INDEFINITE IMPRISONMENT FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION (IPP) - AN ABOMINATION TO JUSTICE?!

Stafford Prison, UK

In 2012, the British Government abolished a piece of criminal legislation which was introduced by a Labour Government in 2003, but not before this law, which was an affront to justice, resulted in thousands of British citizens being given 'indeterminate sentences', which have meant that they can remain incarcerated for the rest of their natural lives, as it were. Unless the government take steps to satisfactorily redress this appalling situation.

The year 2003, was of course the year in which Charlene Ellis and Letisha Shakespeare were murdered a s result of gang violence in Birmingham, which sent a chill down the local community, as well as nationally, with the politicians, as usual, seeking to cash in on and foment public disquiet.

One can imagine that this wicked piece of legislation was the result of the government of the day 'being tough on crime', so tough that it was willing to discard the principles of proportionality and the long-term consequences of this IPP sentencing yardstick. The 'indeterminate  sentences' was just the more extreme twins of the system, compared with the 'extended sentence' option, which gave Judges the authority to make a convicted person 'serve' an additional sentence, e.g., 4 or 5 years, after they have been released from Prison, and during which time they can be recalled to go back to prison to serve the rest of their basic sentence, plus the 'extended sentence', if they re-offend or fall foul of the Offender Management requirements.

People' freedom are precious and should not denied them indefinitely, unless they present imminent serious risk to the public.

The primary basis for giving a person an 'extended sentence' or an 'indeterminate sentence', under the IPP remit, is based on the Probation Officer's report and whether or not it 'assessed' the offender as posing a 'significant' or high level of risk of harm to the public. Thus a person's fate; whether or not they have a determinate sentence, probably with an 'extended sentence' attached, or an 'indeterminate sentence', which required or could result in them being incarcerated for evermore, is in the hands of the involved Probation Officer and the Offender Management Service.

This is quite clearly a very onerous  responsibility, which, I would imagine, all Probation Officers will take very seriously, and, most probably, be guided by the principle of, 'if in doubt, however small your doubt, label the offender 'high risk' and take no chances.' Hardly a scientific or measured approach, but it is more than likely that that would have been the standard which Probation Officers would have used prior to the abolition of this most oppressive and draconian of legislation; the equivalent of United States' 'three strikes' policy, which resulted in some offenders being given life without parole if they have committed three offences. The Probation Officers and Offender Management Service continues to have a role in the retention of these offenders in prison, in the form of its views when they come up for parole hearings.

Part of the injustice in the 'indeterminate sentencing system' is the fact that there will have been offenders who committed murder, but would not be subject to this system, even though there has to be some danger or risk of a person who has killed or seriously injuring someone, repeating a similarly serious offence.  This is some what akin to the American's 'three strikes' and we lock you up and throw away the key penal clause, in the fact that, if you are found guilty of 2 or more S.16 offences, your chances of being sentenced within the IPP framework would have increased.

Of course, as I have mentioned, this draconian piece of legislation has been abolished nearly 4 years ago. However, the problem for the government, now, is that of what it should do with the several thousands - probably up to 4000 - IPP offenders who are in prison and suffering the living hell of knowing that they will have to spend all of their natural lives in there.  

Having the freedom to roam and reasonable autonomy over how we live, is what makes us truly human.

Unless the government has the courage to replace the strong desire to punish severely, which is imbued in the original legislation, with one which is equally imbued with the spirit of justice and courage, to legislate these men and women out of their living hell.  A hell which is seeing many of them self-harming and turning suicide as their only early escape.


This will require proper multi-disciplinary and objective assessments to be made of these offenders, in order to identifying those who can be released into the community and be provided with the necessary support to enable them to make a reasonable re-adjustment to living as normal a life as they can, despite the psychological and physical harm which this unjust sentencing system has contributed towards. 

As well as to explore what additional support can be provided for those whose are assessed as still posing an imminent risk of serious harm to members of the public.