Source · Select Committees · Justice Committee
Recommendation 12
12
Acknowledged
Paragraph: 120
Implement strategies to tackle the IPP recall merry-go-round, examining thresholds and resettlement support
Recommendation
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.
Government Response Summary
The government explained its historical decision not to abolish IPP sentences retrospectively and stated that the existing IPP Action Plan remains the best approach. It committed to reviewing the Action Plan in light of the committee's recommendations to ensure it offers the best support, but did not commit to specific actions regarding recall thresholds, approved premises, or alternatives to emergency recall.
Paragraph Reference:
120
Government Response
Acknowledged
HM Government
Acknowledged
Reasoning: At the time of abolition of the IPP sentence in 2012, the Government decided against retrospectively abolishing the sentences of those still serving IPPs. The Government recognised that to re-sentence those individuals would result in unacceptable risk of serious harm to the public as many IPPs would be released without an assessment by the independent Parole Board that they could be managed safely in the community. Therefore, those who had already been sentenced to and were serving an IPP sentence in prison continued to serve the sentence either because they had not yet served the minimum term of imprisonment or, where they have served the minimum term, because the independent Parole Board had determined that their risk remained too high for them to be safely managed in the community. The risks to public protection from the immediate release of serving IPP prisoners continue to exist. Although the Government recognises the frustrations and concerns surrounding the IPP sentence, our view is that the IPP Action Plan remains the best way in which these offenders can progress towards safe release. The Action Plan is regularly refreshed and updated, and it will again be reviewed in light of the recommendations from the Justice Select Committee to ensure it offers the best possible support to IPP offenders, whether in custody or in the community. 14 IPP sentences: Government and Parole Board Responses to the Committee’s Third Report