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 ten 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
Times
30 minutes ago
- Times
After a terrible anniversary week, is Keir Starmer finished?
At the Spectator summer party, one of the biggest events of Westminster's social calendar, much of the conversation centred around one man — Nigel Farage. The Reform UK leader and his allies adjourned to a private terrace overlooking the Spectator garden and private security cordoned off the stairs. There they sipped Dom Perignon while cabinet ministers and senior Tories including Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick circled the garden below. When the news broke that Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader, was planning to found a new party there were cheers from the Reform terrace. A new Corbyn-led hard left party meant yet more pain for Starmer — and a bad end to a truly terrible anniversary week for the prime minister. Senior Tories were disparaging about Farage and his coterie of supporters. 'They're so cocky,' said one shadow cabinet minister. Labour ministers said Farage offered 'no answers'. But both parties were alive to the threat posed by the man standing a few yards from them. At a cabinet meeting on Tuesday Starmer expressed his pride in his government's achievements after a year in power, listing off what he views as the successes. Free school meals, increasing defence spending to 2.6 per cent of GDP, trade deals with the US, the EU and India. The list went on. But within a few hours he was forced to make an extraordinary retreat in the face of a mass rebellion by Labour MPs over the government's welfare reforms, leaving a £5 billion hole in the exchequer. Then it got worse. On Wednesday Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, broke down in tears at the dispatch box, prompting a frenzy in the bond markets. As the dust settles this weekend, some cabinet ministers are asking the question: is it terminal? Will Starmer, who secured a landslide majority at the last election, lead Labour into the next election? 'It feels like it's done,' said one. Certainly the polling is bleak — and far worse than that for any party in recent political history that won a landslide just twelve months before. Research by YouGov for The Times this week found that just one in five voters (21 per cent) think that Labour has done well in office so far and less than a third think they are any better than the previous Conservative government. Across a range of issues the party's voters are deeply dissatisfied with the government's performance. On the cost of living, 62 per cent of those who backed Labour at the election say the government is doing badly, while 46 per cent are unhappy with the government's handling of the NHS. On Starmer himself: 69 per cent of voters think he's weak, 65 per cent say he doesn't care about people like them and 49 per cent say he's dishonest. Anthony Wells, head of European political research at YouGov, said: 'Labour's problem is that despite their landslide victory last year there was never any great enthusiasm for them in the first place — people were voting against the Tories. So as they have made some unpopular decisions they have not had any goodwill in the bank to fall back on.' Yet concerns about whether Starmer can survive need a reality check — Labour does not have the same appetite for regicide as the Tories or the same mechanisms for removing a leader. Even his most ardent critics concede that there there is no obvious successor who is capable of uniting Starmer's fragmenting electoral coalition. Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, appeals to those on the left of the party but there are questions about whether she could command broader support. Wes Streeting, the health secretary, has the same problem the other way — he can appeal to those in the centre but has more limited appeal to those on the left. The YouGov polling also shows that all the plausible Labour alternatives, including Rayner and Streeting, are seen as more likely to be worse than Starmer. The speculation about Starmer's future stems in part from the knowledge that things are likely to get much worse. As difficult as the first year has been, the challenges of the second will eclipse them — the biggest of which will be the budget. At the cabinet on Tuesday, before the week's calamitous events, Reeves sounded a warning to ministers. At that stage the government had only made a partial about turn on welfare, protecting all existing claimants at a cost of £2.5 billion. Reeves said the compromise came at a cost, and that money would need to be raised. She said the last budget, painful as it was with £40 billion worth of tax rises, represented the 'low-hanging fruit'. The next budget would be more challenging. The tax rises are likely to be big. The cost of the change in direction on welfare and winter fuel payments came to around £6 billion, but economists are much more concerned about the anaemic levels of economic growth and a potential downgrade in forecasts. Some put the figure that needs to be raised as high as £30 billion, which would require huge tax rises. Cabinet ministers privately acknowledge that the benefits U-turn means all options for raising tax are now on the table. That includes potentially breaking the manifesto pledge not to raise income tax, national insurance or VAT, although ministers are loath to do so. A tax raid on pension savings is also being considered. Paul Johnson, director of the Institute of Fiscal Studies, said it would be very hard for Labour to find the money necessary without touching those 'big three' taxes. 'I don't really think there is [a way of doing it],' he said. 'We don't really know what kind of levels of money the chancellor will need to find but if we are looking at £30 billion, which is quite plausible, I can't see a way in which she raises that kind of money without hitting people on middle incomes as they did with the national insurance increase.' One minister said that while they would prefer spending restraint over tax rises, they appear to be unavoidable. They said that all options would need to be considered. The Times has been told that the government will not reopen the spending review despite the scale of the gap in the public minister was philosophical. The reality was that on many occasions the government had to choose between 'bad choices or very bad choices'. That, at times, government is effectively a Sophie's choice, with no good options on the table.
Times
30 minutes ago
- Times
Britain's biggest fact-checking company goes into administration
Britain's biggest fact-checking company has gone into administration, The Times has learnt. Logically was born in the wake of the 2016 United States presidential election and the Brexit referendum. It once boasted 200 employees in the UK, India and America. Its founder, Lyric Jain, a Cambridge engineering graduate, said he was also motivated by the death of his paternal grandmother in India who died after being persuaded to abandon chemotherapy treatment in favour of a 'special juice'. He said his goal was 'tackling harmful and manipulative content at speed and scale' and 'bringing truth to the digital world, and making it a safer place for everyone everywhere'. Jain hails from a wealthy Indian family, whose home is a mansion in Staffordshire that once belonged to Admiral Sir John Jervis, a naval commander in the 18th century. The fact-checking industry is facing a backlash driven by President Trump's second administration, but former employees of Logically blame its demise on what they claim were strategic errors from the company's leadership. Logically did fact-checking for Meta and TikTok under the Logically Facts brand and also developed an AI software product that analysed social media posts for disinformation. Former staff point to a decision by the company to work for the controversial fact-checking unit of the Indian state government of Karnataka as a crucial misstep. The unit was criticised by the Editors Guild of India and other organisations who argued the system could be used to suppress dissent and free speech and threaten independent journalism. That contract led to the loss of its certification from International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), an industry body, which does not allow fact-checkers to be employed by state entities or political parties. Around that time Logically lost the Meta and TikTok contracts which were worth millions of pounds in revenue. Sources close to Logically suggest the loss of the social media contracts was for commercial reasons rather than certification. Logically also worked for the British government's Counter-Disinformation Unit during the Covid pandemic, attracting some controversy from free speech supporters. • Disinformation unit 'tried to stifle Covid lockdown critics' Angie Drobnic Holan, director of the IFCN, said of the Indian contract: 'They lost their certification in part because of that and also concerns about overall transparency. 'It wasn't clear what work was journalistic and what work was … private, for lack of a better word. We knew that they were doing some work advising governments, but it wasn't very clear what the nature of that work was or how it impacted their fact-checking operation. 'There was no allegation that they were doing anything wrong. But our code is about meeting very high standards.' Former staff said the company was keen to drop human-driven fact-checking in favour of an AI software product called Logically Intelligence. The product was hampered when social media companies like X cut off access to their data. Tech giants including Google, Meta and X have dropped or scaled back fact-checking services in recent month. After Trump's election, Meta scrapped its external fact-checkers on Facebook, Instagram and Threads, replacing them with a 'crowd-sourced' system like the one pioneered on social media site announced this week that AI would be writing fact-checking notes on its crowd-sourced system called Community Notes. Last week Google dropped a system called ClaimReview that allowed fact-checkers to promote accurate information on search Morris, chief executive of Full Fact, a British fact-checking charity, said: 'Google's decision to deprioritise fact-checks will make it harder for users to access accurate information designed to help them make informed choices. It's a disappointing decision from a company that has until very recently been a global fact-checking champion.'Google said the change was a 'minor clean-up' which 'affected a very small percentage of results'. Logically's assets have been transferred to another company called Kreatur under a pre-pack administration process. The main shareholder and director of Kreatur, Ashwin Kumaraswamy, is a former director and the original investor in Logically.A Kreatur spokesperson said: 'Kreatur Ltd has acquired Logically's core technology, brand and key assets as part of a pre-pack administration process. The transaction ensures continuity for all customers and preserves over 40 full-time roles.' Kumaraswamy was approached for comment.
Times
30 minutes ago
- Times
Afghans in MoD data breach can claim £4,000 compensation
Afghans who had their 'lives put at risk' because of a data breach have been told they can claim up to £4,000 in compensation four years after the incident happened. Human error resulted in the personal information of 265 Afghans who had worked alongside British troops being shared with hundreds of others who were on the same email distribution list in September 2021. In December 2023 the UK information commissioner fined the Ministry of Defence (MoD) £350,000 and said the 'egregious' breach could have been life-threatening. John Healey, who was shadow defence secretary, said in 2021: 'We told these Afghans interpreters we would keep them safe, instead this breach has needlessly put lives at risk.' On Friday afternoon the MoD slipped out a statement to update MPs and the Afghans on the case, saying that Afghans were now entitled to compensation. In a written ministerial statement, Lord Coaker said the MoD was taking a 'proactive' approach to the historical data-handling incident involving those who had applied to the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (Arap) scheme in 2021. He said the emails mistakenly made recipients' email addresses visible to all, instead of using the blind carbon copy function. Coaker said the MoD would 'make good' on previous ministers' commitments to financially compensate those individuals affected. It was unclear why it had taken a year since Labour had entered government to arrange the payments. He said: 'I can confirm to members the Ministry of Defence will be directly contacting those individuals who were affected by the data incident. Once a response is received and the affected individual's identity confirmed, a single ex-gratia payment of up to £4,000 per individual will be made.' The total cost is expected to be in the region of £1.6 million. Lord Coaker said 'every effort will be made to ensure payments are made as quickly as reasonably practical'. 'I cannot undo past mistakes, but I wish to assure members that in my role, as minister for the armed forces, I intend to drive improvement in the department's data handling training and practices. '[The Ministry of] Defence's record on these topics must improve and I am determined to ensure it does,' he added. The UK information commissioner found previously that the department did not have the procedures in place to ensure group emails were sent securely to Afghans seeking relocation. 'This deeply regrettable data breach let down those to whom our country owes so much,' John Edwards, who was the UK information commissioner, said in 2023. He said it was a 'particularly egregious breach of the obligation of security owed to these people, thus warranting the financial penalty my office imposes today'. The Times reported in September 2021 how the MoD sent an email to a distribution list of Afghan nationals eligible for evacuation using the 'To' field, with personal information inadvertently disclosed. The email addresses could be seen by all recipients, including the thumbnail pictures that 55 people had on their email profiles. Two people even 'replied all' to the entire list of recipients, with one of them providing their location. The original email was sent by the team in charge of the Arap, which is responsible for assisting the relocation of Afghan citizens who worked for the UK government in Afghanistan. There were concerns at the time that the data disclosed could have fallen into the hands of the Taliban. The Information Commissioner's Office said the team had relied on 'blind carbon copy' (bcc) when sending emails at the time, which carried a 'significant risk of human error'. Soon after the data breach, the MoD contacted the people affected asking them to delete the email, change their email address, and inform the Arap team of their new contact details via a secure form.
