Source · Select Committees · Justice Committee

Third Report - IPP sentences

Justice Committee HC 266 Published 28 September 2022

Report Status

Government responded

Conclusions & Recommendations

22 items (15 recs)

Source

View on Parliament website ↗

Government Response

AI assessment · 22 of 22 classified

Accepted 9

Accepted in Part 1

Acknowledged 2

Deferred 3

Rejected 7

Recommendations

6 results

13 Rejected

Para 121

Grant recalled IPP prisoners right to oral Parole Board hearings and annual reviews

Recommendation

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 … Read more

Government Response 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.

Ministry of Justice

View Details →

17 Rejected

Require primary legislation to enable a comprehensive IPP resentencing exercise

Recommendation

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 … Read more

Government Response 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.

Ministry of Justice

View Details →

18 Rejected

Para 152

Bring forward legislation to enable IPP resentencing for all sentenced individuals

Recommendation

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 … Read more

Government Response 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.

Ministry of Justice

View Details →

20 Rejected

Para 154

Establish an expert committee to advise on practical implementation of IPP resentencing

Recommendation

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 … Read more

Government Response 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.

Ministry of Justice

View Details →

21 Rejected

Resentencing exercise for IPP prisoners must balance public protection, individual justice, and judicial independence.

Recommendation

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 … 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 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.

Ministry of Justice

View Details →

22 Rejected

Large-scale resentencing for IPP prisoners, despite complexity, urgently requires action from all state branches.

Recommendation

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 … Read more

Government Response 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.

Ministry of Justice

View Details →

Conclusions (1)

Observations and findings

16 Conclusion Rejected

Para 150

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 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.

View Details →