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 …
Read more
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.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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 could be disadvantageous.
Read full response →
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 …
Read more
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.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
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 …
Read more
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)
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
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 …
Read more
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.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
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 …
Read more
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.
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
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 …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI summary
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 be undertaken.
Read full response →
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 …
Read more
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. (Paragraph 176) IPP sentences 63
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice