Select committee: Justice Committee
Recommendation 21
Third Report - IPP sentences
Published 28 Sep 2022
Addressed to Ministry of Justice
Justice Committee Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗
Recommendation (the committee's words)
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
From: Justice Committee, Third Report - IPP sentences (HC 266), 28 September 2022
Government response
The government responded to the whole report on 9 February 2023 (deadline 28 November 2022).
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.The Government accepts or partially accepts several recommendations, including a refreshed IPP Action Plan, but rejects resentencing and a shorter licence period, stating that resentencing would give rise to "an unacceptable risk to public protection".
- On the primary recommendation, the Government "has no plans to conduct a resentencing exercise", and states that the updated IPP Action Plan "remains the best option" for progression towards safe release.
- It accepts the recommendation for a new IPP Action Plan with clear performance measures, and says MoJ and HMPPS "will provide full details of the refreshed action plan and associated governance within the timeframe set out by the Committee" (by the end of Q1 2023).
- It rejects reducing the licence termination eligibility period from 10 to five years, but says it "will review the policy and practice for suspending supervision in appropriate cases".
- On recall, it partially accepts and does not accept that IPP offenders are recalled unnecessarily. It has asked the Chief Inspector of Probation to conduct a thematic inspection in 2023/24, and will share the Terms of Reference with the Committee once confirmed and agreed.