This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/28/liz-truss-brave-release-prisoners-indefinite-sentences

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Liz Truss should be brave and release prisoners on indefinite sentences Liz Truss should be brave and release prisoners on indefinite sentences
(30 days later)
There is a point when momentum becomes irresistible. The invitation by the new parole board chairman, Nick Hardwick, to the new lord chancellor, Liz Truss, to change the release test for IPP prisoners may prove to be such a point. IPP prisoners are those serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection – it is indefinite (equivalent to a life sentence) which means that anyone subject to it does not have a release date. As things stand, these prisoners can stay in prison for the rest of their lives.There is a point when momentum becomes irresistible. The invitation by the new parole board chairman, Nick Hardwick, to the new lord chancellor, Liz Truss, to change the release test for IPP prisoners may prove to be such a point. IPP prisoners are those serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection – it is indefinite (equivalent to a life sentence) which means that anyone subject to it does not have a release date. As things stand, these prisoners can stay in prison for the rest of their lives.
IPP sentences are not reserved for the most heinous of offences – they apply to people convicted of robbery, threats to kill and ABH as well as other more serious sexual and violent offences. The unique feature of the sentence is that it is not just imposed for what someone has done in the past but for what they might do in the future.IPP sentences are not reserved for the most heinous of offences – they apply to people convicted of robbery, threats to kill and ABH as well as other more serious sexual and violent offences. The unique feature of the sentence is that it is not just imposed for what someone has done in the past but for what they might do in the future.
Related: Free prisoners to reduce pressure on system, urges parole board chief
The impact of introducing a sentence like this should have been predictable but the planning and preparation for it was woeful. The first generation of IPP sentences allowed almost no discretion to judges and resulted in an enormous increase in the number of people serving indefinite sentences. Judges were obliged to calculate a “tariff” or “minimum term”, the period that a prisoner serving an IPP sentence would have to serve before they could try to persuade the parole board that they should be released. Tariffs could be as short as a month but this was meaningless because no one could possibly argue that they were dangerous in January but safe in February.The impact of introducing a sentence like this should have been predictable but the planning and preparation for it was woeful. The first generation of IPP sentences allowed almost no discretion to judges and resulted in an enormous increase in the number of people serving indefinite sentences. Judges were obliged to calculate a “tariff” or “minimum term”, the period that a prisoner serving an IPP sentence would have to serve before they could try to persuade the parole board that they should be released. Tariffs could be as short as a month but this was meaningless because no one could possibly argue that they were dangerous in January but safe in February.
The only way that this system could possibly have worked would have been if the necessary resources had been provided for additional long-term prison places and for programmes and assessments to take place on time. This did not happen. Prisoners, taxpayers and the wider criminal justice system are still paying the price.The only way that this system could possibly have worked would have been if the necessary resources had been provided for additional long-term prison places and for programmes and assessments to take place on time. This did not happen. Prisoners, taxpayers and the wider criminal justice system are still paying the price.
Prisoners can only achieve their release if they can point to clear evidence that their risk to the public has reduced. This will almost always require them to complete a number of treatment programmes which result in favourable reports to the parole board. In addition, they will usually need to answer questions at a parole hearing which show that they have taken on board their learning and internalised it.Prisoners can only achieve their release if they can point to clear evidence that their risk to the public has reduced. This will almost always require them to complete a number of treatment programmes which result in favourable reports to the parole board. In addition, they will usually need to answer questions at a parole hearing which show that they have taken on board their learning and internalised it.
The IPP sentence was abolished in 2012 but thousands of IPP prisoners remained in prison. Almost every prisoner who received an IPP sentence has now completed their minimum term. There are still well over 3,000 IPP prisoners who do not know when they will ever be released. If they had received the equivalent fixed sentence for their offence, all of them would have been released back into the community already.The IPP sentence was abolished in 2012 but thousands of IPP prisoners remained in prison. Almost every prisoner who received an IPP sentence has now completed their minimum term. There are still well over 3,000 IPP prisoners who do not know when they will ever be released. If they had received the equivalent fixed sentence for their offence, all of them would have been released back into the community already.
The most obvious action by ministers is to change the release test for IPP prisonersThe most obvious action by ministers is to change the release test for IPP prisoners
The majority of those still stuck in the system are the “difficult” – angry, inarticulate, addicted or learning disabled who have not been able to navigate the path to their release. They are usually young men or at least were when they got their sentence. Many have lost hope. The majority are not what most people would regard as dangerous.The majority of those still stuck in the system are the “difficult” – angry, inarticulate, addicted or learning disabled who have not been able to navigate the path to their release. They are usually young men or at least were when they got their sentence. Many have lost hope. The majority are not what most people would regard as dangerous.
Michael Gove announced earlier this year that he had asked Hardwick to carry out a review of IPP prisoners. This kind of announcement is often a means by which difficult problems are kicked into the long grass. It is likely, however, that Gove recognised that by handing the baton to Hardwick, it might allow a speedier and more decisive response. Until his appointment as parole board chair, Hardwick was an outspoken chief inspector of prisons who had spoken publicly, articulately and angrily about deficiencies in the prison system and had made specific reference to the plight of IPP prisoners.Michael Gove announced earlier this year that he had asked Hardwick to carry out a review of IPP prisoners. This kind of announcement is often a means by which difficult problems are kicked into the long grass. It is likely, however, that Gove recognised that by handing the baton to Hardwick, it might allow a speedier and more decisive response. Until his appointment as parole board chair, Hardwick was an outspoken chief inspector of prisons who had spoken publicly, articulately and angrily about deficiencies in the prison system and had made specific reference to the plight of IPP prisoners.
He has advocated the parole board interpreting the risk test in a more robust way which could safely increase the release rate of IPP prisoners. He is aware, however, that parole board members are legally and constitutionally obliged to remain independent. Like judges, they cannot be told what decisions to make in a particular case.He has advocated the parole board interpreting the risk test in a more robust way which could safely increase the release rate of IPP prisoners. He is aware, however, that parole board members are legally and constitutionally obliged to remain independent. Like judges, they cannot be told what decisions to make in a particular case.
Related: Ken Clarke: 'absurd' that defunct prison scheme still keeps people in jail
To make any serious difference, there has to be action by ministers. The most obvious action by ministers is to change the release test for IPP prisoners, something in the power of the secretary of state without the need to pass new legislation.To make any serious difference, there has to be action by ministers. The most obvious action by ministers is to change the release test for IPP prisoners, something in the power of the secretary of state without the need to pass new legislation.
Very few politicians have the courage to associate themselves with a law change that allows prisoners to be released earlier. They know that they face the risk of being slaughtered by the press, particularly tabloid newspapers, if something goes wrong and a prisoner who has been released “under their watch” goes on to reoffend and to create another victim.Very few politicians have the courage to associate themselves with a law change that allows prisoners to be released earlier. They know that they face the risk of being slaughtered by the press, particularly tabloid newspapers, if something goes wrong and a prisoner who has been released “under their watch” goes on to reoffend and to create another victim.
It is likely that Hardwick knows what he is doing by making a public call in the first few days after the appointment of a new and relatively inexperienced lord chancellor. Hardwick has provided Liz Truss with perfect cover. She can rely on his expertise and advice to take a bold, progressive step and can blame him if it goes wrong. Hardwick has left the door wide open for her. Will she have the courage to take the next step?It is likely that Hardwick knows what he is doing by making a public call in the first few days after the appointment of a new and relatively inexperienced lord chancellor. Hardwick has provided Liz Truss with perfect cover. She can rely on his expertise and advice to take a bold, progressive step and can blame him if it goes wrong. Hardwick has left the door wide open for her. Will she have the courage to take the next step?