Abstract
This thematic review outlines the ongoing issues of managing and progressing the significant number of prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection (IPP). Implemented in 2005, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced the IPP and a parallel sentence of detention for public protection (DPP) for children. The sentences were imposed on those who had committed specified ‘serious violent or sexual offences’ and who were deemed ‘a significant risk of serious harm’ in the future, thus identified as ‘dangerous’. Under the IPP/DPP sentence, high-risk individuals would serve a tariff (a period of time in prison) and during this period undertake work to reduce their risk. Once this had been achieved, they would be released by the Parole Board. If at the end of their tariff their risk was not assessed as sufficiently reduced, they would remain in custody until it was felt they could be safely managed in the community. The research for this review revealed that significant failings in prison, probation and parole systems have contributed to the number of IPP prisoners still in prison despite their tariff period ending.
The review highlighted three main reasons as to why decisive action should be taken to improve this situation. Firstly, to provide clear information as to why many of the IPP prisoners remain in custody past their tariff date and how closed conditions contribute to public protection. This leads to the issues of fairness and justice. Secondly, it raised the cost of keeping IPP prisoners in custody and, finally, given the overriding pressures IPPs place on the system seen with risk management, the demand for programmes and parole processes was acknowledged as significant. Limited resources that are stretched extremely thinly across the CJS were recognized as problematic along, with the struggle prisoners have to access the support they need. Thus, the delay in them progressing is increased further.
Based on a survey undertaken to support the review, some of the key findings showed that those individuals with IPP sentences often have multiple needs, and their offences, background and abilities to engage vary, which can impact on reduction of risk. It was also found that more IPP prisoners than life sentence prisoners or determinate sentence prisoners reported increased suicide ideation and depression on arrival in prison. This was in conjunction with emotional issues, wellbeing and mental health, and substance misuse problems. It was acknowledged that receiving an IPP will have a profound impact on the individual and a ‘powerful and emotive’ effect (p. 10). It was further found that many prisons did not provide good quality offender management to support this prisoner category to help them progress. Only 26 per cent of IPP sentence prisoners reported that a member of staff helped them prepare for release. Issues with the quality and consistency of offender management were found to impact negatively on prisoners’ ability to progress towards release into the community. Worryingly, it was found that not all IPP prisoners could access the relevant programmes to help them demonstrate a reduction in risk. Again, access and availability were inconsistent.
The review referred to four key themes for non-progression of IPP prisoners: release is not supported by the offender manager and/or offender supervisor; there is a lack of evidence surrounding risk reduction; previously agreed interventions and/or treatment pathways have not been provided; and a move to open conditions has been delayed and/or ROTL not processed. Within the review, it is identified that these themes have led to an overriding concern about the failures in the CJS and with the parole system. Subsequently, it has resulted in too many individuals subject to IPP sentences being held in prison for many years after their tariff has expired. It argues that IPP sentences have not worked as initially intended and the situation those individuals find themselves in is unjust.
The review stresses that the Secretary of State for Justice should take immediate action by ensuring adequate resources and appropriate and timely support to help IPP prisoners reduce their risk of harm and help them progress through their sentence. It identified a number of recommendations which include that IPP prisoners be located in the appropriate prison with sufficient support and for them to receive meaningful contact with offender managers and supervisors. It also suggested that a multi-disciplinary input and problem-solving is incorporated to support those with a combination of challenging behaviour and underlying personality, cognitive or mental health issues. Further highlighted is the need for open conditions and release on temporary licence being key ways in which IPP prisoners can demonstrate risk reduction, as well as sufficient resources being made available to the Parole Board to consider those cases with undue delay.
As a practitioner, reading the review was rather disconcerting, knowing that I work with individuals who are subject to IPP sentences and, in some cases, are past their tariff. Clearly, more can be done but, sadly, the system requires sufficient resources to support the review’s recommendations to find a way forward.
Unintended consequences: Finding a way forward for prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection: A thematic review by HM Inspectorate of Prisons (November 2016) is available to download at: www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons