Recommendations & Conclusions
7 items
13
Recommendation
Third Report - IPP sentences
Rejected
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 …
Government response. The government rejects the recommendations for the Parole Board to have a greater role in recall decisions, for oral hearings within two months, and for mandatory annual reviews for recalled IPP prisoners, stating existing processes are adequate and annual reviews …
Ministry of Justice
16
Conclusion
Third Report - IPP sentences
Rejected
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 …
Government response. The government rejects the implicit call for a fundamental solution to the IPP sentence's flaws, citing public protection risks from retrospective abolition and affirming that the current IPP Action Plan remains the best way forward, which will be reviewed.
Ministry of Justice
17
Recommendation
Third Report - IPP sentences
Rejected
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 …
Government response. The government rejects the recommendation for primary legislation to retrospectively address the IPP sentence and enable a resentencing exercise, citing public protection risks and asserting that the IPP Action Plan remains the best approach, which will be reviewed.
Ministry of Justice
18
Recommendation
Third Report - IPP sentences
Rejected
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 …
Government response. The government rejects the primary recommendation to bring forward legislation for an IPP resentencing exercise, citing unacceptable risks to public protection and affirming that the existing IPP Action Plan is the best approach, which is under review.
Ministry of Justice
20
Recommendation
Third Report - IPP sentences
Rejected
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 …
Government response. The government rejects the recommendation for an expert committee to advise on an IPP resentencing exercise, reaffirming its stance against retrospective abolition due to public protection risks and reiterating commitment to the existing IPP Action Plan.
Ministry of Justice
21
Recommendation
Third Report - IPP sentences
Rejected
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 …
Government response. The government rejects the recommendation for a resentencing exercise, stating it would pose unacceptable risks to public safety and that the existing IPP Action Plan is the preferred approach, thus not addressing the principles for how such an exercise should …
Ministry of Justice
22
Recommendation
Third Report - IPP sentences
Rejected
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 …
Government response. The government rejects the recommendation, stating that retrospective abolition of IPP sentences would pose an unacceptable risk to public safety and that the existing IPP Action Plan remains the best approach for managing these offenders.
Ministry of Justice