Sentences of imprisonment for public protection: HM Prison and Probation Service annual report

Approximate read time: 15 minutes

On 12 December 2024 the House of Lords is scheduled to consider the following question for short debate:

Baroness Burt of Solihull (Liberal Democrat) to ask His Majesty’s Government what further steps they are taking to reduce the size of the Imprisonment for Public Protection prison population following the publication on 15 November of the HMPPS Annual Report on the IPP Sentence.

1. What are sentences of imprisonment for public protection?

Sentences of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) are a type of indeterminate sentence that courts could impose between 2005 and 2012.^[1] They were introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. They could be given to an offender convicted of one or more specified serious violent or sexual offences (offences carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years or more) where the court considered the offence did not merit a life sentence, but the offender posed a significant risk of serious harm to the public in the future. An IPP sentence works as follows:

• The offender must serve a minimum period in custody set by the court, known as a ‘tariff’, before they can become eligible for parole.
• Once the offender has served their tariff, they remain in custody until the Parole Board decides they are no longer a risk to the public.
• The offender is then released on licence, subject to licence conditions. While they are on licence, they could be recalled to prison if they breach their licence conditions, commit further offences or the Probation Service deems it appropriate for public protection.

IPP sentences have been subject to criticism since they were first introduced. Some of the earliest issues identified were that:^[2]

• the provision was too broad and caught up less serious offenders
• the number of IPP prisoners with short tariffs put a strain on the prison and parole systems because prisoners could not access interventions that they needed in order to demonstrate that they were no longer a risk to society

To address some of these concerns, the previous Labour government used the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 to minimise the number of IPP sentences handed down by courts.^[3] It introduced a new seriousness threshold that had to be satisfied before a court could impose an IPP sentence.

However, concerns about IPP sentences persisted, including from the subsequent coalition government. In 2011, then prime minister David Cameron described IPP sentences as “unclear, inconsistent and uncertain”.^[4] He said they were “unclear” because a large proportion of the public did not understand what IPP sentences were or how they worked. They were “inconsistent” because they could mean that two people who committed the same crime could receive different punishments. Finally, he said they were “uncertain” because victims and their families had no certainty about when the offender could be released. Mr Cameron committed the government to reviewing the system with a view to replacing it with an alternative sentencing regime.

IPP sentences have also been the subject of legal challenge. In 2012, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that there had been a failure to make appropriate provision for rehabilitation services for three prisoners serving IPP sentences.^[5] It said this had meant their detention was “arbitrary” and had breached their right to protection from unlawful deprivation of liberty.

IPP sentences were subsequently abolished by the coalition government in 2012.^[6] However, the abolition did not apply retrospectively to people who had already received such a sentence. Since 2012, successive governments have reformed IPP sentences in various ways, including changes to the termination of IPP licences.

The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 received royal assent on 24 May 2024. Amongst its provisions it included some changes to IPP sentences. On 5 September 2024, a statement by Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood set out her intention to bring the IPP measures in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 into force.^[7] She said these measures would be introduced in two phases—on 1 November 2024 and 1 February 2025 respectively—and include a reduction to the qualifying period for an IPP licence termination review by the Parole Board from 10 to three years. The government said the impact of this change would mean around 1,800 IPP licences would be automatically terminated on 1 November 2024, representing around two-thirds of those on licence as of March 2024.^[8]

Other measures introduced on 1 November 2024 included a requirement for the secretary of state to lay an annual report before Parliament about the steps taken to progress those serving IPP sentences towards a safe release.^[9] In the government’s letter to Centre for Crime and Justice Studies Director Richard Garside on 31 October 2024, it said the justice secretary is expected to lay the first statutory IPP annual report in 2025 setting out the government’s progress made up until the end of March 2025.^[10]

The justice secretary has said she wanted to make progress towards a “safe and sustainable release” for those serving IPP sentences, “but not in a way that impacts public protection”.^[11] Ms Mahmood committed to continuing to monitor progress in this area. Additionally, she said the government would consult expert organisations to “ensure the right course of action is taken to support those serving IPP sentences”.

2. What is the HM Prison and Probation Service’s annual report on IPP sentences?

The HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) published its annual report on IPP sentences on 15 November 2024.^[12] The report was written in April 2024 under the previous government but published by the current government. It was written before the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 received royal assent.

In his foreword to the report, Phil Copple, director general of operations at HMPPS, said that “considerable progress” had been made in enabling the release of more IPP prisoners “where safe to do so” and in “reducing the number who are in custody and, ultimately, reducing their number in the community through successful licence termination referrals”.^[13] However, he said that HMPPS knew that it had “more to do” and that “we must do all that we can to support those serving IPP sentences to make progress towards a prospective release, a sustainable life in the community and, hopefully, the end of their IPP sentence through successful licence termination”.

The annual report sets out the challenges and achievements in delivering the government’s IPP action plan over the 12 months ending in March 2024. The IPP action plan discussed in the report was developed in September 2022 following a report on IPP sentences by the House of Commons Justice Committee and was published on 26 April 2023. The committee was critical of the previous action plan, arguing that it found “the absence of detail in the IPP action plan surprising” and that it lacked “a clear strategic priority and ownership, as well as operational detail, timeframes, and performance measures”.^[14] The committee recommended that the government develop a new action plan:

We recommend the [Ministry of Justice] and HMPPS develop a new action plan, which should include clear performance measures for each of its workstreams. The new action plan should also, against each workstream, include an accountable owner for the workstream, and a timeframe for completion of each workstream activity so that there can be greater accountability and scrutiny. A new version of the IPP action plan should be published by the end of Q1 2023, with a report on the operation of the plan and any revisions to it published annually thereafter.^[15]

HMPPS states that the April 2023 action plan was focused on supporting people on IPP sentences to achieve a safe and sustainable release. It is underpinned by the following four overarching principles:

• Principle 1: HMPPS monitors and publishes data on how those serving the IPP sentence are progressing through their sentences, whether in custody or the community.
• Principle 2: HMPPS ensures that those serving an IPP sentence have a sentence plan specifying the required interventions to reduce risk and has access to them.
• Principle 3: Community provision for and management of those on an IPP licence gives people the best prospect of a future safe and sustainable life outside of the justice system.
• Principle 4: HMPPS communicates effectively with all stakeholders, including engaging on current plans, activity, and outcomes.^[16]

The annual report also presents a refreshed April 2024 version of the IPP action plan in its annex A.^[17]

3. How many people are serving IPP sentences in prison?

The courts imposed a total of 8,711 IPP sentences (some offenders received more than one).^[18] Although it is over a decade since they were abolished, more than 2,000 people are still in prison serving an IPP sentence. The government’s latest data showed that on 30 September 2024, there were 1,095 offenders still serving an IPP sentence who had never been released from prison on licence.^[19] This was 14% lower than the previous year. Of these unreleased prisoners who have served their minimum tariff period, around two-thirds have been held for at least 10 years beyond the end of their tariff. There were a further 1,599 offenders subject to IPP sentences who were in prison having been recalled to custody. This was 3% lower than the previous year.

4. Calls for a resentencing exercise

Whilst reforms have been made to the IPP sentence, there have been calls for a resentencing exercise, including by the House of Commons Justice Committee in 2022 and more recently during the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.

4.1 House of Commons Justice Committee (2022)

The report by the House of Commons Justice Committee published in 2022 described IPP sentences as “irredeemably flawed”.^[20] It argued that “whilst there have been some efforts made in the last 10 years to reduce the IPP prison population […] not enough has been done”.^[21] It said, “the problem is becoming more significant and pressing due to the increasing number of released IPP sentenced individuals being recalled back to prison”. It identified several problems, including:^[22]

• psychological harm to prisoners caused by the indefinite nature of the sentence, leading to high levels of self-harm and some suicides within the IPP population and barriers to progressing to release
• limited availability of appropriate courses for IPP prisoners
• lack of transparency around the evaluation of programmes that the prison and probation service and the Parole Board rely on to help determine risk
• resource issues within the probation service and Parole Board, resulting in an “ineffective” parole process that poses “a significant barrier” to progression for IPP offenders
• a “growing concern” about the population of recalled IPP prisoners, such as questions about what the threshold for recall should be and whether IPP prisoners receive enough support on release to help them reintegrate into the community

To address these concerns, the committee’s primary recommendation was for the government to introduce legislation to allow a resentencing exercise for all those serving IPP sentences.^[23] It said primary legislation that dealt retrospectively with the continued operation of IPP sentences and allowed a resentencing exercise to be undertaken was the only way to achieve a “comprehensive and adequate solution”. However, the committee acknowledged that a resentencing exercise would be administratively complex. As such, it also recommended the government establish an expert committee to advise on the practical implementation of the exercise.

4.2 Stakeholder response to Justice Committee report

Some membership associations, campaign groups and think tanks have also called for a resentencing exercise. The British Psychological Society and the Probation Institute said they supported the Justice Committee’s recommendation and called for every person still serving an IPP sentence “to receive a new sentence that balances justice with public protection”.^[24] Research charity the Sentencing Academy said a resentencing exercise would “finally remedy the issue with IPP sentence prisoners”.^[25] In addition, Donna Mooney, campaigner at IPP awareness organisation UNGRIPP, said it would “restore a sense of justice and proportionate punishment”.^[26] Criminal justice charity the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (CCJS) said that whilst there were other options for addressing the IPP problem, resentencing was the “least that can be reasonably expected” given the “unjust and oppressive failings” of the IPP process.^[27]

Whilst many have expressed support for a resentencing exercise of some kind, others have raised concerns. For example, the committee received submissions from victims of crime who had voiced concerns for their safety and the safety of others should their offender be resentenced and subsequently released.^[28] Additionally, probation and family courts trade union Napo raised concerns about the number of prisoners that who would be immediately eligible for release if resentenced and argued there was a lack of community resources to support this.^[29] The Prison Reform Trust also highlighted that, whilst a resentencing exercise was the preferred solution, it could place a strain on the judiciary and criminal justice agencies.

4.3 Conservative government’s response to the Justice Committee’s report (February 2023)

Responding to the committee’s report in February 2023, the Conservative government confirmed it had no plans to conduct a resentencing exercise.^[30] It said it was the government’s long-held view that resentencing would create unacceptable risk to public protection. It warned that retrospective resentencing could lead to the immediate release of offenders who had been assessed as unsafe for release by the Parole Board.

4.4 Recent calls for IPP resentencing

Various calls for resentencing of IPP prisoners were raised in Parliament during the passage of the Conservative government’s Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. This included amendments not moved in the Commons and withdrawn in the Lords that would have added the Justice Committee’s 2022 recommendation for IPP resentencing to the bill.^[31] During the House of Commons second reading of the bill in May 2023, Sir Robert Neill (then Conservative MP for Bromley and Chislehurst) urged the government to use the bill as a way of introducing a resentencing exercise.^[32] During the same debate, then secretary of state for justice Alex Chalk said he was “considering carefully” what the Justice Committee had said about the issue and would say more about this “in due course”.^[33]

Resentencing was also raised during the bill’s proceedings in the House of Lords. The former lord chief justice of England and Wales, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench), argued that resentencing was the “only just cause”.^[34] He said there was a strongly held view that the reason some IPP prisoners were dangerous was because “the state has failed them: first, by the imposition of this [IPP] sentence, which is accepted to be wrong in principle, and secondly, by for years doing nothing about it”. Other members also expressed support for a resentencing exercise.^[35] The government rejected the idea based on the risk it said it would pose to the public.^[36]

More recently, in July 2024, 69 representatives from across criminal justice organisations, campaign groups, trade unions, think tanks and law firms including UNGRIPP, IPP Committee in Action and the Prison Reform Trust called on the new Labour government to urgently introduce IPP reform.^[37] The group also called for the government to set up an expert committee to advise on the practicalities of a resentencing exercise.

Prison charity the Howard League for Penal Reform has also stated that addressing the situation of post-tariff IPP prisoners could help to reduce prison capacity issues.^[38] It said the incoming government should find ways to expedite the safe release of post-tariff IPP prisoners because it could “free up almost 3,000 prison places”.

Lord Woodley (Labour) is sponsoring a private member’s bill which would require the government to make arrangements to ensure all individuals serving IPP sentences have been resentenced within 24 months of the act being passed.^[39] The bill passed its second reading on 15 November 2024.^[40] Dates for its committee stage are yet to be announced.

4.5 Labour government’s position on IPP resentencing

The government recently set out its position on IPP resentencing in a letter to CCJS Director Richard Garside.^[41] In the letter, Sir Nic Dakin, parliamentary under secretary of state for justice, and Lord Timpson, minister of state for prisons, probation and reducing reoffending, said that the government would not undertake a resentencing exercise. In comments similar to those made by the previous government, the ministers stated that resentencing would lead to the automatic release of some prisoners whom the Parole Board had already assessed to be too dangerous for release. However, the letter said that the government had committed to “redouble” its efforts in supporting those in custody to reduce their risk and move towards a safe and sustainable release.

In response, the CCJS challenged the government’s assertions that resentencing would mean dangerous prisoners would be automatically released.^[42] It argued that legislation to introduce a resentencing exercise could include requirements for post-release support and supervision. The CCJS also described the pace of IPP prisoner releases as “painfully slow” and called into question the government’s claim that it was working at pace to resolve the IPP issues.

In his response to the second reading of Lord Woodley’s Imprisonment for Public Protection (Re-sentencing) Bill [HL], Lord Timpson, minister of state at the Ministry of Justice, reiterated the government’s opposition to a resentencing exercise:

Legislating to give every IPP prisoner a definite release date and post-release licence, or legislating to provide for resentencing by a court, would result in them being released automatically. This would be the case even where the Parole Board had previously determined, in many cases repeatedly, that they continue to be too dangerous to be released, as they have failed to meet the statutory release test. Either legislative approach would put the public at an unacceptable risk of harm, which the government are not prepared to countenance, whether for any or all IPP prisoners through any partial resentencing. As I set out when I repeated the statement the lord chancellor made in the other place on 22 October, IPP sentences are not included as part of the wider recent independent sentencing review, as the review is looking at sentences which remain on the statute book.^[43]

However, he said that he recognised the challenges faced by those serving IPP sentences “who remain in the system”.^[44] The minister said he was determined to support those who remained on IPP sentences to finish their sentences. He said “every offender still serving an IPP sentence in prison remains on our watch-list, and we have a duty of care to them”. Lord Timpson said that the government’s priority was public protection:

That is what the public, and in particular the victims of IPP offenders, want, need and expect. It is right that IPP offenders are risk assessed and released only when it is determined that they can be safely managed in the community. It is also right that those determinations are made by the Parole Board. If resentencing were to take place, in line with what is proposed in this bill, the Parole Board would no longer play that critical role—and in fact, its previous work in each case would be disregarded entirely.^[45]

5. Read more

• House of Lords Library, ‘Imprisonment for Public Protection (Re-sentencing) Bill [HL]: HL Bill 19 of 2024–25’, 11 November 2024
• House of Lords Library, ‘Sentences of imprisonment for public protection: Updated action plan’, 19 May 2023
• House of Commons Library, ‘Sentences of imprisonment for public protection’, 22 October 2024

---

Cover image by John Cameron on Unsplash.