Court Of Appeal Upholds Decision On Courses For Prisoners Serving IPP Sentences

Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences

01/02/2008

In a landmark judgment the Court of Appeal has today upheld the decision to order the Government to make reasonable provision for courses to reduce offending behaviour for people serving Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences.

An IPP sentence is imposed for prisoners assumed to be a risk to the public. However the introduction of this sentence, in which prisoners must be provided with the means of reducing their risk so that they can eventually be released, has substantially increased the pressure on the prison system with the number of indeterminate sentence prisoners rising by 31% in 2006.

In the first hearing, in July 2007, Lord Justice Laws stated that the Government "had obtained from Parliament legislation to… require indefinite detention” of certain prisoners. He commented that assurances were given to Parliament that the Government intended to make sure that the risk presented by such persons was assessed and then reduced but this had not occurred.

The High Court was told that the necessary reviews were not taking place and that offending behaviour programmes were not available. This thwarted the purpose of the legislation and indeed the Government policy.

The High Court ruled that the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully by failing to provide for measures to allow and encourage prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection ('IPPs') to demonstrate to the Parole Board by the time of the expiry of their minimum terms that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that they continue to be detained.

This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal which described arguments put forward on behalf of the Government as '...lacking in realism...' and stated that "Courses are provided because experience shows that these are usually necessary if dangerous offenders are to cease to be dangerous. It is for this reason that performance of the appropriate courses is likely to be prerequisite to a prisoner satisfying the parole board that he has ceased to be dangerous."

The Court of Appeal also indicated that continued failure to make reasonable provision to provide courses for those on an IPP sentence might in future result in release.

John Dickinson from law firm Irwin Mitchell said: "This case emphasises that the purpose of the IPP sentence is both punitive and rehabilitative. The Government must now provide the courses and assessments to allow inmates to reduce their risk and eventually be released when it is safe to do so."

"The rehabilitation of prisoners is essential to ensure that re-offending does not occur in our society and to ensure that people are not held unlawfully in a prison system unable to cope with such large numbers."