Indefinite jail terms ‘not right and not fair', Lords say in call to end IPP injustice
In an impassioned debate in the House of Lords, peers urged prisons minister James Timpson to take decisive action to end the injustice of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) jail terms.
Successive governments have refused justice committee recommendations to resentence more than 2,500 prisoners still trapped under the abolished jail term.
The open-ended sentences were scrapped in 2012, but not retrospectively, leaving those already jailed incarcerated indefinitely.
Victims of the scandal, whose tragic cases have been highlighted by The Independent, include: Leroy Douglas, who has served almost 20 years for stealing a mobile phone; Thomas White, 42, who set himself alight in his cell and has served 13 years for stealing a phone; and Abdullahi Suleman, 41, who is still inside 19 years after he was jailed for a laptop robbery.
In a speech as his private members' bill to resentence IPP prisoners reached committee stage on Friday, Labour peer Lord Tony Woodley admitted it will not succeed without government support.
Addressing IPP prisoners and their families, he told them not to give up hope, but added: 'Sadly, my bill by itself will not bring you justice. But it can help build pressure on the government to do the right thing, and it can help build public awareness of this industrial-scale miscarriage of justice.
'So please don't have false hope in my bill. Hope – but not false hope – is my aim here.'
Raising a series of 'probing' amendments designed to 'expose the lack of logic' behind the government's refusal to resentence IPP prisoners, he said it is 'as big a scandal as the Post Office and the infected blood scandal'.
'Almost 100 prisoners have taken their own lives – hundreds more have been driven to insanity, with this no-hope, never-ending sentence,' he said.
'The only difference with IPP is that not enough people know about it.'
He reminded the government that almost 700 IPP prisoners have served at least 10 years longer than their original minimum tariff.
He added: 'How can the government deny resentencing to these people, still inside, over 10 years past their minimum sentence?
'My lords, let me remind you we are talking about people who have been locked up for over a decade longer than someone else convicted of the exact same crime, but before 2005 or after 2012.
'My lords, a lot of nonsense is spoken about 'two-tier' justice, but this is one situation where that label seems to apply. It is not right and it is not fair.'
His proposals were backed by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Dr Alice Edwards, who said the jail terms have caused 'unlawful psychological torture' to prisoners.
In a statement before the debate, she said: 'It is time to end the perpetual damage caused by the IPP scheme.
'These sentences have caused unlawful psychological torture and ill-treatment to too many prisoners under the care of successive British governments.
'A resentencing court is a promising way forward, in which there could be an initial prioritisation exercise of cases, necessary exclusions and, for those whose mental state requires psychiatric or other intensive treatment, their transfer to a secure mental health facility outside the prison service until such time as they are deemed fit, with regular reviews.'
However, prisons minister James Timpson said none of the amendments eased his fears over resentencing, insisting the government's priority is public protection.
He said the IPP Action Plan, designed to support each prisoner's progress to release by the parole board, is 'where we will sort this out'.
However, he vowed to 'pull hard on every operational lever' to address the crisis and said he was carefully considering separate proposals put forward last month by an expert panel convened by the Howard League for Penal Reform.
The panel, led by former lord chief justice Lord John Thomas, called for all IPP prisoners to be given a release date within a two-year window at their next parole hearing and for fewer offenders to be recalled.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Palestine Action terror ban comes into force after late-night legal action fails
A ban against Palestine Action has come into force, designating it as a terror group after a late-night legal bid to delay it failed. It makes membership of, or support for, the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. The move to ban the organisation was announced after two Voyager aircraft were damaged at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on June 20, an incident claimed by Palestine Action, which police said caused around £7 million worth of damage. In response to the ban, a group of around 20 people are set to gather and sit in front of the Gandhi statue in London's Parliament Square on Saturday afternoon, according to campaign group Defend Our Juries. They will hold signs saying: 'I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.' The newly proscribed group lost a late-night Court of Appeal challenge on Friday to temporarily stop it being banned, less than two hours before the move came into force at midnight. Earlier that day Huda Ammori, the group's co-founder, unsuccessfully asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from designating the group as a terrorist organisation, before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'. MPs in the Commons voted 385 to 26, majority 359, in favour of proscribing the group on Wednesday, before the House of Lords backed the move without a vote on Thursday. Four people – Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 – have all been charged in connection with the incident. They appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Thursday after being charged with conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and conspiracy to commit criminal damage, under the Criminal Law Act 1977. Lawyers for Ms Ammori took her case to the Court of Appeal on Friday evening, and in a decision given at around 10.30pm, refused to grant the temporary block. Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, made a bid to have the case certified as a 'point of general public importance' to allow a Supreme Court bid, but the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said they would not get to the Supreme Court before midnight. The judge added that any application should be made before 4pm on Monday and refused a bid to pause the ban coming into effect pending any Supreme Court bid. In an 11-page written judgment, Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis said: 'The role of the court is simply to interpret and apply the law. 'The merits of the underlying decision to proscribe a particular group is not a matter for the court…Similarly, it is not a matter for this court to express any views on whether or not the allegations or claims made by Palestine Action are right or wrong.' They also said: 'People may only be prosecuted and punished for acts they engaged in after the proscription came into force.' In his decision refusing the temporary block, High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.' Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, for Ms Ammori, told the Court of Appeal that the judge wrongly decided the balance between the interests of her client and the Home Office when deciding whether to make the temporary block. She said: 'The balance of convenience on the evidence before him, in our respectful submission, fell in favour of the claimant having regard to all of the evidence, including the chilling effect on free speech, the fact that people would be criminalised and criminalised as terrorists for engaging in protest that was not violent, for the simple fact that they were associated with Palestine Action.' She also told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain 'failed properly to consider' that banning the group 'would cause irreparable harm'. Ms Ni Ghralaigh said: 'There was significant evidence before him to demonstrate the chilling effect of the order because it was insufficiently clear.' She continued that the ban would mean 'a vast number of individuals who wished to continue protesting would fall foul of the proscription regime due to its lack of clarity'. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain gave a 'detailed and careful judgment' and that the judge was 'alive' to the possible impacts of the ban, including the potential 'chilling effect' on free speech.
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Reeves Tells Cabinet Next Tax Rise to Be Challenging, Times Says
Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves told cabinet ministers that tax increases in the Labour government's fall budget are likely to be even more challenging than a £40 billion ($55 billion) package she put in place last year, the Times reported. Reeves said the new increases are likely to be smaller but that she has limited options as taxes need to rise to cover the cost of abandoning welfare reforms, according to the report. Her comments went further than her public statements that have been less explicit about the prospect of higher taxes, the Times said.
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
Pro-Palestinian Activists Lose Appeal Against U.K. Government Ban
A pro-Palestinian protest group has been banned as a terrorist organization by the British government, putting it on the same legal footing as the Islamic State and Al Qaeda in the first use of far-reaching security laws in response to property damage. The group, Palestine Action, which has targeted Israel-linked defense companies and vandalized military planes at Britain's largest Royal Air Force base, lost a legal bid to temporarily delay the law, and it is set to go into effect at midnight local time. Palestine Action's full legal challenge against the British government is still pending, with the next hearing scheduled for July 21. The ban makes it illegal to be a member of Palestine Action, or to support it in a number of other ways, including by raising money for the group, 'glorifying' its activities, arranging meetings, sharing the group's social media material or wearing its merchandise. It is the first time the British government has used part of its 25-year-old definition of terrorism that covers 'serious damage to property' to ban a group — rather than prohibiting them because of the use or threat of violence — prompting criticism from a broad range of human rights groups and international bodies. In a statement issued on Tuesday, a group of United Nations special rapporteurs said they had contacted the British government to voice concerns that the ban would 'criminalize legitimate activities' and that 'acts of protest that damage property, but are not intended to kill or injure people, should not be treated as terrorism.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
