Asked by: Lord Moylan (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the recommendation by the Court of Appeal in Haycock v R (EWCA Crim 1105) that there should be a systematic review process to ensure that individuals still subject to imprisonment for public protection and detention for public protection sentences are adequately identified and provided with legal advice.
Answered by Lord Lemos - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice publishes routine data on prisoners serving Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences in custody in the Offender Management Statistics publication. This is available online here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/offender-management-statistics-quarterly.
Prison staff are required to assist any prisoner who wishes to request legal advice by providing lists of legal advisers, supplying appropriate forms, and assisting prisoners to complete them where requested due to language or literacy difficulties.
Criminal legal aid is available for eligible IPP and DPP offenders for parole proceedings and for related preliminary or incidental proceedings. Information on finding a legal aid adviser is available at: Find a Legal Aid Adviser or Family Mediator. Alternatively, organisations, such as the Association of Prison Lawyers or the Prisoners' Advice Service, may be able to assist in finding a prison law adviser.
On 1 September, the Lord Chancellor announced that the Government will bring an end to the sentence for those who continue to serve it and will bring forward legislation to do this by the end of this Parliament. These are complex cases, involving important public protection and victim considerations. Reform will take time to get right.
Asked by: Lord Moylan (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what consultation they have undertaken with prisoners serving imprisonment for public protection, detention for public protection, and "two-strike" sentences imposed before 2005 on means of improving coordination between Parole Board hearings and the courses prisoners are required to take in preparation.
Answered by Lord Lemos - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) staff regularly engage with those serving IPP sentences through a range of activities such as IPP prison forums.
In addition, Dame Glenys Stacey chairs an IPP External Stakeholder Challenge Group which meets quarterly and includes charities, campaign groups, criminal justice organisations and people with lived experience of the sentence. The group has provided constructive challenge on the IPP Action Plan, including on the need for clearer communication, stronger focus on outcomes, and better understanding of barriers to progression.
Progression panels are one example of where this engagement is relevant; they bring together staff to consider an individual’s progression, identify barriers, and help ensure the prisoner understands what further work or interventions are needed before Parole Board hearings.
The Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS) within HMPPS is responsible for setting parole reviews. When calculating the interval between reviews, PPCS engages with prison and probation staff to determine the length of time a prisoner is likely to require to complete the necessary interventions and programmes. This information is then taken into account when scheduling the review. Where a prisoner completes the required work earlier than anticipated, PPCS may bring the review forward.
We will continue to use these channels, alongside engagement with the Parole Board and operational partners, to improve coordination between parole reviews and the interventions prisoners need to support safe progression, and as we develop legislation to bring the sentence to an end.
Asked by: Lord Moylan (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made on the recent finding of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention regarding prisoners serving an Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection.
Answered by Lord Lemos - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government respects the work of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and is considering its findings in the recently published Opinion concerning five individuals given Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences. A formal response will be provided later in the year.
On 1 September, the Lord Chancellor announced that the Government will bring an end to the IPP sentence for those who continue to serve it and will bring forward legislation to do this by the end of this Parliament. The Government will work across party lines and listen to experts to develop the right safeguards and keep public protection at the heart of the reforms.
Asked by: Lord Moylan (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Timpson on 29 July 2024 (HL68), when they intend to launch the review of the sentencing framework mentioned in the Answer, and what attention they will give to aligning the licence conditions for those subject to (1) 'two-strike' life sentences, and (2) imprisonment for public protection sentences.
Answered by Lord Timpson
The Government launched an Independent Review of Sentencing in October 2024, chaired by former Lord Chancellor David Gauke, to review the sentencing framework to ensure we are never again forced to rely on the emergency release of prisoners. The Review is considering options following three core principles: sentences must punish offenders and protect the public; sentences should encourage prisoners to turn their backs on a life of crime; and we must make greater use of punishment outside of prison. On 18 February 2025, the Review published Part 1 of its report, which sets out the history and trends in sentencing that contributed to the pressures on our prisons. The review has been asked to consider the framework around longer sentences, including life sentences.
However, the Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence is not within the scope of the review. I look forward to seeing the Review’s recommendations when it reports in the Spring.
The mandatory life sentence for a second serious offence, also known as the ‘two-strikes’ life sentence, was introduced in 1997, and meant that judges had to impose a life sentence on anyone convicted of a second specified offence, unless there were exceptional circumstances. As with other types of life sentence, offenders under the two-strikes life sentence are given a minimum term, and then, if they are released by the Parole Board, they will be subject to licence conditions for the rest of their life.
The IPP sentence was an indeterminate sentence in use from 2005 to 2012. It was intended as a means of managing high-risk prisoners who the court considered did not meet the criteria for a life sentence. An IPP sentence was imposed where these offenders were convicted of a serious specified violent or sexual offence, committed on or after the 4 April 2005, where, in the Court’s opinion, the offender posed a risk of harm to the public.
Unlike the IPP sentence, where the licence can be terminated either by the Parole Board at the end of the qualifying period, or after a further two years in the community on licence, the ‘two-strike’ sentence is a life sentence and has an indefinite licence period. There is no provision for a life sentence to be terminated and therefore, the IPP measures relating to licence termination are not applicable to ‘two-strike’ life sentence offenders.
As with all life sentenced prisoners, HM Prison and Probation Service supports those serving ‘two-strikes’ life sentences to reduce their risk to meet the Parole Board’s statutory release test when they become eligible for release. If released, they remain on life licence. The Government has no plans to change licence conditions for life sentences.
Asked by: Lord Moylan (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many of those convicted to date in connection with rioting in early August (1) were of no fixed abode, and (2) lived within five miles of the scene of the rioting in connection with which they were arrested.
Answered by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
HMCTS has worked with the judiciary since the disorder in the summer to bring the rioters to justice. As of 3 October, a total of 819 defendants have been received by the courts in connection with public disorder, 493 have had a final outcome, of which 388 received an immediate custodial sentence. Data relating to the cases started in connection with public disorder comes from a bespoke data feed which does not include information on defendant home address and location of the offence. To obtain this information would involve a disproportionate cost as it would involve checking individual case files.
Asked by: Lord Moylan (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to review the cases of those still subject to the "two strikes” sentence imposed under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 or the “automatic life" sentence introduced in 2012; and whether there is scope to align their licence conditions with those imposed through the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 on prisoners serving an indeterminate sentence for public protection.
Answered by Lord Timpson
Section 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (the 1997 Act) introduced a mandatory life sentence for a second serious offence, meaning judges had to impose a life sentence on anyone convicted of a second specified serious offence, unless there were exceptional circumstances.
Although the ‘two-strike’ life sentence and the IPP sentence can be imposed for similar specified offences, unlike the IPP sentence, the ‘two-strike’ life sentence is a life sentence, and offenders will therefore be subject to licence conditions for life if they are released by the Parole Board. The recent changes to the IPP licence, which can be terminated pursuant to section 31A of the 1997 Act, would therefore not align with this life licence.
We will be launching a review of the sentencing framework. The details of this review will be announced in due course.
Asked by: Lord Moylan (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government when they will respond to the regulation 28 prevention of future deaths report issued on 12 April by the Senior Coroner for the coroner area of Milton Keynes in the case of Scott Rider, to which a response was due under statute by 23 May.
Answered by Lord Timpson
The Ministry of Justice’s response to the Regulation 28 Prevention of Future Deaths report issued on 12 April by the Senior Coroner for Milton Keynes was sent by the Director General of Operations for HM Prison and Probation Service on 15 May 2024.
Asked by: Lord Moylan (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many people are currently in prison serving an imprisonment for public protection sentence who have been held for 10 years or more beyond their original tariff, broken down by the exact number of years over tariff.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
On 16 October 2023, the Lord Chancellor announced he would be looking at options to curtail the licence period to restore greater proportionality to IPP sentences in line with recommendation 8 of the report by the Justice Select Committee (JSC), published on 28 September 2022.
These changes are being taken forward in the Victims and Prisoners Bill. The measures will make it quicker and easier to terminate an IPP licence (and therefore the IPP sentence as a whole) whilst balancing public protection considerations.
The new measure will:
The Lord Chancellor was persuaded by the Committee’s recommendation to reduce the qualifying licence period from 10 years to 5 years and is going further: reducing the period to 3 years. These amendments will restore greater proportionality to IPP sentences and provide a clear pathway to a definitive end to the licence and, therefore, the sentence.
In addition to these changes, the actions this Government are taking are working; the number of prisoners serving the IPP sentence who have never been released now stands at 1,269 as of September 2023, down from more than 6000 in 2012.
Table 1: The tariff-expired Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) prisoner population at least 10 years over tariff, 30 September 2023.
Time over tariff | Count |
From 10 years to less than 11 years | 132 |
From 11 years to less than 12 years | 117 |
From 12 years to less than 13 years | 128 |
From 13 years to less than 14 years | 128 |
From 14 years to less than 15 years | 94 |
From 15 years to less than 16 years | 62 |
From 16 years to less than 17 years | 21 |
From 17 years to less than 18 years | 1 |
From 18 years to less than 19 years | 1 |
Total | 684 |
Please note:
(1) The figures in these tables have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
Asked by: Lord Moylan (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many incidents of self-harm were recorded by people serving a sentence of Detention for Public Protection in each year since 2005.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
On 16 October 2023, the Lord Chancellor announced he would be looking at options to curtail the licence period to restore greater proportionality to IPP sentences in line with recommendation 8 of the report by the Justice Select Committee (JSC), published on 28 September 2022.
These changes are being taken forward in the Victims and Prisoners Bill. The measure will make it quicker and easier to terminate the IPP licence (and therefore the IPP sentence as a whole) whilst balancing public protection considerations.
The new measure will:
The Lord Chancellor was persuaded by the Committee’s recommendation to reduce the qualifying licence period from 10 years to 5 years and is going further: reducing the period to 3 years. These amendments will restore greater proportionality to IPP sentences and provide a clear pathway to a definitive end to the licence and, therefore, the sentence, while balancing public protection considerations.
In addition to these changes, the actions this Government are taking are working; the number of prisoners serving the IPP sentence who have never been released now stands at 1,269 as of September 2023, down from more than 6000 in 2012.
We have provided a breakdown of the incidents of self-harm that were recorded by people serving a sentence of Detention for Public Protection in each year since 2012 in the below table:
Number of self-harm incidents by prisoners serving a sentence of Detention for Public Protection 2012 to 2022
Year | Number of self-harm incidents |
2012 | 96 |
2013 | 137 |
2014 | 167 |
2015 | 183 |
2016 | 229 |
2017 | 226 |
2018 | 219 |
2019 | 348 |
2020 | 300 |
2021 | 339 |
2022 | 251 |
Data Sources and Quality
These figures have been drawn from the HMPPS Incident Reporting System. Care is taken when processing and analysing returns but the detail is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system. Although shown to the last case, the figures may not be accurate to that level.
(1) Figures include incidents within the youth estate and during contracted out escorts.
(2) In prisons, as in the community, it is not possible to count self-harm incidents with absolute accuracy. In prison custody, however, such incidents are more likely to be detected and counted. Care needs to be taken when comparing figures shown here with other sources where data may be less complete.
(3) Indeterminate sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) and Detention for Public Protection (DPP) were introduced in 2005. They were intended for high risk prisoners considered ‘dangerous’ but whose offence did not merit a life sentence. The number of prisoners held on these sentences increased initially and the increase was offset by reductions elsewhere.
(4) Sentence type information is only available for a small proportion of incidents prior to 2012, so it is not possible to provide a reliable breakdown by sentence type prior to then.
(5) The numbers provided in this table result from a matching between NOMIS data and Public Protection Unit Database (PPUD) data. A total of 13 prisoners identified in the PPUD data did not have an associated NOMIS identifier. Additionally, the figures in the table only includes individuals identified in NOMIS as serving IPP or DPP sentences, and also as serving a DPP sentence in PPUD data. The figures provided here are an estimate based on these two sources and as inconsistencies in recording between these two sources exist the figures should be treated with caution.
(6) Includes known DPPs in prison regardless of whether they are unreleased or have been recalled, or if they have subsequently been resentenced.
Asked by: Lord Moylan (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government, of those currently serving an imprisonment for public protection sentence on licence in the community, how many have been held in a secure hospital at any point during their sentence.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
Where 10 years have elapsed since the Parole Board first directed the release of an offender serving a sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP), the Secretary of State must by law refer that offender to the Parole Board, in order for the Board to determine whether to terminate the offender’s IPP licence. The minimum 10-year period is not paused or reset if an offender is recalled to prison or serves a subsequent sentence for further offences. Where the Board does not terminate the licence, the Secretary of State must by law re-refer the offender every 12 months. This ensures that every eligible offender is considered by the Parole Board annually and will enable the IPP licence, and the IPP sentence as a whole, to be brought to a definitive end for more offenders.
On 16 October 2023, the Lord Chancellor announced he would be looking at options to curtail the licence period to restore greater proportionality to IPP sentences in line with recommendation 8 of the report by the Justice Select Committee’ (JSC) report, published on 28 September 2022.
These changes are being taken forward in the Victims and Prisoners Bill.
The new measure will:
The Lord Chancellor was persuaded by the Committee’s recommendation to reduce the qualifying licence period from 10 years to 5 years and is going further: reducing the period to 3 years. These amendments will restore greater proportionality to IPP sentences and provide a clear pathway to a definitive end to the licence and, therefore, the sentence.
In addition to these changes, the actions this Government are taking are working; the number of prisoners serving the IPP sentence who have never been released now stands at 1,269 as of September 2023, down from more than 6000 in 2012.
Table 1: Shows the number of offenders serving an IPP sentence under pre- and post-release supervision who are eligible to be considered for termination of their licence, at end of period, December 2020 to June 2023, England and Wales.
Period | Eligible |
2021 Q1 | 187 |
2021 Q2 | 237 |
2021 Q3 | 299 |
2021 Q4 | 391 |
2022 Q1 | 477 |
2022 Q2 | 571 |
2022 Q3 | 662 |
2022 Q4 | 769 |
2023 Q1 | 842 |
2023 Q2 | 945 |
Please Note:
(1) This table includes IPP offenders who have been returned to custody following a recall.
(2) The figures in these tables have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
Table 2: Shows the number of cases referred to the Parole Board
Period | Referrals |
2021 Q1 | 2 |
2021 Q2 | 8 |
2021 Q3 | 3 |
2021 Q4 | 9 |
2022 Q1 | 46 |
2022 Q2 | 42 |
2022 Q3 | 72 |
2022 Q4 | 69 |
2023 Q1 | 83 |
2023 Q2 | 147 |
Please Note:
(1) Figures could contain cases where the offender became eligible for licence termination in previous quarter.
(2) Figures from Table 1 are snapshot figures and are not comparable to figures in Table 2
Table 3: Shows the outcomes of licence termination applications in each quarter since 2021.
Outcome Period | Terminated | Suspended/ Varied | Refused |
2021 Q1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
2021 Q2 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
2021 Q3 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
2021 Q4 | 4 | 0 | 2 |
2022 Q1 | 21 | 5 | 10 |
2022 Q2 | 25 | 7 | 12 |
2022 Q3 | 22 | 8 | 18 |
2022 Q4 | 28 | 6 | 46 |
2023 Q1 | 25 | 6 | 23 |
2023 Q2 | 38 | 14 | 72 |
Table 4: Shows the number of people serving an IPP sentence that were transferred from prison to a secure hospital, and held in a secure hospital, in each year, since 2009
Year | Number of transfers in the year | Population in Secure Hospital at end of year |
2009 | 54 | 472 |
2010 | 107 | 467 |
2011 | 100 | 438 |
2012 | 86 | 380 |
2013 | 90 | 326 |
2014 | 88 | 264 |
2015 | 72 | 274 |
2016 | 66 | 274 |
2017 | 59 | 278 |
2018 | 65 | 282 |
2019 | 59 | 276 |
2020 | 55 | 275 |
2021 | 39 | 287 |
2022 | 44 | 262 |
Please Note:
(1) We do not hold figures prior to 2009 as the data entry system which holds these data was implemented in 2009 and data prior to this period are not of sufficient quality to allow for the breakdown requested.
(2) The number of transfers is not the same as number of offenders transferred as there could be more than one transfer associated with an offender in a year.
(3) These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large-scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. Consequently, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.
The information requested for HL236 and HL237 could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. The information for HL238 is not held centrally.