The injustice of an IPP sentence...
For anyone who's lucky enough to have never heard of an IPP sentence, allow me to explain what one is. IPP stands for Imprisonment for Public Protection. The idea of IPP came about in 2005 as a way of dealing with serious offenders. The idea was that the sentence would protect the public in cases where the crime was not serious enough to merit a Life Sentence but serious enough to justify specific checking of the offenders level of danger before releasing them, rather than automatically releasing them once a certain amount of time was served, as is normally the case.
IPP made it possible to specify an indeterminate amount of time in custody, with the idea being that the prisoner is kept for as long as necessary to punish and rehabilitate them and they are only released when they can demonstrate that they are no longer a risk to the public. Normally only lifers are given this sort of treatment- that is, being held until a parole board decides they are fit for release. IPP sentences effectively let the courts hand out a Life Sentence for a crime that would not normally merit such a sentence.
As most people know, with a 'normal' determinate prison sentence, only half of the given sentence is served in custody and the remaining half is spent 'on licence' out in the free world. This release at the half-way point of the sentence is automatic and unpreventable. The release is not dependent on behaviour or compliance or anything else. The half-way point is the date that the inmate will be released, and nothing can change as part of that specific sentence to postpone the release. It is possible to be released early in some instances and the starting point will still be that half-way date with any discount coming off of that date. The only way an inmate can be held in prison for longer than half of their full sentence is if they are serving time on another separate sentence or if they have been given additional days for breaking prison rules, however in both cases the extra time is effectively a completely different entity; separate time handed out for a separate offence that is completely separate from the original offence.
So, simply put, there are three types of custodial sentence:
Number one is the ordinary determinate sentence I've just explained- you are given a sentence. You do half and get out.
Number two is the Life Sentence- you are given a whole life sentence with a minimum tariff. Only once that minimum tariff is served can you be considered for release. Release is not automatic. The parole board will decided when you are ready for release. Your release cannot be before your tariff is up, it can only possibly be considered after the tariff is served, and you can technically be held without release until you die. If and when you do get out, you will remain 'on licence' for life.
Number three is our friend, the IPP sentence- you are given a sentence with a tariff. Only once that tariff is served can you be considered for release. Release is not automatic. It will be decided by the parole board once your tariff is up when you are ready for release. It cannot be before your tariff is up, and you can technically be held without release until you die. Once released, you remain 'on licence' for at least 10 years.
As you can see, there is actually very little difference between an IPP sentence and a Life Sentence. The only real difference on paper is that with an IPP you are not on life-time licence, you are just on licence for 10 years or more. In practice the real difference is that IPP sentences are given with much lower tariffs than life sentences. There is a very narrow list of crimes for which a life sentence can be given and the tariff will usually be something like 20+ years, whereas an IPP can be given for more or less any crime, but are only intended to be used for serious crimes and/or serious offenders. From what I recall, the rough rule of thumb was that a judge should only use an IPP sentence in cases where the sentence was likely to be 4 years or more. So the tariff on an IPP sentence is usually somewhere between 2-10 years.
IPP turned out to be a nightmare- for prisoners, for prisons, for judges and for the government. In 2011 the Prime Minister announced a review of the "unclear and inconsistent" IPP sentences. The sentences were used far more widely than was intended. They were often used in cases that really didn't merit them. They were difficult to understand and created a lot of uncertainty for prisoners and their families and they led to completely inconsistent sentencing across the country. In the time that IPP sentences existed, around 800 a year were being handed down by judges and there were 6,500 inmates in prison serving IPP sentences when they were abolished in 2012.
The real outrage is that despite the government officially announcing how bad IPP sentences are and abolishing them in 2012, there was still about 4,000 IPP prisoners serving as of July 2016. The problem is that although the IPP sentence was done away with the government essentially said the change will not be retrospective and held the position that those rotting on IPP sentences still needed to be cleared by the parole board prior to their release. But the process of parole review has been one of the fundamental problems afflicting IPP prisoners all along.
Everything in prison takes time. Stupid amounts of time. Way longer than it should, way longer than you could possibly imagine. Way longer than there is a logical explanation for. So first of all, you have to consider that any IPP prisoner faces an excruciatingly long wait just to see the parole board in order to have their suitability for release assessed.
Next you have the problem of what they actually have to do to satisfy the parole board. The parole board's decision will effectively be based on two things; general reports and feedback from staff and concerned parties on the offender's behaviour and character, and completion of specific goals- courses and training modules.
So the issue here is two-fold; firstly the fact that the people responsible for compiling info on the offender will either unfairly put off doing so or genuinely be too busy to do it, and secondly the fact that the courses they have to attend can either be subject to extremely long waits or, as is often the case, are simply not available in the prison that the offender is in.
If that's the case then the prisoner again faces problems and delays in trying to get transferred to a prison that does provide the course they need to do. And obviously, if the prisoner does manage to jump through all the hoops required to satisfy the parole boards criteria, they then face another long wait for a follow-up review. There are disgusting numbers of people stuck in prison, having served well over their 'tariff'.
Of the 4,000 I mentioned earlier, 3/4 of them had served over their tariff. 400 of them had served over 5 times their tariff.
Remember that the basis of our justice system is that one is innocent until proven guilty. It seems therefore contradictory that all these prisoners have to prove they are no longer a danger, rather than the parole board having to prove that they are in fact a danger...
Of course, the government has a fair point in saying that IPP prisoners still need to be assessed as safe before they are released into the public. Surely, some of the people serving IPP sentences are genuinely dangerous and should remain in prison for some time. But, having outwardly stated that the sentences were not fit for purpose and abolishing them, I firmly believe they have a serious obligation to proactively ensure an immediate review of all IPP prisoners in order to serve justice by getting those prisoners who are no longer a danger back out in the public right away and by ensuring that those who still need to take steps to rehabilitate and prove they are no longer dangerous are actually able to do so!
