On 1 November Justice Minister Kenneth Clarke explained to Parliament his plans to amend the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill in order to abolish the widely vilified indeterminate sentence for public protection (IPP). IPPs were the cornerstone of the Labour government’s 2003 Criminal Justice Act. The sentencing provisions of the 2003 Act, which came into force on 4 April 2005, ensured that virtually anyone convicted of a violent or sexual offence received an indeterminate prison sentence, from which they could only be released after ‘proving’ they had reduced the risk of reoffending – an almost impossible task from within prison. They are reminiscent of the most punitive type of US sentencing. Black revolutionary prisoner George Jackson was sentenced to ‘one-year-to-life’; by the time he was murdered by the state in San Quentin prison in 1971 he had been behind bars for 12 years.
Clarke told Parliament that: ‘IPP sentences are piling up… At the moment, more than 6,500 offenders are serving those sentences, of whom more than 3,000 have finished what the public regard as their sentence – the tariff for what they have done. If we do not do anything about it, the number of IPP sentences will pile up to 8,000 or 9,000 by 2015 – 10% of the entire prison population…’
Reneging on his earlier promise not to ‘out-right the right on crime’, Labour Party Shadow Justice Secretary and erstwhile ‘human rights lawyer’ Sadiq Khan entreated MPs to retain IPPs or ‘risk more crime, more victims and more dangerous offenders being released on the streets’, a plea which was echoed by former Labour Justice Minister Jack Straw, as well as by ultra-right wing Conservative MP Philip Davies.
Clarke plans to replace IPPs with a combination of long determinate sentences with extended licences and mandatory life sentences for those who commit a second serious violent or sexual offence. This latter provision is similar to but more refined than the ‘two strikes’ automatic life sentence, introduced by Labour but then replaced by the IPP. These changes will not affect anyone already serving an IPP.
The central problem, not just with IPPs but with all indeterminate sentences, is that release from prison is at the discretion of the Parole Board, which only agrees to release prisoners once they have spent a period of time in an open prison and have demonstrated that they no longer pose a ‘risk of serious harm’. Anyone who does not accept guilt or for any other reason does not complete specified ‘offending behaviour courses’ (for which there are long waiting lists and a shortage of places) or jump through other hoops, stands virtually no chance of getting to an open prison, let alone being released.
If Parliament really wanted to take a stand against the misuse of indeterminate sentences, it could reverse the release test, so that instead of keeping prisoners inside until they ‘prove’ they are safe to release, they would be released unless it was clear that they remained dangerous. The amendments to the Bill make it possible for the release test to be changed but do not actually make the change. Instead there will be another round of ‘consultation’. The Parole Board is not happy about changing the test and there is little doubt that even the slightest relaxation would unleash a fury of criticism from the media and the punishment zealots of all parties. The ConDem Coalition government will have to balance these attacks on its reputation for being ‘tough on crime’ with the spiralling cost of an ever increasing prison population which is already the highest in Europe.
Nicki Jameson
