December 15, 2015
His Lordship was talking about a scar that has defaced the penal system since 2005, with the introduction of Indeterminate Public Protection (IPP) sentences.
They were introduced two years earlier with the intention of protecting the public from people who had committed serious offences, but not deemed so grave as to warrant a life sentence. Offenders sentenced under IPP rules were given a minimum term (tariff) to serve in prison.
When that tariff point was reached, IPP prisoners could apply to the Parole Board for their freedom.
To convince the Parole Board they no longer represented a threat, IPP prisoners had to complete certain offending behaviour courses, according to the nature of their offence.
But these courses were not available across the entire prison estate. So, you could not be released until you had completed the programme, but the programmes were not available in the numbers required.
The Court of Appeal quickly recognised this catch and in 2007 judges ruled the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully in introducing IPPs.
They condemned the “systematic failure to put in place the resources necessary to implement the the scheme of rehabilitation required-under the Act.”
It was not until 2012 that the government scrapped IPP, replacing it with new sentencing guidelines.
But the changes were not retrospective and IPP prisoners continue to be held many years after their tariffs have expired – and still unable to complete the courses that were the keys to their freedom.
Currently 4,614 people ares still being held on IPP sentences, of whom 3,532 (77 per cent) have passed their tariff expiry date.
In some cases, prisoners given a minimum tariff of two years were counting their years in double figures....
He has been a model prisoner: never committed an offence against prison rules and been on enhanced status for six and a half years. He has completed 23 offending behaviour courses but remains stuck in the log jam in a Category C prison.
He appears to be a victim of the intolerable pressures put on the Parole Board, who simply do not have the resources to cope with the demand.
And who, no doubt, are terrified of getting it wrong and releasing a person who may re-offend, and o incurring the wrath of the right wing press.The Catch 22 nightmare still applies, three years after IPPs were scrapped.
Under current rules, he still has to wait until the Parole Board clears the log jam, which will likely be 8 years down the line.
I offer one solution to at least improve the situation.
The Parole Board carries out a thorough risk assessment before releasing a prisoner.
During this time inmates serving IPP sentences may well be held in open prisons, to help them adjust to life in the outside.
But to get to an open jail, prisoners undergo a thorough risk assessment and, of course, they could walk out of their jails whenever they choose. By staying there, surely these men have proved they are not a risk.
Common sense and justice should prevail.
This ugly stain on the criminal justice landscape can and should be removed forthwith.
prisonwatchuk.com/2015/12/15/the-ugly-stain-of-ipp-indeterminate-sentences-comment-from-eric-allison/
Eric Allison, indeterminate sentences, Inside Time, IPP, Justice Secretary, Lord Brown, Michael Gove, Parole Board, prison news uk
His Lordship was talking about a scar that has defaced the penal system since 2005, with the introduction of Indeterminate Public Protection (IPP) sentences.
They were introduced two years earlier with the intention of protecting the public from people who had committed serious offences, but not deemed so grave as to warrant a life sentence. Offenders sentenced under IPP rules were given a minimum term (tariff) to serve in prison.
When that tariff point was reached, IPP prisoners could apply to the Parole Board for their freedom.
Catch 22
Almost immediately after their introduction, prison watchers realised that IPPs represented a classic Catch 22 situation.To convince the Parole Board they no longer represented a threat, IPP prisoners had to complete certain offending behaviour courses, according to the nature of their offence.
But these courses were not available across the entire prison estate. So, you could not be released until you had completed the programme, but the programmes were not available in the numbers required.
Systematic failure
IPP prisoners began to clog up the system. The more they did so, the less the programmes became open to them.The Court of Appeal quickly recognised this catch and in 2007 judges ruled the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully in introducing IPPs.
They condemned the “systematic failure to put in place the resources necessary to implement the the scheme of rehabilitation required-under the Act.”
It was not until 2012 that the government scrapped IPP, replacing it with new sentencing guidelines.
But the changes were not retrospective and IPP prisoners continue to be held many years after their tariffs have expired – and still unable to complete the courses that were the keys to their freedom.
Currently 4,614 people ares still being held on IPP sentences, of whom 3,532 (77 per cent) have passed their tariff expiry date.
In some cases, prisoners given a minimum tariff of two years were counting their years in double figures....
Log jam
In this month’s edition of Inside Time, an IPP prisoner who in 2008 was given a tariff of six years states his case.He has been a model prisoner: never committed an offence against prison rules and been on enhanced status for six and a half years. He has completed 23 offending behaviour courses but remains stuck in the log jam in a Category C prison.
He appears to be a victim of the intolerable pressures put on the Parole Board, who simply do not have the resources to cope with the demand.
And who, no doubt, are terrified of getting it wrong and releasing a person who may re-offend, and o incurring the wrath of the right wing press.The Catch 22 nightmare still applies, three years after IPPs were scrapped.
One solution
The failed IPP system is just one of the many problems facing new justice secretary Michael Gove.Under current rules, he still has to wait until the Parole Board clears the log jam, which will likely be 8 years down the line.
I offer one solution to at least improve the situation.
The Parole Board carries out a thorough risk assessment before releasing a prisoner.
During this time inmates serving IPP sentences may well be held in open prisons, to help them adjust to life in the outside.
But to get to an open jail, prisoners undergo a thorough risk assessment and, of course, they could walk out of their jails whenever they choose. By staying there, surely these men have proved they are not a risk.
Common sense and justice should prevail.
This ugly stain on the criminal justice landscape can and should be removed forthwith.
prisonwatchuk.com/2015/12/15/the-ugly-stain-of-ipp-indeterminate-sentences-comment-from-eric-allison/
Eric Allison, indeterminate sentences, Inside Time, IPP, Justice Secretary, Lord Brown, Michael Gove, Parole Board, prison news uk
HMP Bullingdon
£50m to keep them in per year!
Another interesting point is that the government insist that they will not make the new rules about IPPs not being given if the tariff would be less than 2 years retrospective - but they are willing to use a comparatively minor offence retrospectively (i.e. 21 years before) to create the IPP. Where's the logic and fairness?
It would be really good if readers of this wonderful blog could write a letter to the government about it and whilst doing that write a second letter about Ben himself who should also be released.
Just think if the judicial system properly assessed and released people like Ben, and those mentioned above, they would be able to free up hundreds of places in the system and would not need to build mammoth new jails etc.
Ben is in favour of reason over rioting – rightly in my view. But reason falls on deaf ears, mostly. It’s going to take for ever at this rate. Does anyone know of an effective prison reform/abolition org out there? One that actually makes things happen?
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 . 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 IPP prisoners in custody, and the figure is rising at a rate of around 70 per month . 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. 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’ , 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
Emmersons Solicitors
All cases are in my opinion massively complicated.
I reckon that, collectively, we are the 'most knowledgeable' people to inhabit earth so far...(libraries at our fingertips etc.)
Although, knowledge is available, it (imo) aint helpin us any.
We still stuck.
For example, i worked with this chap (in general a nasty type with occasional decency and tons of v. diahroea) who said stuff that stayed with me; he'd been inside for 7 years, and would often remark "i'd do another 3 out of principle" . Describing a potential sentence for a beating he would inflict upon another.
I've an idea that this attitude aint too uncommon.
Its almost bearable when seeing this as two dumb/tough males wanting to beat seven bells o's..t outta each other... but template the action to a sexual or physical or mental situation where the concerened parties are unequal...
Raping out of some deranged principle?
I think that we have to accept that people have and continue to act in this manner.
Society has decieded these people need to be controlled. Or perhaps destroyed.
Imagine... "i'm free at last, those bastard screws kept me in for 4 years too long, i know, ill rape someone to prove i don't mind jail'
... if i've upset anyone i'm sorry...i've upset myself too.
I can see the idea that IPP demonstrates the muscle of law and order, controlling whoever at will.
I suppose justice has evolved to what it is now despite its incomprehensible nature. Evil people are human beings. Judges are human beings. All will fail at some point. (High Court judge that was convicted for years of child abuse towards her daughter springs to mind).
It looks like the trouble will always be, as Ben has pointed out numerous times, how to make the call? What does he have to do to prove he is 'minimal risk', same as everyone else? Will he change attitude to a psycho once he is described as safe?
I find paradoxical dilemmas such as this very unhelpful. Very easy to talk bullsh.t on paper.
Personally, i believe all people can do right by all. No matter what their history. No matter how evil the deed. No matter how many repititions of evil deed. And yes, in our lifetime. And no, not thru drugs/surgery.