Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences

Given the extensive and complex nature of the challenges faced by IPP sentenced individuals, we find the absence of detail in the IPP Action Plan surprising. It lacks a clear strategic priority and ownership, as well as operational detail, timeframes, and performance measures.

We recommend the MoJ and HMPPS develop a new action plan, which should include clear performance measures for each of its workstreams. The new action plan should also, against each workstream, include an accountable owner for the workstream, and a timeframe for completion of each workstream activity so that there can be greater accountability and scrutiny. A new version of the IPP Action Plan should be published by the end of Q1 2023, with a report on the operation of the plan and any revisions to it published annually thereafter.

The psychological harm caused by IPP sentences is a considerable barrier to progression for some IPP prisoners. The indefinite nature of the sentence has contributed to feelings of hopelessness and despair that has resulted in high levels of self-harm and some suicides within the IPP population. In addition to this, IPP prisoners distrust the people and services that are necessary to support their progression. In identifying solutions to the IPP problem, the MoJ, HMPPS and Parole Board must acknowledge the psychological harm caused by the IPP sentence, and the challenges this presents regarding progression. The MoJ and HMPPS should also set out how they intend to improve access to mental health support for IPP prisoners, including transfers to secure hospitals and therapeutic settings.

Additionally, there are a small number of mentally unwell prisoners who are subsequently transferred to a secure mental hospital. For these prisoners, the process for post-tariff release is more complex, and we are not clear what support is offered to those who, after a period of treatment, are no longer deemed detainable under the Mental Health Act 1983, but do not go on to meet the Parole Board’s test for release, and are then transferred back to prison from the secure hospital. The MoJ, HMPPS and the Parole Board should set out what support is available to those prisoners who are remitted back to prison after a period of time spent under section in a secure hospital, and how they are supported to progress in their sentence.

We are concerned to hear that the availability of appropriate courses for IPP prisoners is limited. The MoJ and HMPPS must ensure that there are enough places on courses available to all those who need them. As part of the IPP action plan, the MoJ and HMPPS should set out what work is being done to expand provision of courses for IPP prisoners, reduce waiting lists, and ensure that IPP prisoners are being held in appropriate category prisons.

Programmes, pathways and other interventions are often relied upon by HMPPS and the Parole Board to help determine risk, and so it is vital that they deliver the outcomes they purport to deliver. We are concerned about the lack of transparency surrounding programme evaluations, and so cannot be confident that existing IPP sentences 59 programmes deliver adequate outcomes for prisoners. Some programmes have been evaluated yet have been found ineffective; other programmes are being used and relied upon yet have not been evaluated or, where they have, the evaluation has not been published, as has been the case with Professor Paul Moran’s evaluation of the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway.

The Government should publish the commissioned report from Professor Paul Moran into the Offender Personality Disorder pathway by December 2022. In addition, the MoJ and HMPPS should set out what work is being done to ensure that all programmes delivered and relied upon by HMPPS and the Parole Board deliver adequate outcomes for prisoners; and, where they do not, they should set out the process for reviewing delivery of those programmes.

Our inquiry has highlighted wider resource issues within the Probation Service and the Parole Board. We have heard about frequent delays, untrained Parole Board members, frequent changes in professionals essential to the parole process, uncertainty following a negative parole decision and issues with the probation service. For the reasons set out, we consider the parole process as it stands, and the probation service’s involvement in it, to be ineffective, and posing a significant barrier to progression for IPP offenders. There needs to be sufficient resources for the Parole Board to consider IPP cases without undue delays. The Parole Board should prioritise people serving IPPs, and provide additional training to its members in understanding the impacts of the sentence. Only trained and experienced Parole Board members should oversee IPP cases.

It is unacceptable that some prisoners do not have access to a community probation officer. HMPPS should set out why this is the case, and what work is being done to ensure that all IPP prisoners have access to a community probation officer to support them to progress through their sentence. We are also concerned that in some cases, the probation officer may have little knowledge of, or prior contact with, the offender. There needs to be sufficient resource for community-based offender managers to provide IPP prisoners with the support needed to prepare for parole hearings. HMPPS should set out what it is doing to ensure that probation officers have an adequate level of contact with the offender prior to their parole hearing.

Spending an indefinite period of time on licence in the community is detrimental to the mental health and rehabilitation of IPP offenders, and in many cases is not proportionate to the index offence. We welcome the introduction of automatic referral by the Secretary of State for licence termination at the 10-year point. We would welcome regular updates on the number of IPP offenders whose licence is terminated as a result of this mechanism.

Furthermore, we support a reduction of the qualifying licence period from 10 years to five years. This change would go some way to restoring proportionality to the IPP sentence. The MoJ should initiate legislation to this effect as soon as possible.

The recalled population of IPP offenders is a growing concern and will soon be larger than the population of IPP prisoners who have never been released from custody. The Government needs to devote far greater energy and resource to tackling the “recall merry-go-round”, ensuring that IPP prisoners who do secure their release are able to live a successful life thereafter, avoiding unnecessary recall to prison. We agree with the Chair of the Parole Board that the Government should examine this issue in depth, covering, for example, the threshold for recalls, the use of Executive release, and the role of the Parole Board. The Government should discuss with local government how to ensure an adequate supply of approved premises that does not over burden specific local authorities. Emergency recalls should only be used as a last resort. Probation staff should be encouraged and supported to use alternative measures to emergency recall, such as adjusted reporting requirements, curfews and use of electronic tags.

The Parole Board should have a greater role in decision-making around recalls. All IPP prisoners who have been recalled, not having received a new custodial sentence for committing a further offence, should have the right to an oral parole board hearing within two months of their request. The probation service should have to attend to explain their recall decision. Furthermore, all recalled IPP prisoners should be entitled to annual reviews by the Parole Board to consider whether they are fit for re-release.

As set out earlier in this Report, the recall of IPP sentenced individuals is a growing problem. IPP prisoners face particular challenges with resettlement, and careful consideration must therefore be given as to how they are prepared for their release and subsequently supported in the community. We agree with the Prison Reform Trust that efforts to successfully reintegrate IPP prison leavers into society must match those efforts being made to help them to achieve release.

We welcome the Government’s commitment to ensuring that all prison leavers leave prison with the basics, such as ID and a bank account, and ask that updates on this programme of work be provided to us. We would also welcome progress updates on the introduction of Resettlement Passports. As the passports are developed, we recommend that the MoJ works with stakeholders to give particular consideration as to how they can be used to meet the needs of IPP prisoners, including how resources such as psychologists can be most usefully deployed. In its response to this Report, the MoJ should also set out how IPP prisoners are prepared for their release, including the use of ROTL and the resettlement support and services that are available to prisoners who do not have a release date.

Our Report has set out various steps the Government needs to take to help address the IPP problem. But it is clear to us that, while these measures are necessary, they will not be sufficient on their own to deal with the problems that have been identified in the way the IPP sentence continues to operate and is likely to operate in the coming years. The sentence is irredeemably flawed.

As Lord Thomas noted in R v Roberts: “It was Parliament which legislated to establish a regime of sentences of IPP in terms which the courts have faithfully and IPP sentences 61 properly applied. It must, in our democracy and in accordance with the rule of law, be for Parliament to provide a correction for the outcome if it so wishes”. We agree. In our view, a comprehensive and adequate solution to the IPP problem can only be achieved by primary legislation that deals retrospectively with the continued operation of the sentence and that allows a resentencing exercise to be undertaken. Paragraph 151)

Our primary recommendation is that the Government brings forward legislation to enable a resentencing exercise in relation to all IPP sentenced individuals (except for those who have successfully had their licence terminated). This is the only way to address the unique injustice caused by the IPP sentence and its subsequent administration, and to restore proportionality to the original sentences that were given.

Concerns about available community resource for released offenders are valid and need to be taken into consideration. However, the lack of such resource is not a suitable reason for keeping people imprisoned indefinitely. We reiterate the words of our predecessor Committee: as a matter of policy and common sense rather than law, it is wholly indefensible to incarcerate prisoners of any category beyond the expiry of their tariff or their eligibility for release on licence simply because of a lack of resources on the part of HM Prison Service or the Parole Board.

We have not sought to set out the terms of the proposed legislation to enable the resentencing exercise, which will ultimately be for Parliament to consider. We do, however, recommend that it should comply with the key principles that we set out below. 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.

In establishing how to undertake a resentencing exercise of IPP prisoners and what legislation would be needed, it will be important to keep in mind the following three key principles: (Paragraph 175) a) Balancing protection of the public with justice for the individual offender: A resentencing exercise must strike a balance between protecting the public from the risk of IPP prisoners committing serious further offences if released and securing justice for individual offenders. To achieve that balance, it must be accompanied by sufficient resources to provide released IPP offenders with the support they need—including mental health support—to reintegrate into society. It must also avoid a one-size-fits-all approach and should prioritise the offenders most adversely affected by the sentence: those who were sentenced in the early years of the sentence, prior to the ‘seriousness threshold’ changes in 2008. Any resentencing exercise should also ensure that current sentencing practices designed to ensure protection of the public from serious violent and sexual offenders, such as the way Extended Determinate Sentences are applied and supported, serve as a model in relation to resentenced IPP offenders. b) The independence of the judiciary: We agree with Lord Thomas that undertaking a resentencing exercise would not interfere with the judicial independence of 62 IPP sentences sentencing. Indeed, it was the decision to curtail the usual discretion of judges to determine the most appropriate sentence for each offender that led to the initial proliferation of the IPP sentence. It would be important, therefore, for a resentencing exercise not to repeat that mistake. In resentencing IPP prisoners the judiciary must be able to make an independent and fair assessment of the individual circumstances of each case and have the discretion to determine an appropriate sentence. c) Measures to prevent retrospectively increasing the sentence: Any resentencing exercise must be constrained

We do not underestimate the complexity of undertaking a large-scale resentencing exercise for IPP prisoners. It would require careful thought, significant planning, and sufficient resource. However, the potential difficulties do not justify failing to grasp the nettle. All three branches of the state—the Government, Parliament, and the judiciary—must now rise to the challenge.