UK Inquiry Tracker

Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences

Justice Committee Closed Inquiry

Opened: 21 Sep 2021 Closed: 30 May 2024 Parliament page

Following the announcement that a General Election will be held on 4 July, Select Committees will be unable to meet from 24 May and will cease to exist from 30 May until after the General Election. This work has therefore closed. As of 30 June 2021, more than 1,700 people … Read more

15 Recommendations

7 Conclusions

1 Report

3 Letters

3 Events

Activity timeline 8 events

26 Apr
2023

Correspondence

Letter from Alex Chalk KC MP, Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Justice, dated 26 April 2023, on the Imprisonment for Public P…

9 Feb
2023

Report published

Ninth Special Report - IPP sentences: Government and Parole Board Responses to the Committee’s Third Report

19 Oct
2022

Correspondence

Letter from Brandon Lewis CBE MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, dated 18 October 2022, on the IPP sentences report

28 Sep
2022

Report published

Third Report - IPP sentences

21 Jan
2022

Correspondence

Open letter on IPP inquiry

14 Dec
2021

Formal meeting (oral evidence session) · Room 8, Palace of Westminster

Committee event

7 Dec
2021

Formal meeting (oral evidence session) · Room 6, Palace of Westminster

Committee event

23 Nov
2021

Formal meeting (oral evidence session) · Room 15, Palace of Westminster

Committee event

Reports 1 report · click to expand

Title	HC No.	Published	Items	Response
Third Report - IPP sentences	HC 266	28 Sep 2022	22	Responded

Recommendations & Conclusions

7 results

13 Recommendation Rejected

Third Report - IPP sentences

Grant recalled IPP prisoners right to oral Parole Board hearings and annual reviews

The Parole Board should have a greater role in decision-making around recalls. All IPP prisoners who have been recalled, not having received a new custodial sentence for committing a further offence, should have the right to an oral parole board … Read more

Government Response

The government rejects the recommendations for the Parole Board to have a greater role in recall decisions, for oral hearings within two months, and for mandatory annual reviews for recalled IPP prisoners, stating existing processes are adequate and annual reviews could be disadvantageous.

Ministry of Justice

View details

16 Conclusion Rejected

Third Report - IPP sentences

IPP sentence remains irredeemably flawed, requiring more than current measures

Our Report has set out various steps the Government needs to take to help address the IPP problem. But it is clear to us that, while these measures are necessary, they will not be sufficient on their own to deal … Read more

Government Response

The government rejects the implicit call for a fundamental solution to the IPP sentence's flaws, citing public protection risks from retrospective abolition and affirming that the current IPP Action Plan remains the best way forward, which will be reviewed.

Ministry of Justice

View details

17 Recommendation Rejected

Third Report - IPP sentences

Require primary legislation to enable a comprehensive IPP resentencing exercise

As Lord Thomas noted in R v Roberts: “It was Parliament which legislated to establish a regime of sentences of IPP in terms which the courts have faithfully and IPP sentences 61 properly applied. It must, in our democracy and … Read more

Government Response

The government rejects the recommendation for primary legislation to retrospectively address the IPP sentence and enable a resentencing exercise, citing public protection risks and asserting that the IPP Action Plan remains the best approach, which will be reviewed.

Ministry of Justice

View details

18 Recommendation Rejected

Third Report - IPP sentences

Bring forward legislation to enable IPP resentencing for all sentenced individuals

Our primary recommendation is that the Government brings forward legislation to enable a resentencing exercise in relation to all IPP sentenced individuals (except for those who have successfully had their licence terminated). This is the only way to address the … Read more

Government Response

The government rejects the primary recommendation to bring forward legislation for an IPP resentencing exercise, citing unacceptable risks to public protection and affirming that the existing IPP Action Plan is the best approach, which is under review.

Ministry of Justice

View details

20 Recommendation Rejected

Third Report - IPP sentences

Establish an expert committee to advise on practical implementation of IPP resentencing

We have not sought to set out the terms of the proposed legislation to enable the resentencing exercise, which will ultimately be for Parliament to consider. We do, however, recommend that it should comply with the key principles that we … Read more

Government Response

The government rejects the recommendation for an expert committee to advise on an IPP resentencing exercise, reaffirming its stance against retrospective abolition due to public protection risks and reiterating commitment to the existing IPP Action Plan.

Ministry of Justice

View details

21 Recommendation Rejected

Third Report - IPP sentences

Resentencing exercise for IPP prisoners must balance public protection, individual justice, and judicial independence.

In establishing how to undertake a resentencing exercise of IPP prisoners and what legislation would be needed, it will be important to keep in mind the following three key principles: (Paragraph 175) a) Balancing protection of the public with justice … Read more In establishing how to undertake a resentencing exercise of IPP prisoners and what legislation would be needed, it will be important to keep in mind the following three key principles: (Paragraph 175) a) Balancing protection of the public with justice for the individual offender: A resentencing exercise must strike a balance between protecting the public from the risk of IPP prisoners committing serious further offences if released and securing justice for individual offenders. To achieve that balance, it must be accompanied by sufficient resources to provide released IPP offenders with the support they need—including mental health support—to reintegrate into society. It must also avoid a one-size-fits-all approach and should prioritise the offenders most adversely affected by the sentence: those who were sentenced in the early years of the sentence, prior to the ‘seriousness threshold’ changes in 2008. Any resentencing exercise should also ensure that current sentencing practices designed to ensure protection of the public from serious violent and sexual offenders, such as the way Extended Determinate Sentences are applied and supported, serve as a model in relation to resentenced IPP offenders. b) The independence of the judiciary: We agree with Lord Thomas that undertaking a resentencing exercise would not interfere with the judicial independence of 62 IPP sentences sentencing. Indeed, it was the decision to curtail the usual discretion of judges to determine the most appropriate sentence for each offender that led to the initial proliferation of the IPP sentence. It would be important, therefore, for a resentencing exercise not to repeat that mistake. In resentencing IPP prisoners the judiciary must be able to make an independent and fair assessment of the individual circumstances of each case and have the discretion to determine an appropriate sentence. c) Measures to prevent retrospectively increasing the sentence: Any resentencing exercise must be constrained Show less

Government Response

The government rejects the recommendation for a resentencing exercise, stating it would pose unacceptable risks to public safety and that the existing IPP Action Plan is the preferred approach, thus not addressing the principles for how such an exercise should be undertaken.

Ministry of Justice

View details

22 Recommendation Rejected

Third Report - IPP sentences

Large-scale resentencing for IPP prisoners, despite complexity, urgently requires action from all state branches.

We do not underestimate the complexity of undertaking a large-scale resentencing exercise for IPP prisoners. It would require careful thought, significant planning, and sufficient resource. However, the potential difficulties do not justify failing to grasp the nettle. All three branches … Read more

Government Response

The government rejects the recommendation, stating that retrospective abolition of IPP sentences would pose an unacceptable risk to public safety and that the existing IPP Action Plan remains the best approach for managing these offenders.

Ministry of Justice

View details

Government Response AI assessment · 22 of 15 classified

Accepted 9

Accepted in Part 1

Acknowledged 2

Deferred 3

Rejected 7

Total 15 recs + 7 conclusions

Correspondence 3 letters

26 Apr 2023 To committee Letter from Alex Chalk KC MP, Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Justice, dated 26 April 2023, on the Imprisonment for Public Protection Action Plan

Parliament page

19 Oct 2022 To committee Letter from Brandon Lewis CBE MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, dated 18 October 2022, on the IPP sentences report

Parliament page

21 Jan 2022 Open letter on IPP inquiry

Parliament page