeterminate sentence for public protection” (IPP) to be kept in prison beyond his ‘tariff’ (the period set by the sentencing judge as the minimum required for punishment, release thereafter being permitted on condition that the offender satisfies the parole board that he won’t reoffend) if he hasn’t been able to take one of the prison courses whose completion is a condition of release. It seems that a thousand or more prisoners serving IPPs are in this Kafkaesque, nightmare logical trap. In the words of Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison reform Trust, -

the High Court has rightly held that it is illegal to detain people until they can prove that they are safe but yet deny them the means to do so. The only wonder is that it took a court judgment to demonstrate to ministers the fault in their Alice in Wonderland logic. It is a life sentence in all but name. The only real difference is that it can be given for far less serious offences. The Prison Reform Trust has come across people given tariffs for their sentence of just 18 weeks. The tariff, as in the life sentence, is the minimum time that must be served. It represents the retribution or punishment for the offence. But even after the tariff, the person remains in prison until they have done the courses necessary to demonstrate they are ready for release.

But because of grotesque prison over-crowding and the low priority given to ‘education’ (including the courses required to qualify for release from an IPP) by the prison authorities, it is often simply impossible for an IPP prisoner to undergo the course required. Unless he has done the course, the parole board won’t consider him for release, even though he has served his tariff. So he has undergone the punishment imposed by the judge, but can’t be released because he can’t do the course that alone will satisfy the parole board that he is unlikely to commit a further offence. The result, as Juliet Lyon [left] points out, is that a person whose offence was so trivial that his tariff was set by the judge at a mere 18 weeks finds himself in effect serving a life sentence, the mandatory sentence for murder.

This trap — tariff served, no course available, no release possible, indefinite incarceration even though offence committed may have been minor — has rightly been denounced by all the prison reform bodies as well as by the Appeal Court; there are useful detailed analyses and briefs here (PDF) and here. But what these show is that the failure to make available the necessary courses for prisoners who have served their tariffs is only one part of the scandal. Indeterminate sentences are themselves a scandalous abuse of the system: ministers should never have introduced them and parliament should never have approved them, regardless of the availability or otherwise of the courses demanded by parole boards as a condition of release.

The whole concept of an indeterminate sentence which takes no account of the gravity or triviality of the specific offence for which it’s imposed is fatally flawed. Once the tariff set by the judge has been served, the offender has “paid his debt to society”, suffered his prescribed punishment, and ought to be entitled to be released. Continued imprisonment after the expiry of his tariff is no longer ‘punishment’, nor society’s retribution: it is indefinite preventive detention, based entirely on the farcical notion that some group of ‘experts’ can predict the future by making a judgement about the future behaviour of a person who may have committed a single offence in the past — and has been punished for it. The fact that the experts have apparently convinced themselves that they can’t make such a judgement unless the prisoner has done a course in prison, and that once he has done the course, they can, merely adds another dimension of fantasy to the whole crazy system.

This is yet another example of the government’s compulsive itch to lock up — necessarily indefinitely — people who have committed no prosecutable offence (or who have completed their punishment for an offence committed) but who anonymous officials or the police or security services believe may commit an offence in the future. Control orders are a particularly vicious example of this proclivity; prolonged detention without either conviction or even charge pending police investigations is another (and one which the new government actually seeks to make even worse); yet another is the government’s prolonged attempt to take powers in a new Mental Health Act to detain indefinitely persons suffering from an indefinable and untreatable mental disorder; and there’s more than a trace of it in the ASBO system, which imposes on young people whose offences have been inherently trivial conditions which are often so arduous that sooner or later the young offender is more than likely to breach them, and will then be sent to prison for the breach, even though the original offence was not by any stretch of the imagination one for which imprisonment was an available or appropriate penalty.

The urge to lock up people for offences they have not yet committed is a symptom of the disease of politicians who are irrationally risk-averse. There’s no possible logic in it. They could lock up half the population as being likely to commit an offence sooner or later, and still a proportion of the other half would continue to steal, murder, shop-lift, exceed the speed limit and plot violent terrorist acts. The justification advanced for this folly and injustice is that pre-emptive imprisonment is necessary for the protection of the public, which is the first duty of government: salus populi suprema lex. But the real motive is much less high-minded. Ministers responsible for this kind of gross abuse are principally concerned to mind their own backs. They are terrified of laying themselves open to the accusation by the Tories or the Daily Mail, or both, of being “soft on crime” or “soft on terrorism”. They seek to protect themselves against the charge, when crime figures soar (which they haven’t done for years) or terrorist atrocities are committed (which sooner or later they will be), that they had done nothing to prevent them, or hadn’t done enough. So they create a record of supposedly protective legislation to which they can point as evidence that they have not been ‘complacent’ (the gravest of political sins) or inactive in the face of danger — any danger. In trying to protect themselves in this way, on the pretence of protecting us, they have been steadily eroding our most basic human right, the right not to be imprisoned except after conviction and sentencing by a properly established court for an offence defined by law. Indeterminate sentences, with the surreal apparatus attached to them for permitting eventual release, are yet another example of rotten legislation, conceived by a panicky and unprincipled government and passed into law by a supine and negligent parliament.

If Gordon Brown really wants to make a radical change in the way the justice system has been perverted under Tony Blair, the early abolition of indeterminate sentences would make a welcome start. Don’t, however, hold your breath.

PS: According to the Prison Reform Trust, more than 3,000 indeterminate sentences have been passed over the past two years and that figure is expected to increase to more than 12,000 by 2012. The Trust points out that indeterminate sentences are in effect life jail terms that can be imposed for a list of 150 different offences. The sentences are being used for “relatively minor” offences rather than the hardened repeat offenders for whom they were designed. This is not a small-scale problem. We should be up in arms about it.

Brian

Posted on Friday, August 3rd, 2007 at 11:35 am in the category Civil Liberties, Politics. 150 Comments » Follow responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

150 Comments

From University Update - Gordon Brown - Indeterminate sentences: the double scandal

August 3rd, 2007 at 1:53 pm

[...] Wesley Clark Contact the Webmaster Link to Article gordon brown Indeterminate sentences: the double scandal » Posted at Ephems of BLB on Friday, August 03, 2007 Indeterminate sentences: the double scandal August 3rd, 2007 (No comments yet) The Court of Appeal has ruled that it’s unlawful for someone given an “indeterminate sentence for public protection” (IPP) to be kept in prison beyond his ‘tariff’ (the period set by the sentencing judge as the minimum required for punishment, View Original Article » [...]

From John Morrison

August 4th, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Well written, Brian. The Guardian (which seems to be a bit starry-eyed about the new government) should print more of your stuff.

My only doubts are about the rights and wrongs of detaining people who have untreatable personality disorders. It seems to me there will always be people who will have to be detained because their mental state poses a danger to themselves and the public. The distinction between treatable disorders for which people can be detained, and untreatable ones for which they can’t, seems to me bogus. Either can lead to violent and dangerous behaviour. I’m no expert but I have doubts about jumping up to attack this particular legislative plan on civil liberties grounds.

From Brian

August 8th, 2007 at 5:34 pm

Thanks, John. I agree that an exceptional problem arises over the handling of people with untreatable personality disorders who are deemed to be a potential danger to others and themselves. The government has tried, so far without success, to extend the scope of the Mental Health Act to cover such people and to allow them to be sectioned — i.e. detained, if necessary against their will, indefinitely, subject to periodic review by psychiatrists, social workers, etc. This though raises a number of problems. The phrase 'personality disorders' refers to people colloquially referred to as 'psychopaths', a category with no generally accepted scientific definition, means of reliable diagnosis, or known treatment (apart from sedation, which is not treatment in the relevant sense). There is a danger of defining as a psychopath someone whose behaviour is regarded as anti-social, which overlaps dangerously with the criminal field rather than mental health: we should never forget the way that Stalinist Russia sent political dissenters to "psychiatric institutes" where they were in some cases subjected to horrific abuse under cover of being treated for their alleged mental condition: to be opposed to the philosophy of the communist state was deemed to be evidence of a personality disorder. Another difficulty is that of assessing any person's future behaviour, especially when that person has no clearly defined medical condition. All of us are capable of harming ourselves or others if circumstances in the future drive us to behave in that way: who can predict whether such circumstances will arise in any particular case? And, finally, where are such people, once sectioned, to be confined? Not in prison, for they have committed no offence and can't deserve punishment. Not in hospital, for they can't be treated (the condition being untreatable), and would be using scarce hospital resources that would be better used for those who can. What is the justification for depriving such people of their ordinary rights, e.g. to family life, a job, visits to the cinema or the theatre, opportunities to learn an instrument or enjoy visits abroad?

My own conclusion is that the risk of injustice and abuse is simply too great to be acceptable, and that the drawbacks are disproportionate to the degree of risk that it is meant to address, especially when there can be no guarantee that the prediction of the future that's involved is likely to be well-founded, and when there's no way of verifying the accuracy or otherwise of the prediction. Anyway, it's bound to be open to abuse: and any arbitrary power like this, if capable of being abused, will sooner or later be abused. It's not worth it. Some risks simply have to be accepted. Other means of monitoring and influencing the behaviour of people with personality disorders may be devised and put in place, but there's no compelling case for locking them up when they have committed no offence.

PS WordWeb defines 'psychopath' as follows:
"Someone with a sociopathic personality; a person with an antisocial personality disorder ('psychopath' was once widely used but has now been superseded by 'sociopath')."
I think this strongly reinforces my point about the condition having a strong 'anti-social' element which in turn has a distinct political flavour. Taking powers to imprison — or at any rate detain — such people, perhaps indefinitely, without trial or even charge, not for what they have done but for what they might do in future, and not even to ensure that they receive treatment for their condition, is surely well over the brink of an extremely slippery slope.

From Dawn

August 13th, 2007 at 9:35 am

My husband is currently waiting for trial in september.To try to cut a long story short he has always had some kind of mentle heath issues going back to his child hood which have never been dealt with,as i am not a doctor i did not see the signs of my husbands "problems" rearing there ugly head again untill about 10 weeks ago we had an awful row over a terible thing i had said my sister was present and got involved the police came they sprayed his eyes and in the kerfuffle a pc ended up needing 3 steria strips the charges are a section 18 and 2 counts of affray we have been told he should expect an IPP my husband has always been a hard working good honest devoted farther our lifes are in pieces he had been on the waiting list to see a cpn nurse for months as he knew he needed help. He is suicidle with the thought of an IPP but who will listen to people like us ? As a last resort i decided to look up IPP on the net and came across your web page thanks for all you have wrote on the subject , although i still feel in the dark . Regards .Mrs.D.Smith

Brian writes: This is a very sad story. I am making some enquiries and if I can get any suggestions or advice from any of my legal friends, I will pass them on to Mrs Smith in a private e-mail, although I doubt if there will be much that I can say that is likely to help. If anyone reading this has any ideas that might be helpful to Mrs Smith and her husband in their plight, please send them to me by clicking "Contact" at the top of every page of this blog. I shan't pass on your details to anyone else but I will pass to Mrs Smith any useful suggestions that I might receive.

From wendy

August 17th, 2007 at 6:00 pm

my son got a indeterminate sentence, he has been in prison for 2 years and has only just started his first course beginng this month august. god knows when he will get out of there .He feel trapped not knowing were he stand and when he is coming home. He is 21 and made a mistake which was alchol related.it is a living nightmare for him and his family. It is his first time in prison and the last.

Brian writes: This, another very sad case, again illustrates the wretched injustice of a hopelessly flawed system. Even when a person is eventually able to take one of the prison courses which have been arbitrarily made a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for eventual release, even after the tariff set by the judge has been served, no-one can even begin to guess when or even if the prisoner will be released, and that deadly uncertainty is all too understandably described by Wendy in this Comment as "a living nightmare for him and his family". We don't know (and it's none of our business to know) what offence Wendy's 21-year old son, already in prison for two years, committed, nor what tariff he was given by the sentencing judge, but the fact that he's on a probation course after two years and that he has never been in prison before suggests that it can't have been the kind of offence, and that he can't have been the kind of offender, for which indeterminate sentences were originally designed. One lesson of this is that parliament and public opinion should never accept the assurances glibly given by ministers when some new draconian and oppressive proposal is being debated in parliament that it will be used only in exceptional and extreme cases. Once it's available to judges, prison governors, parole boards, spooks, policemen and prosecutors, you can be sure that they will use it whenever it suits them.

From Tony Hatfield's Retired Ramblings

August 20th, 2007 at 9:40 am

Indeterminate Sentences and Public Protection…. Here, Brian Barder discusses indeterminate sentences, and it's pretty clear that he doesn't think much of them. His analysis divides…

Brian writes: Rather to my surprise, Tony is severely critical of my condemnation of indeterminate sentences in a post on his own blog. My reply to his criticisms is in a comment on his blog, here. Please don't read the former without also reading the latter!

From kaystella

December 15th, 2007 at 1:57 am

The man I love is serving an IPP and he is innocent. It is due to allegations of a sexual nature.

He has been given a 4 year tariff so has to serve 4 years before he can even apply for parole, but he will most likely not be released then as they want him to do the sex offender treatment programmes and since he has committed no crime how can he possibly be treated for sexual problems he does not have? He has to prove to the parole board that he is no longer a threat to the public - but he was no danger to begin with! Unless he pretends to be a sex offender and takes the courses he may never get out! This is the crazy situation he is in because of this IPP. Please see details of my petition in support of the wrongly convicted as below:

PLEASE COULD YOU SIGN MY PETITION TO PARLIAMENT AND FORWARD TO OTHERS BY CLICKING THE LINK BELOW, IF YOU AGREE WITH THE CONTENT. I FEEL THE LAW NEEDS TO BE CHANGED TO HELP THE FALSELY ACCUSED AND WRONGFULLY CONVICTED WHO HAVE COMMITTED NO CRIMES BUT ARE SERVING LENGTHY SENTENCES IN PRISON NONETHELESS. AT LEAST 200 SIGNATURES ARE REQUIRED FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE NOTICE. THERE ARE 78 SIGNATURES TO DATE BUT THE MORE THE BETTER.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/OUTRAGEOUS/

MANY THANKS.

Brian writes: I have immediately signed this petition and urge everyone else who reads this to do so too. It illustrates two shaming injustices in our current laws and practices: first, the iniquitous requirement that a person convicted of an offence and sent to prison must "confess" his or her guilt as an absolute condition for being given parole, which puts a wrongly convicted prisoner in an appalling, heart-breaking dilemma; and second, the disgraceful system of the indeterminate sentence, under which a person who has served the full 'punishment' period of his sentence still can't be released until he or she has 'proved' to the satisfaction of the authorities that he/she will not offend again: a logical and judicial impossibility, often a practical impossibility, a shocking breach of the elementary principle that no-one should be detained except after conviction for an offence after a fair trial, and a monstrous burden especially for anyone who was wrongly convicted in the first place. Please sign this petition:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/OUTRAGEOUS/.

From Brian

December 17th, 2007 at 10:39 pm

In my response to Kaystella’s poignant message above, I urged readers of this to sign her petition, by visiting http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/OUTRAGEOUS/ and filling in the simple form there. I should perhaps have pointed out that to support the petition and thereby call for a change in this unjust law and practice, it’s not necessary to take a position on the guilt or innocence of any specific person who is serving an indeterminate sentence. Even those of us most deeply moved by Kaystella’s appeal on behalf of the man she loves have to acknowledge that we don’t know enough about his particular case to be able to form a definite opinion about the rights or wrongs of his conviction. The point is that some of the people given these appalling sentences will inevitably have been wrongfully convicted, and such people are subjected to the awful dilemma of having to choose whether to continue to protest their innocence (in the hope of eventually being able to clear their names), or whether to make a false admission of guilt as the only way to qualify for eventual release. Nobody should be placed in that dreadful dilemma. Please sign the petition regardless of what you think about any specific case.

From confused mum

January 5th, 2008 at 2:10 am

Hi Brian,

My son has been given a 13 year ipp sentance to serve 6-1/2 years before he could be paroled that is if he is able to do the courses and prove he is no longer a danger to anyone. I have been trying to find information and I do not understand if the 6-1/2 years is the tariff or is it the 13 years? I need to try to understand his sentencing, my son thinks he is serving a life sentence and may never get released. From the information I have found it is very worrying that prisoners do not seem to be getting the opportunity to be placed in a prison that run the courses.

Kind regards
Confused

Brian writes: I am replying privately to this comment, which puzzles me a little: if the sentence has a finite maximum length (i.e. 13 years), I don't see how it can be an 'indeterminate' sentence. Perhaps others can explain this seeming anomaly?

From Bob

January 6th, 2008 at 2:44 pm

The son (S) has obviously committed a serious offence for the judge to have handed down a tariff of 6.5 years. (It would have helped to know if S was under or over 18 at the time of sentencing, there being slight differences in outcomes.)

It is perfectly consistent for him to have been given a tariff of 6.5 years (i.e. the minimum time he must spend in jail) , this marking the half-way point in a sentence of 13 years – and for the whole lot to have been bundled up as an IPP. Before David Blunkett’s Criminal Justice Act of 2003 gave birth to IPPs in April 2005, S might have been given his 13-yr sentence, would have been eligible for parole after 6.5 years, and then released at the 3/4 point of his sentence ( at the latest ), or even before, if he satisfied the Parole Board. But he would have been under threat of re-arrest for any misdemeanour right up to the date on which his 13 -year sentence expired. But under David Blunkett’s bright scheme, after April 2005 the judge was made to consider whether S would be a likely danger to the public if released, even though he might have served his sentence and ‘paid the price’ for his crime. If the judge decided S was a danger, he had a duty to award an IPP sentence, which means that S could no longer look forward to automatic release at the 2/3 point of his sentence or earlier. Instead he will have to convince the Parole Board that he would not be a threat to the public if released. Which leads to the problem of insufficient courses for too many IPP prisoners, etc, which we all know about.

But there is a ray of hope. In December 2007 the directorate of the prison service issued instructions for IPP prisoners on short tariffs of 3 years or so to be treated henceforth like determinate-sentenced prisoners, not like lifers, as has been the case hitherto. This will mean more and quicker training, education and offending behaviour programmes to help them progress more quickly towards eventual release. This principle will ultimately be applied to all IPP prisoners, but is starting soon for those on shorter tariffs.

S sounds a bit confused about his sentence, i.e has he got an IPP sentence, of life ? If ‘confused’ will forgive my speculation, I suspect S might have been under 18 at the time of his conviction, since sentences imposed on under-18s who commit certain serious crimes ( e.g. murder, violent assault, rape, armed robbery) are more lenient than for over-18s, who would have got life for the same offences. (And life can mean life. Even thought the judge often recommends a minimum ‘life’ term of 10 years or more, no lifer is released until the Parole Board deems him safe for release – and this can be years beyond the term proposed by the judge.) But S can simply ask the prison authorities what his sentence is.

One further point for S to consider. Prisoners with determinate life sentences can be and are, of course, released. And rightly so. Despite what the Daily Mail earnestly preaches, rates of recidivism among released lifers are minimal. But they are ‘on licence’ for life, even when released, and can be recalled to prison at any time for breaking the terms of the licence, i.e for meeting certain people, visiting certain places, etc, which their licences forbid. IPP prisoners, however, when released can apply after 10 years – and every year thereafter – to have their licences revoked, wiped clean, abolished. But until that happens, they are on the same ‘licence recall terms’ as lifers.

I hope this helps. It’s still a very confused area. I work on the IMB of a London prison. I am not a lawyer.

From confused mum

January 25th, 2008 at 1:33 am

Hi, thank you for your help in making it clearer to me, my son was just over 21 years of age, it was not for crimes mentioned but he did commit a crime and understandably he needs to be punished, it is the first time in prison . He is serving an ipp sentence – and so is his family as we will not be able to look forward to a date of release. Let's hope that the courses will be made available to whoever needs them.

kind regards

From Suzie

May 30th, 2008 at 7:16 pm

Things have moved on slightly – if only in time. My friend is in a first stage – days before tariff expiry – dossier not complete – oral hearing date not given. He has done everything possible yet it looks like he will be recommended for Cat C or D? Why is this then? He has done all the courses and extra – yet it looks like he will not be released. He is gearing up for a 2 year knockback. He’s had to tell his kids no chance of coming home yet – and he doesn’t know when. Inhumane not being able to let your kids know. Previous comments state courses can’t be done but the reality is when courses are done it makes no difference – you still haven’t reduced your risk – until someone trusts you enough to let you show it – outside.

From mrs robinson

October 15th, 2008 at 3:25 pm

hi brian

in February this year my husband my husband was given an ipp with a tariff of 1 year 153 days. He has now served 1 year of his sentence but as yet has not even started any of these courses. He has been informed by the prison (garth) that the courses will take up to 3 years to complete which will obviously take him well over his tariff. My husband is eligible to apply for parole in March 09 but will have not completed these said courses: would that mean parole will be refused?

Brian writes: Hello, Mrs R. I am asking for some expert advice on this and will come back to you when I have it. My preliminary reaction is that IPPs were never intended to be imposed for offences attracting a sentence of imprisonment as short as just under three years (which would mean becoming eligible for parole at the half-way mark of around 17 months, which is roughly your husband's tariff) and that imposing an IPP in such cases is bound to cause problems. My other preliminary thought is that as a first step your husband probably ought to talk to one of the prison officers, perhaps the Governor, about the problem, and ask whether he will have to attend these courses as a condition of parole even if that means having to stay stay well beyond his tariff. If he (and you) are not satisfied by the answer, you or your husband (or if possible both together) might ask to see a member of the Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) at your husband's prison to discuss the problem (I suggest you look at the websites at http://www.imb.gov.uk/ and also http://www.ccjf.org/whatcanido/imb.html which has a good decription of what the IMB at each prison does).

I also suggest that you might read the comments on another IPP case above by 'Bob', an IMB monitor, at –
http://www.barder.com/ephems/696#comment-57784
– some of which may be relevant to your husband's case too. In particular, Bob wrote that:

there is a ray of hope. In December 2007 the directorate of the prison service issued instructions for IPP prisoners on short tariffs of 3 years or so to be treated henceforth like determinate-sentenced prisoners, not like lifers, as has been the case hitherto. This will mean more and quicker training, education and offending behaviour programmes to help them progress more quickly towards eventual release. This principle will ultimately be applied to all IPP prisoners, but is starting soon for those on shorter tariffs.

You or he might be able to ask the prison authorities whether this policy, introduced in December last year, could be applied to him so that he could take the necessary courses before his tariff is up, putting him in a good position to apply for parole then and not having to wait until later.

I will let you know if I get any further (or different) advice or information.

From Bob

October 17th, 2008 at 10:28 am

Hello Mrs Robinson, I'll try to expand and clarify what Brian has already told you. (A trivial matter to start with: I don't se how our husband has alrady 'done a year' between February and October…?) Anyway, here are some up-to-date facts on IPP prisoners direct from the Ministry of Justice:

1. It is NOT necessary for IPP prisoners to do approved courses to get parole, but it is by far the surest way to get it. Observation of their (changing / improving) attitudes, of their relationships with officers and others, how they react to psychological counselling, and other forms of behavioural assessment can help their case with the parole board (PB). BUT the courses (e.g. ETS – Enhanced Thinking Skills; SOTP – Sex Offender Treatment Programme; anger management, etc,) are accredited therapies, with attitude tests before and after, and thus are regarded as good evidence for the PB - more reliable than general observation. But even then, a prisoner might do a course and be observed to drift through it without signs of any behavioural change sufficient to persuade the prison psychologists – who write an end-of-course report on him – and thus the PB, that he (IPP are 98% male) represents a lesser risk to society than before. So he'll be refused parole despite having done a course. Nevertheless, courses are the best way forward.

2. There is no factual basis to the assertion that courses take three years. Even SOTP takes 6 only months. It's the waiting-lists that are long. But, as I said earlier in this sequence (Jan 2008), and as I was assured yesterday, there is a definite drive to get those IPP prisoners who are over or near their tariff date priority on courses. Garth is one of the prisons where this is supposed to be being done. So I think your husband should do some enquiring, as Brian suggests. I'm sure he will have already approached my own organisation, the IMB – as indeed he should. But please note – getting a PB hearing as the tariff expiry date is reached is a target for all concerned – prisoner, staff, MoJ. Try not to feel your husband is being denied a right. The Blunkett Criminal Justice Act of 2003 (which created IPPs as from May 2005) made life more difficult for everybody.

3. Your husband's tariff seems painfully low for an IPP prisoner. But the average tariff for all the approx. 5000 IPPs (in Sept 2008) is only about 3.8 years (the average being a rather unreliable measure, as we know; the median would give us a better picture). But average or median, it means there are lots of tariffs less than 3.8 years, and your husband's is one of them. And this is where I think Brian goes a bit over the top in his condemnation of IPPs. He seems to suggest that IPPs were designed for those committing serious crimes – murder, rape, etc – attracting long tariffs. But this isn't the case. They were designed to reduce the risk to the public of offenders repeating their crimes, some of them not serious enough to attract long sentences per se, but a menace to individuals or society if repeated, e.g. physical violence, frequent burglary, sexual exposure – and 150 other crimes capable of causing 'physical or psychological distress' to members of the public, but not comparable to murder, rape and so on. But it has got out of hand, with too many judges predicting unrealistic future dangers to the public. This has been realized, and money and effort are now being channelled into getting low-tariff IPP prisoners through their courses (preferably, as stated) and hopefully out of prison. There are recorded cases of IPP sentences being quashed on appeal because of a judge's misinterpretation of the IPP law.

I've gone on long enough. I hope it helps.

Brian writes: I am extremely grateful for all these clarifications, as I'm sure Mrs Robinson and her husband will be too. But without I hope being excessively touchy over relatively trivial matters, I can't accept Bob's dismissal of my comments on IPPs generally. I'm fully aware of the intention behind IPPs, as you, Bob, set them out. But my (and many others') criticism is that (like so many of New Labour's anti-terrorism and crime measures) the IPP punishes people, not for what they have done, but for what some group of men in suits think they might do in the future. The tariff set for each IPP specifies the minimum period of imprisonment required for the punishment and rehabilitation of the offender, subject of course to good behaviour; double the tariff by implication specifies the maximum time required for punishment and rehabilitation regardless of behaviour. After that double tariff has expired (and in the case of the well behaved prisoner, after the tariff itself has expired), the prisoner has 'paid his debt to society' and is morally entitled to be unconditionally released. If the IPP system keeps him in a day longer, he is being subjected to preventive detention, not for what he or she did, but because someone thinks he might do it again. This is contrary to the most fundamental principles of natural justice. The IPP is indefensible, and should go. If in our pitifully risk-averse society we are too scared to scrap it altogether, then it should be reserved for only the most serious offences: hence my proposal to reserve it for offences that would attract a fixed sentence of 15 years or more. What Mr Blunkett originally intended in imposing this misbegotten measure on us is neither here nor there. No doubt he's perfectly happy for it to be used against shop-lifters.

Murder is of course irrelevant to IPPs as it attracts a mandatory life sentence to which different conditions are attached, although there are similarities. Mandatory sentences generally entail another kind of injustice, but that's a different story.

However, I hope that Bob's other extremely useful information and comments above will both reassure and help Mrs Robinson and her husband.

From Bob

October 17th, 2008 at 11:40 pm

Brian, pax! No way did I intend my suggestion that you were ' going a bit over the top in your condemnation of IPPs' to be a 'dismissal' of your comments about them. I agree fully with your views on this shameful, careless piece of legal innovation. I should have cited more precisely that I was just taking issue with your last sentence on August 3rd 2007, i.e. : "The sentences are being used for relatively minor offences rather than the repeat hardened offenders for whom they were designed." I'm afraid this isn't strictly true. According to the (2003) act…" judges must impose an IPP on any person convicted of any one of 153 separate violent and sexual offences, if they believe, in the words of the act, that there is "a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm from the commission of further specified offences". This is the letter of this silly law – which replaced the 1998 ' Two strikes and you're out ' law ( hence the initial emphasis on repeat offending rather than on the most outrageous – but even that has gone by the board now, and first offenders are being subjected to IPP). But I agree wholeheartedly with your views on its disastrous, often inhumane consequences.

Brian writes: Bob, pax et vobiscum. I (naturally, perhaps) assumed that your reproof referred to something in my response the other day to Mrs Robinson, not to my original post of over a year ago. I accept that the words you quote were loosely drafted and potentially misleading: I should have written: "for whom, if anyone, they should have been designed." But since IPPs apply mainly, or perhaps only?, to "violent and sexual offences" whose repetition would constitute a "significant" risk or "serious" harm to the public, and since I qualified my description by the word "repeat" — and you confirm that the initial emphasis was on repeat offending — I don't think my original wording was as far off the mark as you suggest. We're down to pretty fine textual analysis now, though, and I'm glad that on the main issue we're in total agreement, as all right-minded people ought to be.

From Ginger

October 27th, 2008 at 5:49 pm

I am writing this letter as I am totally lost for words and at times I feel as if I am about to lose my mind. I need someone to vent off to! My husband of 48 years is in prison for a crime he did not do and took a plea sentence as to get this behind us and the plea was for a seven month jail sentence recomended by the parole officier and by our attorney. Our attorney told me not to worry as this crime absconding and (csc- touch) was not a prison sentence as to the way he scored out on the Michigan guideline and his past history at the worst would be a year jail time but was not a prison sentence. My husband has always respected the law and we have five sons whom he has set very good example for. The allegation made against my husband was made by my jealous sisters grand daugher as my husband had evicted her mother and brother and herself from a rental place we owned. Its a very long story so I won't go into details. My husband is a non smoker and drinker and has always provided for his family and is a wonderful man and person and has been in business for himself for thirty years as a cement contractor. When all this problems came our way it was almost too much to handle so we left for Kentucky to get away from my relatives. We were in Kentucky for almost a year when the US marshalls invated our home and arrested us. The law did not have to send the marshalls after us as Michigan law knew where we were at as my husband tried to take his life over this as we had lost so much due to the false allegations and the stress was unbearable. When he was released from the hospital we were told that Michigan was not going to bring him back so we stayed in Kentucky for about a year when the US marshalls arrested us. We both thought that the relatives had dropped the charges. I had a private eye who was also a x-cop check with the Allegan court house and he said he did not think anyone would ever bother us. My husband was 68 at that time and I was 63 and we had never had any trouble with the law. The marshalls came banging on the patio door when it was dark out side and they did not say who they were and I was talking on a cell phone to my son in Michigan and I had just turned away to lay the phone down and turned toward the patio door when all this glass came shattering in at me with voice yelling down on the floor we are the us marshalls. They arrested my husband that night and all hell began for us. They did not arrest me for harboring a fugitive but left me with a broken glass door and me with glass in my arm and top of my head. My husband came back to Michigan and we got a attorney and tried to fight the charges but the judge went outside the guideline and gave my husband a miminum of 14 months to 4 years saying he was a menace to society and he thought he was above and beyond the law. My husbands earliest release date was 5-2-08 and he was given a year flop. Since than he has gone through a csc counceling class and almost was kicked out as he would not confess to some thing he did not do. He was told by others if you are to get out of here you must do as they tell you to do rather it is true or not. Well he did finish the class and about four weeks ago went before the parole board again but we have not heard any answer as to rather he is coming home or not as the group report has not made it to the parole board so they can make a deceison. He definitely does not belong in prison and never did but we his family are all praying he will be released soon. How come it takes the group teacher so long to get the report to the parole board and how come it take the parole board so long as to get the decision back to the prisoner?? This past month has been real torture for all of us waiting to hear a answer. Is there not a law as to how long it should take the parole board to get a answer back to the family once there has been a hearing?? I no longer have any respect for the law or justice system and I know I am not alone on this. It is just as important as gettling innocent people out of prison as it is putting the quilty ones in. The prison systems are a real money making business or they could not keep operating this way. Judges alone should not have as much power as they do!!!! When I visit the prison now and it is not even winter yet they have the heaters running and the windows wide open and we have people in our state who will be cold this winter and the prisons are letting heat go out the windows, what is wrong with out system??? We have spent most of our retirement money fighting this nightmare in our lives and the court we paid a $15,000,00 cash bond so they also made money off us as they do everyone else. We have paid out about $100,000.00 to attorneys for nothing all in the name of justice and we were denied a appeal for lack of merit and that was another $8,000.00 to do. What in the name of God is becoming of our country when we have such a corrupt system in the justice system. The same judge that sentenced my husband let a man running a meth lab off with community service. This is happening every day to someone in our society does not anyone care enought to get something changed?? I am willing to support and sign any bills that might make a difference we need to make people more aware what is happening in our prison system that keeps more people in prison than what is necessary. I am unable to even collect my husbands social security and he has always supported me and now no one cares if I eat or have a roof over my head. If my husband or anyone elses should die while in prison we can not even collect on there life insurance policy so I was just told the other day. If in prison and group classes are needed to get out than why not have these classes available before the prisoners early release date.? I was also wondering if the teachers of these classes are on a salary as half the time they don't show up to teach. Why is the MDOC allowed to break the rules and the laws over and over again and make the rules up as they go, why should they not have to have guidelines to follow and it be enforced?? Thanks for letting me vent off and I will keep praying we soon get a answer from the parole board and there is no reason for my husband to be in prison costing the state money or is the state making money from the Federal government???? My husband just had his seventies birthday and I will soon have my 65th the prison system has taken life from us, we are no threat to society not than not now or will ever be. God will be all our judges one day and that is what will make things right again!!!!

Brian writes: This post started off, of course, as a commentary on one or two aspects of British rather than American (still less Michigan state) law, but from this comment it appears that some of the concerns discussed earlier have their equivalents in the US. What is of course common to all prison systems everywhere is the hardship, often also suffering, inflicted on innocent families by the imprisonment of a breadwinner or carer or, often, both, even when the person sent to prison has been properly convicted and the sentence is clearly just. But as long as we have prisons, that's going to be a side-effect of them, and it's very difficult to conceive of a prison-free society. It's just another argument for reforming the systems on both sides of the Atlantic so as to reduce radically the number of people sent to and doing time in prison. All the experts and researchers seem to agree that in both the UK and the US, both with enormous prison populations compared with the rest of the civilised world, there are many tens of thousands of people in jail who should not be there and who should never have been sent there in the first place. Indeterminate sentences make that bad situation even worse. It's a prime example of an obvious and almost universally recognised problem to which there's a straightforward solution (which would incidentally save public money) but which our political leaders of all political persuasions are too cowardly to tackle.

From Mr Seymour

December 10th, 2008 at 1:13 pm

I am a supporter of IPP’s – There has to be someone! My stepson is serving 5years and IPP for GBH with intent, under 21 when convicted, and I regret to say that the IPP is the best thing for him at the moment. His mother and I will not defend his actions though we love him dearly ( but he hates me). He does not yet regret what he has done, and has continued to be violent in prison and buck the system. Until he accepts that he has to change, and learns to do so, then he is not safe in public. After 3.5 years he has just been changed from Cat A to Cat B, and is telling his family that because of this he will have to do another 3-4 years before further Cat changes etc. until he reaches Cat D and can be released. We don’t know if this is correct or whether he has received additional sentence(s) for attacks on prisoners. Can anybody explain if this is correct and how the process works please?For your information we are now getting to his resistance breaking point, he is extremely stressed having passed his minimum sentence point (parole declined) and not understanding/accepting why he has not been released. He is now focusing on the Enhanced Thinking Skills course as the Golden Key as he has been told, wrongly, that he cannot be released without “doing” this. His stress is increased because he has again gone to the back of the queue upon another prison relocation. (Part categorisation reduction, part violent incident risk reduction). I can, and have, got him forward on the queue but what he really needs is to seek and accept counselling. He is resistant to this idea, to address his deep-seated insecurity fears and very limited relationship/communication/anger management skills, to build real self-confidence in his own personality, and not a false and often violent facade triggered by a fear of it being revealed.

Brian writes: Thanks very much for this thought-provoking and sobering comment, Mr Seymour. I hope someone with the necessary expertise will be able to answer your question. More generally, I suppose the response to your very sad contribution depends on whether you believe in preventive detention for people who have completed the term of imprisonment imposed as punishment and for rehabilitation, but who are still kept behind bars because they are thought likely to reoffend. Peronally I don’t, but you make a powerful case for the opposite view.

From S Corker

December 15th, 2008 at 10:45 am

My brother was sentanced to 14 weeks in april last year. he is still held in Pendlebury and will remain there until he can be moved to a prison that has provides the course he has to go on. This is never going to happen. Our parents are in despair. This has come only a couple of years after our other brother died. I can not imagine what goes through a persons mind when they are locked up and given no release date they do not even know what year never mind what month they will be finally be free. When his sentance was only 14 weeks doesn’t that show you severity of his crime. My brother tells me there are many more held like this, this cannot be just. In todays society of justice and honour I cannot believe that people are being treat like this .

Brian writes: I sympathise. This is another example, on the face of it, of the gross abuse of an anyway flawed system. If a sentence of 14 weeks imprisonment is deemed by the trial judge or magistrate (the same thing now?) enough for ‘punishment and rehabilitation’ in relation to the gravity of the offence committed, there can surely be no possible justification for an IPP, or for keeping the person concerned in prison for such an enormously long time beyond the original 14 weeks. This is preventive detention, not the kind of imprisonment envisaged by our legal system and tradition. Once again a man is being severely punished, not for anything he has done (he has paid his debt for that several times over) but for what some group of people think he might do in the future. It’s outrageous.

I was under the impression that the courts had forbidden the prisons to keep offenders locked up beyond their tariffs because of the unavailability in a particular prison of a course regarded as a necessary condition of release. It would seem sensible to seek legal advice on this point, or to put the problem urgently to the Independent Prison Monitors in Pendlebury if the prison governor can’t do anything about it.

From ann

January 19th, 2009 at 6:34 pm

My son was sentenced to 4 years IPP for GBH . It is a complicated mess but my son was not involved in the attack but had a panic reaction to the situation and told the police. They accepted that he was not involved in the so called pack as did the prosecution but he was sentenced anyway by the judge. The problem at the moment is that he has been classed as too low risk to do the offender behaviour courses. The was by the PSR and the OASys score and probation. You hear of people not being able to do the courses because of demand and there are not enough spaces but you don’t hear about lads that are classed as dangerous by the so called judge and then classed as too low risk to do the courses. how on earth can he expect to get parole? I have been told to get a prison law solictor but even they are saying there is nothng that can be done to challenge to IPP.
What do you think?

Brian writes: ‘Bob’, who has much experience of these problems as an Independent Prison Monitor, has repeated his response to an earlier and similar message:

It is NOT necessary for IPP prisoners to do approved courses to get parole, but it is by far the surest way to get it. Observation of their (changing / improving) attitudes, of their relationships with officers and others, how they react to psychological counselling, and other forms of behavioural assessment can help their case with the parole board (PB). BUT the courses (e.g. ETS – Enhanced Thinking Skills; SOTP – Sex Offender Treatment Programme; anger management, etc,) are accredited therapies, with attitude tests before and after, and thus are regarded as good evidence for the PB – more reliable than general observation. But even then, a prisoner might do a course and be observed to drift through it without signs of any behavioural change sufficient to persuade the prison psychologists – who write an end-of-course report on him – and thus the PB, that he (IPP are 98% male) represents a lesser risk to society than before. So he’ll be refused parole despite having done a course. Nevertheless, courses are the best way forward.

This comes from a telephone conversation with a top Department of Justice official, not from some printed DoJ source.

I suggest that you might look also at Bob’s and other responses to some of the messages (“comments”) above, i.e. at
http://www.barder.com/ephems/696, and that you also follow up the links in them to other websites that may be helpful to you. Please especially read
http://www.barder.com/ephems/696#comment-79088
in full.

From Brian

January 29th, 2009 at 4:24 pm

The following report by Duncan Campbell appeared in the Guardian of 26 January 2009. The last paragraph is of special interest: see in particular earlier comments above by a member of the Independent Prison Monitoring Board, writing as ‘Bob’, here. Here’s the Guardian story:

Campaigners yesterday urged ministers to act over the holding of prisoners in jail beyond their minimum sentences because they do not have access to the courses they are required to take to demonstrate they no longer present a risk.

“Approaching 1,000 IPP (indeterminate sentence for public protection) prisoners are now being held beyond the tariff set by the courts,” said Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust. “It is likely that many of these prisoners who have served their minimum tariff but remain in prison do so because they have had no opportunity to demonstrate they pose no risk if released.”

Lyon added that the IPP was “unnecessary, indiscriminate and has proved to be unworkable, overfilling prisons and leaving prison staff to try to make sense of the mess … ministers cannot abandon these people in a maze with no exit or think the problem will go away if they ignore it.”

A typical case is that of Basim Nabulsi, a 20-year-old Palestinian, who is serving an indeterminate jail sentence in Swinfen Hall prison in Staffordshire. He has served more than twice the tariff imposed by his trial judge but the course which he needs to complete to qualify for parole has not been available in the jail. Due for deportation and anxious to leave the country as soon as he has finished his sentence, he fears he may now spend years inside before this can happen.

Nabulsi was convicted in May 2006 of sexual assault. The judge told him that he should serve a minimum 18 months and be deported at the end of his sentence. In January last year, the parole board turned down his application for release.

A spokesperson for the justice ministry said that the government was aware of the issues raised and was addressing them. “We have made clear on a number of occasions that the IPP sentence was never intended to be used generally for short tariff prisoners,” said the spokesperson. “We now have legislation in place to ensure the sentence is used as intended following the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which set a seriousness threshold for indeterminate and extended sentences.”

[Emphasis added -- BLB]

This seems to me to confirm the overwhelming objections of principle to IPPs: 1. They involve keeping offenders in prison after they have served the ‘tariff’ set by the judge at their trial which represents the period of imprisonment required for punishment and rehabilitation; (2) The person on an IPP after his tariff has been served has no way of knowing when, if ever, he will be released — which is inhuman, cruel and indefensible, as well as having the practical effect of providing no incentive for good behaviour; (3) Imprisonment after the tariff has been served is purely preventive detention: the person is being punished not for what he has done but for what some faceless authority thinks he might do in the future; and (4), perhaps the worst of all, the onus is on the prisoner, not on the authorities, to demonstrate that he will not offend again if released. This reverses the proper onus on the justice system of proving that the accused has committed an offence, where the accused is under no obligation at all to prove his innocence. It also in practice requires the prisoner to do the impossible as a condition of release: to demonstrate that he will behave in a specified way in the future.

The apparent additional difficulty of satisfying the Parole Board that the prisoner will not offend again on release unless he has completed while in prison a relevant course (e.g. in anger management) is compounded in many cases by the fact that such courses aren’t available in all prisons, and even when they are, the IPP prisoner may have to wait for an interminable time for a place on the course in question. This is pure Kafka. Instead of quoting guidelines in last year’s legislation on the circumstances in which these pernicious indeterminate sentences should and should not be imposed, the Justice Secretary should abolish the whole thing. But the Justice Secretary is Jack Straw, the most improbable appointment since Caligula appointed his horse a consul (or perhaps since David Blunkett was appointed Home Secretary), so don’t hold your breath.

Things have come to a pretty pass when the best hope for a remedy of such manifest injustices as the IPP — and the building of mammoth new prisons to hold ever more prisoners, and such perverse policies as the third Heathrow runway and ID cards, now lies in the election of a Tory government. Enough to make you weep.

From wendy

January 31st, 2009 at 2:42 pm

My son is a IPP he has completed all courses and have gone 19 months over his tariff. He is now been waiting 4 months for his dossier for his parole. But still no date.

Brian writes: Thanks, Wendy. Yet another example of the injustice and hardship inflicted by this deeply flawed system.

From Stella Kaye

February 13th, 2009 at 8:59 pm

I thought I’d post the following links as I’m trying to get as much traffic to these articles as possible in order to raise funds for an appeal against conviction for an innocent man serving an indeterminate sentence. (Legal aid will not pay even though he is penniless!)

I wondered if you could help by posting these links on your site. The articles concern the indeterminate sentence and the implications it has for innocent prisoners.

The articles will hopefully be of some use to other falsely accused people undergoing the same trauma. They are intended to highlight the injustice in the criminal justice system. One cent will be raised everytime someone reads an article…. not much but if enough people read these articles it might add up to something.

Also if enough people read the articles and object to the inadequate justice system we all put our ultimate trust in this may bring about eventual changes in the law so that misscarriages of justice will seldom occur.

http://www.helium.com/items/1066333-should-anyone-be-guilty-by-accusation
>
[remaining links deleted -- see below. BLB]

Brian writes: As I can’t vouch for the security of the list of links to websites appended to Ms Kaye’s comment, above, and also since the comment facility of this blog is not available for fund-raising (on however small a scale), I have deleted all but the first, which itself contains links to many other websites and also a facility for sending a message to Ms Kaye. This could be used to ask Ms Kaye to send anyone who wants it the list of links that she originally included at the end of her comment above. But if you click on that link, obviously you do so at your own risk: I have not checked it for viruses or malware.

From sean.g

February 20th, 2009 at 1:33 am

my son has served 2 years of his I.P.P the judge recommended he serve a minimum of 1 year 144 days.he`s just this week been in front of the parole board,probation said they dont consider him fit for release yet.altho he`s done course after course after course.it`s very hard to tell them to keep there chin up as they have nothing to strive for.my son said his life is ruined now.and with this stupid sentence i must agree with him.he wants to appeal his.I.P.P sentence but doe`snt know how.i really feel for these people on I.P.P`s

From Ephems of BLB » Blog Archive » More on the scandal of indeterminate sentences

February 23rd, 2009 at 5:02 pm

[...] August 2007 I posted a piece in this blog about the rank injustice of “Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection” (IPPs) [...]

From steve.a

April 22nd, 2009 at 10:49 am

I have just had my conviction quashed, and my sentence [4years and 275 days i.p.p] was unlawful. As I maintained my innocence, I fully expected to spend 15-20 years if not longer behind bars. Now I am waiting on a retrial. I have the knowledge, whatever the outcome, I cannot receive an I.P.P. I.P.P.s are for crimes on or after 4.4.05. I can’t be the only person given an unlawful I.P.P.? Check dates etc: even the single judge failed to notice this error. I found out via S.G.C. flow charts!

From kaystella

April 22nd, 2009 at 3:42 pm

The whole thing with this INDETERMINATE SENTENCE FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION sentence is crazy. My innocent friend got an IPP and the crown prosecution servcice and police miraculously shifted the dates of the alleged crimes to fit in! The supossed crimes were supposed to have happened the very day after this sentence came into force! All highly suspicious that!

My friend has currently served just over 2 years of his IPP and has no hope of ever clearing his name. See link to my article as in my previous comment above.

From steve.a

April 22nd, 2009 at 6:05 pm

let me tell you people a thing or two about I.I.Ps. if you cant read or write.you aint getting out.maintain your innocence.you aint getting out… perhaps you only got 18 month I.P.P? lucky you recat to cat c. done all the courses yippee. where are you now 4 and a half years later. i predict a riot

From kaystella

April 23rd, 2009 at 6:24 am

He has a tariff of four and a half years. He is highly intelligent so reading and writing is not a problem for him - but maintaining innocence is, as you correctly say. It’s a hindrance and a stumbling block to parole as he is treated as being ”in denial and “Not addressing his offending behaviour”.

Read my article in the SAFARI newsletter which is a publication for the falsely accused. link here: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~safari/newsletters/No64.pdf

He must prove he is not a danger to the public in order to be realeased but being innocent how can he ever do this!

From steve.a

April 23rd, 2009 at 10:17 am

you must read HOW TO MAINTAIN YOUR INNOCENCE AND GET PAROLE i got my copy from SAFARI when i was in jail. Ive got to tell you it should read DONT BOTHER. it advises you to meet the parole board half way …how you can achieve this if you are innocent? do you accept some responsibility for something that never happened? by doing so you will compromise any chance of appeal ,damned if you do damned if you dont. i applied to do lie detector tests p.p.g tests.I offered to do them without prejudice,just so i could prove i am no danger and progress through my sentence[ipp 4yrs275days] not available if you maintain innocence! we have heard rumours of courses for “deniers” but until they materialise you are just stagnating in jail with no hope of release. even people who have jumped through all the hoops are still i nside 4 and a half years later[tariff 18 months] no-one seems to be accountable for this barbaric abuse of human rights.I hope the media will at some point shoulder its responsibility,and expose this unworkable sentence. more I.P.Ps= less resourses=more time in jail for I.P.P prisoners through no fault of thier own! how can this be right?

From mary

August 2nd, 2009 at 7:56 pm

I have created a petition about the short tariff indeterminate sentences and this can be found at

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Indeterminate/

If you are interested and would like to sign it please go to the above address.

Brian writes: Many thanks. I have signed the petition, which is carefully drafted, moderate and reasonable. I can’t imagine any argument against acting as the petition requests. I hope everyone reading this will also sign. It’s quite painless! Just click on http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Indeterminate/, fill in the few details required, and ‘Sign’. You immediately receive an email with another link: click on that and bingo! your name is added to the list of signatories.

From mary

August 6th, 2009 at 5:15 pm

Thank you Brian for signing the petition and for the kind words you have written. Have you any other suggestions as to how I can get people to sign and advertise the petition – I am not particularly good on the internet so would really appreciate some help. I would expect all of the above people might be interested in signing but I do not know how to inform them of the petition.

Thanks
Mary

Brian writes: Mary, all I can suggest is Googling “IPPs”, “indeterminate sentences” etc and also doing a search for the same words in Technorati (http://www.technorati.com/) to see if you can find any more blog posts on the subject, like this one, so that you can write another comment at the bottom about your petition, urging everyone who agrees with it to sign it, just as you have done here. Also obviously e-mail all your friends asking them not only to sign the petition themselves, but also to ask their friends to sign it, too. You can’t contact the other people who have commented here because their e-mail addresses, like yours, are protected, to save you and them from tidal waves of spam. Some of them may check here from time to time to read any new comments and if so they’ll read your comment about the petition, but there’s nothing you can do to make them do so!

From kaystella

August 6th, 2009 at 7:34 pm

For Mary,

you can ask Phil Faber from SAFARI to put the petition on their website… they usually manage to get the 200 signatures needed for a reply from the government. The safari website details are in my comment of 23rd April.

From john greenwell

August 11th, 2009 at 6:36 am

An Australian lawyer comments: I hope the Petition seeking justice for the 971 ‘less-than-two years tariff’ prisoners, is successful. In addition, I hope there will be a fundamental re-think of the IPP scheme – a bad law, unjustly administered –sooner, rather than later.

You may be interested in the Australian approach. We have of course the same common law tradition but, in the field of criminal punishments, we have diverged on basic principle. This difference is reflected in the 2003 UK Legislation introducing the IPP scheme.

I can best explain this by quoting from the Australian High Court judgements in the case which authoritatively stated the Australian position – Veen (1988.). The Court specifically drew a distinction from English law, as judicially expressed at that time:

“The principle of proportionality is now firmly established in this country … a sentence should not be increased beyond what is proportionate to the crime in order merely to extend the period of protection of society from risk of recidivism on the part of the offender … There is no occasion now to contemplate the adoption by judicial decision of the English development.”

The English development (my italics) was one which “permitted a sentence greater than the principle of proportionality would allow” on the ground that a “longer sentence is required for the protection of the community.”

The High Court judgement continued:

“It is one thing to say that the principle of proportionality precludes the imposition of a sentence extended beyond what is appropriate to the crime merely to protect society; it is another thing to say that the protection of society is not a material factor in fixing the appropriate sentence. The distinction in principle is clear between an extension merely by way of preventative detention, which is impermissible, and an exercise of the sentencing discretion having regard to the protection of society among other matters, which is permissible.”

The distinction between what is impermissible and what is permissible is at the heart of an illuminating controversy between C.S Lewis and (others) which appeared over a number of issues in a law journal and concluded with a plea by Lewis that ‘deserts’ must be the first consideration of punishment. To this the High Court said:

“The plea has been heard by the courts of this country, by adopting the principle of proportionality …It must be acknowledged however that the practical observance of a distinction between extending a sentence merely to protect society and properly looking to the protection of society in determining the sentence, calls for judgement of experience and discernment.”

The principle of proportionality is reflected in the parole system in Australia. Thus, the Head sentence will be fixed in accordance with that principle, but a minimum term is fixed to enable rehabilitation and reform of the offender. These though cannot extend the fixed term or allow for it to become indeterminate.
There is nothing like the UK Indeterminate Protection Programme which, as I understand it, provides (in the case of sexual and violent offenders) that if, at the expiration of the tariff, the Court or Parole Board is not satisfied that the offender’s release can be made without danger to society, he or she will be indefinitely detained until they are so satisfied. IPP does not purport to be some irregularly imposed punishment for incorrigible offenders. It is a regular part of the criminal punishment system involving, as I understand it, thousands of inmates whose offences must vary in gravity. It is thus a kind of sub-system of preventative detention for crimes of violence.

Australia does have specific provision for indefinite detention of a limited class of sexual offender. Thus, to take the example of one Act, ‘indefinite detention’ is allowed following a court order for (a) a ‘serious sexual offence’; (b) A ‘serious sexual offence’ is an offence of a sexual nature involving violence or against a child; (c) the court must find, on application by the Attorney General, that such an offender represents a ‘serious danger’ to the community; (d) that it involves satisfaction that “there is an unacceptable risk that if released, the offender would commit ‘a serious sexual offence’.

It is unnecessary to labour the differences between this and the English legislation. It is confined to a serious sexual offender who is known, from repeated sexual behaviour, following prior convictions, that he will or is likely to re-offend. In Victoria, for example, its application is confined to 3 or 4 male offenders, housed (under security) outside the prison at Ararat. The rationale for indefinite detention in these circumstances is that it is non-punitive and, although not identical, is rather to be aligned to the involuntary detention of inmates in mental hospitals.

I cannot imagine the English scheme or anything like it, being adopted in this country.

Brian writes: John, many thanks for this illuminating comment. Not for the first time, I am struck by how often we could benefit from studying the Australian example of how to do things better — not only on the cricket field.

From Ephems of BLB » Blog Archive » Indeterminate sentences and Baby P

August 12th, 2009 at 12:02 am

[...] another nail has been hammered into the coffin of the case for the IPP by a lethal comment posted here by a distinguished Australian lawyer, a former Deputy President of the Australian Law Reform [...]

From S Corker

August 25th, 2009 at 11:42 am

My brother was sentenced to 14 WEEKS in April 2008 and was placed in Pendlebury which had no IPP course. He was transfered to Watton at the beginning of this year and has not even started the course yet, he is still waiting for some sort of assesment from his probation officer i think. My brother was sentenced to 14 WEEKS and is classed as a LIFER. Baby P’s father and murderer will probably be released before my brother. How can it be right that a murderer recieves less prison time than someone given 14 weeks.

From Mary

September 7th, 2009 at 10:27 pm

Can I urge S. Corker to sign the petition, and get everyone they know to sign it – there is not much we can do except keep voicing our views and this petition will help.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Indeterminate/

Please keep signing.

Thanks

Mary

Brian writes: I strongly support Mary’s appeal to sign this petition. It only takes a minute or two and every additional signature helps.

From Mary

October 20th, 2009 at 5:22 pm

Thanks to S. Corker and any others who have signed. Only 8 days to go – can anyone else sign please.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Indeterminate/

It’s really easy – just click on the web site, open the email they send you and click where indicated.

Thanks.

From Jo

October 30th, 2009 at 9:59 pm

My two brothers are serving IPP sentences. One has 2 yrs tarrif left, the other 3yrs..
My two brother’s have done ETS, Victim Awarness. My older brother has been told by his probation officer he needs to get acessed for cscp . I have enquired and there is a 3yr waiting list for it and still no guarantee he will have to do it after being assesed. It is just so worrying as my brothers have no release date and they are being sent to these prisons that are so far away to just get put on a list .
What makes me mad is that people that are seriously violent dont get these sentences ..
Are these IPP sentences ever goin to get replaced. Its just so unfair on the familes….

Brian writes: The whole system is clearly indefensible and should be abandoned. But I see little prospect of this whether or not there is a change of government next year. The Conservatives’ prison policy appears to be little more than a proposal to build yet more prisons to house yet more prisoners. I see little mileage in complaining, however much the justification, about the hardship it inflicts on prisoners’ families. But I think it’s generally accepted that it’s important for the rehabilitation of offenders that they should be able to maintain their bonds with their families, and since rehabilitation is obviously in society’s interests too, imprisoning offenders far from their families is manifestly counter-productive as well as being inhumane.

From Jo

November 2nd, 2009 at 7:03 pm

Thanks…
But these probation officers that come into prisons and assess prisoners for the pre sentence report, only see them for half an hour and make a judgement whether they should be recommended IPP.
Some Probation Officers do it Video Link…
How can they assess someone when they only spend half an hour with them…
My Older brothers probation told him he would not recommend it then went to police searching more info. He then recommended it on Intelligence , and because my brother still says he aint done what prosecution are saying..
Sorry really frustrated..
There must be some door can knock at.. esp when these courses are being set and the goal is unrealsitic.
My two brothers have to do CSCP only three prisons do this course. Waiting list 3yrs so how can they do this within there tarriff.
Also for this course your score has to be over 100. My older brother score was 101, and the younger one’s was 56…
HELP!!!!!!

Brian writes: I can well understand your frustration at the harsh and seemingly irrational effects of this system. Some earlier comments on this thread by ‘Bob’, who has extensive experience of this and other prison problems as an Independent Prison Monitor, may be helpful to you. In particular it would seem sensible for your brothers to ask for advice and help, or anyway for advice, from the Independent Prison Monitoring Board (there’s one in every prison).

From Mary

November 5th, 2009 at 6:04 am

I would like to thank Brian and everyone else who signed my petition. We have not yet received a reply – but wait in anticipation of the usual ‘blurb’ that the government will send us. All who signed should get a copy of the response at the same time as me.

I will keep you updated on my next move to get some action on this injustice. The Lord Chief Justice has commented, in Law in Action on Radio 4, that these short tariff IPPs are a ‘travesty of justice’. He said people with these short tariffs should be identified and released. How do we get the government to respond to the Lord Chief Justice?

Jo – keep strong.

Brian writes: Mary, thank you. The intervention by the Lord Chief Justice himself on this issue certainly ought to be helpful to the cause, if only to advance the limited objective of getting short-tariff IPP prisoners released at once. When the prisons are so monstrously over-crowded, here’s one part-solution which everyone who knows anything about it agrees would help, and which could be implemented almost immediately. Yet nothing ever seems to be done. I’m afraid it’s another example of ministerial cowardice in the face of the Sun’s and the Daily Mail’s likely reactions — “Straw releases thousands of violent convicts to free up prison spaces”, and the like. Please let us know what further steps you’re planning and whether there’s anything more we can do to support them.

As for the longer-term objective of getting the whole misbegotten IPP system of preventive detention without due process abolished, it begins to look as if that will have to wait for the election of a new, younger, braver Labour government in about 12 years’ time. God help us!

From Bob

November 8th, 2009 at 1:09 am

Looking for some signs of progress in the battle against the now universally disliked IPPs:
1. There was an amendment passed in 2008 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 ( which created IPPs ), whereby crimes carrying a tariff of less than two years were taken out of the IPP net. Could this help Mr Coker, who says his brother was given an IPP with the unbelievably short tariff of 14 weeks in April that year? It would seem so, on the face of it.
2. I note Steve a’s comment about the mistake made in his case. As a member of the Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) in a large prison I regularly see evidence of the pressure people in the prison and probation systems are under to cope with the ever-increasing numbers of performance criteria and PSOs (Prison Service Orders) imposed by the government/ Ministry of Justice. This causes both frustration and mistakes. So I strongly advocate getting a good solicitor to examine any IPP which isn’t a clear-cut case (like proven rape or GBH are). The IPP system is very wobbly, and loathed by all who have to deal with it – and Jack Straw knows it.
3. In fact the House of Lords has just debated (on 28/10/09) an amendment aimed at abolishing IPPs. It was moved passionately and convincingly by Lord Goodhart (Lib Dem) and strongly supported by, among others, the former chief inspector of prisons, Lord Ramsbotham, and the president of the Howard League of Penal Reform, Lord Carlisle.
Lord Goodhart put all the powerful arguments against IPPs which have featured regularly in this blog, condemning them as effectively an accidental life sentence for many prisoners, under present circumstances, and leaving hundreds of others in a Kafkaesque and demoralising situation.
Lord Ramsbotham said IPPs were ” Improperly proposed, improperly conducted, improperly impact-assessed and improperly introduced”. The ‘improper impact assessment’ refers to the failure to forsee the outrageous waste of scarce resources which would result from keeping men in prison to no evident purpose at a cost of £38,000 a year, thereby stealing from purposeful activity elsewhere. David Blunkett apparently forgot about this – as he forgot about just about every other practicality of implementing IPPs.
(Lord R’s book ‘Prisongate’[2003] is essential reading for anyone who wants a no-nonsense, honest and damning account of prison life in the UK. He was an outstanding Chief Inspector of Prisons. A former army General, Lord R was appointed CIP by Tony Blair, who felt the previous CIP, a retired judge, had been too much of a reformer, always taking the prisoners’ side and wanting money spent…. Little did he know that the General would cause him even more problems, defending prisoners in the way he would have his men! So he too had to go….But you can take as gospel everything Lord Ramsbotham says about the prison system.)
Lord Carlisle said nobody likes IPPs:” The Prison Service doesn’t like them because of the problems they cause. Judges don’t like them because what they have to say in sentencing is at best misleading and at worst fictitious. Defence lawyers don’t like them because they cannot give realistic advice on pleas to their clients. Defendants…..”

Sadly Lord Goodhart withdrew the amendment (No.90) later that night. But clearly this discredited system is now widely under attack, and only cowardice in the face of the inevitable taunts of being soft on crime from the Daily Mail, etc, stops Jack Straw tactfully squashing Blunkett’s bullying blunder.

I have steered clear of figures in general, but will just add that although the number of IPP prisoners still in prison past their minimum sentences was 1,711 in April this year, the following figures show there was a substantial reduction in 2008 as a result of the change in the law in 2008, which I mentioned:
2005 – 445: 2006 – 1610: 2007 – 1770: 2008 – 1342: (2009 – 1711)

It isn’t clear why the number shot up again this year. But the reasons will doubtless lie somewhere in what the noble lords above have said….

Brian writes: I’m extremely grateful to Bob for this comprehensive and modestly encouraging review, which will be helpful to the many people who have contributed desperate comments here. But it is so depressing that once again a measure enacted by a Labour government and extensively exposed by every expert and expert body as unjust, counter-productive, costly in human and financial terms, and fundamentally contrary to the most elementary principles and traditions of justice, continues in force with no obvious sign of willingness on the part of ministers or even MPs to abolish it. What’s even worse is that an incoming Conservative government, if that’s what’s in store for us, is even less likely than the cowardly Labour “Justice” Minister, Jack Straw, to risk the wrath of the Sun newspaper and the Murdoch press by abolishing it.

From Suzie

November 8th, 2009 at 9:23 pm

My friend given 2.5 years IPP, tariff expired June 08 got a paper knockback in Oct 08 dispite doing all courses and being a enhanced prisoner throughout, excellent prison refs and education manager refs. He’s still a risk to the public!! How do they know this? What’s the point in saying you want to change – they don’t believe you! My frind is dyslexic (as are 80% of prison population) and had difficulty writing up CALMS and ETS homework – sorry no help given and then PB say his homework’s not good enough. Eventually in July 09 (13 months over tariff) the oral hearing takes place – only thing most reports are out of date due to delay. Outside probation who’s seen him one in 2 years (as he’s out of area – not his fault) says 2 days before PB she doesn’t want him released!! Guess what another knockback. Letter says PB will look again at his case after Jan 2011. He’s devastated – staff say he’s done everything – he’s a CatC in a CatB establishment – he stayed as he wanted staff who knew him at PB but this has been held against him by saying he resisted moving – A LIE. The B have said he will have to do CatC and CatD to prove he’s not a risk to public!! I’ve written to my friends MP and hope it will be agin brought before Jack Straw as my previous letter was. Risk has to be given – my friend needs to prove himself – outside – there is nothing more to do. Anyone else in this position??

Brian writes: Suzie, you might like to consider the suggestions in Bob’s comment (and my response to it) at http://www.barder.com/696#comment-90385.

From Jo

November 8th, 2009 at 11:38 pm

Brian my brothers have asked for help… They have knocked at every door but if outside probation officer says you have to be assessed then there is nothing anyone can do.
I have sent them info about channing s wood having a long list for CSCP and they have shown it to inside probation but no one is listening. I sometimes feel that the people working in the probation service/Prison have not got a clue about the courses and how to deal with IPP Sentences and what the waiting lists are like.
I feel my brothers will have to go there and will be put on this long waiting list and just get stuck in the system.
I have rang prisoners advice service/Solictors etc but seems like no one can help.
My brothers have also just had a knock back for there appeals on the grounds of the offence, pre-sentence report and previous..
I just dont understand this Justice System!!! Yet two other cases similar to my brothers but much worse have gone passed first judge.
Seems like there is no hope with this IPP Sentence…
Seems like this whole Justice system stinks… These judges are not consistent in passing sentences for crimes.. One minute its 5yrs,10yrs, IPP, No IPP for the same offence…

Brian writes: Jo, you might like to consider the suggestions in Bob’s comment (and my response to it) at http://www.barder.com/696#comment-90385.

From steve.a

November 9th, 2009 at 6:57 pm

Dear Brian
after getting found not guilty at my retrial [the jury were out all of 22 minutes] I found myself homeless with my life in bits, Dont get me wrong this time last year i was inside maintaining my innocence with a 5 year I.P.P wrapped round my neck, But where is the support for people in my position,I commited no crime spent a year of my life in jail ,For what?

From Mary

November 10th, 2009 at 8:38 am

Poor Steve A. – glad to hear you are out but you are right – you should be given help and support to get your life together. I am sure you will be able to move on – you survived in prison and you can survive better outside.

I am going to write letters to the prime minister, minister of justice and all the Lords mentioned above by Bob and it would be a good idea if everyone involved in the IPPs could do the same – 277 people signed my petition and if all of those could write a letter it may begin to get home to the Ministry of Justice. I am going to write about the injustice and inhumanity of the short term tariffs that were created before the change in the law last year and also about the inhumanity of any IPP sentence. I believe people should be punished for their crimes, rehabilitated if possible and then be able to contribute to the society they live in – an indeterminate sentence punishes those who commit the crimes and all their families and friends who have not committed crimes!

I would welcome any other ideas about what to say in my letters and any suggestions as to what other action I can take.

Brian writes: Mary, please see Bob’s very helpful suggestion below.

From Bob

November 11th, 2009 at 8:43 pm

Mary and others, you could do worse than write to:
Dr Peter Selby, President of the IMB National Council,
IMB Secretariat,
2nd Floor, Ashley House,
Monck St
SW1P2BQ

The Independent Monitoring Board, as you know, is the organisation I belong to, and though I don’t know Dr Selby ( a former bishop) personally, I have every reason for thinking he won’t just wring his hands. Mind you, we are only supposed to do just what it says on our tin, i.e MONITOR what goes on in prisons. We are not inspectors with the power to change things. It is our job to spot where we think there are problems, and tell / nudge the relevant people into awareness and, hopefully, action. But I don’t see why Dr Selby wouldn’t take up this most deserving of causes.
For information: IMB members are unpaid volunteers, appointed after being interviewed at the prison of their choice and then vetted (at length) by the Home Office. So we are appointed by the HO, but independent of the prison system whilst working within it. There is, very roughly, one IMB member per hundred prisoners in a prison.

Brian writes: Bob, thank you very much for yet another helpful and practical suggestion. A written letter addressed and posted to Dr Selby (using the address given in Bob’s comment above) would probably be likeliest to reach him and to have an effect. It might also be useful to send a copy of the letter to the Head of the IMB Secretariat by email to Mr Norman McLean at norman.mclean@justice.gsi.gov.uk, with a polite request to Mr McLean to please ensure that Dr Selby himself sees your message to him. Of course writing to Dr Selby need not prevent anyone from writing also to his or her MP and/or to the Justice Secretary, the Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, at either the Ministry of Justice or the House of Commons. A Minister is generally more likely to pay personal attention to an appeal or complaint that reaches him or her through an MP than to a letter sent direct to the Minister, which is liable to be sent to a civil servant to answer on the Minister’s behalf, often without the Minister even seeing it.

From Jo

November 12th, 2009 at 11:59 am

Thankyou for that..

From ann

November 12th, 2009 at 1:10 pm

Thanks for the info.
I know what you mean about writing directly to a minister, you get fobbed off with an answer from a clerk and not even the answer to the question you have asked.

From Mary

November 12th, 2009 at 7:42 pm

Thanks to Bob and Brian for their help – nice to be given some assistance – it sometimes feels like one is banging one’s head against the wall – but as Brian says – one day we WILL get there.

I have already written to Dr. Selby by post and will let you know when I get a response. I have also written to the prime minister and Jack Straw talking about the injustice of these sentences and the distress and damage they are doing so am also expecting a reply – will keep you informed.

For your information the IMB were very helpful at the prison we visit when some prisoners could not get response from the parole clerk – it happened really quickly when the IMB intervened – thank goodness for them.

From Suzie

November 15th, 2009 at 5:41 pm

Thanks everyone for their info. I certainly agree if you write to the MP for the inmate’s area prior to sentence (or for area of prison if they’ve been in there for a while) you will get a response. Nothing directly to Jack Straw did any good but the MP brought it up with jack Straw and I got a copy of the letter Jack Straw sent to my friend’s MP. That was then though — 2.5 years ago when he first got to the 1st stafe prisons as they had to before it was changed. Things don’t get any better – you wait for months after tariff expiry and then be told you have to do CatC and CatD before release?? He was only sentenced to 2.5 years and it was said about 3 years ago that progression would not always be necessary for such short IPP sentences but PB are still insisting on it.

Brian writes: I sympathise (for what that’s worth!). This seems to be a prime example of someone who has served the “punishment/deterrent” part of his sentence, a relatively short one, who is apparently still in prison for purely “preventive” reasons (to prevent him committing another offence, whether this is likely or not), and whose release is being indefinitely delayed while he grinds through a series of prisons in varying categories of security under a procedure over which he has apparently no control. Suzie’s message confirms that the best, probably the only, way to get the attention of the minister (the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw) is through your constituency MP. It might well also be helpful to seek the advice of the Independent Prison Monitoring Board (IMB) — see http://www.imb.gov.uk/ and advice in an earlier ‘comment’ by Bob, above, as well as Mary’s tribute to the IMB’s effectiveness at http://www.barder.com/696#comment-90402. The more the IMB hears of specific individual cases such as this, the better the prospect that they will insist on action by the Justice Department to end this gross, Kafka-esque injustice. Good luck, Suzie.

From Suzie

November 17th, 2009 at 9:05 pm

Thanks Brian. I haven’t embarked on the IMB route as my friend who is in a privately run prison has been how shall I put it ….discouraged from contacting the IMB by prison officials who imply it will not get him anyway. Could Bob comment on that?

Brian writes: Please see Bob’s reply, below.

From Bob

November 18th, 2009 at 12:41 am

Suzie, I find that comment extremely odd – odd enough to arouse my suspicions as to the motives behind it. Here’s why. Prison officers have varying views of the IMB, by far the most common of which is that we are there, as our mission statement says, ‘to ensure the fair and decent treatment of prisoners’. This is widely understood. Accordingly officers and governors mostly regard us as monitors of the prison’s performance, and as colleagues working with them towards the common goal of achieving a good reputation.
In my own large prison the relationship is overwhelmingly a happy and cooperative one, in which officers and the IMB are generally honest with each other. In fact strains might sometimes appear – but on our side when, for example, we learn of officers occasionally ‘passing the buck’, telling complaining prisoners to ‘ see the IMB about it!’ Since the convention is that we step in only when officers have been unable to help a prisoner with a complaint, this is hardly an indicator of lack of trust in our effectiveness, is it?
Frankly, I can’t imagine any but a cynical minority of officers dismissing the IMB as pointless. After all, we take up their complaints and cases too!
Officers or governors who speak disparagingly of the IMB would seem (to me) to have little experience of a good IMB team. I’m not a supporter of private prisons and know little about them – except that, being born in the 1990s, they are much newer than mine, and don’t have much of an IMB tradition. (Nor an officer one either, come to that.)
I would say you should ignore the comment. It would seem to be based on prejudice or ignorance, or both.

From Jo

November 18th, 2009 at 12:33 pm

Hi Bob,
After your last post my brother put in application to see the IMB and he has got to speak to them. They are going to find out about the waiting list CSCP Course in Channings Wood .My brother said they were really understanding and helpful and my brother explained about the 3 yr waiting list.
He walked away with a bit of hope… He is waiting for an answer as they said they will inquire and get back to him….
Also know his inside probation has seen him after that meeting to say that Channing Wood want reasons why he must do this course before they sent him…so atleast we know my brother will not be wasting his time waiting to be assessed.
Thanks Bob atleast someone is willing to help……
Will keep you posted of outcome….

From Jo

November 28th, 2009 at 1:38 pm

Hi Everyone,
Could everyone go on this link and support this Petition and forward it onto any friends family please-
This is another petition that was created by B.Jones and it reads:-
We undersigned petition the prime minister to Abolishing IPP Sentences for serving prisoners.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/FightIPPs/AC2O4AAwP33AABRFz4AyWNf
Ms Jones needs as many signutures as possible…

From Mary

November 30th, 2009 at 9:16 am

I hae signed the petition and passed it to others. Good luck with it.

For information – we still have not had a response to my ealier petition about IPPs and I have emailed to ask if and when we will. To date they have not responded to petition or email. Is no news good news?

For Bob’s information I also wrote to Dr. Selby and have no response to date.

Everyone keep trying.

From Jo D.

December 10th, 2009 at 5:57 pm

I thought those following all the above might be interested in what appears to be another Government oversight in the devastating IPP sentences.

Out of Noms3, where IPP prisoners with a tariff of less than 3 years were, as far as risk and categorization goes, no longer to be treated as lifers, came PSI 07 2008. This explained that as prior to 2005 their risk would be the same as those receiving a determinate sentence, so that their progress through the system shouldn’t be hindered by being classed as lifers, which is reasonable, – but not helpful to all those who have already spent a few years unnecessarily in B Cat prisons.

My friend has now got to an Open Prison (nearly 3 years past his tariff), and has found they now have to go back to being classed as lifers, because the last thing the Open Prisons were told was in 2005, that IPP’s should be treated as lifers.

This means, that apart from the fact it can take up to 6 months to get to an Open Prison, because most don’t want IPP’s, it seems they then have to go through the process that mandatory lifers do in the few years leading up to their tariff.
This involves doing a 6 week course to learn what money looks like, how to get on a bus etc etc. and to visit local hostels, which isn’t much use if they’re not being released to that area. Then 8 weeks of supervised outside work, then 8 weeks of unsupervised outside work before they can apply for a town visit.
After that it is a month or so to apply for home leave, which is a night in a hostel in their home area. As my friend is over 300 miles away from his home area, he’s worked out it will take about 6 hours travelling each way by public transport, which doesn’t leave a lot of time to do much else. And as a lifer he’s been told he has to report to the hostel every 2 hours.

IPP’s are now being sent to Open Prisons several years after their tariff to ‘integrate them back into society’. As Noms 3 doesn’t apply here (although I’m not sure why), and the waiting list for these courses can be up to 10 months, integrating back into society, – which most importantly is re establishing family links and finding work and accommodation, can’t be done except on a home leave.
It can be over 2 years from the last Parole Hearing until this point can be reached. They also like them to have 6 home leaves before their next Parole Hearing.

As most of these IPP’s will have already done several years past their tariff, treating them as lifers again undoes anything that might have been achieved by PSI 07 2008.
As far as I know determinate sentence prisoners can get home leave in an Open Prison after a few months.

Does anyone understand why this is?

Brian writes: Thanks for this, Jo. More evidence of the (presumably unintended?) consequences of the IPP system. I don’t know if anyone more knowledgeable than me can answer your concluding question?

From Mary

December 10th, 2009 at 8:59 pm

I don’t think anyone can understand any of it – least of all prison officers and probation officers. The government seem to be in a total mess over the indeterminate sentences and are making no attempt to get out of it.

I know someone with an 18 month tariff who is still in a cat B prison nearly four years later because the parole board said extensive work needs to be done with him. Several letters to the parole board asking what work they would like done were ignored. Since that parole hearing the prison have said they have no courses for him, he has seen his probation officer twice who says he will do a course with him – to date he has done 1 session, which incidentally is the same as the prisoner did on another course, and he has a parole hearing in March. The fact is that his parole dossier will contain nothing different to the last time 18 months ago so how can the parole say he is safe for release? This person has extensive family/friend support, has a perfectly good home to go to with his family, is willing to do anything that probation want him to, has employment on the outside, has done two courses as requested inside, is an enhanced prisoner with no adjudications, has a responsible job inside the prison – what else can one d? How can someone in these circumstances prove to the parole board he is safe. Probation have said if and when he come out he must go to a hostel which would be miles from his home and employment.

Indeterminate sentences are counter-productive to rehabilitation of offenders and everyone should oppose them. The government should immediately let out all the prisoners who received less than a 2 year tariff and should use the resources these prisoners are taking up to rehabilitate properly the people who received longer tariffs, and should then abolish the indeterminate sentence and make judges give appropriate sentences for an offence – if they believe someone needs to be imprisoned for 10 years then that is what they should be given. All this mucking about with indeterminate sentences does nothing to re-assure the public and destroys lives.

For the information of those that signed my petition re indeterminate sentences I have been told by No. 10 that they only respond by email if 500 signatures were added – so it seems we will not be getting a response. Could anyone who feels able email No. 10 and ask them to respond to the petition. Thank you.

From Mary

December 10th, 2009 at 9:03 pm

I have just looked at Mrs. Jones petition as described by Jo above – there are only a few names on it – please could everyone who opposes indeterminate sentences sign the petition – it is important to keep up the pressure on the government.

From Jo

December 11th, 2009 at 2:05 pm

Hi Mary,

You had 266 names of people that had signed your petiton do you have there emails?
We need them to sign Ms B Jones….
Do you have email address for No.10 i dont mind emailing them….

From Jo D.

December 11th, 2009 at 3:33 pm

To Mary and Jo above,

I think the Government are burying their head in the sands over all this in the hope it will go away.

I have written to Lord Thomas, Lord Goodhart and Lord Ramsbotham thanking them for their efforts to abolish the IPP system and have received very understanding replies from all of them.
Has anyone written to Dame Anne Owers the Prisons Inspector? We did a while back and she expressed how totally opposed she was to this sentence, which she illustrates in her Thematic Review. I think the more evidence she has of the damage the IPP system does the better, because these are the people who the Government are supposed to take a bit more notice of.
Has anyone had a reply from Jack Straw?

I know professionals from other countries, in Europe and further afield, who are appalled that this sort of thing can be allowed to happen. Has anyone any ideas on who to write to in Europe etc that might put the Government to shame over what they’re doing?

As for Parole Hearings, the one my friend had was farcical. The report that came back was nothing like what was said at the hearing, and it’s very difficult to challenge something that’s written incorrectly after the hearing. What it seemed to amount to is that because there is no more work to do on his current offence, they’re keeping him in for a previous offence from many years ago that he received a probation order for, because the Parole Board thought he should have had a custodial sentence, even though they know nothing about the evidence.
Have the Parole Board been told to keep as many IPP’s in as possible, even when there seems very little reason to do so?
(I have signed the petition and will e-mail No 10)

From Jo

December 11th, 2009 at 5:15 pm

Hi Mary,

I have emailed No 10 asking for response on your email.

Is there anywhere else we can advertise this petition to get 500 signatures??????

Brian writes: I hope everyone reading this will sign this excellent petition at
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/FightIPPs/
It takes about three minutes or less to fill in the form: you then receive an e-mail asking you to confirm that you want to sign the petition: click the link in the e-mail, and it’s done. I suggest that you copy this to any friends who might also be willing to sign.

The full text of the petition reads:
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Abolishing I.P.P. sentences for serving prisoners.

The details are:

My son received an .I.P.P sentence in March 2006 for 30 mths, he is over his tariff, his next parole review he will have served over 50 mths. He has completed various offending behaviour courses but probation is preventing his progression into the community & severed contact with his children. Social services are satisfied with proposed child contact visits, however probation & MAPPA still refuse visits to resume. It is a real disgrace to think this is happening to people in the prison system. I do not feel it is warranted that my son is serving well in excess of his tariff, doing everything possible to help himself without any prospects of release, adding the fact that he has been purposefully denied any contact with his children without good grounds. This I.P.P. law is such a severe punishment & goes against all human rights to keep prisoners in the prison system indefinitely. They do more to hinder a person’s progression & integration back into society rather than encourage it.

Please sign now and encourage others to do so too.

From Mary

December 11th, 2009 at 8:13 pm

To everyone who has commented above –

277 people did sign my petition but unfortunately I do not have emails for all of them. I am going to, this weekend I hope, email all the people where I do have an address and ask them to sign. I have already got 5/6 people to sign and if everyone could do the same it would be great. There are over 5000 people with an IPP and we must all try to find a way to inform them of this petition – get your thinking caps on.

I have also had a sympathetic response from Lord Ramsbotham but Lord Goodhart did not respond.

To date I have not had a response from the IMB – so perhaps someone else could write to him asking for his support.

I have today had a negative response to a letter I wrote to the Ministry of Justice – just the usual stuff, that is the law and that it how it is and we do not intend to change it!! They have also confirmed that there are only 162 prisoners who received a tariff of less than 2 years still in prison. They said that they could not second guess what sentence would have been given if there was no IPP – how stupied is this? The sentencing judge usually says what determinate sentence he would have given and then halved it for an IPP tariff. I suppose one would not expect the Ministry of Justice to be able to work that one out. Is what can be presumed is that an offence was not really serious otherwise the sentencing judge would have given a much longer tariff.

In answer to the question has anyone had a response from Jack Straw? No, wherever I have had a response from MoJ it has always been from one of the ‘lesser’ mortals – obviously Jack Straw is not interested.

To Jo D. – I will do some research on who to write to in Europe – will let you know what I find out.

Everyone connected to this issue of IPPs keep strong – keep focussed – keep writing – keep reading.

From Jo D.

December 13th, 2009 at 9:20 pm

As for suggesting ways to inform people of the petition, writing to the Inside Times so they can publish the petition, I know prisoners won’t be able to sign it but they can tell their friends and relatives to.
Also contact the Prison Reform Trust, at one time they had a list of all those who complained about the IPP sentence, so maybe they could contact them.

Mary, reference the numbers issue mentioned above: -on 16th June ’09 Andrew Stunell asked a question in Parliament about numbers of IPP’s (Written Answers – Justice), and also check 25th Feb ’09 – Justice about IPP numbers and 12th Jan’ 09, – Custody also about IPP numbers.
If by Oct ’09 only 70 IPP’s had been released, if all those had less than 2 years (I know some had more), and, although the figures given in Parliament include those with 2 years – so taking off 20% for that, I reckon going by the figures given above there should be at least 800 IPP’s with less than 2 years who are post tariff and still in prison.
So if they claim there’s only 162, they seem to have lost over 600 prisoners somewhere.
I would appreciate knowing, if by looking at the tables given in response to these questions in Parliament, your calculations bring you to the same conclusion.

My friend was sentenced to less than 2 years and like many others the judge told him what he’d have given him if he was giving him a determinate sentence which was twice the tariff he gave him.
The Judge also said his offence didn’t warrant a life sentence but this seems to be what he’s got.

From Jo

December 14th, 2009 at 1:53 pm

Hi ,

I have emailed Inside Times and Prisoners Reform with the link to this petiton.
Will keep you updated if i get a response.

From Jo

December 14th, 2009 at 5:30 pm

Hi Mary,

Regarding your petition I have had a reply from No.10 and they are saying they only reply to more than 500 signatures.
Its just so upsetting !!!!!!!!!

From Mary

December 14th, 2009 at 8:37 pm

Jo,

It is all rather odd – there are many petitions on the No. 10 site which have replies when they only hae between 6 and 500 signatories. Perhaps Brian knows the answer as to how one gets a reply.

Brian writes: I’m afraid I don’t know the answer to this puzzle. I suggest that the best way to get an answer is to write to your MP, describe the reply from No. 10 claiming that only petitions with more than 500 signatures get a reply, quote a couple of examples of petitions with fewer signatures than 500 that have nevertheless got replies, and ask the MP to seek from No. 10 both an explanation and a substantive reply to the petition. No. 10 is much likelier to try to reply properly to an MP than to a letter from an ordinary member of the public like you or me!

From Jo

December 15th, 2009 at 12:21 pm

Hi guys,

Had a response from Prisoners Advice and they will pass the link on to people. also Inside Times (Prisoners Newspaper have sent me a confirmation email and have stated someone will be contacting me shortly)…

Guys this is the reply I got back from No.10
Dear Ms Jo,
Thank you for your email.
As mentioned in the guidance available on the website http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/faq, only petition with 500 signatures or more will receive a response.

Regards

Downing Street Web team

From Bob

December 15th, 2009 at 2:32 pm

Let me say first of all that I’m no expert on why Downing St doesn’t register petitions properly. (Their website told me that about 40 people had signed Mary’s petition….Obviously rubbish, but it’s beyond my scope to answer.)
But Mary, Jo, Jo D, I’ll do my best to help with the IPP disaster:
For a start I think there might be some misapprehensions floating around causing problems we don’t need. For example, the 162 IPP prisoners still in jail with a tariff of under two years were almost certainly sentenced before July 14th 2008, the date on which 2-year tariffs were taken out of the IPP system. But unfortunately, like many others this law was not retrospective – which means that the 162 are either still serving a 2-year tariff imposed shortly before that date, or have failed so far to be released by the parole board after the expiry of a tariff imposed after April 4th 2005 (when IPPs began). It also might be true of Jo D’s missing 600. I have no figures for the number of IPP prisoners given a 2-yr tariff before July 14th 2008, but the fact is that anyone in that category will have to battle their way out via all the nonsense and unfair obstacles we all know about.( NB.’Tariff’ has been known officially as ‘minimum term’ since 2002, but the two are still commonly used interchangeably.) I wasn’t sure from reading your comments that you were all clear about this. But sorry, and mea culpa, if you were!
Then, Mary, there’s the point about how the judge decides the sentence – i.e. how serious the offence has to be to merit the IPP tag. There are 93 serious offences – like rape – which ‘trigger’ an IPP automatically. But as I think I said somewhere in the past, IPPs can also be imposed for the second commission of any one of 153 offences ( usually with violent or sexual overtones). Given so many offences, you can perhaps see that a crime at the ‘lower’ end of this extensive scale from rape – ‘indecent exposure’, for example – can, if repeated, earn an IPP to protect the public from multiple episodes of it. So the offence doesn’t have to be ‘really serious’, as you put it, Mary, for the judge to impose an IPP sentence with a tariff of as little as, say, 2.5 years. The tragedy occurs when such a comparatively undangerous person fails to earn his way out of prison (and should be somewhere else getting proper treatment in the first place!).
For what it’s worth, Min of Justice statistics show that by October 2009 only 76 IPP prisoners had been released, and that there are 5659 still behind bars, of which 2130 were post-tariff. Of these 60% were working on at least one programme towards their release.
To give you much better guidance than I can, I suggest you contact:
Francesca Cooney, Advice and Information Manager, Prison Reform Trust,
15 Northburgh St, EC1V 0JR
Tel: 020-7251-5070 francesca.cooney@prisonreformtrust.org.uk
I had a lengthy chat with Francesca this morning about the problems you are all grappling with. She didn’t hesitate to invite anyone who wishes to put their questions and problems to her. I’m sure she’ll be very helpful. Good luck! (But I haven’t gone away….I’ll always do what I can.)

Brian writes: Thank you for this very generous and helpful response, Bob.

From Jo D.

December 15th, 2009 at 8:46 pm

Thanks Bob,
As for numbers, if you look at the table given in reply to Andrew Stunell on 16th June,(I go through ‘They Work For You’) if you only look at those IPP’s with less than a 12 month tariff there will be more than 162 still in prison – and obviously post tariff. There are a further 2000 plus with 12 months + to 2 years. I know this includes the 2 years but it wouldn’t be the whole 2000.
Like others mentioned above, my friend has done lots of courses, all with good reports, but the Parole Board are never satisfied.
At his first Parole Hearing, after doing over 20 various courses, the Parole Board kept him in to do a course he wasn’t eligible to do. Two years later during which he did the only two courses left he could do, (on his own initiative) and another Parole Hearing, they still weren’t satisfied, but as mentioned above by Mary and others, they won’t say what he can do that they would be satisfied with.
If the Parole Board don’t think the courses make any difference what’s the point of investing money in them?
My friend says a lot of IPP’s think it’s a Government ploy to keep them in prison permanently regardless of their offence.

My friend’s offence doesn’t warrant an IPP after the 2008 Act. What annoys him is that those who commit the same offence as he did, with a much worse history of previous offences, get a determinate sentence of a few months (as his few months tariff reflected) and get released. As he sees it, if he can never do anything the Parole Board will be satisfied with he will never be released.
That is a huge variance in sentencing from a few months to life for the same offence just because of the year he committed the offence in .

I’ve read Dame Anne Owers is leaving her post, I will write to her to thank her for her efforts to highlight the plight of the IPP prisoners, and ask if she can make a last effort to try to make the Government aware of the damage this sentence is doing. I know she can’t help with individual cases but she might be interested in all the problems people encounter to back up her reasons for opposing this unfair sentence.
She’s at the Inspectorate of Prisons address.

From Mary

December 16th, 2009 at 2:11 pm

Just to let you know I have had a very empathetic response from Dr. Selby at the IMB and he is going to write to the Secretary of State for Justice, on behalf of the IMB full council, to ask that prisoners be released whose tariffs mean they would not have got an IPP under present legislation. He also suggests that the more people who make representation to the Sec. of State the better – so anyone who wants to write about the unfairness of the short tariff sentenced prisoners remaining in prison (as per my original petition) the better.

I will write to Anne Owers as suggested by Jo.D above and am continuing with my other efforts to get the IPP sentence abolished. There are two separate points here – one is to get the short tariff prisoners out and the other is to abolish the IPP sentence – I believe that if we could achieve the first the second is more likely to happen.

Brian, I thank you for your response and suggestions. I have written to No. 10 to ask how some smaller petitions can get a response but not mine – needless to say they have not responded! I am therefore passing it to my MP – will let you know if they respond.

thanks to Bob for his advice – will contact Prison Reform Trust.

From Jo D.

December 17th, 2009 at 8:21 pm

Mary, that’s really good news from Dr Selby, I will write to him as well now.

and Brian, I know you say it’s better for an MP to ask questions/write to the Secretary of State, but my MP, who belongs to the current party in power doesn’t answer any of my letters about IPP’s. My friend’s MP from where he lived before he was arrested, is from the party who think they’ll be in power next, gave a very lengthy response about IPP’s, which we already knew, but didn’t ask the questions he asked him to.
How do we get a reply from the Secretary of State, if he ignores most people’s letters and our MP’s aren’t interested?

I know they keep saying they don’t make laws retrospective, but shouldn’t the spirit of it be similar? (And they can always modify what they’ve already got – to start to get the less than 2 years out.)
Someone who has a tariff of, for example 6 months, who has been in prison over 4 years as an IPP, with the possibility of being in for life, and someone who commits the same offence after 2008, gets 12 months and is out in 6 months are hugely different sentences for the same offence.
Also the instructions to the judges for giving an IPP is when a life sentence isn’t warranted. I know there’s a difference in the licence, but if there’s no upper limit (maximum time) for IPP’s, they can be kept in for life, so the 10 year licence doesn’t come into it, so it is a life sentence.
Just thinking of other arguments to back up the case against it.

Brian writes: Jo, if your Tory MP isn’t answering “any of your letters” it might suggest that you have been sending too many in too short a space of time on the same subject. I suggest that you go and see him (or her?) at one of his/her constituency surgeries and appeal to him/her to intervene with No. 10. Alternatively try telephoning someone at his/her constituency office and ask if your letters have been received safely, perhaps saying that you wanted to check before writing to the local paper to complain about never getting any replies from your MP on an important matter.

From jackie

January 8th, 2010 at 7:00 pm

hi all
I also have a son serving an ipp. me and my family are going to sign the petition. we have a big circle of friends and family who can sign too.its so good to have found this site and I’m encouraged by all the positive comments and support you give to each other. Just watch the petition grow.

Thanks for all your efforts

From Mary

January 8th, 2010 at 7:53 pm

Just to let you know I have had a positive response from the Prison Reform Trust who are liaising with the government about IPPs. They want to use some of the material in my letter to them and I will agree.
Nothing from my MP as to why the government will not respond to my petition – but still trying.

I also have not had much success finding out who to write to in the EEC – but again will keep trying.

Nice to hear from Jackie – will look forward to some more names on the petition – it is progressing very slowly – please sign it – Mrs. Jones needs some help!

Best wishes to all for 2010 and hope Brian had a good break.

From Robert Whiston

January 9th, 2010 at 2:59 am

Here are the tables erferred to from Hansard – 26 Nov 2009 : Column 337W
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm091126/text/91126w0018.htm

Andrew Stunell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many prisoners sentenced to serve an indeterminate sentence for public protection were over tariff (a) having had a parole hearing and (b) not yet having had a parole hearing on the most recent date for which figures are available; [300818].
(2) how many cases involving prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection processed by the Parole Board were (a) resolved, (b) deferred or adjourned at the hearing and (c) deferred or cancelled at the pre-hearing stage in each month in each of the last five years. [300819]

Maria Eagle: We are in the process of undertaking an audit of data on outstanding parole reviews for prisoners serving an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP). I will write to the hon. Member, once the audit is complete and will place a copy of the reply in the Library.

The number of prisoners serving IPP sentences, whose parole applications were referred to the Parole Board, and which were (a) resolved, (b) deferred or adjourned at the hearing and (c) deferred or cancelled at the pre-hearing stage in each month since the inception of IPP sentences are shown in the tables below. The information has been collated from data held by the Parole Board. It is broken down by month and financial year categorised as: resolved by oral hearing; resolved by paper decision; deferred or adjourned at hearing; and cancelled or deferred before the hearing was convened. (The monthly split for cases deferred or adjourned at the hearing is not available for the financial year 2006-07.)

IPP – status of cases for 2008 – 09 -

Resolved, by oral hearing

Resolved by paper decision

Deferred or adjourned at hearing

Cancelled or deferred pre hearing

April 2008

May 2008

June 2008

July 2008

August 2008

September 2008

October 2008

(1)0

November 2008

December 2008

January 2009

February 2009

March 2009

Financial year total

433

119

123

131

(1) Figures for resolved by paper decision are not available for October 2008

From Jo D.

January 9th, 2010 at 8:59 pm

Welcome to Jackie, it’s such a difficult and unfair sentence, I hope reading what everyone else has written helps.
Those of us who know people on short tariffs are already aware that the Government seems to have no real intention of releasing IPP’s, so the sooner this sentence gets changed or modified (perhaps so there’s a maximum time – like on a determinate sentence), the better.
Myself and others above, are writing to as many official people as we can – MP’s, Jack Straw, Anne Owers, all types of Prison Societies. As Mary says The Prison Reform Trust are particularly helpful.
We can only write to our own MP’s so hopefully eventually someone’s MP will be interested!!
The more people who keep pushing this the more it will help.

From Patricia O

January 11th, 2010 at 4:25 pm

Having received such a lot of personal e-mail support from Mary over the last year, and been advised by her to read Brian’s excellent Blog, I have just finished reading all the entries on the site. Our son is now 1 year over his 18 month tariff, with no end in sight. He has done courses, and been described as a model prisoner. Like others, I have written all over the show, and have got nowhere. The Prison Reform Trust have commissioned research into IPPs, so are worth contacting, to add weight to their concern. It does seem bleak, but we must continue to do as much as we can. This is the most inhumane of sentences.

From S Coker

January 14th, 2010 at 3:02 pm

Just to update, my brother is still in prison. He was sentenced to 14 weeks in April 2008 in all that time he has only had the opportunity to go on 1 course. He was moved to Whatton in i think January of 2009 so he could go on these courses. He attended his first around November. He was also assigned a new probation officer shortly after January and as still never met this person. How do you keep their spirits up when they are faced with such incompetence and abuse of the criminal justice system. Jack Straw, hang your head in shame and correct your mistakes. Release all prisoners sentenced before the 2008 minimum 2 year tariff ruling.

From Mary

January 14th, 2010 at 8:20 pm

Most important S. Coker – do not give up – keep trying, writing letters, signing petitions and encouraging your brother to keep strong. Keep in touch with sites like this so that you can see you are not on your own. As you can see from Patricia O message above we have supported each other for a long time now – we could ask Brian if he can put us in touch with each other if you feel that would help (I am not sure he can do that – but if you want we could ask him). Like Patricia my son is nearly three years over an 18 month tariff – and I have to keep finding ways to keep strong – you must do the same. Brian (and others on here) are very helpful and supportive and I have felt very appreciative of this since I found the blog.

From Bob

January 15th, 2010 at 12:50 pm

To S.Coker ( what a shocking case history!) and others with friends or relatives in the clutches of this disgraceful law: I think it’s time to start exerting pressure on any weak spot we can find in this nasty dark corner of our legal system. It’s time to stop asking for favours and fairness; nobody is listening. So I suggest, for a start, that those who are able try to enlist the help of the noisier newspapers in getting justice (I’m not because of my IMB work). Because… there’s an election coming soon, and politicians will do almost anything to save their seats, especially when put under pressure by the press! For example, The Sun now supports the Tories, so I suggest writing to that awful newspaper offering it the facts about this heartless David Blunkett / Labour Party law, the tragic spin-offs of which most people simply don’t know anything about (especially Sun readers…?!). I’m a Labour Party member but I’d have no qualms at all seeing The Sun give my party a mauling over this dreadful legislation – which it certainly would, especially if former editor and general right-wing loudmouth Kelvin MacKenzie still has anything to do with it. I suggest you caring, loyal, distressed and angry people now play it as hard (and dirty) as you can to get justice for your loved ones! Do it now, in the run-up to the election. Target Straw as well as Blunkett. Shame them publicly. Write to all the newspapers you can, particularly the ‘popular’ ones which carry the floating voters so feared by the political parties – and above all right now by Labour. Get the gutter press on your side. Ring them up and offer them an interview. Go public. Do what it takes! I wouldn’t be surprised at anything Brown would do to win back a few votes….! Even see sense about IPPs?
For my part I suggest you might ask the Ministry of Justice how the Parole Board is coping with its IPP load. And whether it might be…say… several months behind….?? And if so, why!
Good luck!

From Jo D.

January 15th, 2010 at 7:50 pm

To those who’ve just written, I thought we were having a tough time, but the 14 weeks has totally stunned me. My friend has gone app. 3 years past his tariff – he was sentenced to less than 2 years and had completed his sentence plan by his tariff date. But at every Parole Hearing they set him extra things to do that are unachievable, so he is still in prison.
The Prison Reform trust are examining the figures given by the government as to how many IPP’s with less than 2 years are still in prison, because they think the figures given by the government warrant further investigation.
Maria Eagle is doing an audit of all IPP’s and they (PRT) are asking for it to be made public. If, in the first place, it shows the government have lied (considerably) about the figures, it should immediately weaken their position.
I’m writing again to all members of the House of Lords who have ever complained about the IPP situation – there’s quite a few of them including the Bishop of Liverpool, and they’re not there to win votes like MP’s are. Although as Bob rightly says, with an election coming up perhaps the Tory party would be interested in using what’s going on to help their political goals. I know Nick Clegg has questioned the IPP sentence since 2005 (in his former post) and as a party they are against it (they replied to my e-mail).
If only 76 have been released since 2005, and about two and a half thousand are past their tariff, many of whom can’t do any more to reduce their risk, then I feel there is something not right about all this which is being clouded by the government issuing false figures. Also the amount being released isn’t really increasing every year despite the fact about an extra 600 go past their tariff every year.
Also the fact the government are failing to accept they’ve done anything wrong gives the impression they’re trying to keep something quiet.

To S. Coker, to be given what is a ‘life sentence’ for an offence that only warrants 14 weeks, is appalling and just shows how totally unjust these sentences are.
To everyone who is writing, I echo what Mary says, don’t ever give up. I’m sure there’s some sort of cover up of something, and we need to keep pushing until it’s put right.

From JACKIE

January 16th, 2010 at 10:56 pm

I AM SO ANGRY AFTER READING PATRICA O, S.COKER, MARY AND JO D. PLEASE KNOW WE WILL GET THIS PETITION TO NUMBER 10 IVE MADE A FACEBOOK AND AM SENDING THE PETITION TO EVERYONE I KNOW AND ASKING THEM TO DO THE SAME ITS GROWING AND MORE PEOPLE ARE BECOMING AWARE OF THIS MADNESS.ITS UNBELIVABLE…..IM A CHRISTIAN AND SPOKE TO MY PASTOR ABOUT THIS HE IS SO UPSET HES GOING TO WRITE TO OUR M.P. AND I AM ANNOUNCING THE CAUSE AT OUR SERVICE TOMORO. WE CAN GET MORE PEOPLE ON BOARD. I HAVE ALSO SENT THE PETITION DETALES TO MY SON IN PRISON FOR OTHER IPP PRISONERS TO GET THEIR FAMILIES AND FRIENDS INVOLVED. PLEASE EVERYONE ABOVE STAY STRONG…I KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN FIGHTING A VERY LONG TIME BUT HELP IS AT HAND…WE WILL ALL STAND TOGEATHER AND GET THE P.M.TO LOOK INTO THIS SENTENCE.A BIG HUG N KISS TO U ALL….X

From Jo D.

January 19th, 2010 at 12:45 am

Jackie,
We’re glad to have your support. I don’t know what party your MP is, some are better than others, but would you be able to get him/her to ask questions of Jack Straw, because he doesn’t seem to take notice of ordinary people who write to him.
I think the more of us doing all this then they’ve got to come up with some proper solutions, and we won’t give up until they do.

From Jo D.

January 19th, 2010 at 12:34 pm

Mary, (in particular -although you might have seen it if you search IPP’s everyday as I do) , and all others, please read Simon Burns written question about Indeterminate sentences in Parliament yesterday (18th Jan).
It shows there are probably about 1,500 IPP’s with less than 2 years who have gone past their tariff and NOT 162 as they told you and many others.
So it seems like they may have been trying to hide something???
I would be interested in any advice about this from Bob or Brian?

Brian writes: Thank you for this, Jo. As you may have seen from a recent blog post, I have been away and not able to respond until very recently to the many useful (and often distressing) recent contributions on this painful subject. I believe that Bob has recently collected some up-to-date statistics on IPPs and if he is free to share them with us, they might form the basis for another concerted campaign to bring the whole scandal to the notice of a wider section of public opinion than hitherto, perhaps in the context of the forthcoming general election and the position of the three main parties on the future of IPPs. Just how to launch such a campaign will require careful thought. An authoritative article in the Times or the Guardian might be a good start, but it’s far from easy to get such an article accepted for publication.

From Jo D.

January 25th, 2010 at 7:42 pm

I have found some figures that might be interesting to anyone writing to those who could have any influence on this sentence.

In October 2007 there were 395 IPP’s gone past their tariff and 13 had been released = 3%
In October 2008 there were 1,266 IPP’s gone past their tariff and 44 had been released = 3%
In November 2009 there were 2,299 IPP’s gone past their tariff and76 had been released = 3%

Are the Parole Board only allowed to release 3% of all those gone past their tariff?
At the beginning of 2008 Noms 3 was supposed to have made great changes to progress IPP’s through the system, but nearly 2 years later it has made no difference, and neither has the changes to the parole hearing system.
It is clear now there are around 1,500 IPP’s who had less than 2 years and are still in prison.

By an average increase of 600 going past their tariff every year, and at the 3% rate (above) it will take over 40 years just to release the 1,500 with less than 2 years who have gone past their tariff.
There is a total of over 2,300 past their tariff, it will take over 60 years at the above rate just to release them.

It costs over £67 million a year to keep the 1,500 with less than 2 years in prison (at £45,000 each).
If this £67 million was freed up it would provide funding for an extra 13,400 places on courses a year for others (at £5000 per person per course)

The Government proudly claim they are providing £3 million extra a year into the IPP system. All this does is pay for 66 of the 1,500 who shouldn’t be in prison to stay in for another year just waiting for another parole hearing.
Apart from the psychological damage it is doing to those suffering from this sentence, it doesn’t even make economic sense.

I’m told figures have been taken from the Ministry of Justice answers to parliamentary questions and the Bromley Briefings.
As far as I can see the calculations based on the figures seem correct.

Brian writes: Thank you very much, Jo, for these further statistics, which I hope we can make good use of in the continuing effort to expose publicly the injustices inflicted by this indefensible system.

From Mary

January 31st, 2010 at 3:45 pm

I have just seen a correction from Lord Bach that it is not 162 prisoners with an IPP that have gone past their tariff BUT 1225. How can this government get it so wrong? They got the figures wrong and did not even apologise. What a bunch of amateurs.

They also say that the average amount of time this group have been held in prison beyond the expiry of their tariff is 486 days (if this figure can be trusted). For the record my son is 800 days over tariff on an 18 month tariff IPP!! He should be getting a second parole hearing in March but we already know they are many months behind!!

Brian writes: Thank you for this further information, Mary. The more one looks at the statistics, the more horrifying the system looks. I’m currently discussing with Bob (the author of several authoritative comments in this thread) possible ways to get some more relevant figures which don’t seem to have been released so far, and what we might usefully do with them when we get them. There has to be a way to raise public awareness (currently near zero) of the gross injustice of the whole thing, affecting as it does so many thousands of people. Meanwhile Bob has alerted me to some excellent speeches in the House of Lords last October denouncing IPPs: see http://j.mp/9SAwmV. You may have mentioned these earlier.

From Mary

February 1st, 2010 at 8:08 pm

I have today had a reply, via my MP, to my letter asking the government why they would not respond to my petition about the IPPs. I got the usual stuff about IPPs are the law and they don’t intend to make it retrospective etc. They did not respond as to why they would not answer the petition, there were 277 names on it – so perhaps they can’t afford the postage! Anyway – I shall write again – perhaps they think 277 people are insignificant – and ask them to formally tell me why they won’t respond to the petition. I think we need to do anything that keeps the IPP matter in front of them.

Thanks to Brian for his response – I look forward to hearing further. Yes I am aware of the House of Lords stuff in October. I believe they ran out of time to take matters further!!

From Jo D.

February 4th, 2010 at 12:50 am

Mary, my friend serving the IPP has done 1,074 days past his tariff – I’ve just sat and worked it out – it’s quite frightening.
He has had two parole boards, although they were a waste of time because they weren’t really interested in anything he’d done. Most of the other IPP’s at the prison he’s in have done over 3 years past their tariff so I’m very doubtful about the 486 average days past their tariff as well.

I would have thought an apology from Lord Bach after making such a huge mistake about the amount of IPP’s with less than 2 years would have been in order as well.

I’ve had a really good response from Dr Peter Selby from the IMB, who is in contact with MP’s about it.
Also the Government have asked for a review by the Inspectorate of Probation and Inspectorate of Prisons on IPP’s. I think everyone knows Anne Owers views on them so I have every confidence she will do her best.
I want to write to No 10 about the petition not being replied to, my MP’s not much help, apparently No 10 don’t always respond to e-mails, would it be OK just to send a letter about it to No 10?? Any ideas Bob or Brian??

From Mary

February 4th, 2010 at 7:02 pm

Jo D – that is a long time past tariff – how terrible for everyone involved.! I’m not sure where the government got their figure of 486 days part tariff – probably another ‘error’ like the one about 162 IPP prisoners with less than 2 yer tariffs!!! Please could you tell me a bit more about the review you mention? Is it different to the Lockyer Report done in August 2007?

It would be great if you would write a letter to No. 10 regarding the petition as they have not responded yet to my latest request as to why they will not respond.

For the record I have also asked my conservative MP to tell me what they would do about IPPs if they come to power – watch this space!

Keep strong everyone – and thanks to Brian for allowing us to write here on his blog.

From Jo D.

February 5th, 2010 at 8:08 pm

Mary,
The only thing I know about the review is from the Probation Debate in the House of Lords on 21st Jan. 2010, Baroness Gibson mentions something about IPP’s (at 3.29pm), the there is a response from Lord Tunicliffe (at 4.21pm), if you go down that speech to the paragraph beginning ‘The noble Baroness….’ it’s mentioned there.
I’ve had the letter about your petition written for a while, I just didn’t know the best way to send it.

The figures I’ve mentioned earlier (Jan 25th) I’ve sent to a few people to check and no one has found any problems with them so I should think they are correct, and quite illuminating.
If the Government aren’t worried about people, maybe they would be about the money they’re wasting.
We won’t give up until they do something about all the suffering this is causing.

From Bob

February 11th, 2010 at 10:52 pm

Jo D, Mary and others. Sorry this blog has lapsed a bit – but did you know that Brian suffered an almighty computer virus attack about a week ago which has sent his systems haywire? (I don’t know if he can even look in on us now.)

However, the battle continues, and he and I are working on a way to get it into the public eye, so that people will at least know about the IPP scandal – which, as we know, not 1% of them do right now. But whether it’s the two of us or someone with a higher media profile who attempts this raising of awareness, there will have to be the most scrupulous use of facts and figures to illustrate the iniquity of the system; we can’t afford to make mistakes. Then there must be an exposée of the degree of human suffering caused to the many people caught up in this Kafkaesque limbo – but, importantly, it must not be over-dramatized. However emotional or angry IPP victims might rightly feel, the good British public backs away from anger and outrage. For them to carry on reading, the case must be put with reasoned anger…

OK, now a few more facts. You did a good job on stats, Jo D. It isn’t easy to get consistent ones, is it? ‘They work for you’ quotes excellent parliamentary answers from ministers, and that’s where I got most of the following from ( mainly from answers given by Maria Eagle to Andrew Stunnell MP)- plus from a bit of research of my own:
As of Jan 19th 2010 there were 5828 IPPs in prison, of which 2468 were b/t
(beyond tariff).
Of these 2468 : 779 (31%) have completed one Offending Behaviour Programme (OBP).
1223 (50%) have completed two or more.
i.e. 2002 (81%) should be en route to the Parole Board. But are they?
and 466 (19%) have completed no OBPs. (So what hope for them?)

Now the most difficult figure to unearth:
Prisoners given IPPs with tariffs of 2 years or less before July 14th 2008: 1305
Still in prison beyond tariff at Jan 19th 2010……………………….: 1197
Of these:
419 have accessed ONE OBP
309 ” 2 ”
193 ” 3 ”
66 ” 4 ”
8 ” 5 ”

So of the 1197 b/t, 995 have accessed OBPs. (43 are in psychiatric hospitals, and 159 are in other units where OBPs are not normally provided.
So what is their future?)

And are the 995 – or their dossiers ( under the new regulations making paper submissions sufficient) – getting nearer to the Parole Board? This is what is hard to ascertain and what we must try to find out or expose.
But with a total of only 98 IPPs ever having been released since their inception in 2005 ( of which 23 were re-called 2007 – 9), there must surely be a queue forming near the exit, because the rate of release so far is ludicrous and contemptible.
In fact what it points to, in my opinion, is back-covering of the worst bureaucratic kind, and perhaps to the attitude: ‘ Better that all reformed criminals be kept in prison indefinitely than that one recidivist should go free and give the authorities a bad name….’
This is what we have to try to expose.

Brian writes (in a rare moment when his wounded laptop allows him to do so): These are appalling figures and therefore invaluable for use in discrediting the whole IPP system. You have performed miracles in assembling them.

Yesterday, at a crowded meeting addressed by the legendary Lord Bingham, former Master of the Rolls, Lord Chief Justice and senior Law Lord, now (regrettably) retired, I asked a question about IPPs, outlining their injustice and the scale of the misery and distress they cause. Lord Bingham in reply didn’t condemn IPPs outright (which was disappointing) but he acknowledged that they are a cause for concern, or words to that effect. But in a hall full of senior and influential lawyers I hope I might have planted a seed of interest and concern here or there.

From Jo M

February 14th, 2010 at 5:14 pm

I would like to say to Brian and Bob that I appreciate their comments and work in connection with IPPs.

I am giving you details of my son who has an IPP so that you can add any relevant information to your facts.

My son received an 18 month IPP in 2007, which was given for two offences which were 21 years apart. This IPP reached tariff in Nov. 2007. He managed to get a parole hearing in December 2008 which was 13 months after tariff expiry. The Parole Board would not release him or send him to open conditions, even though he had completed relevant courses. The Parole Board advised that he would get another parole hearing in March 2010 (15 months later). He has now been told that the parole board is running at least 4 months behind which means that he may get a hearing in July/August 2010. By that time he will have been in prison for 4 years and 3 months which equates to an eight and half year sentence!

As regards the scale of the misery and distress caused – it is almost impossible to describe the torture and pain that is involved in not knowing when a loved one will be released from prison. Every day of our lives with live with despair, despression and hopelessness with no end in sight. It is hard to believe that in a civilised country like ours the government will keep people in prison, for sometimes quite ‘minor’ offences indefinitely and that there is no public outcry about it.

I think Bob’s comment about the public not knowing is absolutely right – the public in general think that the people being kept in prison are all highly dangerous serious offenders – and this is just not the truth. (I fully acknowlege that many of the people in prison are dangerous and do not attempt to minimise this is any way. I also believe that most of the people who received tariffs of less than 2 years would not be considered so dangerous that they must remain incarcerated.)

I have knowledge of several other families in a similar situation to ours and without exception they are depressed and full of despair. I have had considerable correspondence with the Ministry of Justice about these, and got the same response as others mentioned above.

If there is anything I can do to assist with bringing this to the notice of the relevant people or anything else I will be happy to help.

From Jo D.

February 15th, 2010 at 1:32 am

Firstly, Jo M, my friend with the IPP’s situation seems almost identical to your son’s, and makes me wonder if they’re working to some format. His tariff was up in early 2007, and has eventually after 2 (delayed) Parole Hearings got to a Cat D where he is expecting to spend a couple of years, by then he will have done about 7 years in prison, equal to a 14 year sentence, (he also got an 18 month tariff) and there’s nothing to say they’ll release him then.
He completed all his offending behaviour courses by the end of 2006, but at both Parole Hearings one of the things they say is “to consolidate skills learnt”. He hasn’t been in any trouble since completing his courses – but that doesn’t seem good enough, so what other way do they expect him to prove he’s consolodated his skills – or will that come up at every Parole Hearing? That expression has been mentioned a few times in the Inside Time as something Parole Boards always say.
Like you say, the effect on all those connected with anyone serving these sentences is devastating, he
has already lost touch with all his family because they don’t understand the sentence and think he’s been kept in only because he’s misbehaved – which of course he hasn’t.

With reference to Bob’s figures, I was amazed that 23 have already been recalled. My first thought was that it shows the system/courses obviously don’t work. However talking to my friend serving the IPP, he thinks that after someone’s been through the IPP system it does so much damage to a person it would be very difficult for them to cope, especially as most lose contact with family and friends after going past their tariffs (I guess we’re amongst the more stalwart of supporters). This echoes something I’ve seen written by Mary, that the way the sentence is managed cancels out any benefits that might have been gained.

Have you seen the figures given by Maria Eagles (They Work for You) on 9th February 2010? There are 476 IPP’s who have done more than 2 years past their tariff, the majority of these will have around 2 year tariffs and less, but only 118 with 2 years or less in Open Conditions. We were told, as mentioned by someone else earlier on this blog, that they have to progress through a Cat C then a Cat D – despite Noms 3 saying those with 3 years or less can be released from a Cat B. So how long will it take the many hundreds of others who are already past their tariff to get to a Cat D before they can even be considered for release?

To Jo M, I’ve heard the Prison Reform Trust are hoping publish something about the problems with IPP’s so would be very interested in any one’s experiences, and as mentioned above, Anne Owers should be bringing out a review so I’m sure she’d be interested.
Bob or Brian might have some ideas for any concerted action that might be helpful.

From Teena

February 19th, 2010 at 10:58 pm

my boyfreind was over heard threatening to kill someone over the phone witness who heard gaven statment when one rang the police
there was no victium traced he was charged and put on remand he spent 140 day on remand before going to ocurt when hes solicotr told him to plead guilty he would get 4.5 mths max
he was given 3 years the judge said he was giving him back the 140 days so he would have to serve 13mths
he asked hes solicotr after if he had been IPP he said not
the next day a life offericer came ot see him and told him he had 18mths to serve with an IPP that was in march 2008 hes dont the courses i tihnk no 100% he has got a date at the royal courts of jucstic inb feb 2010 for an appeal but hes got no counsel as he sacked hes solicotr he has also told me this week he has an parole date in april but everyoner telling me not to hold my breath hes coming home any advice please

From Jo

February 20th, 2010 at 3:52 pm

Teena- Im surprised to hear that he got an IPP Sentence and did not know about..My two brothers have IPP Sentences and judge does make it quite clear when sentencing.
He will have been allocated a probation officer maybe you need to contact him/her and his previous solictor to find out what is going on. Are you sure he aint got an Extended Sentence?
If he has an Appeal in Feb which is anyday soon then he will need a barrister to represent him.. You really need to find out whats going on..How can he have this hearing?
When is his Parole date April ?

From Jo M

February 20th, 2010 at 5:11 pm

As the government refused to respond to Mary’s on-line petition with 277 names on it I am doing a paper petition and hope to get 500 names on it. If anyone can help by getting some signatures I am happy to email a blank sheet for signatures and then you could scan it an email it back to me. If anyone is interested please ask Brian for my email address or put yours on here and I will send it through. We really have to keep the pressure on the government and if we can get 500 names they will definitely respond.

I hope everyone is keeping strong – one day something ositive will happen.

From Bob

February 21st, 2010 at 5:34 pm

Jo M and Jo D, you have my continued admiration and thanks for your work on this awful business. Your own cases make terrible reading; I can only imagine the pain you suffer continuously, and the more I read the more I’m convinced the British people have no idea what goes on in our prisons in their name. Most of you who share this blog ( and you all share my sympathy and attention) know I work on the Independent Monitoring Board of a large prison, and I can assure you I’m doing all I can, as is Brian, to bring this scandal to the public’s notice.
Teena, your boyfriend’s case sounds to have been messed up by somebody. Was there really never a named victim? I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t follow the logic of his trial. But if there was no named victim, it sounds as though he might have been given a very hard IPP sentence to make sure he didn’t get out of custody and start killing people (having been heard threatening to do so). In which case he could have been given an IPP, since that is what IPPs are supposed to do – make sure the public will be safe once the offender is released. But having put that as a possibility, I’m not at all sure that that is the case. (The whole business seems to have been confused by both the solicitor and the prison officer.)
So let’s start at the beginning: Under The Criminal Justice Act 2003 ( New Prison Sentences, Schedule 15) ‘Threats to kill’ carry a maximum determinate sentence of 10 years (as laid down in section 16 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861). That would mean 5 years in prison, then out on licence – if there had been an identified victim of the threat, and if the judge had awarded a normal determinate sentence. But you say there wasn’t a named victim. So it would seem possible that your friend has been given a normal determinate sentence of only three years, with release on licence half-way ( i.e he didn’t get the maximum sentence possible under ‘threats to kill’ because there was no ‘real’ victim). Moreover his getting a Parole Board hearing in April, just after half way into the sentence, would support that view. As Jo (which one?) says, the judge would surely have spelled it out had he awarded an IPP. Has your friend been doing Offending Behaviour Programmes, such as Controlling Anger and Learning to Manage it [CALM]? If not, and he’s got a PB hearing coming up, it sounds much more like an ordinary sentence than an IPP.
But as Jo also says, it’s worth checking that he hasn’t got an Extended Sentence. An ES is where the judge awards a Custodial Term, which is the same length as the Determinate Sentence he would award for the same crime – let’s say 10 years. But whereas under a normal determinate sentence the offender would be released automatically on licence after five years, in an ES he would only get out after five years if the PB really thought he was no danger to society. If they aren’t sure, they’ll keep him in for the full 10 years. But he WILL be released then.(There are also further bits that can be added on, but that’s not important here.) I’m just puzzled at what the solicitor said, and how a prison officer is empowered to tell a man he has an IPP.
Your friend should ask IMMEDIATELY to see the IPP clerk at the prison to find out if he’s on the IPP list. And please let us know. It all seems very messy to me – and worrying for you.
For the rest, I’m pursuing vigorously the quest to open this up in public.

Maria Eagle’s statistics continue to pour out helpfully in parliamentary answers, the most recent being to questions from Simon Burns (Con, West Chelmsford) on Feb 5th, after those she gave to Andrew Stunnell (Lib Dem Hazel Grove)on Jan 19th.
The Feb 5th figures show that 236 IPPs were attached to sentences of 2 years or less AFTER the supposed cut-off date of July 14th 2008. (The small print to that 2008 amendment to the CJA 2003 says that IPPs MAY be attached to sentences of under 2 years if the offender had a previous history of violence…etc. But 236 is a lot….?!)
The figures we need to shout about are (1) the 2468 IPP prisoners held beyond tariff as at Jan 19th 2010 from the current IPP total of 5828. ( These figures vary daily, which is reasonable, given the large number of prisons from which they are abstracted)…and (2) the unbelievable ‘total’ of 98 IPP prisoners who have been released since 2007 – 23 of whom have already been recalled!
But JoD, I’ve procured some figures which are different from and worse than Maria Eagle’s, and am wondering just where the truth lies. My source tells me there aren’t 476 IPPs at least 2 years beyond tariff (b/t) in Feb 2010 as ME said, but probably many more. Of the 1305 IPPs attached to under two- year sentences before July 14th 2008, 1197 of those offenders were still in prison at 19/1/10. OK, they haven’t all hit the 2-years- past- the- July 14th 2008 mark yet. But they soon will, and the odds are that many many more than 478 are already well over two years p/t. I have to check that I can use these figures in public – and also that they are correct. The problem is I think they are.

I would welcome contributions, corrections, amendments, etc, from Tony Hatfield or other lawyers who find legal flaws in what I say. I would hate to mislead people.

From Jo D.

February 21st, 2010 at 7:32 pm

Firstly, with reference to Teena’s situation above – I keep thinking I’ve heard the worst abuse of this cruel system – apparently there’s a lot more than I realise. In the various prisons my friend has been in, he’s met a few IPP’s in for ‘threats to kill’, usually to their wife or partner due to being overheard arguing. The wife/partners usually visit and write, (obviously not expecting to be killed). Mostly they don’t understand how they got the IPP because as they say, that’s just what they usually say when they argue. I have also read in the Inside Time of prisons who have very few IPP’s, don’t know much about them and unintentionally give out wrong information to them.

I am awaiting a reply from my letter to No 10 about their lack of response to Mary’s petition. I did mention to them that if nothing changed it would take many years to release those with even short tariffs, and that it might be appropriate to let them know that rather than let them continue with false hopes of release.
I have had another interesting and very understanding response from Lord Ramsbotham, who was against this sentence from the start, because, as he says, the funds aren’t available and never have been available to make it work.
I have also seen the copy of the letter sent from Jack Straw to Dr Selby, which contains exactly the same rhetoric the M.O.J. reply with to most comments about this sentence. I always think the purpose of rhetoric is to cover something up, and most of it is challengeable so I intend to pass most of my comments to Dr Peter Selby first. One of the points Jack Straw made (and he says it was mentioned in the H.O.L.) was that he thought it was good that 2000 of the 2,400 + had done more than one course. A look at the figures given to Andrew Stunell about courses shows that the ones who’ve done one course or none are also high. Some of those beyond tariff have been in prison for over 4 years so having done more than one course isn’t that impressive. On behalf of us all I would like to express my gratitude to Dr Selby for the work he’s done on this.

Bob, like you I do believe there would be more than 476 at least 2 years beyond tariff, but I think it would probably need a month by month breakdown of when they were sentenced and what to, to find that out.
The problem is, some figures are given as less than 2 years and some as 2 years and less, which confuses the issue because they could still give out tariffs of 2 years after July ’08 without it having to fall under the exceptions and the 2 years are included in the 236.
Also thanks Bob for your continued interest and hard work on this.

From Bob

February 21st, 2010 at 9:46 pm

Jo D, I take your point about the confusion between ’2yrs or less’ and ‘under 2yrs’. But what we do know – from figures I got direct from a department of the M of J (labelled ‘Briefing for Andrew Stunnell MP’, but which I haven’t yet seen published on ‘They work for you’) – is that by January 19th 2010, 1305 IPPs had been issued to people sentenced to a tariff of ‘two years or less’ between April 4th 2005 (when IPPs were first issued) and July 13th 2008 ( the day before the law changed). And of those 1305, 1197 were being held beyond their tariff – whatever it was. That’s pretty bad, isn’t it?
But from 14th July 2008 the amended law stated that henceforth for both IPPs and EPPs (Extended sentences for public protection – described earlier) a ‘seriousness threshold’ must be reached whereby the offence must be bad enough to merit AT LEAST two years of ACTUAL custodial time, i.e. as an IPP tariff or an EPP custodial term.
So yes, IPPs can still be given with a tariff of exactly two years minimum. But Maria Eagle’s figures for 2009 show that only 158 IPP awards were made in this ‘two-year’ minimum category. Comparing this with the ’2 yrs or less’ pre-2008 category, we can see that 290 IPPs were issued in 2008 up to July 13th, 563 in 2007, and 550 in 2006. In other words the drop to 158 last year was a pretty sudden one. So let’s hope that progress of a sort has been made on the judicial front…

From Patricia O

February 23rd, 2010 at 6:19 pm

Hello, everyone. Does anyone know if under the Human Rights Act, there could be a case to be answered for detaining people beyond their tariff, when it has become obvious that a person cannot do any more courses than he has, or prove he is ‘safe’ to release? Our son is being kept in, (he will have doubled his initial minimum 18 month tariff in June), as the ‘experts’ say he is still having ‘inappropriate thoughts’, (in spite of 2 courses), when he isn’t, but how can he prove that? Could a case be made against a system which keeps people locked up for what they might be thinking? Thank you everyone for what you are doing to try to change this inhumane system.
Warmest wishes, Patricia O

From Jo D.

February 25th, 2010 at 5:55 pm

Patricia, after reading that I was immediately reminded of the Thought Police (George Orwell) – and realised there are a few other similarities. I don’t know how it fits into Human Rights – Bob or Brian would know more about it, but you could try contacting Liberty.

While I was trying to find something else, I noticed on 5th Dec’ ’07, in the House of Commons Jack Straw said as part of his opening speech - ”..as my Right Honourable friend, the Member for Sheffield Brightside [David Blunkett] has confirmed to me, these sentences [IPP's] were never meant to target those who would have received tariffs of less than 2 years”.
This was repeated on the same day in the House of Lords.
Surely this would have given reason to make the amendment retrospective, it wasn’t as if they had a change of mind in 2008, but the person responsible for this sentence had never intended them to be given to those warranting less than 2 years.

From Patricia O

February 28th, 2010 at 2:33 pm

Dear Jo D, thank you very much for your e-mail. As advised, I have today e-mailed Liberty. It can take up to 6 weeks for a response, but I will keep you informed. Our son has just received a letter from his probation officer saying she thinks he is still having offence-related thoughts. There is absolutely no evidence of this. Isn’t this crazy? Warmest wishes, Patricia O

From Jo D.

March 4th, 2010 at 2:19 pm

New review of IPP sentences is on:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-probation/docs/IPP_report_final_2-rps.pdf

Also on Prison Reform Trust website it’s explained quite well – basically it says the current situation is unsustainable and urges a policy review at a Ministerial level!
Maybe we can take this as a step forward?

From Jo

March 5th, 2010 at 7:10 pm

Hi Everyone,

My two bros went to appeal court to fight for there IPP Sentences to be removed… There barristers even argued they should get Extended Sentences but still No joy…Seems like its a waste of time and false hope going to the Appeal Court.
My brothers have done all the courses on sentence plan but the appeal judges answer was then they will get parole…
Which is not easy!!! After reading so many stories of others past there tarriff.
Feel deflated and really upset as I feel know there is No hope or any light at the end of tunnel.. I thought it was a Justice System..
Its seems like we cant do nothing either, feel helpless ……

From Jo D.

March 6th, 2010 at 12:41 pm

Jo,
Sorry to hear that,
Firstly the Appeal Judges are misinformed if they think doing the courses means they’ll get parole, my friend like many others mentioned here have done courses a long time ago and it didn’t make any difference, they should have read the review mentioned above (although it only came out on 4th) and they’d see very few manage to get released – although the government have said they will take notice of the review which they never have before.
On a practical note, do contact Francesca Cooney of the Prison Reform trust, as mentioned above, she’s very helpful and very concerned about all this, especially the effect it has on everyone involved. Also write /e-mail your MP telling him/her all about the effects of this, if they get to the point of discussing it in Parliament – which they might do, the more MP’s that understand the injustice and damaging effects of this sentence, the more helpful it would be if they do have any debates about it.
Hope this helps.

From Jo

March 7th, 2010 at 2:30 pm

Jo D -
Thanks for your advice and i will ring Francesca Cooney 2moro… Just seems it all just falls on deaf ears when it comes to IPP Sentences.
Dont think she will be able to do much, as these decisions are down to a parole board whether they get out.
Seems like no one can help and these IPP Sentences are here to stay…
Will write to my local MP but that will fall on deaf ears….

From Bob

March 7th, 2010 at 10:15 pm

Patricia, barristers have already declared the award of IPPs to various prisoners ‘illegal under the HRA’. They have actually said so in court, but it has availed nothing because Jack Straw has simply appealed every time, resulting in the cases being left ‘pending appeal’….i.e. in the long grass for a long time.
But there is evidence of IPPs having been overturned on appeal as long ago as 2006. See Regina v David Baird ‘and another person’, crime 993. Briefly the appeal judge didn’t consider that the degree of violence used in the original crime had been sufficient to merit an IPP. In fact he implied that the original judge had been over-zealous, and replaced the IPP with a determinate sentence. There have also been a few other cases of successful appeals – though they might have involved lawyers….and money. I’m not sure.
Contacting Francesca Cooney at the PRT – as I did – is a very good idea. She’s very helpful. But the actual figures etc I asked for were sent very efficiently by the Information Officer, Sarah Capel. Maybe people should try her if they can’t get Francesca:
sarah.capel@prisonreformtrust.org.uk

From Jo

March 7th, 2010 at 10:38 pm

Hi Bob,
The reason the Appeal Judge gave for my eldest brother was that the trial judge had the right and his previous was a GBH when he was 15yrs old. I add he is 42yrs old know and cause he has been inside for a drug charge in 1996 that warranted it as well. He said drugs are the same as violence which i find puzzling as I have never seen people given IPP for drug charges…
One of the other guys in case who got a determinate sentence and did not get IPP the appeal judge brought his name up and agreed his previous was much worse as he had, Gun charge,GBH,Robbery but Appeal Judges answer to that was , he was fortunate he did not get it ..
So were is the justice? Leaves a bitter taste in your mouth….
Seems like these sentences are passed out by trial judges on what way the wind blows for them on the day.
My brothers had a very good QC but still it mounted to nothing on appeal….Was not even willing to give Extended Sentence…
So it just shows people that deserve sentences like these get the determinate ones and the people that dont get shafted with IPP Sentences..

From Mary

March 11th, 2010 at 7:28 pm

Please have a look at the Early Day Motion No. 1047 on the UK Parliament website. This might be a good time to re-write to the government about our views on IPPs and in particular the ones with the less than 2 years tariff. At least 6 MPs have signed the Early Day Motion – so please add your voice.

Keep strong everyone.

From Bob

March 12th, 2010 at 4:19 pm

Jo, that sounds as appalling as it does ridiculous. I have the print-out of the 153 crimes for which IPPs can be issued, and the only single, vaguest mention of drugs is where someone commits drug rape (using rohipnol, etc). There isn’t a single mention of heroin or any other drug, either as a user or even as trafficker mentioned under the 153 IPP categories. You said you had a good barrister?
As for the case of the other man with gun crime, GBH and robbery to his ‘credit’, he would seem a textbook case for an IPP – remembering that IPPs are not usually given for a single crime ( tho’ they can be), but for at least a second offence of a serious nature (usually sex or violence or both). On the face of it it would seem the judge who gave him a determinate sentence let him off unjustifiably lightly. All very well for the appeal judge to say so too, but why didn’t he act?Unless the whole thing was before 2005 when the first IPPs were awarded.
Mary, I can only find an EDM 1047 in 2009 – referring to some sort of licence fee. I’ll check again when I have more time.

Brian writes: Andrew Stunell’s Early Day Motion 1047 is at
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=40675&SESSION=903
– or more conveniently http://bit.ly/cGUS6G.
It reads:

Early Day Motion
EDM 1047
INDETERMINATE SENTENCES FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION
09.03.2010
Stunell, Andrew

That this House recognises the failure of the Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection (IPP) to provide an effective prison sentence; notes that the thematic review published by the Criminal Justice Joint Inspectorate has branded the current position `unsustainable’; supports the Inspectorate’s calls for a major policy review at ministerial level to examine the efficacy and utility of the IPP, taking into account that IPPs confuse the public and fail to satisfy the victims of crime; notes that the IPP is destabilising the running of prisons and contributing disproportionately to prison overcrowding; recognises the large numbers of IPP prisoners unable to access courses required before their release, thus remaining in prison beyond their tariff; further recognises the double punishment imposed on those who are mentally ill or have a learning disability who are effectively barred from participating in such courses; notes that the criticisms of the IPP voiced by the Lord Chief Justice, the Chairman of the Parole Board and the Chief Inspector of Prisons, among others, have not been satisfactorily resolved by the amendments to the sentence introduced by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008; and therefore urges the Government to commission a review immediately.

So far it has been signed by: Stunell, Andrew, Bottomley, Peter, Spink, Bob, Russell, Bob, Hunter, Mark, and Breed, Colin: i.e., not many.

It’s no good me urging my MP to sign it — he’s a minister, so he can’t. But back-bench MPs of any party could be asked to sign. It might also be worth writing to Andrew Stunell MP to thank him for his EDM and seek his advice on how to bring this grave injustice to wider public notice. His email address is enquiries@andrewstunell.org.uk and he is a Lib Dem MP. It might be worth-while inviting him to read some of the 112 distressing contributions at http://www.barder.com/696#comments, some of which he could quote in support of his campaign against IPPs. I can’t do this myself, unfortunately: I’m away on holiday with very limited internet access.

From Jo

March 12th, 2010 at 6:11 pm

Hi Bob,
It was argued about my brother that drugs has no relevance for violence but appeal judge said it still kills people. He was not willing to change sentence once given by crown court judge. He had a pre sentence report that was written of someone else. The probation went to the CPS and the police about my brother. who werre hardly going to say anything nice about him.
The other lad that never got the IPP with the above Gun,GBH,Robbery the appeal judge said he was just lucky and fortunate… but he has been sentenced and he is not appealing anything as he knows he got off lightly…So were is the justice?
As my brothers Qc/Barrister as i add i have two brothers did use his history as having a far worst violent history.. It makes a mockery of these IPP Sentences as this guy that has got this determinate sentence and since being sentenced he has got himself in trouble again. Also this guy had only been out for 6months before he re offended..
But the trial judge said he had done a course regarding his temper which i add my brothers did as well but they never got any credit for it…Also i add he did not even complete course as he was kicked out of it for starting a fight. (So he pulled the wool over the trial judges eyes)…
The sentences were passed out in 2008, the appeal judges answer is he was fortunate, lucky ..
My brothers are still not happy i dont know if they can do anything know…
All the Appeal judges can say they will get parole as they have done all there sentence plan so whats the problem and they are progressing so well..Its ok for them to say that as they are not the ones that will get stuck in this maze and its not them as a family that is suffering..
It just makes me mad to think how can my brothers have got this sentence and he did’nt..
I have had my rant but still dont feel better….

From Jo

March 12th, 2010 at 6:12 pm

Hi Bob, It was argued about my brother that drugs has no relevance for violence but appeal judge said it still kills people. He was not willing to change sentence once given by crown court judge. He had a pre sentence report that was written of someone else. The probation went to the CPS and the police about my brother. who werre hardly going to say anything nice about him. The other lad that never got the IPP with the above Gun,GBH,Robbery the appeal judge said he was just lucky and fortunate… but he has been sentenced and he is not appealing anything as he knows he got off lightly…So were is the justice? As my brothers Qc/Barrister as i add i have two brothers did use his history as having a far worst violent history.. It makes a mockery of these IPP Sentences as this guy that has got this determinate sentence and since being sentenced he has got himself in trouble again. Also this guy had only been out for 6months before he re offended.. But the trial judge said he had done a course regarding his temper which i add my brothers did as well but they never got any credit for it…Also i add he did not even complete course as he was kicked out of it for starting a fight. (So he pulled the wool over the trial judges eyes)…The sentences were passed out in 2008, the appeal judges answer is he was fortunate, lucky ..My brothers are still not happy i dont know if they can do anything know…All the Appeal judges can say they will get parole as they have done all there sentence plan so whats the problem and they are progressing so well..Its ok for them to say that as they are not the ones that will get stuck in this maze and its not them as a family that is suffering.. It just makes me mad to think how can my brothers have got this sentence and he did’nt..I have had my rant but still dont feel better….

From Jo D.

March 12th, 2010 at 7:03 pm

Jo,
I agree it sounds totally unfair, and I know it doesn’t make your brothers case any easier, but I have read and heard about so many other IPP cases just as unfair.
I’ve read about people getting determinate sentences – even before 2008, for acts of extreme violence with a lot of previous for violence who didn’t get an IPP just a determinate sentence. I think all of us aren’t asking for the people we know to ‘not be punished’ , but just to be treated as reasonably as if they’d been given a determinate sentence, which definitely isn’t happening at the moment.
I don’t think the Appeal Judge understands the problems with IPP’s ‘progressing’ and maybe anyone else going for an appeal should make them aware of how difficult it is to get released.

Bob, I found the EDM 1047 on the UK Parliament web page, Early Day Motions home page (I’m not very good at putting links in – maybe Mary could oblige). It was tabled by Andrew Stunell MP and has quite a good explanation with it. As Mary says the more MP’s that we can make aware of it and maybe sign it, the better.

From Bob

March 12th, 2010 at 9:47 pm

Jo and Co. Important: Look at ” http://38degrees.org.uk/page/s/suggestcampaign.”
I think you’ll have to type out the url in full, but it seems a possible breakthrough on the petition front.
I’ve just signed a petition sent me by a friend to stop the BBC cuts. It was organised by ’38 degrees’ ( of whom I’d never heard). After having signed I clicked on ‘ See some of our other petitions’ – they were good ones. Then I clicked on ‘Organise a petition’ and realised this is for you guys!
I could have put my name, my email and ordinary addresses, then described the petition.
But I can’t do it, given my monitoring role. I can’t campaign overtly on prison policy.
So do have a look at it. I think the BBC one has 3,000 or so signatures already – in a week. (I didn’t look at the number properly, but have a fleeting memory of something like that.)
OK. IPP isn’t the BBC. But if the government wants 500 signatures, 38degrees sounds a good way of trying to get them. I’ll keep an eye on the blog daily and help where I can.

Brian writes: Many thanks, Bob, for this useful discovery. Rather than typing out the whole website address of this “38 Degrees”, it should be enough to click this:
http://bit.ly/409EaR

I can’t start this off myself from my unpredictable internet connection and misbehaving laptop while away on holiday, but if no-one elsee has done so, I’ll try to find time to do it some time next week. If anyone else does start a petition on 38 Degrees, please post a comment here giving the website address of the new 38 Degrees petition on IPPs.

From Jo D.

March 22nd, 2010 at 12:52 am

Thanks Bob.
I’ve had a letter from Dame Anne Owers thanking me for information (mainly what’s mentioned above) and telling me about the review.
I’m hoping a few more MP’s will sign Andrew Stunells Early Day Motion, maybe anyone reading this would ask their MP’s to sign it (No. 1047).
There is also something in the Independent about it on 4th March, not sure of the link but I searched the Independent for ‘Indeterminate Sentences’ to find it.
I don’t know if there’s any way of finding out if the government are planning anything, because they did say they would respond to the review and I haven’t seen a response yet.

Brian writes: Thanks, Jo D. I think the article in the Independent that you refer to is the one dated 4 March at http://bit.ly/b41DtG, warning that the prisons can’t cope with the huge numbers of people locked up indefinitely in IPPs. It would be a grim paradox if the IPP régime had to be scrapped because it causes too many practical problems and not because of its rank injustice.

From S

March 24th, 2010 at 5:16 pm

Without going into detail,I am posting here as I am largely against these IPP sentences for the fact they are inhumane and can cause deep distress for the prisoners families that choose to support them.They can damage your health too.I have lost count of the times I have sat in a flood of tears and have suffered physically as consequence of the uncertainty this sentence poses and I am not the one serving it.What I find appalling about these too is the fact innocent people maintaining innocence can get trapped in these.Anyone maintaining innocence cannot do certain courses for that reason and therefore have little chance of parole.Not exactly a heartwarming thought when you know the conviction is wrong and the sentence is wholly unjustified but ,like so many here I aim to plough on in the hope that someone will finally realise that they are not only punishing people ,wrongly convicted or not,they are punishing their families.How cruel.

From Mary

March 25th, 2010 at 5:23 am

I am having a look at 38 to see if we can get there help. I could do with some positive suggestions as to what to suggest to them – any help/ideas?

From Jo D.

March 25th, 2010 at 11:14 am

Mary, firstly can I just say your last petition was extremely well worded so I don’t know if that’s a good place to start. 38 degrees seems to do petitions and lobbying mp’s so I don’t know which would be the best option.
I think it would need to be very concise and carefully worded so that people who know nothing at all about it can understand – and be sympathetic. Mentioning the very low tariffs I think would be helpful, because that’s where the effects of the sentence are most harshly felt at the moment. There is a blog that Brian’s written on recently, if I find it again I will add it, but it went along the lines of “you need the courses to stand a chance of being released – but we’re going to make it as difficult as possible to get on the courses”.
Another article mentions ‘keep life for lifers’, which is basically saying the life sentence should be for people like Peter Sutcliffe (as it mentions) and similar crimes, and not for those that set fire to a wheelie bin. The latter is my comparism, but it was an IPP sentence given out a few years ago in Devon, the point of the article, I think, is saying the IPP (life) sentence is devalueing the importance of a mandatory life sentence.

I hope that’s a few ideas to start that could be developed?

From Brian

March 31st, 2010 at 1:32 pm

With reference to Bob’s suggestion in his comment above (http://www.barder.com/696#comment-91731) that the website “38 Degrees” might provide a forum for a petition or campaign against IPPs, I have now posted a proposal for a 38 Degrees campaign on IPPs at http://bit.ly/409EaR. I don’t know what the next step will be.

For the record, I have completed the 38 Degrees form with the following suggestions and information in response to the questions asked on the form:

I am campaigning to expose the cruelty, injustice, ineffectiveness and waste of public money involved in the system of Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection (IPPs). Several thousand people in the UK are being imprisoned indefinitely, often for quite minor offences, unable to persuade Parole Boards that it’s safe to release them.

38 Degrees should be campaigning on this issue because it’s a major injustice of which most people in Britain are completely unaware.

The Prison Reform Trust, the Howard League for Penal Reform and Liberty have all denounced IPPs. See http://bit.ly/bdoyyD, http://bit.ly/aQVuhK and http://bit.ly/aed1FB for examples. Lord Ramsbotham, Dame Anne Owers and many other experts on penal issues have also severely criticised this pernicious system.

My blog post at http://www.barder.com/696 about the injustice of IPPs has attracted 117 comments so far, most of them illustrating the misery and fear inflicted by IPPs not only on those serving these sentences but also on their families — see:
http://www.barder.com/696#comments

I hope to hear from 38 Degrees in due course that they have approved this as a 38 Degrees campaign, open for signatures in support.

From Jo D.

March 31st, 2010 at 11:17 pm

Thanks Brian, I hope they don’t take too long to get back to you.

Not sure if I’ve got this right, but apparently the Indeterminate Sentences were introduced in Northern Ireland in May 2008 and so far none have been handed out (Lady Hermon’s question 24th March 2010) – I would appreciate someone telling me if I’ve read this correctly, and if it is in fact true. Also when it was introduced in Northern Ireland they said from the beginning it was only for tariffs of over 2 years, so no one would have got caught in the trap of being given a short tariff.
As Jack Straw says the reason the crime rate has gone down is in part because of him introducing Indeterminate Sentences (23rd March 2010), if the crime rate has also gone down in Northern Ireland (as it has in the rest of Europe) and there have been no IPP’s handed out, then he’s really stretching the point trying to justify what he’s done.

From Sue

April 4th, 2010 at 10:34 pm

I have written on this blog before about my friend who is now 2 years over tariff. Good behaviour, done all the courses, turned down at 1st parole last year because he was still a risk – how do they know?? He has had no adjudications in the 3 years at CatB – a model prisoner the officers say. He stayed in CatB as he was on medical hold and PB said he should have moved. Now he is still in CatB and has been catC for a year now. Prison are now saying the parole process will start again soon and therefore he can’t move again and then PB will say why are you still here – you haven’t tried to move. I don’t think PB are aware priaoners cannot go out and get themselves new accommodation!! I’ve just spoken to him tonight and he’s had a note under the door saying he will be moved to catC within weeks – do not put in an app for moving (he’s done 2 already but to no avail)as Population management haven’t the time to process it – you will be moved SOMEWHERE within weeks and then you can put in an app to move nearer home —-oh yeah!! He’s really had enough of it all and feels it will go on for ever. INCIDENTALLY does Brian know how much priaons get for conducting a parole hearing??

From BJones

April 27th, 2010 at 10:03 am

can every one on this site sign my petition to free serving ipp prisoners who have done their tarriffs
it’s so inhuman it should be abolished god help me but i would love to see these people in power and their loved ones serve these ridiculous sentences but we know they would walk free we need an uprising to change the law thankyou B Jones

Brian writes: Thank you for this, B Jones. I have asked you to let me know where readers can find your petition in order to sign it.

From Jo

May 1st, 2010 at 11:31 am

B.Jones and everone at moment no one can sign petetion due to the election. They have seemed to close all petetions at moment.
Brian- This is the same No.10 petetion which is on this site for abolishing IPP Sentences. I take it there was no joy with 38 Degrees..

Brian writes: Thank you, Jo. That would be because parliament is in recess until after the election and there are no MPs to petition. As you guessed, 38 Degrees ignored my suggestion for a campaign or petition on IPPs and they have ignored all my messages asking them why they turned it down.

From rosie cash

May 14th, 2010 at 10:31 am

i think evey one should get togeth and do a march around london to get the ipp droped as it is not only alife sentence form prisons but is very bad on the famliy that are waiting on the out side for then to come home if thay ever come home my son as a 8 year ipp to do my hart is broken i just wish that some one could help the poor prisons,

From rosie cash

May 14th, 2010 at 10:34 am

please contack me on face book if eney one would like to march for the prisons let all get together for the thay need help contact me at rosiecash@hotmail.co.uk

From Mary

May 14th, 2010 at 6:05 pm

Hello everyone – I have been missing in hospital for a while and the election took place so I am a little out of touch. I would like to suggest that everyone who has an interest in IPPs writes immediately to the new prime minister and the new justice secretary in the hope that the matter of IPPs cannot be left on the back burner. I shall write today and hope others can too.

Thanks Brian for trying with 38 Degrees – they only seem interested in policitics – not fairness and justice – keep trying everyone.

From S

May 16th, 2010 at 11:31 am

Rosie,
Tried emailing you but have a problem with it at the moment.
This march is probably not a bad idea. Correct me if I am wrong ,I think permission may be needed to do this though.I think the police have to be notified as it is a form of protest.
By the way I,m so sorry that you are facing the same nightmare as all of us here.I know myself how heartbreaking this is and as a result have suffered depression.I just wish someone who has no interest in abolishing this inhumane sentence would consider the families of those affected by this sentence as it is so unfair.I grant that people who commit offences need punishment ( and I may add there are some people put in this precarious situation because they will not admit to crimes that never happened) but why punish everyone with a sentence that so obviously causes human suffering ?.Why couldn,t those in the last government couldn,t have looked at the bigger picture I do not know.What about our suffering .Doesn,t that matter?.Maybe not.Well,lets hope this new government will see it in their wisdom to review this and get rid of it altogether to be replaced with something we can ALL cope with.

From Mary

May 17th, 2010 at 7:24 am

I have written to the prime minister suggesting that he arranges to release all prisoners with a short tariff IPP (less than 2 years) that were imposed before the change in the law in 2008. Also suggested he re-evaluates the use of IPPs for any length of tariff. Reminded him that he could save £60m by releasing the short tariff IPP prisoners of which there are (apparently) 1225 – not that one can neccessarily believe the previous government’s figures. Please could others send some letters.

Keep strong everyone.

Brian writes: Thank you for this, Mary. I think we need to wait now until the new government has settled in and has inaugurated the many reviews and commissions that they have promised. You will notice that the coalition’s agreed policy paper includes:

We will conduct a full review of sentencing policy to ensure that it is effective in deterring crime, protecting the public, punishing offenders and cutting reoffending. In particular, we will ensure that sentencing for drug use helps offenders come off drugs.
•
We will explore alternative forms of secure, treatment-based accommodation for mentally ill and drugs offenders.

Although this is expressed in the usual macho language, the first section quoted does mention “cutting reoffending” and the second implies awareness of the need to reduce the prison population. The object, I suggest, should be to wait until this review is set up and then try to ensure that it takes a hard look at IPPs with a view to suggesting that those who are still in prison after serving their tariffs should be released and that the whole flawed system should be phased out. The LibDem partner in the coalition might well be open to persuasion on this.

From Jo D.

May 22nd, 2010 at 8:36 pm

Mary and Brian,

I have written to the new P.M. and Minister for Justice and again to all those who previously asked for this sentence to be changed such as members of the House of Lords who consistently opposed it.
In recent opposition to this sentence by the LibDems (pre-election), Conservatives were supporting them on this matter.
A friend of mine who was in contact with Nick Clegg and his party (pre-election) said they were opposed to these sentences and very interested in the figures that appear on this site.
Juliet Lyons had an article in the Guardian yesterday (21.05.10), which also mentions this sentence, which is quite interesting. I imagine Juliet Lyons has chosen the optimun time for her article, so maybe now may be a good time to support her views, especially with a view to the amount of money wasted on this sentence and the fact they need to address the budget deficit immediately.

To all those others above, my friend has now done over 3 years past his tariff, he has done everything he’s been asked to do but it’s got him no nearer to being released and the effects this has had on his health, and those supporting him is devastating. Taking away someone’s hope is a precursor to many physical illnesses which is exactly what they do on this sentence.

Brian writes: Thank you for this, Jo. The article by the splendid Juliet Lyon which you mention includes this:

A review of sentencing could be useful. The glut of legislation, raft of new offences and mandatory penalties and overall growth in the punishment industry all need unpicking. New ministers will need to examine the explosion in indeterminate sentencing – which has increased from 3,000 indeterminate sentences in 1992 to 12,822 in March 2010. The freedom bill will be an opportunity to review the civil-liberty crushing IPP sentence, which has led to thousands of people being held in jail long after their tariff has expired. [My emphasis -- BLB]

The appointment of the enlightened Kenneth Clarke as Justice Secretary is a very encouraging development, as is the review of sentencing promised by the new government.

From S

May 23rd, 2010 at 6:03 pm

Jo D.
It is awful that those who are post tariff are being held hostage like this and I am not surprised that they end up with health problems.The uncertainty and desperation they feel is synonymous to what we are feeling,which can lead to stress/depression etc.
I just hope that a positive response comes out of any review as it may give those who have completed their tariff a chance to prove to those ,who introduced this outrageous sentence ,that the risk they were deemed to be was perhaps too presumptious and perhaps make those people realise that the sentence itself is pointless.Also it may give comfort to those who have not completed their tariff knowing they could be with their loved ones and families once again.

Brian writes: Thank you for this. I entirely agree. We must try to make sure that the forthcoming review of sentencing policy, promised by the coialition government, includes IPPs in its mandate.

From Jo D.

May 25th, 2010 at 11:40 pm

Brian,

Is there any way we can help in making sure the forthcoming review includes IPP’s in it’s mandate?
I’ve written to the PM and Justice Minister, I thought of writing to Crispin Blunt because he was one of the ministers supporting the LibDems challenge of the enormous amount of post tariff IPP’s still in prison.

Where Juliet Lyon says (your quote above) “The freedom bill will be an opportunity to review the civil-liberty crushing IPP sentence”, can you explain exactly how it relates to the freedom bill and (new) civil liberties, so that we can put it in any letters we write in to help to get the point across?

Thanks.

S.
I don’t know if there’s any way of collating information on the damage it’s done to friend’s and relatives of those on this sentence. I have heard a lot of couple’s have broken up after a parole ‘knockback’ because they can’t cope with the uncertainty any more. It must also have a devastating effect on children of parents on this sentence who wouldn’t understand the uncertainty of it. I agree it’s totally pointless, why spend all that money on them doing courses in prison, and then never release them.

Brian writes: Thank you, Jo. I’m afraid that because of other preoccupations recently I haven’t had time to do the necessary research on the Web to answer your questions. The best course might be to look at the Conservative-Lib Dem Agreement (Google it — the full text is on the Web) and find the section headed Civil Liberties. I think this refers to the sentencing review: if not it should be somewhere else in the same document (you can search it). You could then write either to your MP asking him or her to use his/her influence with the Justice Minister to ensure that the sentencing review includes IPPs, quoting the Coalition Agreement on this; or you could write directly to Kenneth Clarke, as Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor, with the same appeal. But your MP is much likelier to get the Justice Secretary’s attention by asking him for material with which to reply to you, than any letter from you to Clarke, which will just be referred to some junior official to reply that your views have been noted (or some meaningless formula of that kind).

From S

May 26th, 2010 at 5:32 pm

Jo.D,

I did think about asking around before I go on a visit but it,s really knowing where to start.If I could just get the word around it would be great because the more that can lend their support to this cause,the more chance people have of being taken notice of.
As for those of us affected by this sentence, it is travesty in every sense of the word.The uncertainty it leaves us with makes us very much a victim but I don,t suppose Mr Blunkett could see it in his wisdom to consider the feelings of countless people, within families and what the physical/emotional/financial damage would entail but then I guess from the replies that Mr Brown gave in reponse to the petitions ,Labour were only ever going to consider the victims of crime whether they were genuine or not.It is was always in their remit to focus on them because of an insurgent desire to control the masses behind four walls ,irrespective of whether someone should be inside or not and to pander to the public to save their own hide.Wrong really as they are or should I say were tinkering with people,s lives inside and out.No-oone should have that kind of power over people.What about our well being?.
Actually thinking about the wider implications ,I wonder if it is worth putting an argument forward about
any impact where physical/emotional/financial effects are concerned,eg NHS and DWP. I say that because I presume since the introduction of this sentence,many people have needed medical attention for illness brought on by the shock/stress of this sentence and most people have had to go cap in hand for welfare benefits that they may have, otherwise ,not been claiming for.Then of course,there is the cost to the APVU,which I presume is funded by the taxpayer.I know anyone facing this sentence on the outside and without substantial income will most likely make a claim through them to make prison visits possible.Now can this government honestly believe that and the financial cost to such bodies is sustainable long term?
Finally,on the subject of these courses,it is absurd that anyone who has taken courses are not released when the tariff has expired.Whatever happened to having a little faith and trust in people to take responsibility for their lives and proving that these courses are not the be all of our penal system?.Having read a particular story about an ex offender some time back,I know that it is possible for people to change their lives for the better and it has nothing to do with courses.Personally they are a total waste of money.

From Jo D.

May 28th, 2010 at 8:10 pm

I agree totally with all you’ve said.
Like my friend, and relatives and friends of many others who’ve written on this site suffering from this sentence, the last government left it open ended so there is no obligation by parole boards to ever release anyone from this sentence – which is quite frightening.
The parole boards have no one checking on their decisions (as far as I know), so by coming up with decisions like ‘not enough evidence to prove risk is reduced’, (a well used and vague p.b. phrase) despite the fact the person has continually good reports and there is nothing more they can do to reduce their risk in prison, means they can, if they want keep that person in forever without ever having to justify their decisions.
Before going to prison my friend worked and paid taxes, and had his own house (which he since lost). He deserved a prison sentence but he’s done over 3 years past his tariff – at a cost to the taxpayer of £45,000 a year, has had to have legal aid for solicitors at probably a couple of thousand a year, and when (if ever) released will cost the taxpayer hostel accommodation and then will have to be rehoused. Multiply this up by all the other thousands who have gone past their tariff and it is an extortionate and unnecessary cost.

It’s the fact that we all know that parole boards can do whatever they like and can’t be challenged, (and it takes long enough to get all the paperwork done to get to that stage), that causes the uncertainty that leads to so much distress and upset and total feeling of powerlessness and hopelessness. It does permanent damage to all those involved in this sentence and I don’t think anyone, even if they’re a government, should be allowed to do that much damage to any human being.

From Michael Robinson

June 2nd, 2010 at 7:31 pm

We wrote to the PM on this issue as well:

Dear Prime Minister,

Re: Cost to the Tax Payer – The IPP Sentence

Britain is overwhelmed with debt. As the incoming Prime Minister you have the unenviable task of reducing the vast deficit left by the last government. It is time to cut waste from areas in which money is being spent for no ascertainable benefit.

In March 2010 the total prison population stood at 85,608, which is approximately 800 more than the highest figure predicted for March 2010[1]. The prisons are, by anyone’s estimation, full. A very significant number of these prisoners are serving Imprisonment for Public Protection. These prisoners are given sentences by judges who set their minimum term – the ‘punishment’ period – at half of the length of a determinate sentence.

In reality, the expiry of the minimum term is almost never the date on which the prisoner is released. In fact only about 1% of all IPP prisoners have been released and have subsequently stayed out of prison. This means, for example, that someone sentenced to a 12 month IPP in November 2006 (the equivalent to a two year determinate sentence) could technically have been released in November 2007 but could still be in prison today. To date they would have served three years and six months, the equivalent of a seven-year determinate sentence.

There are approximately 6,000[2] IPP prisoners in custody, and the figure is rising at a rate of around 70 per month[3]. With the average cost of keeping a prisoner in jail estimated at £40,000 per year this equates to a total of £240m per year for this class of prisoner alone, and which will continue to rise under the current system.

In order to have any chance of being released on parole, these prisoners are wholly reliant on demonstrating their reduction in risk while in prison. These prisoners are unable to access the courses they need because of the continuing problem of woefully inadequate funding. In a shockingly high number of cases, these people are simply not being given the opportunity to earn their release.

The previous government admitted that there were no centrally available reliable figures on the number of IPPs waiting to access courses.[4] To compensate for the overcrowding, they embarked on a program of early release for determinate sentenced prisoners. There is a clear contradiction here which, we submit, cannot have been the intention of the sentencing judiciary.

Rather than being saddled with this enormously inefficient, not to mention ‘inhumane’[5], regime we implore you to make your pledged wholesale review of sentencing, including the IPP, a priority. So much money is wasted currently holding individuals in prison who have, because of a lack of availability of courses, been unable to demonstrate that they are no longer dangerous to the satisfaction of the Parole Board.

We are not suggesting that offenders should not be punished for their offences: On the contrary, we wholeheartedly support your proposals for mini-max sentences. If prisoners have definite dates for their earliest and latest release this will give them an impetus to want to earn release as soon as possible. This will encourage good behaviour amongst all prisoners, rather than just those serving indeterminate sentences who are scared to ‘step out of line’ while those currently serving determinate sentences aren’t as adversely affected if they are punished for misbehaviour.

Mini-max sentences will reduce pressure on the operation of the Prison Service as a whole by promoting good order inside prisons; they will enable this government to budget more accurately in terms of the annual cost of the Prison Service; and will still act as a sufficient deterrent in terms of serious crime.

The changes to IPP in 2008 did not go far enough – and there are many, many short tariff IPP prisoners still languishing in jail who were sentenced under the earlier regime. Only abolition of the IPP will put a stop to this wasteful expenditure.

Yours faithfully,

Michael Robinson

[1] Prison Population Projections 2009-2015

[2] Pre-election Conservative line on IPP

[3] Pre-election Conservative line on IPP

[4] Jack Straw, House of Commons Hansard Written Answers 16th June 2009

[5] Independent Monitoring Board

Brian writes: Thank you very much for this. I’m sorry to have failed to respond to it earlier. Your letter seems to me to make an absolutely unanswerable case. The many people following this topic on this blog will, I’m sure, be anxious to know what reply you receive from No. 10, and I hope you will share it with us.

From Jo D.

June 3rd, 2010 at 10:09 am

Michael Robinson – Reference above: we appreciate your excellent letter to the prime minister, but due to problems with the print on the post are unable to tell how you are involved in this, do you represent a professional body or have you a friend or relative serving this sentence?

To everyone on the site, there was something in the Lords Debate on 27th May by Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Goodhart asking for the IPP situation to be dealt with in light of the Thematic Review that came out in March. Lord Goodhart who is always very outspoken about this is asking for it to be abolished, although he has asked for this before he was always opposed by Lord Bach who represented the previous government. I’m not sure if there is a response to this, my alert doesn’t highlight one.

So following this and Juliet Lyons Guardian article and others above, it might be a good time to let all those who can do something, such as (new) local MP’s, all those cabinet members in the M.O.J.etc, know how cruel, damaging, costly and pointless this sentence is.

From Helga

June 4th, 2010 at 8:57 pm

One of the many problems with the IPP sentence is that those who are convicted of sexual offences having been FOUND guilty, after being falsely accused, are left to rot in prison. This means that there families and wives/partners of these people who are serving these sentences with the incarcerated. This happens more often that you think because very often the only evidence that there is – is the word of the complainant and their “witnesses” who might have an axe to grind against the defendant.

From Patricia O

June 8th, 2010 at 11:17 am

Dear Jo D, and everyone concerned, Mr Michael Robinson is a solicitor, and his excellent letter, (see earlier), was sent to the PM, Nick Clegg, Andrew Stunell MP, Editors of national newspapers, and the Editor of Inside Time, the prisoners’ magazine. Our son sent us a copy from the latter. I have now sent a copy to our MP, and I would urge others to do the same. It is important to keep up the momentum. So many are affected by this inhumane policy In 2 weeks time, our son will have doubled his minimum 18 months tariff IPP, and has been told it could be November 2011 before a review. He has done the recommended course, but due to a further recommendation by a young trainee prison psychologist for a course for which he is not even eligible, so will not apply for, it looks as if he will never be released.

From S

June 8th, 2010 at 8:15 pm

Patricia O,
What heading is this letter under as I have had a look and can only find something under judicial review or have I misread your comment? Sorry.
By the way.sorry that you are having to go through the same nightmare.I really hope with the right pressure someone will finally take notice and get rid of this.All any of us want is a fixed release date so we can all get on with our lives and try to rebuild it.Abolishing this dreadful sentence and replacing it with something that gives us something to look forward to would be a start.

Brian writes: The letter referred to is in the comment at
http://www.barder.com/696#comment-92635.
I have now edited out the formatting code in it left over from copying and pasting a Word file into a Comment, which should make it easier to read.

From Jo D.

June 8th, 2010 at 10:25 pm

Helga,
that is something that gets overlooked. It’s difficult (usually impossible) for those who admit their guilt and do all the courses, to convince a parole board they’ve changed. Those in the MOJ have to acknowledge that sometimes it happens that people will be put away for things they haven’t done. Not only does this sentence not make allowances for it, but by it’s nature gives those no way out, and another reason it goes against all common sense.

Patricia O.
Thanks for that, and the min-max sentences sound like a reasonable alternative, one we could cope with.
My friend also wasted 2 of the 3 years past his tariff, waiting for a parole hearing to tell them he wasn’t eligible to do the course they’d kept him in to do at his first parole hearing. He put himself on other courses while he was waiting but the parole board weren’t interested. It is so frustrating, and the parole boards are still way behind now as they were then, with parole hearings, so won’t bring them forward.

S,
If you’re looking at Inside Time online I’ve had that problem before looking for things, not everything’s on it until it becomes a back issue and can be downloaded pdf, but as Brian says I think it’s the same as above. I’ve written to all those mentioned above but not Crispin Blunt yet, he’s next on my list.
As the government now want the public to be involved in ways to save money they should start by abolishing these sentences, which will be my suggestion when I find where to send that to.

For everybody’s information, when contacting people in the Government etc, my friend is in a D cat, and they’re sending IPP’s back to C cats because they can’t cope with the volume of them that have come through to them.
Also when it comes to home leaves to hostels, which most have to have, there are no spaces at hostels for them because despite them knowing how many IPP’s were in the system, no extra hostel places have been created for the thousands of IPP’s that will need them. Without home leaves they won’t be considered for release.
I don’t know how much hostel places cost the government but I’m sure money wouldn’t be available for the extra needed.

From Mary

June 10th, 2010 at 7:14 pm

Just want to say to everyone on here – do not give up. The person I know with an 18 month IPP has had it overturned. Anyone with a less than 2 year tariff should get their solicitor to take it to the appeal court if at all possible - there have been 2/3 overturned in recent months – so if at all possible try the appeal courts if you can.

I intend to continue supporting the abolishing of the IPP as it remains an inhumane and barbaric sentence.

Brian writes: Thank you for these wise words, Mary. Keep it up! We have a new government which has long been making much more enlightened and liberal noises about civil liberties and the injustice of many of the previous government’s measures, so now may be the best opportunity for years to get some of these wrongs remedied.

From Patricia O

June 15th, 2010 at 12:11 pm

Thank you Brian and Mary for those encouraging words. It means such a lot to know you are there for us. I cannot emphasise this enough. Bless you.

From Michael Robinson

June 18th, 2010 at 12:29 am

My letter is referred to above. It was written from our experience as a firm of IPP [?solicitors] and from research conducted by my colleague Lorna Elliott.
If we all write to our own MP and encourage others we know to write to their MP and, if you wish, send the MP a copy of my letter then we can put pressure on the Government.
There has been no response from David Cameron but there is to be a review by MoJ into sentencing policy. It seems to me that the only way to make this effort work is to address the issues of taxpayers’ money, effective sentencing and the “results” of IPP.
There is little possibility of getting an MP, especially a Conservative MP, to get all emotional about a “dangerous” prisoner being locked up for a long time.

Brian writes: I am most grateful to Michael Robinson for this useful background. The letter referred to is at –
http://www.barder.com/696#comment-92635.
I very much agree that the arguments used in the letter about taxpayers’ money, the effectiveness (not) of IPP sentences and the practical effects of IPPs are more likely to make an impact on, especially, a Conservative MP than more generalised arguments about the injustice involved, the impact on families, or the agony of uncertainty about when if ever the IPPer will be released. Those arguments do however remain valid and I don’t think anyone should be discouraged from putting them strongly to an MP, especially if the MP is Labour, LibDem (in spite of everything), or a member of one of the smaller parties. Mr Robinson’s suggestion that it could be useful to send to one’s MP a copy of his letter to the prime minister seems an excellent one.

Perhaps the most urgent need at this moment is to try to make sure that the terms of reference of the impending review of sentencing policy requires the review to include a review of IPPs. A major opportunity will have been lost if the terms of reference of the review excludes IPPs from consideration.

I intend to put an edited version of this comment, my response here, and the full text of Mr Robinson’s letter to the prime minister, on Ephems as a stand-alone new post — when I have time!

From Suzie

June 18th, 2010 at 10:51 pm

I’ve just been catching up. Drugs are not violence and cannot be classed towards the IPP – 2 violent offences. This is law so I don’t understand how it could have been passed.

My friend now currently 2 years over a 2.5 year IPP got his IPP based on a violent attack when he was 15 defending his mum against her boyfriend. The 2nd offence was attempted robbery when he was 30.

He was knocked back on paper in July 09 and oral in Oct 09. Next parole date is around Jan 11 although there appears to be yet another backlog. I daren’t mention to him about the problems at CatD (when he eventually gets there!) where he may be again treated as a lifer or sent back to CatC.

I did get a reply from Jack Straw over a year ago when I wrote to my local MP and it was brought up in the house. Jack Straw commented my friend was still a risk!!! Just wanted to say that because it can work to write to your local MP to address it.

I don’t think this government will be any easier to deal with. I’m waiting for them to settle in before I start again!

Good luck everyone!

Brian writes: Thank you for this, Suzie. It’s good to see that your efforts have been rewarded by getting a senior minister’s attention. For a similar and more recent success, please see Jo D’s comment below, and my response to it.

From Jo D.

June 19th, 2010 at 8:49 am

Mary, thanks for your continuing support, even though the person you know has had his IPP overturned, your knowledge and experience will be very helpful in keeping this highlighted with the government.

Copying Michael Robinson’s letter and sending it to an MP, does work as it got mentioned by Claire Perry MP for Devizes (Con) and responded to, fairly encouragingly, by Crispin Blunt – 15th June, House of Commons Oral Answers – Justice.
(Brian, would you be able to put in a link? [Brian writes: Link added. See my response and the text of the exchange below.])
So that should be encouraging for everyone to copy the letter to their MP so as many as possible know about it.
As for as I can tell the backlog with parole boards is now even worse than when they made changes because of the previous backlog, (exactly as was hinted at by Bob earlier), which also might be worth a mention, it all costs money!
There are so many inconsistencies with this sentence I think it’s always been a sort of ’let’s make it up as we go along’ type of experiment.
I believe the PRT were going to publish something about the IPP sentence, if this is still going to happen it must be imminent?

Brian writes: Many thanks for this, Jo D. Crispin Blunt’s reply to Claire Perry MP on 15 June is indeed very encouraging, and shows that the new government is aware of the problem, so that’s a real triumph for whoever wrote to Ms Perry.

The exchange went as follows:

Claire Perry: Will the Minister comment on the fact that the previous Government’s mismanagement of the indeterminate public protection sentencing regime in many ways contributed to that overcrowding? That was brought to my attention by a prisoner in HMP Erlestoke in my constituency, who copied me in on a very good letter to Inside Time this month. Will the Minister tell the House what he will do to help to reform the IPP regime?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt): I notice that the previous Government had to reform the IPP arrangements in 2008, having introduced them in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. We inherit a very serious problem with IPP prisoners. We have 6,000 IPP prisoners, well over 2,500 of whom have exceeded their tariff point. Many cannot get on courses because our prisons are wholly overcrowded and unable to address offending behaviour. That is not a defensible position.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100615/debtext/100615-0002.htm, supplementary to question no. 13, Column 730.

This does indeed demonstrate the usefulness of writing to one’s own MP, rather than (or as well as) to the responsible minister direct. Even if the MP doesn’t raise the subject on the floor of the House, as Ms Perry did, he or she will almost always pass your letter to the relevant minister with a request for material for a reply, and that will grab the minister’s attention more reliably than a letter sent to the minister direct, which may well be referred to an official for a stock reply without the minister ever seeing it. Crispin Blunt’s reply to Ms Perry (text above) will now be well worth following up in further letters to as many MPs as possible — as well as copies of Michael Robinson’s invaluable letter.

From Michael Robinson

June 19th, 2010 at 6:05 pm

Well done everyone
Every IPP prisoner and every mother of, spouse of, sibling etc etc of an IPP prisoner should write a letter setting out personal circumstances and send my letter (see above) to their MP.
Prison Reform Trust’s report on IPPs will be published early July.
There is Hope
Keep the faith

From Jo D.

June 19th, 2010 at 11:35 pm

Thank you Michael for your help in this.

A few things I add now to the letters I write are as follows,

1. With reference to Helga’s post above :
‘Just as an example it is possible that someone could have been sentenced to an IPP of a few months in 2005, but because they claim they are innocent – which they have every right to do – they will not be eligible for Offending Behaviour Courses, which is one of the essential requirements of a parole board, so could be kept in prison for the rest of their lives. This is punishing someone unduly for their right to maintain their innocence, and a waste of money (£45,000 a year each) as it achieves nothing.
‘
2. From a much earlier post:
‘To be eligible for an Offending Behaviour Course a prisoner must have a reasonable level of literacy to read instructions, understand various scenarios and complete homework every week.
48% of prisoners have a reading level below that of an 11 year old, and 82% have a writing level below that of an 11 year old (figures from Prison Reform Trust). So many that are ‘waiting’ for courses aren’t eligible to do them because their literacy levels aren’t high enough. 20 – 30% also have learning difficulties. Is this a good use of public money to keep these in potentially for the rest of their lives?’

3. ‘All IPP prisoners need legal representation at every parole hearings at a cost of £1,500 each to the legal aid system, to which the previous government planned to make cuts to anyhow.’

4. ‘There is the additional cost for each IPP prisoner for staffing OMU departments, staff at the lifer sections of MoJ, cost of Parole Board members and Parole Hearings, extra work for probation staff in reports and supervision, hostel spaces etc. More than 90% of these costs are not incurred by determinate sentence prisoners.
‘
All the many £billions already spent has only resulted in 75 being deemed suitable to be released ( figures at the beginning of 2010) in to the community in 5 years.

(I don’t know if anyone is in a position to cost out point No 4).

Hope this is helpful.

From Michael Robinson

June 20th, 2010 at 10:41 am

Jo D. I agree wholeheartedly with your additional comments.
Each letter to the MP should be personalised and subjective. I suggest sending a copy of my letter as it will save repetition of the general points. Your additional points should be included too by all correspondents.
However there is a danger of MPs receiving templated letters and thereby missing the point:
The cost to the country and the personal stories of those affected.
So far David Davies MP for Monmouth (not David Davis former shadow Home Secretary) and Philip Davies MP for Shipley have responded negatively ie prison isn’t costly and what about the victims. Philip Davies MP was the one who suggested Sky TV should be removed from the 4000 prisoners who have access to it as its a luxury. He also happens to think we don’t have a disproportionately high prison population compared to rest of Europe because our prison population represents 13:1000 crimes punished:crimes committed which is lowest in Europe (??!!) according to him.
The secret is Keep your letter simple; Keep your letter personal and Get Writing. Spread the word.

From Patricia O

June 20th, 2010 at 11:11 am

Thanks everyone. You have just motivated me even more. My MP, Jim Paice, Conservative, has just responded to an earlier letter of mine, having sent him a copy of Mr Robinson’s letter, offering to pursue our concerns directly with the new minister, so am writing my letter now. So it is working! Also, in the Independent Monitoring Board’s report, released last week for our local prison, Littlehey, (para 2.1.3 ISPs), it reads, ‘The Board is concerned about rise of IPPs (30% year on year), and for whom insufficient OBPs are available to meet parole requirements. These prisoners cannot reduce their risk as there are not enough programmes in place. When will the Minister review these IPP problems?’ Keep up the good work!

From Jo D.

June 21st, 2010 at 11:27 pm

The following (if it comes out all right) was said in the House of Lords Debates, 15th July 2009 by Lord Thomas of Gresford.

Although it was supporting a move put forward by Lord Goodhart to abolish the IPP sentence then, it makes some good points about the whole background to the sentence, and questions why the focus should be on the offending behaviour courses anyhow, which is a good point.
I’m sure he wouldn’t mind being quoted, maybe in part, to support our concerns:

Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat)
We on these Benches, of course, support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Goodhart. The initial concept of crime and punishment was that people should be punished for what they had done, that they should be locked up for a period of time and that they should learn a lesson. Then it occurred to everyone that the sensible thing to do when they were locked up was to try to rehabilitate them so that, when they came out, they were not just given a postal order and let loose on the world without any resources at all, but that they had something behind them. Attempts have been made to rehabilitate.

We have moved on and this Government have introduced the concept of managing risk. Whereas managing risk is quite acceptable intellectually, if you start managing the risk of people who have not committed anything particularly serious, you need to provide the resources to do it and the Government have failed in that. It is impossible to see where they could ever get the resources to carry out such an ambitious programme. We are left with an intellectual construct that it would be a good idea to manage risk and not to let people out until we are quite sure they have ticked the boxes and gone through the necessary courses.

I have experience of prisoners as people and I think it would be difficult to see some of them sitting in a cognitive improvement course, or whatever the name of the course is. I cannot see that that would do them a great deal of good. It would be far better to teach them to read, to write, to count and to give them some skills, rather than put them in front of a psychologist and tell them to behave themselves in future.
I understand how ambitious the scheme was, but the resources have simply not gone into it. It is a failure, and the Government should recognise that, unless they are prepared to make that investment and put in the resources that such an ambitious programme requires. As a result of it, an awful lot of people are now locked up, frustrated because the courses are not provided, frustrated because the boxes cannot be ticked and staying in prison long beyond the period that the judge who sentenced them thought was reasonable. We are building up a cauldron inside those prisons with these IPPs—5,000, at the moment. If the trend continues, it will get worse.

The Government should go back to basics and get back to the concept of a sentence that lasts for a finite time, so that people know when they are coming out and they can be provided with the necessary courses and skills. That is how prison resources should be spent.

From Brian

June 23rd, 2010 at 9:15 pm

There’s at last a real opportunity to rid ourselves of a blot on our justice system — Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection, illogically abbreviated to ‘IPPs’. This is a largely unrecognised system of preventive detention. One of several reasons for the grotesque over-crowding in our prisons, and for the huge numbers of people per head of population whom we insist on incarcerating compared with anyone else in Europe, is that there are literally thousands of people in our jails who have had their punishment, and paid their debt to society, but whom we keep in prison, sometimes for years, because they can’t prove to a parole board that they won’t reoffend if released. (Could you?)

The new government’s ministers in the Department of Justice have already recognised that the present situation is intolerable. The need now is to make sure that the official review of sentencing policy, due to report by October, considers IPPs as part of its remit, and recommends their abolition. A new post on this blog appeals to everyone who is willing to help to rid us of this excrescence to write to, or email, his or her MP, urging support for IPP abolition and inviting him or her to press the Secretary of State for Justice (Kenneth Clarke) to include IPPs in the sentencing review and to ensure their early abolition. There is a lot of useful supporting argument and information in Ephems at –

Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection (IPPs) once more
http://www.barder.com/2625

including the full original text of my letter submitted yesterday to the Guardian, of which a severely truncated version is published in today’s issue. The post includes other key texts that could usefully be quoted to your MP.

Please respond urgently to this appeal! If you do, please append a comment to http://www.barder.com/2625 confirming that you have written accordingly to your MP, pour encourager les autres.

From Brian

June 23rd, 2010 at 9:23 pm

This is the 150th comment on my post of 3 August 2007, above, and the last. Comments on this post are now closed. Please continue to contribute your views, information, appeals and suggestions to the box for comments on http://www.barder.com/2625. And a big vote of thanks to all of you who have helped to make this thread such a constructive and moving forum on such a sad and moving issue. The fight continues at http://www.barder.com/2625.

Brian

Brian Barder's website

Indeterminate sentences: the double scandal

150 Comments

From University Update - Gordon Brown - Indeterminate sentences: the double scandal

From John Morrison

From Brian

From Dawn

From wendy

From Tony Hatfield's Retired Ramblings

From kaystella

From Brian

From confused mum

From Bob

From confused mum

From Suzie

From mrs robinson

From Bob

From Bob

From Ginger

From Mr Seymour

From S Corker

From ann

From Brian

From wendy

From Stella Kaye

From sean.g

From Ephems of BLB » Blog Archive » More on the scandal of indeterminate sentences

From steve.a

From kaystella

From steve.a

From kaystella

From steve.a

From mary

From mary

From kaystella

From john greenwell

From Ephems of BLB » Blog Archive » Indeterminate sentences and Baby P

From S Corker

From Mary

From Mary

From Jo

From Jo

From Mary

From Bob

From Suzie

From Jo

From steve.a

From Mary

From Bob

From Jo

From ann

From Mary

From Suzie

From Suzie

From Bob

From Jo

From Jo

From Mary

From Jo D.

From Mary

From Mary

From Jo

From Jo D.

From Jo

From Mary

From Jo D.

From Jo

From Jo

From Mary

From Jo

From Bob

From Jo D.

From Mary

From Jo D.

From jackie

From Mary

From Robert Whiston

From Jo D.

From Patricia O

From S Coker