IPP sentences – Report Summary

This is a House of Commons Committee report, with recommendations to government. The Government has two months to respond.

Author: Justice Committee

Related inquiry: Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences

Date Published: 28 September 2022

Download and Share

Summary

The Sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP sentence) was introduced under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to detain people in prison who posed a significant risk of causing harm to the public. Following criticism of the sentence and its operation, it was reformed in 2008, and subsequently abolished in 2012. In total, 8,711 individuals received an IPP sentence. As of June 2022, there were 2,926 IPP prisoners, of which 1,492 have never been released and 1,434 have been recalled to custody. 608 prisoners are at least 10 years over their original tariff, 188 of which originally received a tariff of less than two years. The Government expects the recalled population of IPP prisoners to soon exceed the number who have never been released.

Our Report finds that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ)’s action plan for reducing the size of the IPP prison population lacks a clear strategic priority and ownership, as well as operational detail and performance measures. We outline the various challenges prisoners face to progression, including access to mental health services and the availability of course places, as well as raising concern about the transparency surrounding programme evaluations. We find the parole process, and the probation service’s involvement in it, to be ineffective and posing a significant barrier to progress for IPP offenders. Having secured release, we argue that the Government needs to devote far greater energy to tackling the “recall merry-go-round”, with efforts to successfully integrating IPP prison leavers into society matching the effort made in helping them achieve release. We also recommend a reduction to the qualifying licence period from 10 years to five years as a means of going some way to restoring the proportionality of the sentence.

However, it is clear to us that the above actions will not be sufficient on their own to deal with the problems identified with the IPP sentence. Our primary recommendation is that the Government conducts a resentencing exercise for all IPP-sentenced individuals (except for those who have successfully had their licence terminated). In attempting to deal comprehensively with this issue, the process for resentencing must be guided by three key principles: (1) balancing protection of the public with justice for the individual offender; (2) recognising and protecting the independence of the judiciary; and (3) ensuring that no harsher sentence is imposed retrospectively. We also appreciate that establishing a resentencing exercise will be administratively complex. Accordingly, we recommend that the Government set up a time-limited small expert committee to advise on the practical implementation of the resentencing exercise in conjunction with the senior judiciary. We do not underestimate the complexity of undertaking a large-scale resentencing exercise for IPP prisoners; however, we conclude that it is now time for the three branches of the state—the Government, Parliament, and the judiciary—to rise to the challenge.