The government is facing criticism over its handling of almost 2,700 inmates serving under abolished indefinite jail terms, known as Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences. The situation has been likened to other high-profile scandals, such as the Post Office Horizon software, the Windrush scandal, and the infected blood products scandal.
Labour peer Tony Woodley has urged the government to take action and resentence these prisoners, many of whom have been languishing in jail for years beyond their minimum terms. He warned the government not to be on the wrong side of history and called for an end to the “scandal” of IPP sentences.
Despite these pleas, prisons minister James Timpson has stated that the government will not support any form of resentencing for IPP prisoners. Instead, he announced a refreshed IPP action plan to help inmates progress towards release. However, campaigners have criticized this plan as inadequate and have called for a more comprehensive solution to address the injustice faced by these prisoners.
The IPP sentencing scheme, introduced in 2005 and abolished in 2012, has left thousands of prisoners in a state of limbo, with many suffering from deteriorating mental health. The system has been described as “psychological torture” by the UN, and calls for reform have been growing.
David Blunkett, the architect of the IPP scheme, has expressed regret over its implementation and has called for a partial or prioritized resentencing of IPP prisoners. He emphasized the need to address this issue promptly and effectively to prevent further harm to those affected.
Campaigners, including reformed IPP prisoner Marc Conway and the United Group for Reform of IPP (Ungripp), have voiced their disappointment with the government’s response. They argue that the current system is cruel and ineffective in addressing the injustice faced by IPP prisoners.
In light of these concerns, it is evident that more needs to be done to support IPP prisoners and ensure that they receive fair treatment and the opportunity for release. The government’s efforts to address this issue have been met with skepticism and calls for a more robust and compassionate approach to resolving the plight of these prisoners.
