MPs and members of the House of Lords are grappling with the tough issue of indefinite prison sentences as they discuss the proposed Imprisonment for Public Protection (Resentencing) Bill. This bill seeks to right perceived wrongs associated with the controversial Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences, which have left nearly 3,000 individuals trapped under indeterminate terms, often for minor offenses.
The IPP sentencing regime was initially introduced under the New Labour government back in 2005. It was meant to address concerns about public safety by allowing judges to impose indefinite sentences for those deemed to be dangerous. The key issue? These sentences did not come with maximum terms. While the system was abolished for new offenders by 2012, existing IPP prisoners were left without options for release, leading to harsh criticisms about the system's fairness and human rights violations.
During debates, Labour peer Lord Tony Woodley made poignant comparisons between the plight of IPP prisoners and other high-profile injustices, like the Post Office scandal and the Windrush affair. “History is being written right now, and my plea to the government is this: don’t be on the wrong side of history,” he urged, illuminating the grave situation faced by many behind bars.
According to Lord Woodley, nearly 90 IPP prisoners have taken their own lives due to the hopelessness of their situation. He described the system as “industrial-scale miscarriages of justice” and criticized the government for resisting changes. Despite vocal support from peers, Minister James Timpson stood firmly against the bill, asserting it could put the public at risk.
“Legislators must be cautious,” Timpson maintained, explaining the potential hazards of degrading public safety by releasing prisoners who might still pose threats. The opposition, including various Lord representatives, took issue with this stance. Liberal Democrat peer Sarah Ludford pointed out the absurdity of keeping individuals imprisoned indefinitely for minor crimes, questioning, “So what is this government going to do, keep these people locked up arbitrarily?”
A closer look at the numbers reveals alarming trends: over two-thirds of IPP inmates have served more than ten years beyond their minimum term, highlighting significant disparities between the original offense and their current predicament. The statistics tell only part of the story—with 1,095 inmates never having been released and 1,600 recalled to prison for breaches of license conditions.
During the debate, there were several heart-wrenching stories shared, including those of individual inmates. One such testimony came from Lord Hastings, recalling the case of Mike, an ex-prisoner who was reimprisoned for failing to inform his probation officer about taking a holiday. This singular misstep led to 10 additional months locked up, four years after his release—a stark reminder of how minor misconduct could prompt devastating repercussions under the IPP regime.
Another troubling case mentioned was of James Lawrence, who is still imprisoned even after receiving what was originally deemed an eight-month term due to a threat involving a fake gun. The aspect of psychological trauma was highlighted, with mental health professionals comparing the experience of these inmates to “psychological torture.” The United Nations has condemned the impact of the IPP system on inmates’ mental health, labeling it unacceptable.
David Blunkett, the architect of the IPP system during his tenure as Home Secretary, expressed regret for introducing such legislation. He has called for partial resentencing of IPP prisoners to alleviate their suffering, stating, “I carry my responsibility heavily.” His suggestion was to implement a structured system where former judges could review cases without adding to the court backlog.
Critics have noted the continuing struggles of the IPP prisoners and how these individuals wait endlessly for evaluations by the Parole Board, which often takes significant time and can exacerbate mental health issues. Delays added to their distress have been called “an unacceptable risk of psychological harm”—a sentiment echoed by numerous advocates and families of the inmates.
Despite recent actions by the government, which included the early termination of conditional licenses for some offenders deemed fit, many believe this does not address the core issues associated with IPP sentences.
The legislative debate continues as advocates press for change. They argue the proposed IPP Resentencing Bill not only aims to change individual lives but could also prevent future political scandals akin to those experienced with the Post Office scandal and other historical grievances. “How many scandals have to be endured by the citizens of this country before the government finally says, ‘no, we are not going to repeat past mistakes’?” asked Ludford passionately, pressing for accountability.
Looking forward, there is hope among advocates and reformers. With the debate still hot, there’s potential for momentum to shift toward substantial change. The stark reality remains—without reform, many IPP prisoners continue to face demoralisations and uncertainties about their futures, trapped by the very system meant to protect the public.
The call for justice and reform is clear, and how Parliament responds to these demands could mark a pivotal moment for British criminal justice. The Goings-on at Westminster remain closely watched as the voices of justice continue pleading for change for those still under indefinite terms.
