UK Government Rejects Justice Committee’s Advice and Refuses to Review IPP Sentences

Committee chairman Bob Neill says many will remain in 'unsustainable limbo'

The sun shines through high security fencing surrounding Norwich prison in Norfolk, England, on Aug. 25, 2005. (Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images)

The chairman of the House of Commons justice committee said he was “genuinely surprised” the Justice Secretary, Dominic Raab, has rejected their recommendation to review the status of almost 3,000 prisoners who were being held under the Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) system.

In September the committee recommended all 2,926 in England and Wales should be reviewed and said IPP was “irredeemably flawed.”

But on Thursday, Raab rejected a review of all IPP sentences and said: “The government’s long-held view is that this would give rise to an unacceptable risk to public protection and that the IPP action plan, suitably updated, remains the best option by which these offenders can progress towards safe release.”

He added: “The government has no plans to conduct a resentencing exercise.”

In September the committee published a report which said the system for managing and releasing IPP prisoners was “inadequate.”

After hearing of Raab’s decision the committee’s chairman, Conservative MP Sir Bob Neill, said: “This is a missed opportunity to right a wrong that has left nearly 3,000 people behind. We are not only disappointed with this Government response but genuinely surprised.”

He said: “The committee recognised that addressing this issue would not be easy. That’s why we recommended that a small, time-limited committee of experts be set up to advise on the resentencing exercise.”

IPP sentences (pdf) were introduced by the Labour government in 2005 to prevent people who were considered to be a danger to the public from being released.

They were scrapped by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government in 2012, but nearly 3,000 people remain behind bars, often for relatively minor offences.

For example, a man convicted of robbing his parents was jailed for two years in 2006 but is still in prison.

The man’s solicitor, Andrew Sperling, wrote on Twitter: “He is autistic. His behaviour is challenging but this does not mean that he is dangerous.”

Criminals serving an IPP can only be released once they are no longer deemed a risk to the public and if their rehabilitation is successful.

Bernadette Emerson’s partner, Abdullahi Suleman, was given an IPP sentence for robbery in 2005 and a two-year tariff.

An undated photo of Bernadette Emerson, with her partner Abdullahi Suleman and their daughter, taken at a prison in England. (Courtesy of Bernadette Emerson)

Emerson told The Epoch Times in September: “He was 22 at the time and I was 20. He was released in 2011 and we had another child but after missing a psychiatrist’s appointment he was recalled in 2014. He has been released and recalled several times and has not been home since 2017. He has missed his children growing up.”

The government accepted several of the committee’s recommendations, including a review of the Ministry of Justice and the Prison and Probation Service IPP action plan and improved mental health support for IPP prisoners.

But it refused to budge on a complete resentencing of the 3,000 individuals serving IPP terms, and it also rejected the recommendation that the licence period—the amount of time they remain subject to prison recall after release—should be reduced from 10 to five years.

Neill said: “There is now a growing consensus that a resentencing exercise is the only way to comprehensively address the injustice of IPP sentences and that this can be done without prejudicing public protection.”

‘The Government Has Not Listened’

He said: “The government has not listened. The nettle has not been grasped and, as a result, these people will remain held in an unsustainable limbo.”

Lord Blunkett, who was home secretary when IPP sentences were introduced, said: “Whilst it is a small concession of the government to refresh the ‘action plan’ for the probation service, it is inexplicable that they have rejected the recommendation to reduce the licence period from 10 to five years.”

He said: “Giving people hope and turning the current threat into support has to be the best way of working to avoid any breach or return to criminal behaviour, not least for the wellbeing of the families as well as the individuals.”

Peter Dawson, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said: “The government should be thoroughly ashamed of this wholly inadequate response to a serious cross-party attempt to right a terrible historic wrong.”

He said: “On resentencing, it had an opportunity to begin a process that could have addressed the many practical complexities that the committee acknowledged.”

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “Protecting the public is our number one priority and resentencing all IPP offenders risks undermining this by releasing dangerous prisoners into our communities.

“Our current approach has already reduced the number of unreleased IPP prisoners by three-quarters since 2012 and new laws mean their sentences are reviewed 10 years after release. We are also now changing the rules so IPP offenders with five years’ good behaviour in the community will have their continued supervision reviewed automatically,” he added.

PA Media contributed to this report.