Poor treatment of Prisoners is directly linked to self-harm and suicide, according to research from the University of Greenwich. These are made up of prisoners in Custody Statistics make for predictably grim reading with self-harm and deaths reaching record highs for IPP prisoners.

IPP prisoners deaths 174. 

 

 

Freedom of information.




Ministry of Justice


R Russell
Via email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Disclosure Team
Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

xxxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx


7 February 2019

Dear R Russell





Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request – 190109003





Thank you for your request received by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) on 9 January in which you asked for the following information:





“How many IPP sentences have been handed out? How many IPP prisoners have been released? How many released IPP prisoners have licence conditions? How many IPP prisoners have been returned to prison? How many IPP prisoners including those returned to prison have died in custody?”



Your request has been handled under the FOIA.I can confirm that the MoJ holds the information that you have requested and I have provided it below.
I can confirm that the MoJ holds the information that you have requested and I have provided it below.
 Sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) became available for use by the courts on 4 April 2005, and were abolished by way of commencement of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act on 3 December 2012. During this period, 8,711 IPP sentences were imposed by the courts. 2. As at 30 June 2018, 3,856 IPP prisoners have been released. 3. All released IPPs currently have existing licence conditions. 4. 2050 IPP offenders have been recalled to prison. However, as at 30 September 2018, the IPP recall population in prisons was 965. 5. 174 IPP prisoners, including those recalled from the community, have died in prison custody. This figure includes self-inflicted.
Please note that releases refer to releases on licence (excluding deaths, deportations, releases to secure hospitals, and quashed or reduced sentences, etc.), and that one person could receive multiple IPP sentences.


Yours sincerely

P White
Indeterminate Sentence Operational Support

………………………………………………………………………... 



A Never Ending Nightmare


Close your eyes and try to remember your worst nightmare.  Go on try see if you can.
A really bad one that left you shaking when you woke up, your heart racing and then the sheer relief you felt when you realised it was only a dream.  Now put yourself back in that nightmare if you dare but this time try to imagine how you would cope if there was no way out.  Try to grasp in your mind how you would survive if you couldn’t wake up from that dream, that you were in fact trapped in your worst nightmare.  How long would it take you before you broke, until you screamed and you cried out for help?  Imagine being in that seemingly endless nightmare so long that everything in it seems to become familiar. That the memories of your loved ones slowly start to dissolve into a distant blurry muddle that bring you nothing but more pain and despair when you remember them. Over time you begin to question what is real and what is not. 
Perhaps now if you truly have managed to do this you may have glimpsed into the life of an IPP sentenced prisoner.  A world where hope is a lottery, where your constant companion is misery and deep inner loneliness. Yet the pain goes even deeper and affects more people than just those condemned to the IPP sentence’s continued existence.

The family, the mothers, the fathers, brother’s sisters and children, they too suffer because they cannot plan for the future. 


Meet the inmate still in prison after nicking a bike 12 years ago and now on suicide due to never ending setence that has effected his  mental health, that he will need 24 hour care when he gets out. Fther is had 12 month to live and only wants to see his Son.

Take the case of Wayne Bell, a seventeen year old in with a group of mischievous young boys causing trouble in their neighbourhood.  Wayne had been in with the wrong crowd since the age of 14 and had committed a few petty crimes.  It is not an uncommon situation; youngsters have the tendency to feel they are invincible and have little understanding of law or the attitude or desire to understand it.  But then one day Wayne stole a bike.  https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/08/man-jailed-stealing-bike-17-still-prison-12-years-later-9133385/


The judge handed down a four year IPP prison sentence,  Sadly though and perhaps not fully understood even by the judge at the time he was actually given an indefinite sentence. 

 You see Wayne like many thought a four year sentence would mean four; many barristers didn’t understand the IPP sentence when it first started to be used.   The term set by the judge is a minimum.  It does seem cruel to send someone who committed a crime as a minor to a term that could last their WHOLE LIFE.   

Now this young boy is now a man, his nightmare started as soon as the reality of the sentence hit him which undoubtedly didn’t happen until he was old enough to understand it.  He is now 29 years old, he has had many parole hearings, he has been denied access to  courses during his long incarceration which would have helped him progress more quickly. 
  
If you could meet Wayne you would undoubtedly see the same look that I have seen in many young men serving this IPP sentence.  It is a look of despair and hopelessness. 

Prison is the only life that is guaranteed.  Many cut themselves and it isn’t to seek attention, it’s done to help quell the psychological pain that they endure day after day.  Every now and then their hopes are raised by an upcoming parole hearing.  Hopes though are frequently ripped into pieces when they are yet again turned down as Wayne has been.  What did he do to deserve so much suffering, so much misery?  He was a child when he committed an offence surely he deserves a chance?

Long term incarceration causes damage especially if you are not told a firm date at which your sentence will end.  IPP prisoners now know the harsh reality, their term is 99 years and it never changes. Each day that passes makes no difference, the potential length of your sentence never ever changes.  Every night that light goes out your no closer to release than the day you started. That surely is psychological torture. Can you think of anything worse? Well believe it or not the situation Wayne is in is even worse than that.

He has given up; the trauma of going through the parole process is significant.  You have to prove that you are no longer a ‘perceived’ danger and you have an extremely limited way in which you can do that.  You cannot have a polygraph; you can only demonstrate that your perceived risk to the public is low enough by doing rehabilitation courses which are in short supply and over prescribed.  This in many cases means you have to request a move to other prisons which can take months if not years.  This inevitably moves you away from friends and family and even when you have done courses you may still be asked to do more, or take a refresher.  You also have to keep a squeaky clean prison record which is pretty much impossible to do in the majority of Her Majesties prisons.  If you end up defending yourself in a fight that could well go against you in your next parole hearing. 

Yet Wayne isn’t the only person being made to suffer, his family suffers too.  Now Wayne has been denied visits because his mental state is to poor.  His father is desperate to see him because he knows it maybe the last time he will.  His father has been diagnosed with cancer, his time is now short.  He is desperate to see his son before it’s too late.

A spokesman for the ministry of justice said ‘Prisoners serving a detention for public protection sentence committed a serious violent offence and were deemed by a judge to pose a high risk of serious harm to the public.’ Well in that case why have many prisoners who have committed a more serious offence been released after serving a much shorter sentence? The facts show many of these sentences were handed out incorrectly and issued to people who technically did not meet the bar for qualifying for one.
In Wayne’s case his previous convictions were petty.  Why is he being treated so harshly and why has he been repeatedly denied the opportunity to demonstrate he is no longer a danger by being allowed out into the community under licence? 
Why is his behaviour in a barbaric and dangerous environment being held against him, prison is nothing like life on the outside?  How does holding him in prison potentially indefinitely help rehabilitate him, it only institutionalizes him? 
So many questions seem to fall on deaf ears when they are asked but the one that hits me the hardest is ‘Why are people being held in prison potentially indefinitely for being a perceived risk’?  This question should be particularly troubling to a democratic society.  Being sent to prison is a penalty one pays for being convicted of an offence.  It is not a warehouse to stack people who are perceived to be a risk, a risk assessed by a probation officer who rarely if ever meets the individual concerned. 
Many now realise how bad this injustice really is. 

‘It is quite absurd that there are people who might be there for the rest of their lives, in theory who are serving a sentence which Parliament agreed to get rid of because it hadn’t worked as anybody intended.”  Ken Clarke MP

‘I’m to blame for IPP’ David Blunkett admitted. ‘And we would do it differently now.  If I had my time again, I would have ensured from the beginning that the IPP could only be applied for people with very substantial tariffs.’

‘This example highlights that IPPs were completely unsatisfactory’ Jeff Smith MP

So why after the abolishment of this sentence are people still on it? 
One can only surmise that it’s a political problem, those that remain on it are in effect held there because no one in government wants bad press. 
WHAT IF one of those prisoners comes out and commits a serious offence?  I cannot risk that on my watch.   I cannot help conclude this is their main concern. 
The WHAT IF scenario isn’t good for a politician’s public image, after all we are frequently told these prisoners a dangerous.  I would have to challenge that assumption of dangerous or risk and also challenge the relevance of the question. 
Firstly in all IPP cases the perceived risk calculation used by probation officers does not take into account the effect of the sentence on the prisoner.  It doesn’t take into account the licence term that the prisoner has to endure upon release either.  Unlike determinate sentenced prisoners there are far more tools available to recall IPPs back to prison.
Once recalled they can be held indefinitely. 

Wayne has now served 12 years in prison. He has paid for his crime three times over and he is now clearly a victim and should be treated as such. 
Why have we turned our jails into warehouses and started judging people on contentious perceived risk calculations?  Wayne was expelled from school, to me that show’s that society let him down first and put him at risk of falling fowl of the law in the first place. So surely society must take some responsibility.

Anyone can be deemed a risk to society so should we lock everyone up who demonstrate behaviour that suggests an increased risk?   In a democracy one would hope the only people who are sent to prison are those convicted of committing a crime, for that is the purpose of prison is it not?  Prison is there to act as a deterrent to stop people from committing crime, whether they appear dangerous or not. 

It is now seven years since this sentence was abolished yet it potentially will remain in our justice system indefinitely, unless the government acts and retrospectively removes it. 
The government however refuses to change its stance regardless of the weight of evidence showing the sentence is incompatibility with its intended purpose.  The need to act tough in the public eye concerning crime is so strong that fair justice no longer appears to be a concern.

Please sign the petition to put it back on their table again.  Please help remove this stain on our justice system, it does not protect the public, it does not rehabilitate people.  All it does do is course suffering and misery for those forced to endure its continued existence, both the prisoner and their families. Wayne surely deserves a chance, society should support him not continue to torture him, potentially indefinitely!
IPP sentence was abolished in 2005 and ended in 2012 because the sentence is inhuman though there are still prisoners under IPP sentence it was not made retrospective  the sentence that has become a form of torture that has driven Wyan  and others to acquired mental health that there life is hanging in the balance on Suicide Watch. This report entitled ‘In The Dark ‘ 
Petition 
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/free-wayne-bell-from-blunketts-hell?fbclid=IwAR3ATXmNrI0sY8iP1ERW2JMKSXBiwDzFxNLIDorf0jXBhKkNWgEkIdUEedg

Read  Unintended consequences

IPP Prisoners interviewed for this study showed signs of emotional distressed due to not being giving a release date.

I stole a phone. I thought of taking my life.  The self-hard is unbelievable IPP recall. IPP will kill me.
Links :
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-40900691/prisoner-suicidal-11-years-into-10-month-jail-term https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xUMr9JvwMk

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+katherine+gleeson&view=detail&mid=02EE71500487DA4ED06902EE71500487DA4ED069&FORM=VIRE
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-40944738/ipp-prisoner-i-thought-about-ending-my-own-life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cr7ttTWe48   IPP https://rightsinfo.org/prisoners-sentenced-under-now-abolished-ipp-law-give-up-hope-of-release/

"""From 2013 to 2017 a total of 474 by suicide and 21 murders was recorded by a new report published 24 June 2019 












IPP setence is affecting mental health’



Emotionally and psychologically the IPP sentence is a form of torture. A study was once carried out on former terror suspects who had been held indefinitely without charge or trial at HMP Belmarsh’s infamous prison-within-a-prison, or ‘Guantanamo Upon Thames’ as it is known. The study found that it was the indeterminate nature of their incarceration which drove many insane, and some to take their own lives. It is no coincidence that the architect of IPP, David Blunkett, was also behind the policy that saw innocent Muslims detained without charge or even trial. And whilst detained many were ill-treated and abused. David Blunkett has been man enough to admit he got it totally wrong with the IPP, yet he is only too well aware the injustice is one that will never be removed. So his admission does not make a lot of difference.


 If Jeremy Kyle can cause the  death of one person this should apply to  government bodies .


Video by Pepsi Watson  https://youtu.be/5LEbkvj78rQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LEbkvj78rQ&feature=youtu.be

Indefinite sentences trap inmates with mental health needs in jail’

Prisoners with mental health problems who have no automatic right to release are not getting the support they need to leave jail, the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health said postdate 2010. 

The charity uncovered a high rate of mental illness among people given an Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence. It was found that of around 2,400 IPP prisoners in England and Wales, just 31 had been released in the last year.

IPP is an indeterminate sentence for offenders whose crimes are not serious enough for life imprisonment,  Offenders can only be released once the Parole Board is satisfied they no longer  a risk to the public.
A
prisoner stole a bike received 1 year and needs to  prove to the parole board hes not a risk  and now on his  12 year  what gone wrong !  since its is abolishment  in 2012  perceived risk  needs updating the setencewas poorly implemented and I  question perceived moreover the  prisoner has proven none risk but with what  in prison and how,do your demonstrate ? And if you had learning disability ot Autism?



Dated 2010 The Prison Reform Trust and the Institute for Criminal Policy Research at King’s College London have called for an urgent review of the social and financial costs and benefits of the setence.Professor Mike Hough at the Institute for Criminal Policy Research led an investigation into the IPP sentence and its implementation.

Main findings


  • The IPP was poorly planned and implemented. 
  • Projections about levels of use of the IPP were inadequate and, as a consequence, the resources required to implement the sentence were far too limited. 
  • The ability to predict the risk posed by those convicted of  a crime  offences was over-estimated. 

ased on these findings Professor Hough identified three main policy options: 


  • To abolish the IPP sentence, and revert to discretionarysentence to deal with those who genuinely pose a grave risk to society. 
  • To retain the IPP sentence but further narrow its criteria,,  targeted more carefully on those representing a real risk of serious reoffending. 
  • To leave the current arrangements in place, but locate sufficient resources to enable the Prison Service and Parole Board to operate release from the sentence in an effective, humane and fair way. 



The report found that IPP prisoners with mental health problems were often unable to get on to offending behaviour programmes without which they were unable to show they were no longer risk.

Uncertainty and hopelessness

Report co-author and prison psychiatrist Dr Ian Cumming said “Some IPP prisoners are concealing mental health problems in case they are barred from offending behaviour programmes.”

The charity warned that the sentence could aggravate existing mental health problems because of the “uncertainty and hopelessness” it creates and that prison mental health services were struggling to cope with demand. 

Sainsbury Centre chief executive Angela Greatley said she was concerned that some people with severe mental health problems were being handed an IPP sentence rather than being detained in hospital. 

It has been reported that the IPP sentence has been handed down to those with Autism and learning differences 




Inquest opened into self-inflicted death of IPP prisoner Tommy

on 19 November 2018
Thomas James Nicol, known as Tommy, died on 25 September 2015, four days after he was found hanging at HMP The Mount. Tommy was 37. He was in prison on an ‘Imprisonment for Public Protection’ sentence (IPP); indeterminate sentences which have since been abolished. The inquest into his death opened today (Monday 5 November2018) at Hertfordshire Coroner’s court.
The minimum tariff on Tommy’s sentence was four years, starting from November 2009. He died after almost six years in prison. Tommy was transferred to HMP The Mount after spending time at HMP Erlestoke after a Parole Board review of his sentence in June 2015. The review concluded that Tommy should do further ‘motivational and psychological’ work before release. Tommy expressed frustration about this decision, and not being able to do the required programmes ahead of the review. The next Parole Board review was not due until February 2017, over two years later.
Tommy had not been diagnosed with mental ill health, but following the review spent long periods in segregation cells at HMP Erlestoke. On 15 September 2015 he was transferred to HMP The Mount straight from segregation, and three days later seriously self-harmed and expressed extreme distress and frustration at not having been moved to an open prison. The prison began monitoring procedures for self-harm and suicide known as ACCT.
Following this, Tommy’s self-harm and troubled behaviour escalated. He remained in segregation and was considered high risk by staff. On 21 September he was found hanging in a segregation cell. On 25 September doctors withdrew life support and Tommy died. The family were later informed of Tommy’s self-harm and subsequent death.  
Despite being abolished in December 2012, on 20 July 2018 the Parole Board reported that around 2,800 people remain in prison on an IPP sentence. Throughout the use of the sentence, serious concerns were raised over difficulties in accessing ‘offender behaviour’ courses, required to qualify for release.



INQUEST has been working with the family of Tommy Nicol since his death. The family is represented by INQUEST Lawyers Group members Claire Brigham of Hodge Jones and Allen solicitors, and Kirsten Sjovoll of Matrix Chambers.




Other deaths of people on IPP sentences include
Steven Trudghill, 23, who died at HMP Highpoint on 9 January 2014. The coroner at the conclusion of the inquest wrote a Prevention of Future Deaths report addressed to the Ministry of Justice, which raised concerns about other prisoners on IPP"

 

 Noteworty and Significant 

"He said, it is the “case that there are complex mental health needs which might actually be the reason for the continuing risk that keeps them in custody, as with Steven, yet the specific treatments are not available within the prison system”. 
 
Charlotte ‘Charlie’ Nokes, who was 38 when she died at HMP Peterborough on 23, 2016. The inquest into her death is yet to take place. Charlotte’s family spoke to the BBC about her life.
IPP sentences. 

IPP sentences came into use on 4 April 2005, as part of section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, introduced by then Home Secretary, David Blunkett.
In 2007 the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court ruled that the continued incarceration of prisoners serving IPPs after tariff expiry where the prisons lack the facilities and courses required to assess their suitability for release was unlawful.
In 2010 a joint report by the chief inspectors of prisons and probation concluded that IPP sentences were unsustainable for prisons in the UK.
On 3 December 2012 the IPP sentence for new cases was abolished by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act.
In November 2016 HM Inspectorate of Prisons completed a review of the ongoing challenges of managing and progressing the large number of prisoners still serving IPP sentences. They found IPP prisoners fell into three broad categories:
those who had not reduced their risk and remained dangerous,
those who could reduce their risk if the support provided by the system was delivered more efficiently,
those who might be deemed ready for release if delays and inefficiencies in the offender management and parole processes were resolved.
On 20 July 2018, the Parole Board reported that around 2,800 people remain in prison on an IPP sentence. People on IPP 

 
sentences also have particularly high rates of being recalled to prison, according to reports.These are not for crimes but breaches
The Parole Board noted in October 2017 that more than half of those released had being sent back to jail for breaching licence conditions. There were suggestions in the 2016 HMIP review (above) that this could be linked to a lack of access for people on IPP sentences to temporary release (ROTL) to prepare for leaving prison.
For more information see Parliamentary Briefing Paper [PDF] on Sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection, October 2017.












As deaths in custody spiral and coroners’ recommendations are ignored, a vicious cycle goes on.

Inquest are continuing into the self-inflicted death coroners notice a pattern IPP deaths and he was deeply critical about the care and mental health of IPP prisoners.Inmates on a IPP sentence that has no end date given for relatively minor crimes in comparison to the prison population.last year David Hinchliff wrote: ‘I repeat ten years later that the Prisons Department and the Department of Health should conduct a collaborative exercise to achieve the provision of suitable, environments in order to treat those with acquired mental health problems.’ Two inquests, ten years apart – following on from deaths who had been criminalised for being mentally unwell. Prisons could not keep them safe. 

 For almost four decades, INQUEST has worked alongside the families of the IPP prisoners  men, women who have died in prison. Deaths in prison are an unacceptable yet persistent feature of the UK’s criminal justice system. Almost daily, INQUEST learns from bereaved families about deaths in the most appalling conditions. Prisoners are too regularly neglected and left to die alone in their cells because of failures to respond to mental health crises and medical emergencies. At the heart of many deaths in custody is a person who has been ignored. a crisis is seen as ‘just’ a mental health problem. They are treated as less than human. In 2016, 345 people died in prisons in England and Wales, the highest number on record. This figure represented a 131% increase from the 153 deaths a decade earlier in 2006. After a welcome reduction in 2017, the latest figures from the Ministry of Justice for the 12 months to September 2018 suggest that deaths are rising once again. Of the 325 deaths, 87 were self-inflicted, 165 were non-self-inflicted, five were homicides, and 68 await classification as the circumstances and causes are unclear. Mark Saunders, whose son Dean died at HMP Chelmsford in 2016, told a parliamentary committee a year later: ‘In this country we do not give a death sentence, but for everyone who has taken their life in prison that is exactly what they got.’ Dean had been imprisoned on remand during a mental health crisis. An inquest jury found that neglect contributed to his death, with serious failings in both mental health care and the prison system. https://www.thejusticegap.com/proof-magazine-every-four-days-someone-takes-their-own-life-in-prison/





""Thousands of Imprisoners was sentenced not knowing they had been given A IPP sentence on top of their original sentence at the discretion of the judge.

The offender only became aware when they arrived at prison on reading their documentation of their sentence. The question many inmates ask how was this allowed to happen without our knowledge or our solicitors?"" The IPP sentence would lead to thousands being over tariff at no fault of their own and would further lead to numbers of tragic deaths by suicide. IPP sentences is a 99-year sentence was designed originally for sex offenses but lather used more widely for relatively minor offenses such as ABH, Street robbery,Arson etc....

The    IPP sentence was lather abolished being a  human rights violation. 

But yet the government did not make it retrospective and did not abolish it for all. numbers became trapped as a result of the poor implementation of the   sentence. IPP sentence would come to the attention of Justice Ministers /parole board without success accountability to the deaths. ""Thousands of IPP prisoners was sentenced not knowing they had been given A IPP sentence on top of their original sentence at the discretion of the judge. The offender only became aware when they arrived at prison on reading their documentation of their sentence. The question many inmates ask how was this allowed to happen without our knowledge or our solicitors?"" The IPP sentence would lead to thousands being over tariff at no fault of their own and would further lead to numbers of tragic deaths by suicide. IPP sentences is a 99-year sentence designed originally sex offenses and lather used more widely and given for relatively minor offenses such as ABH, street robbery, Arson etc..... The    IPP sentence was lather abolished being a human rights violation. 

But yet the government did not make it retrospective and abolish for all. Aprox 3000+ prisoners became trapped with a poor implemented sentence. For prisoner’s and the families, the nightmare IPP sentence would be brought to the attention of the justice ministers and the parole board for decades without success of any accountability. 



When judges where giving out the sentences before they were abolished

judges where under the impression that offenders would be released as they would be able to prove there not a risk by going on the courses handed down by the sentencing judge.

judges wound not be aware the sentence was poorly implemented and that the prison did not have the courses.

 prisoners would write to government bodies to express they did not run a single accredited course at the prison they were in! 

There was a few prisons that was lucky to have a courses but what ones and what course?  you could put in for a move this took 3 months but then be told there was a two year but you could be out in one year but you have to do the course adding further years on.  2 years waiting some prisoners would be likely moved to another prison by prison though on waiting list. Numbers were told of courses at a prison when they got there they didn't have courses. prisoner was not given a list where the courses was or what prison.  Those with learning differences where was not given intermediaries under the law to help them with letters writing going forward.  Other that where on a waiting list for years was move just before the course was about to start.

 for example, if you were given 1-year sentence and you had to do five courses to reduce risk it would take you years to do them, if you could articulate your way forward to find one course or the right course you needed.

being over tariff made their situation worse with regards to the parole board. Many had though it too unnecessary years have done all the courses to prove to the parole board there no longer a said risk what else is left for them to prove there not a risk when in prison, right! Further failings of this waiting list for parole board, lack of parole board members along with offender mangers and offender mangers or not turning up at parole board hearings setting back a prisoner year for another hearing. The failings are a snap shot but endless and a contributing factor in a neglected system

It is left to inmates to prove there not a risk so how do prove your   rehabilitation by means of courses which they have done. prisoners have not been given any further instruction to prove than this but are still there some 10 years over there sentence and still can’t get parole. The longer IPP prisoners are there, the likelihood there will be going infringements been drawn in by other inmates as well as those with autism…..

IPP prisoners have been losing hope after decades of campaigns and letters to Ministers only to be ignored.



Does justice have a price?


A rather superior judge once told me that justice has no price.  I was grumbling at the time about the poor value provided by the Crown Prosecution Service and the crime universities otherwise known as prisons. A classic example of this indifference was provided last week by a House of Commons Justice Committee report addressing sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPPs). 
In 2005, the government decided that dangerous violent and sexual offenders should remain in jail until the Parole Board decided otherwise.  In 2012, the Coalition government decided otherwise: IPPs were “not defensible” and were abolished. Except, with the logic peculiar to Westminster, they were retained for prisoners already incarcerated. Lord McNally, speaking for the government, gave the Alice in Wonderland defence that “lawfully imposed” sentences could not be altered simply because they had been shown to be wrong: “At the end of March 2019 there were still around 2,400 prisoners serving IPPs.”
“Across England and Wales, it cost an average of £37,543 a year to keep a prisoner in jail last year [2018]. That was up 6.1% from £35,271 in 2016/17.”  In other words, it is costing the taxpayer over £90M to keep people in prison who, on the governments own reckoning, should not be there.  With this attitude it is not surprising that our prisons are overcrowded and too expensive.
Back in September 2008, the Chief Inspector of Prisons made a damning report on IPPs: “There are now nearly 8,000 more prisoners in the system than the average for 2005. (…) It led to IPP prisoners languishing in local prisons for months and years, unable to access the interventions they would need before the expiry of their often short tariffs. A belated decision to move them to training prisons, without any additional resources and sometimes to one which did not offer relevant programmes, merely transferred the problem. By December 2007, when there were 3,700 IPP prisoners, it was estimated that 13% were over tariff [i.e. had already served the conventional term]. As a consequence, the Court of Appeal found that the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully.”
Government was not wholly to blame: the judiciary had responded to IPPs with such enthusiasm that they were handing them out to offenders who would otherwise have merited only short sentences.  It should have been clear from the original intent that IPPs were to be used only for those few who did not quite justify life sentences.
Also in 2008, the House of Commons Justice Committee recognised that this created a Catch 22: those who should have been on short sentences did not have the time or assistance in jail to make their cases to the Parole Board and were therefore never let out.
The National Audit Office drew attention to this problem in 2013 and 2017.
This nonsense should have been resolved ten years ago and yet Justice Ministry continues to fail. Bureaucracy and indifference to value for money lie at the heart of the problem. Furthermore ambiguity and unfairness undermines deterrence.  Whether government or the judiciary are to blame for the original muddle over IPP sentences is debatable but the Justice Ministry is certainly responsible for the continuing waste of prisoners’ lives, the waste of taxpayers’ money and ambiguity about how, if ever, IPP prisoners will be given the support to which they are entitled and, where appropriate, be allowed out of jail.
The 2019 Justice Committee’s Report cited above concludes on page 20: “Of IPP prisoners who have never been released, the majority (91% at the latest count) have passed their tariff expiry date.  Of these, around two thirds (64%) were more than 5 years over the expiry of their original tariff length. One in five (20%) of those who were over their tariff length were over it by 8 years or more.”
The inability of prisoners to be released is in marked contrast to the speed with which Justice Secretaries leave the Ministry.  After Chris Grayling served three years, we have had four in little more than four years.  None of them, it would appear, considered that long enough to redress this obvious injustice and thereby enhance taxpayer value. * Prompt justice costs less.

 Prison: the facts Bromley Briefings Summer 2019

Facts and figures provide a better basis than opinion for policy and practice change. Drawn largely from government sources, these facts chart the extraordinary rise in prison numbers over the last twenty years, inflation in sentencing and the social and economic consequences of overuse of custody. They reveal the state of our overcrowded prisons and the state of people in them, the impact of deep budget cuts, the pace and scale of change in the justice system and the scope for community solutions to crime.

Disposable prisoners

According to the proof magazine every four days someone takes their own life in prison 

https://www.thejusticegap.com/proof-magazine-every-four-days-someone-takes-their-own-life-in-prison/

House of Lords house of common joint committee on Human Rights


















 

 
































 










A snap shot



""Thousands was sentenced without knowing they had received a IPP. They were given a minimum term say for an example of 2 years however it was not until they received their documentation in prison they realised they has received an IPP sentence and they question how was this allowed to happen without our knowledge, not even the solicitor new. The IPP sentence would lead to thousands being over tariff no fault of their and lead to mental health and the   tragic deaths of hundreds.



 IPP sentences a 99-year sentence was designed for originally sexual offenses but lather used more widely for relatively minor offenses such as ABH, street robbery, Arson etc. The   IPP sentence was lather abolished as a human rights violation. 



But yet the government failed to make it retrospective, abolish the sentence for all given the sentence they became trapped with failing sentence which was recorded as not been correctly implemented. For prisoner’s families the nightmare the IPP sentence would be brought to the attention of justice ministers and the parole board being a snap shot for decades on the failings and the nightmare situation they were in without success there would be no accountability. 







Sentencing those to an IPP not originally designed for them



Judges where under the impression offenders could be released because they would be able to prove there not a risk by attending course handed down by the sentencing Judge.



The judges wound not be aware the sentence was poorly implemented and that prisons did not have the courses.



hundreds of prisoners voiced, not one single accredited course was at the prison they were at!  few prisons had the courses or the courses they needed. Number of prisoners   move prison and this took 3 months but then told of year or two waiting list but by that time you were likely moved to another prison. Numbers were told of courses at certain prison however when they got there they there was no courses. Inmates was not given a list where the courses were or what prison. 

Example if you were given 1-year sentence and you had to do five courses to reduce said risk it would take you years over your sentence to do them all, that’s if you could articulate your way forward.  inmates then situation got worse with regards to the parole board the more over tariff you became.


Those with learning differences were not given intermediaries under the law to help them with letters writing- going forward. there was a relicense on other prisoner putting them in danger with regards to private information and a favour needing to be payed back.
When  an IPP prisoner has finish all the courses  there  was nothing left  to prove you’re not a  risk  so why are they still holding these prisoners  year after year   until they go insane then this reverts back to risk. 

These being a snap shot of problems postdate: delays in parole hearings, lack of parole board, offender mangers shortfall and offender mangers or not turning up at parole board hearings setting back inmates years. The failings were endless and a significant contribution factor neglected system. Over tariff they don’t want compensation they want to go home to their families. 


It is left to inmates to prove there not a risk so how do prove your rehabilitated by means of courses which prisoners have done. prisoners have not been given any further instruction to prove there not a risk and despite doing the courses some are over tariff by 10 years and are they now being held because they acquired mental health issues, though they caused this by their failing there arguing risk? The government have not considered the sentence being a risk to health and wellbeing which has effected the mental state of those sentence to an IPP significantly and that government have a duty of care. 

Look up Rehabilitation its meaning! It’s the is the action of restoring, someone to health or normal life through courses or therapy or a period of behaviour someone damaged to former condition. But instead restoring and moving them forward IPP prisoners are suffering Emotionally and Psychologically. Not just Families could tell you but a real study found IPP, indeterminate nature of the incarceration which driven many to mental health and insane, and hundreds to take their lives. Lack of advocates to help them negotiate services. Mental health made worse by issues, not the sentence with no end date, poor practice, incompetence of the prison system as well as failing follow recommendation by corners moreover a failing government to act. A government lack of mental awareness by main political parties. 


Research by the Think Tank Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health has revealed that level of acquired mental and emotional distress are higher among offenders sentenced to an IPP than among either the general prison population or prisoners serving a life sentence. Sainsbury Centre researchers said mental health told them they were significantly stretched and under resourced to be able to offer help to IPP prisoners despite the obvious needs and this was relayed to the government however the government sat on information and did nothing.

Hundred and seventy-IPP prisoners same group of prisoners different prisons have since taken life. Many non IPP prisoners witness the down would spiral of a IPP prisoner who they shared a cell with. It has been now revealed there trying to stop media from entering prisons are they hiding a bigger picture.

Article 2 of the Human Rights Act protects your right to life.

This means that nobody, including the Government, can try to end your life. It also means the Government should take appropriate measures to safeguard life by making laws to protect you and, in some circumstances, by taking steps to protect you if your life is at risk

kid have a rights they have a right to family life under human rights but how can this be if there is no end date. Where it not possible a right to regular contact and this being taken away from them under the IPP sentence.


 that health or normal life is no reason they can’t be managed in the community The longer IPP prisoners are there the more likely to go insane with no end date. infringements likely to be added the longer their vulnerable inmates are drawn in by other inmates as well as those with autism and learning differences.


Autism and learning differences
Autistic people can also be misunderstood by professionals within the criminal justice system, which is something I’m trying to change. There’s a tendency, particularly in relation to some serious crimes for criminal justice professionals to interpret ‘odd’ as ‘dangerous. There are also cases where someone's autism may have a bearing on their behaviour. For instance, autistic people can have difficulty understanding unwritten social rules or how the world works, which can leave them open to being taken advantage by others

Autistic people can end up in the prison system, just like anyone else. Although the exact number of autistic people in prison isn’t known, in HMYOI Feltham in February 2 year back, they represented 4.5% of the population. (Note this is an ever-changing figure, as people are released and others arrive. The prison struggle to help them often choosing to spend—extended periods in Separation Units (segregation), as they are quieter environments, without contact with other prisoners. Many prisons don't have specialist Autism Accreditation Standards for prisons.
What is clear is that research has found that autistic people “represent some of the most vulnerable people in the offender population. looking at old reviews there seems to me there is a lot of recommendations however not acted on.
when judges were handing down IPP sentences they should have carried out a proper assessment and back ground on behaviour indicating there maybe Autism / learning differences or both.  Addressing dangerousness doc below was sent in ex IPP Inmate name withheld. Since his release he had a private assessment which found Autism. He feels strongly about the deaths of IPP prisoners and accountability of him being given a IPP in the first place for a minor crime he has kindly sent this doc and highlighted areas in yellow......

…...………………………………….........






I will be attending the parole board 28th august 2019 attending with me is    three  IPP families members.

 We will be addressing keys issues postdate and current. If you would like to contribute key issues in prison or on release or if you’re a family member, other....  I would like to hear from you. Don't worry about spelling-dyslexia if you could Ballet point issues, thank you. Email or letter Email Katherinegleeson@aol.com 




 Copy of 2018  last years parole board attendance written minutes that may jog memories and to what could be added.
  
Attendees: Martin Jones, Parole Board Chief Executive Faith Geary, Director of Business Development and Improvement Marianne Ede, Member Development and Practice IPP Lobby Group,  Katherine Gleeson,  Ann Horton,  Michael Ford,

 The IPP families group raised several points, the main thoughts are summarised below. 

Main points raised:

• There is concern that issues are caused by a prisoner’s immigration status. 

Parole Board comment:

- The Home Office have the power to deport a person without the need for the Parole Board’s involvement. It is not clear whether / how often this power is utilised. In any case, the Parole Board must decide whether, or not, a prisoner is safe to be released. When making such decisions the Board’s Members must not be caught up in the prisoner’s immigration status, it is a strict question of risk. 

• The system (prisons, probation, etc.) protects itself. For example, if the prison is delayed in recommending a course which could have been recommended earlier or if a new Probation Officer is brought into the case late, this is just accepted by the Parole Board. It is the prisoner who pays the price (for example, through a delayed hearing).  • It was asked if the Parole Board have the power to tell prisons what to do (in the context of avoiding delay). 

Parole Board comment: - One of the frustrations the Parole Board experiences is directing reports which are not provided on time. The Parole Board is alert to this issue and is in the process of looking at (and pressing for) possible sanctions, not only if directed reports and information are not received on time but also the non-attendance of oral hearing witnesses.  

 In addition to this, the Parole Board are considering, where possible, when case has its initial review by the MCA Member, to direct a physical date as opposed to specifying the number of weeks the reports must be received before the hearing. This may help to ensure that directed reports are received on time.  - Although Dossiers and decisions of the Parole Board often refer to courses, Members when making their decisions do consider wider information. The Parole Board undertakes a fair and impartial assessment; however, the Board appreciates that the way in which the Members conducts their decision making needs to be understandable to the public. To assist with this, there is a Parole Board Member lead group which is reviewing the approach to the decision making

2

about risk (‘RADAR’) to ensure a consistent approach which can be explained in simple terms.  - The Parole Board is reflective in its practices and to assist with its learning is looking at the practices of international Parole Boards as a useful comparison.  - The Parole Board appreciates the difficulties in the public perception around the release of offenders. Most of those going through the parole process have been convicted of serious violent / sexual offences. It needs to, however, be acknowledged that the rate of reoffending after a Parole Board decision to release is extremely low.  - Parole Board Members make judgement calls based on the evidence. There will never be scientific certainty as to whether, or not, a prisoner will reoffend.  - The Parole Board is still asking Members to go out and make rational decisions based on the evidence.  The Parole Board supports its Members in making difficult decisions and will continue to do so.  - Risk posed by a prisoner cannot be eliminated but can be managed effectively in the community. 


 - The Parole Board has welcomed changes to the rules around transparency of Parole Board decisions. Now families can request summaries of decisions made by the Parole Board. This will help to provide clarity as to how the Parole Board arrived at its decision.  - The Parole Board has been working on increasing the information available to the public around the parole process, including videos which now feature on the Parole Board’s websites and work with the national prison radio. 

• Concern around ‘IPP trauma’. Prisoners can have several negative decisions, this can end up with some giving up on the idea of parole. In addition, some have complex needs (such as ADHD) and have anxiety about opening up about their learning difficulties for fear that it will be perceived as a risk. Prisons should have the same regime as Warren Hill.  What can the Parole Board do to help IPP’s? • It is felt that a logical parallel should be drawn between schools and prisons. 

Parole Board comment: - HMP Warren Hill is a real success. HMPPS have found two prisons – one in the West and one in the North who can roll out a similar regime. The Parole Board is very supportive of this.  - It is not within the remit of the Parole Board to advise or make suggestions on the sentence planning of offenders, this includes suggesting courses or work which the offender can undertake on risk reduction.    - The Parole Board is working on improving public awareness and openness around the parole process. People can go on to lead law abiding lives after committing serious offences. In addition, just because something goes wrong in the community does not necessarily mean that the Parole Board’s decision is wrong. This message how not yet got across. 

• There is a concern that Probation have too many powers in the decision to recall. 

Parole Board comment: - The Parole Board have written to MOJ ministers regarding sensible options for IPP reforms, such as changing recall arrangements and introducing a time cap (fixed period after recall). - The Parole Board appreciates that there are natural justice questions for those who have short tariffs, such as two years. 


3
- From December 2016, those serving IPP sentences can be (and have been) released on the papers by the Parole Board without the need for an oral hearing.  


• Can the Parole Board take into account the fact that IPP is no longer a sentencing option? It is difficult for some prisoners who are subject to an IPP to see other prisoners come and go from prison who are post-2012 but were convicted of a similar offence. 

Parole Board comment: - The Parole Board is not allowed to take into account the fact the IPP sentences no longer exist as a sentencing option for the court. However, over the last few years the Parole Board has been highlighting the discrepancies between those who received an IPP sentence and those who are serving determinate sentences. 

• There needs to be reasonable adjustments in prisons to help prisoners with their parole paperwork. Some prisoners seek advice from other prisoners when intermediaries should be involved. 

Parole Board comment: - The Parole Board can discuss this with the HMPPS to help prisoners get access to the right people so that they can understand their parole dossier. 

• What are complex cases?

Parole Board comment: - A particular offence, such as a sexual offence should not automatically be classified as complex, simply because of its nature. A complex case may, for example, have a mental health element to it or may be complex based on the individual facts of the case. 


2016 - 2020 The Parole Board would like to thank Katherine, Michael and Ann for taking time out to attend its offices on 28th June 2018.





The Parole Board Strategy 2016 -2020.  


https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/569399/Parole_Board_Strategy_2016-2020.pdf








Assessing Dangerousness


Section 229(2) CJA 2003 (as amended by section 17 CJIA 2008) sets out what matters the court can take into account in assessing whether an offender is dangerous.


Section 229(2):


"The court in making the assessment referred to in subsection (1)(b) -
a) must take into account all such information as is available to it about the nature and circumstances of the offence,


b) may take into account all such information as is available to it about the nature and circumstances of any other offences of which the offender has been convicted by a court anywhere in the world,
c) may take into account any information which is before it about any pattern of behaviour of which any of the offences mentioned in paragraph (a) or (aa) forms part, and
d) may take into account any information about the offender which is before it.








R v Considine and Davis [2008] 1 WLR 414 CA: When assessing dangerousness, the sentencing court can take account of an alleged history of violence which is not substantiated or proved by previous convictions.

Johnson was considered in R v Pedley [2010] 1 Cr App R (S) 24 CA where the court emphasised that there was a measure of flexibility within the concept of "significant risk".
In R v Considine; R v Davis [2008] 1 WLR 414 CA it was said that the crucial word in section 229 is "information", which is neither restricted to "evidence", nor limited to the offender's previous convictions or a pattern of behaviour established by them.


"Pattern of behaviour" and "information about the offender"
This is not defined in the Act and will be for the court to assess in each case. It could include such information as any previous acquittals, complaints not prosecuted, and police intelligence about behaviour. This information should be provided by the police on Form MG 16 with the case file, and if not provided, should be requested. Acquittals or discontinuances since 2002 are now recorded on PNC and should be provided on Form MG 16.
R v Considine and Davis [2008] 1 WLR 414 CA: When assessing dangerousness, the sentencing court can take account of an alleged history of violence which is not substantiated or proved by previous convictions.
Assessing Dangerousness
Section 229(2) CJA 2003 (as amended by section 17 CJIA 2008) sets out what matters the court can take into account in assessing whether an offender is dangerous.
Section 229(2):
"The court in making the assessment referred to in subsection (1)(b) -
a) must take into account all such information as is available to it about the nature and circumstances of the offence,
b) may take into account all such information as is available to it about the nature and circumstances of any other offences of which the offender has been convicted by a court anywhere in the world,
c) may take into account any information which is before it about any pattern of behaviour of which any of the offences mentioned in paragraph (a) or (aa) forms part, and
d) may take into account any information about the offender which is before it.
e) Section 229(2A):
The reference in subsection 2(aa) to conviction by a court includes reference to
a) a finding of guilt in service disciplinary proceedings, and
b) a conviction of a service offence within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act 2006 ("conviction" here including anything that under section 376(1) and (2) of that Act is to be treated as a conviction)."
Since 14 July 2008, the existence of previous convictions for specified offences no longer attracts a presumption of dangerousness. However, it is still essential that information about previous convictions is obtained and presented to the court. Previous convictions for specified offences are almost certainly more likely to give rise to a finding of dangerousness than are previous convictions for non-specified offences.
Note that the absence of previous convictions is not decisive of the assessment of dangerousness. In R v Johnson, the Court of Appeal commented that:
"...it was not a prerequisite of a finding of dangerousness that the offender should be an individual with previous convictions. A man of good character might properly qualify for a sentence of imprisonment for public protection."
Johnson was considered in R v Pedley [2010] 1 Cr App R (S) 24 CA where the court emphasised that there was a measure of flexibility within the concept of "significant risk".
In R v Considine; R v Davis [2008] 1 WLR 414 CA it was said that the crucial word in section 229 is "information", which is neither restricted to "evidence", nor limited to the offender's previous convictions or a pattern of behaviour established by them. However it is inappropariate to embark on a Newton hearing to decide whether or not the defendant had committed a discrete, but similar, offence to the one before the court, solely for the purpose of making an assessment of dangerousness.
Specified offences committed before the implementation of the dangerous offender provisions could be relevant in the overall assessment of dangerousness in the case of other linked offences committed after the implementation date: R v Robert Michael S and others [2007] EWCA Crim 1622 [also reported as R v Harries and others].
The court will need to know, not only the facts of the case for which the offender is being sentenced, but also the facts of all the previous convictions if they are relevant to the assessment of dangerousness. This information should be provided by the police in the case file on Form MG 16 for offenders charged with specified offences, and should be requested if not provided. In the Crown Court the antecedents should also set out the circumstances of the last 3 similar convictions (Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction Part III.27.3).

Dangerousness
An offender is dangerous if:
"the court is of the opinion that there is a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission by him of further specified offences".
References: (section 225(1)(b), section 225(2)(b), section 226 (1)(b), section 226 (2)(b), section 227 (1)(b), section 228 (1)(b) CJA 2003)
"Significant risk" is not defined in the legislation and will be for the court to assess in each case. In the leading case of R v Lang [2005] EWCA Crim 2864, the Court of Appeal held that significant means noteworthy, of considerable amount or importance. Risk must be to members of the public. This is widely construed and can include the offender, particular groups of members of the public such as co-habitees or abused children, and individuals.
In Pedley, Martin and Hamadi [2009] 1 WLR 2517, the Court confirmed the indication given in Lang that a "significant risk" presented a higher threshold than a mere possibility of occurrence. "Significant" should be given its ordinary English meaning of "noteworthy" or "of considerable amount or importance". The Court did not think any further re-definition of the term would be helpful. In particular, they rejected the invitation of counsel for the appellants to re-define it in terms of numerical probability or any other percentage of likelihood. The Court also found that a sentence of IPP imposed when the judge is satisfied that the defendant poses a significant risk of serious harm to the public is wholly compatible with both article 3 and article 5(1)(a) of the European Convention.
In R v Johnson [2006] EWCA Crim 2486, the Court of Appeal following the judgement in Lang, held that the sentence of imprisonment for public protection was concerned with future risk and the future protection of the public, and not with punishing the present offending. The court emphasised that within the concept of "significant risk"  there is a measure of flexibility which allows a judge to conclude that a somewhat lower probability of particularly grave harm may be significant and conversely that a somewhat greater probability of less grave harm may not be. Johnson was followed in R v MJ [2012] EWCA Crim 132 which emphasised that on the issue of public safety, the decision made at the sentencing hearing is required to address the future.
Serious Harm
"Serious harm" means death or serious personal injury, whether physical or psychological section 224 (3) CJA 2003. In Lang, the Court of Appeal indicated that previous authorities would continue to be relevant in this regard.
Where offences are serious specified offences, the fact that they have been deemed to be serious offences for Schedule 15 purposes does not mean that there is automatically a risk of serious harm. For example, an offence of robbery may give rise to serious harm or it may not, depending on the circumstances. The carrying of a lethal weapon such as a real firearm or a knife (as in Lang) may well support an assessment that there is a significant risk of serious harm, but where threats are used but without actual violence, and there is no evidence of serious psychological harm, then such circumstances may not support such an assessment: R v Lang.
In R v Owen (above) reminded sentencers that some risk of serious harm is not enough. The test is the existence of a significant risk, enough to warrant a sentence which may never end.
In (non-serious) specified offences there will be few cases where the significant risk of serious harm will be present. Repetitive sexual or violent offending at low level without serious harm is not dangerous: R v Lang; R v Terrell [2008] Cr App R (S) 49; R v Hicks [2009] EWCA Crim 733. However, the definition of serious harm is case specific: minor offences of gradually escalating seriousness might be significant in the assessment of future risk: R v Johnson.
In Johnson the Court of Appeal also held that it did not automatically follow from the absence of actual harm caused by an offender to date, that the risk that he would cause serious harm in the future was negligible. The Court held that the case of R v Shaffi [2006] 2 Cr. App. R. (S) 92 was not authority for the proposition that as a matter of law, offences which did not result in harm to the victim should be treated as irrelevant in the assessment of dangerousness.


GPS tagging goes live



Set out the criteria for GPS tagging, IPP prisoners



Location monitoring will be available for: court-imposed bail, community orders, suspended sentence orders, home detention curfew cases and Parole Board cases for life sentences, IPP (imprisonment for public protection) offences and extended determinate sentences.
Last Friday (15 February 2019), Justice Secretary David Gaule announced the national roll out of new GPS tags which will provide 24/7 location monitoring of offenders with the stated aims of helping to strengthen supervision, enforce exclusion zones and “give victims greater peace of mind”. who will be eligible for tags?


IPP prisoners 10 year licence 



https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/free-the-remaining-ipp-prisoners?fbclid=IwAR12yWzx_sToS_iR4ymaTMNm58-qTr0p6CjhNwcTs6zxp8Hh2Sn_mRkCUqY
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/PressPolicy/News/Deathsincustody
https://www.inquest.org.uk/tommy-nicol-opening
https://insidetime.org/ipp-affecting-mental-health/
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/similar/request/ipp_imprisonment_for_public_prot

file:///C:/Users/KATHER~1/AppData/Local/Temp/Prison%20the%20facts%20Summer%202019.pdf

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/does-justice-have-a-price

http://www.thinkingautismguide.com/2017/04/what-happens-to-autistic-people-in.html

https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2008/09/17/indefinite-sentences-trap-inmates-with-mental-health-needs-in-jail/





https://www.pinterest.co.uk/katherinegleeso/ipp-family-campaign/