Latest news with #HowardLeague
Gulf Today
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Gulf Today
It's beyond time to end the scandal of IPP
It comes to something when a senior member of a recent government – the former justice secretary, no less – describes actions by the state that were part of his remit as 'overbearing, unfair and almost totalitarian'. Yet this is how Alex Chalk KC, who held that office for 14 months in the government of Rishi Sunak, describes imprisonment for public protection (IPP) orders – which can keep someone in prison indefinitely after conviction for a relatively minor crime. Ousted from government by his party's defeat at the last election, and also from his parliamentary seat, Mr Chalk has returned to his legal practice. It is from this perch that he is now asking his successor, Shabana Mahmood, to consider new proposals — from the Howard League and a former lord chief justice, Lord Thomas — with a view to righting this now longstanding wrong, according to The Independent. At The Independent, we make no apology for returning once again to the iniquity of IPP orders that go against so much of what should constitute any civilised judicial system. Two features stand out. There is the glaring disproportionality in so many cases between the crime and the punishment, with some prisoners having served almost 20 years (and still counting) for offences such as robbing someone of their mobile phone or laptop. This is not, by the way, to diminish such crimes, but to point up the disparity between the standard tariff for such a conviction and the actual time served by many of those still subject to IPP orders. The other feature is the cruelty of imposing a sentence that has no end, which has been described by the UN as psychological torture. With no prospect of a release date, more than 90 such prisoners have taken their own lives. Altogether, more than 2,500 are still languishing in jail on IPPs. This is in spite of these indefinite prison terms having been abolished in 2012, just seven years after they were introduced. The clear mistake then was not to have made the abolition retrospective. It applied only to new convictions, not to those already in jail, leaving the glaring injustice that one day could make a difference between someone left to serve what could become a lifetime sentence and someone convicted of a similar crime with a clear idea of the timetable for release or parole. The failure to make abolition of IPP orders retrospective has had consequences of its own. At least some of those still not released are now so damaged by their experience and will be so hard to rehabilitate that they could indeed present a danger to society if they were released. This is the very opposite of what a penal system should set out to achieve and amounts, in Mr Chalk's words, to nothing less than a failure on the part of the state. At which point, there is an obvious and not unreasonable question for the former justice secretary to answer. If the injustices and perverse effects of IPP orders were so apparent when he came to office — as they were — why did he not do something about it? Why did he not condemn the policy in the same terms as he is doing now and make the changes he is demanding be made by his successor? Part of his answer is that he did do something. He reduced from 10 to three the number of years that a released IPP prisoner was on licence and so subject to recall. That is not nothing, but it was nothing like enough. Two small pleas might also be made on his behalf in mitigation. As he says, there was 'not a single vote' in even the change in the licence period that he made, because of the general lack of public sympathy for prisoners. As he does not say — but is a sentiment with which the current government could well concur — a year can be too short a time in UK politics when it comes to getting anything done. The ponderous nature of the legislative process can be a minus as well as a plus. On the other hand, the size of the Labour government's majority and the years it still has to run mean it has time on its side.
The Independent
14-07-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Former justice secretary says indefinite jail terms ‘unfair'
Former Justice Secretary Alex Chalk KC has urged his successor Shabana Mahmood to carefully consider fresh proposals to end 'unfair' indefinite Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences. Over 2,500 inmates remain trapped under IPP sentences, which were abolished in 2012 but not retrospectively, leading to some serving up to 22 times their original tariff. Mr Chalk previously implemented reforms reducing the IPP licence period from 10 years to three, resulting in almost 1,800 licence terminations. New proposals from the Howard League for Penal Reform and Lord John Thomas suggest giving remaining IPP prisoners a release date within a two-year window at their next Parole Board review. Mr Chalk supports careful consideration of these proposals, potentially with additional safeguards like tagging, while the government has said it will also consider the recommendations.
The Independent
13-07-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
It's beyond time to end the scandal of IPP
It comes to something when a senior member of a recent government – the former justice secretary, no less – describes actions by the state that were part of his remit as 'overbearing, unfair and almost totalitarian'. Yet this is how Alex Chalk KC, who held that office for 14 months in the government of Rishi Sunak, describes imprisonment for public protection (IPP) orders – which can keep someone in prison indefinitely after conviction for a relatively minor crime. Ousted from government by his party's defeat at the last election, and also from his parliamentary seat, Mr Chalk has returned to his legal practice. It is from this perch that he is now asking his successor, Shabana Mahmood, to consider new proposals – from the Howard League and a former lord chief justice, Lord Thomas – with a view to righting this now longstanding wrong. At The Independent, we make no apology for returning once again to the iniquity of IPP orders that go against so much of what should constitute any civilised judicial system. Two features stand out. There is the glaring disproportionality in so many cases between the crime and the punishment, with some prisoners having served almost 20 years (and still counting) for offences such as robbing someone of their mobile phone or laptop. This is not, by the way, to diminish such crimes, but to point up the disparity between the standard tariff for such a conviction and the actual time served by many of those still subject to IPP orders. The other feature is the cruelty of imposing a sentence that has no end, which has been described by the UN as psychological torture. With no prospect of a release date, more than 90 such prisoners have taken their own lives. Altogether, more than 2,500 are still languishing in jail on IPPs. This is in spite of these indefinite prison terms having been abolished in 2012, just seven years after they were introduced. The clear mistake then was not to have made the abolition retrospective. It applied only to new convictions, not to those already in jail, leaving the glaring injustice that one day could make a difference between someone left to serve what could become a lifetime sentence and someone convicted of a similar crime with a clear idea of the timetable for release or parole. The failure to make abolition of IPP orders retrospective has had consequences of its own. At least some of those still not released are now so damaged by their experience and will be so hard to rehabilitate that they could indeed present a danger to society if they were released. This is the very opposite of what a penal system should set out to achieve and amounts, in Mr Chalk's words, to nothing less than a failure on the part of the state. At which point, there is an obvious and not unreasonable question for the former justice secretary to answer. If the injustices and perverse effects of IPP orders were so apparent when he came to office – as they were – why did he not do something about it? Why did he not condemn the policy in the same terms as he is doing now and make the changes he is demanding be made by his successor? Part of his answer is that he did do something. He reduced from 10 to three the number of years that a released IPP prisoner was on licence and so subject to recall. That is not nothing, but it was nothing like enough. Two small pleas might also be made on his behalf in mitigation. As he says, there was 'not a single vote' in even the change in the licence period that he made, because of the general lack of public sympathy for prisoners. As he does not say – but is a sentiment with which the current government could well concur – a year can be too short a time in UK politics when it comes to getting anything done. The ponderous nature of the legislative process can be a minus as well as a plus. On the other hand, the size of the Labour government's majority and the years it still has to run mean it has time on its side. After more than a decade of political foot-dragging around IPP orders, however, there is no time to lose. The proposals from the Howard League and Lord Thomas show how this could be done, and offer sufficient safeguards for the public in terms of conditions for those who may be released and a new drive to rehabilitate those still considered a danger to society. At a time when other prisoners are being released ahead of schedule to free up scarce cell space, and the Exchequer needs every penny of saving it can get, it makes no sense at all to keep IPP prisoners inside any longer than the public's safety requires. As Alex Chalk says of the one reform he did make, this may not win a single vote, but it would be the right thing to do. Indeed it is – and the sooner it is done, the better.
The Independent
04-07-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Lords urge action on ‘no-hope' indefinite prison sentences
Peers in the House of Lords have urged the government to address indefinite Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences, which continue to hold thousands of prisoners despite being abolished in 2012. Labour peer Lord Tony Woodley has introduced a bill to resentence IPP prisoners, likening the situation to the Post Office and infected blood scandals. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Dr Alice Edwards, said that IPP sentences have caused "unlawful psychological torture" and called for an end to the scheme. Prisons minister James Timpson said the government's focus is on public protection and the IPP Action Plan is its current strategy, though it is considering new proposals. An expert panel from the Howard League for Penal Reform has proposed that all IPP prisoners should be given a release date within two years at their next parole hearing.
The Independent
21-06-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Imprisonment for public protection: Justice experts call for end of ‘cruel experiment'
Leading justice experts, led by Lord John Thomas and convened by the Howard League for Penal Reform, have proposed new measures to finally end the "cruel experiment" of imprisonment for Public protection (IPP) sentences. IPP sentences, abolished in 2012 but not retrospectively, have left 2,614 inmates, some jailed for minor offences, indefinitely incarcerated for up to 20 years longer than their original terms. The expert panel's six recommendations include giving release dates to those still in prison, ending the cycle of recall, enhancing the appeal process, and allowing IPP sentences to become "spent" after an appropriate period. The proposals aim to restore hope to prisoners, prevent further self-inflicted deaths (94 IPP prisoners have died in custody), and could free up prison places while saving taxpayers money. While the government has stated it will "carefully consider" the recommendations, it has previously rejected resentencing, despite the IPP sentence being widely condemned as a "monstrous blot" on the justice system.
