Imprisonment for Public Protection (Re-sentencing) Bill [HL]

Lord Moylan Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for bringing forward this Bill. I am conscious that one of the obligations on us in this House is not to raise expectations falsely among prisoners and their families as to what is likely to be achieved. We have heard many passionate speeches in favour of the resentencing proposed in this Bill. We are about to hear one—possibly two—speeches putting the case against resentencing. The last of those will be determinative. The Government are not going to agree —they have made that clear—to a resentencing exercise. They say that, for those who are out on licence, the measures passed in the Victims and Prisoners Act, which had cross-party support—proposed by a Conservative Government and now implemented by a Labour Government—should deal with them in the next couple of years, and the issue should go away.

The question is about those in prison. For them, there is the action plan. I have a degree of confidence in the action plan—in both the officials behind it and the plan itself. I think there is a seriousness of purpose and intent on the part of Ministers and officials in making this work. An annual report will be published shortly, and I am sure we will have an opportunity—we should have an opportunity at least—to debate it in this House when it appears and hold the Government to account over the action plan.

The difficulty is that, although the action plan will push ahead and, I imagine, secure the release of those IPP prisoners with whom it is easy to engage, there will still be a residue. There will be a number of IPP prisoners whom it is going to be very difficult for the Parole Board to recommend for release. I want to think ahead to what we should be doing, thinking and discussing about those people. They could potentially, if nothing is done, remain in prison for the rest of their lives, not because of the crime they committed but because of the position—often damaged by mental health issues—they are in today.

One thing worth asking about them is why they should continue in prison at all. Why are they part of the prison system? In so far as they were in prison in the first place as a punishment, that punishment has been discharged and served; they are way beyond tariff. Many of them are in secure mental hospitals. Maybe a mental health setting would be more appropriate for many of these people. It is not easy to get into a mental health hospital if you are in prison—it is a little bit like that joke in “The Importance of Being Earnest” that you cannot get into Wandsworth prison after 4 pm; it is very difficult to get into prison. It is difficult to get into a mental health institution. Should we make it easier, or should we establish a single location—perhaps using part of the underoccupied open prison estate—where those prisoners who do not qualify for mental health hospitals could be brought together? The curative powers of the Probation Service and the Prison Service could be brought to bear on them to help them get out, rather than being left in a prison context.

Time has run out, so I simply put that thought there and I hope the Minister might be able to respond. If he cannot today, could he at least give us some assurance that he will give thought to issues like that? This potentially quite large number of people who might never be released under the existing system deserve thought now. If resentencing is not on the cards, something along these lines should be considered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for introducing the Bill and enabling the House again to focus again on this important topic. We have heard many insightful and well-researched speeches. This is a tragically long-standing issue—I dealt with it when I was a Minister, and I remain grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in particular, and others, for the time they spent with me on the matter then.

You could make two speeches this morning from the Opposition Front Bench. One would be overtly political: it would say that IPP sentences were introduced by Labour and were and remain a disaster. It would say that this problem was created by a Labour Government, and it is up to this Labour Government to sort it out. It would say that we do not need more criminals on our streets. All of that would be true, but it is not the speech I propose to give. I will instead focus on what we can actually do, practically, to resolve this problem, and on what I regard as the real issues.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, reminded us, the previous Lord Chancellor, Alex Chalk, who did so much good work in this area, called the present state of the IPP issue a

“stain on our criminal justice system”.

The same phrase, cited by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, was used by the much-missed noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and they were both right. So I propose to look at the problem, look at how we can improve the position, and set out the response of the Opposition Front Bench to this Private Member’s Bill.

There are two important facts to begin with. First, IPP sentences were abolished by the then Conservative Government in 2012—the Lord Chancellor was the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Hazelmere, pointed out, the problem was that no transitional provisions were put in place. That happened 12 years ago, which is relevant—I will come back to that. Secondly, just under 1,100 IPP prisoners have never been released on licence and a further 1,600 or so were released on licence but have since been recalled to prison. Those two facts, taken together, remind us of the following points, which must be kept in mind as part of the debate.

First, those still in prison and who have never been released on licence were sentenced over 12 years ago. During that time, they will have been prepared for and attended several Parole Board hearings, and the Parole Board, which is independent and expert, will have concluded, on all the material before it, that it was not safe to release them. Secondly, for those prisoners and those released on licence and then recalled—again, because they were originally sentenced at least 12 years ago—unless their underlying crime was one of considerable seriousness, a resentencing exercise, even if it were possible, would likely result in their immediate release. Putting those two points together, that means that a resentencing exercise would likely result in the immediate release into the community of people whom the Parole Board had recently decided were still dangerous and should not be released. I suggest that we cannot easily contemplate that.

I will add a third point: a resentencing exercise would be logistically and practically difficult, not only because of the impact on judicial time but, more importantly, because of the fact that, in some—or perhaps many—cases, the underlying paperwork is unlikely to be available in full. Therefore, I suggest that a resentencing exercise, which is at the heart of the Bill, is not the answer—my noble friend Lord Moylan therefore correctly anticipated the position of the Opposition Front Bench. But that means that we need to identify what the answer is, because doing nothing is simply not an option.

Let me sketch out some principles. First, the focus must be on two separate groups. For the first group—those who have never been released—the focus must be to get them successfully through a Parole Board hearing. For the second group—those who have been released on licence—the focus must be to make sure that they are not recalled to prison or, if they are, to enable them to do better next time they are released: to get out and to stay out.

Secondly, we need to be clear-eyed about who we are dealing with. There is sometimes a tendency to assume that people did little more than steal a Mars bar and were just unlucky to receive an IPP sentence rather than a traditional determinate sentence. In fact, to have been sentenced to a IPP sentence in the first place, the trial judge must have concluded, under Section 229(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, that there was

“a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm”

were the defendant to commit further offences—and not just any further offences. There was a list of specified offences in a schedule to the Act, including rape, murder, GBH with intent and so forth. In other words, the trial judge will have found as a fact that there was a significant risk of the offender killing, raping or seriously maiming someone else. That was the statutory test of dangerousness, which was a legal threshold to being given an IPP sentence in the first place.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I interrupt with trepidation, because my noble friend is such an excellent lawyer, and I am not a lawyer at all. However, am I not right in saying that, while that test did exist, it existed only in the second period when IPP sentences were imposed? It was very much a point of the late Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood that in the early years of the IPP sentence judicial discretion was almost nil, and the finding of fact was simply a matter of asking, “Have you committed this offence and previously committed another?”, both taken from two separate lists. I am not sure that all the prisoners who are still in jail and who have never been released would be covered by the point that my noble friend makes.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. I cannot get into all the detail because of time, but for those sentenced even earlier, in the first period, unless the underlying crime was really serious, you end up with effectively immediate release, in respect of people who have been determined by the Probation Service to still be dangerous. That is a real underlying problem.

That leads me to the third point, perhaps the most tragic in the entire debate. We have to confront the possibility, or probability—this is a terrible stain on our state—that for some people now in prison under an IPP sentence the reason they cannot effectively be released, and the reason they are failing Parole Board hearings, is because they have been in prison so long. They have become institutionalised. I am very sorry to say it, but it is a Kafkaesque situation—if Kafkaesque is the right word—and a stain on our justice system, but we have to be clear-eyed about the position that we are dealing with.

As we know, this matter was looked at by the Justice Select Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Bob Neill. I am pleased to say that he is now, and deservedly so, Sir Bob Neill KC. The committee made two main recommendations. The first was on resentencing, which I have dealt with—and, with respect, we disagree with the committee on that point. Secondly, it suggested that the licence period be reduced—and here we are in full agreement. The old position was that you could not even apply to terminate the licence until a decade had passed. The committee recommended a reduction of the licence period to five years, while Lord Chancellor Chalk reduced it to three years, and added a presumption that it would lapse at the end of three years, unless there was a good reason to extend it. For those recalled to prison, he introduced a two-year licence period for those released after that initial recall, with an automatic lapse after two years, not a presumption. That structure is the best way in which to deal with this issue.

Lord Chancellor Chalk went further. He set in place programmes to encourage prisoners to be prepared well for the Parole Board hearings, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister about the work ongoing in relation to that—because that is the key to getting someone out on licence in the first place. He also introduced automatic referral to the Parole Board so that prisoners do not need to apply for release, but rather the case automatically comes before the Parole Board.

This is about balance between protecting the public, which any Government need to have at the forefront of their mind, while making sure that those subject to an IPP sentence are fairly dealt with. That means that we need to ensure that we do not release dangerous people into the community, but it also means that those who have been released and are no longer dangerous should not live with a sword of Damocles above their heads.

It is sometimes pointed out that those released on an IPP licence can reoffend. The truth is that lots of our released prisoners reoffend, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister, either now or perhaps in a letter, with a comparison of the rate of reoffending of IPP prisoners with those released under other provisions. I would be especially keen to see the data comparing the reoffending rate of IPP prisoners released on licence to the reoffending rate of those released under the early release scheme introduced by the Government early this year, of which we have had not very much data. In due course, I would be interested to see that comparison, because I would not want IPP-released prisoners to be unfairly stigmatised when, in fact, we have a significant reoffending rate for prisoners generally.

I look forward to the Minister’s speech. We will support him in steps to ensure that those still subject to IPP sentences, those in prison, on licence, and on recall receive all the assistance they need.

Imprisonment for Public Protection (Re-sentencing) Bill [HL]

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 4th July 2025 Lords Chamber

A resentencing exercise for everyone serving these torture sentences is the only way to wipe this stain off our justice system for good. The Government’s arguments against it just do not stack up. Hiding behind public protection will not work any more, not with the viable safeguards that the expert committee can recommend—some of which are specified explicitly in the second group of amendments—and certainly not with my Amendment 2, which restricts resentencing to those already deemed not to pose a risk to the public. I look forward to what the Minister and my other esteemed colleagues and comrades in this place will say. In a spirit of collaboration and in search of solutions, I beg to move.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, on the tenacity he has shown in continuing the fight against the injustice of the IPP sentence. I hope the Minister will understand that the amendments in this group are intended to be helpful, in that they offer the Government a range of possibilities and flexibilities in the application of resentencing in the event that they cannot bring themselves—and it is clear that they cannot—to endorse the recommendation of the Select Committee in the other place in 2022 that all prisoners subject to this sentence should be resentenced and that the solution to the problem lies in that.

That is certainly the character of Amendments 11 and 12 in my name. They make a point that was often made by the late Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, who was so passionate about this injustice—namely, that in July 2008 there were significant reforms, as the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, has said, to the IPP regime in England and Wales through the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, and those changes aimed to address the growing concerns about the sentence. The changes were that a seriousness threshold was introduced, and from that date an offender could receive an IPP sentence only if the offence they were being sentenced for was serious enough to justify a determinate sentence of at least four years. Before that change, there had been occasions, some referred to in Parliament—some are anecdotal because the names are not always known—of people with implied determinate sentences as low as 28 days who had been given IPP sentences. From this point on, four years was the seriousness test, and that was a major shift.

The reforms also gave greater discretion to judges, allowing them to do their job properly—that is, sentencing somebody according to their individual deserts, which is the purpose of the sentencing regime. The Criminal Justice Act 2003, the original Act, had not given judges that discretion; it said that in the cases of those qualifying for IPP sentencing they must assume that there is a risk unless the court considered that it would be unreasonable to conclude that there was not a risk. Those are very strong words. “Must” and “unreasonable” set a very high bar, effectively removing judicial discretion in determining the sentence. Defendants sentenced under that provision were denied what should have been their right to an individually appropriate sentence.

The key point, as the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, has said, is that the changes made in 2005 came into effect only in July 2008 and there was no attempt to make them retrospective to those who had been sentenced between 2005 and 2008. Many of those people are still subject to the sentence. Many of them are in prison and many have never been released. They are among the 1,000 or so IPP prisoners who have never been released to date. They continue to suffer from an injustice of exceptional gravity. They are serving a sentence that, as recognised in 2008, was passed pursuant to too wide a seriousness threshold by a judiciary whose discretion Parliament had so fettered as to prevent it saving defendants from unjustifiable severity.

There are two amendments, Amendments 11 and 12, because one is required for IPP sentences and the other for DPP sentences—the sentences imposed on those under 18, as the noble Lord explained—because that is the way in which the legislation is drafted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I am sorry. The status quo position is that, when Mr Thomas becomes well and stable in hospital, he will be returned to the prison as an IPP-er. That seems unconscionable. All this amendment does is suggest that people are referred when they are mentally ill to a hospital and that the hospital then uses a clinical assessment to decide when they are well. When they are well, they are not dangerous and can be released. That can be part of the resentencing procedure.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am conscious of the time. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has put her finger on a problem that the Government have not properly faced but which they will have to face soon: the commendable action plan they have been pursuing with vigour will not reach a large number of prisoners who have not been released before, because, for the action plan to work at the individual level, the individual has to engage successfully with the processes of the Parole Board. We know now that, of the 1,000 or so prisoners who have never been released, a significant number no longer have the mental capacity to do that. Those are the people to whom the noble Baroness draws attention.

I wish to add to that group a further, possibly overlapping, group of prisoners, who may have mental capacity but refuse to engage with the process because of understandable disillusionment arising from their experience of the process in the past. These people will not be addressed by an action plan that requires that successful engagement. The Government have to come up with something else, because at the moment they have nothing for them; the alternative is that they simply stay in prison until they die. If not today, because we are coming to a close, then on an occasion not too far in the future, I think the House would like to hear what the Government propose to do for these people.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I wanted to participate in this debate principally to congratulate my noble friend on his excellent introduction. Throughout the stages of the Bill, he has been clear and concise about the need for this legislation, and his contribution today was magnificent.

All the speeches have been clear about the total injustice of the situation in which we find ourselves. I have little doubt that the views are shared by the Members on the Front Bench. The two issues that I wanted to raise—first, the mental health aspects of the problem and, secondly, the fact that we can no longer rely on people to manoeuvre through this system under their own power—have been powerfully addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, so I will not repeat them. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will address them in his reply.

I emphasise to my noble friend the Minister that he has, in effect, said—he will perhaps tell me if I am wrong—that we do not need resentencing, as set out in this Bill, because the action plan will deal with the problem. Because of his particular position, he was brought into this House and into the Government to address this issue with the prison system alongside the other issues that we have. I stress—not in a very friendly way, although he is my noble friend—that it is really on his shoulders to get this sorted out. By rejecting the resentencing approach, the approach pursued by the Government has to work. It is on my noble friend the Minister’s shoulders to get this sorted out and to address the problems of mental health and the fact that large proportions of those remaining in prison are incapable of manoeuvring through the system by themselves. The Government have to provide them with support, either through the department or by funding some external agency that will give those suffering from this injustice a way out of the maze.