Our latest eBulletin, sent out to subscribers on Friday, 1 November. Sign-up for our free eBulletins here.
Earlier this week, I attended the latest debate in parliament on the awful Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence.
During and following the debate, some of those present expressed understandable frustration that so little appeared to have changed since an earlier parliamentary debate they had attended in April 2023.
The Labour minister, Nic Dakin, for instance, continued the previous Conservative government’s rejection of a resentencing exercise for those serving the IPP sentence, while, as the previous government also did, talking up the ‘action plan’ and other widely-discredited policies. A slightly changed cast, apparently, reading from much the same script.
The stubbornness of ministers in the face of strong evidence for, and powerful arguments in favour of, urgent action to resolve the IPP scandal is incredibly frustrating. It is also deeply distressing for IPP prisoners and their families.
One way of managing these frustrations is to remind ourselves, however difficult this can be, of what has changed over the past eighteen months.
To take a specific example, during the debate last year, the then government Minister, Damien Hinds, rejected the Justice Committee proposal to reduce the post-release licence period, for those serving the IPP, from ten to five years. Eighteen months on, the now government Minister, Nic Dakin, reminded those at this week’s debate that the post-release licence period will be reduced, from today, to three years; lower even than the Justice Committee had proposed.
The argument for further reform – particularly around the question of resentencing – also has a higher profile in parliament than it did in early 2023. The government continues to wrestle with the prisons capacity crisis. Reports suggest prisons could again run out of space by the summer of 2025. Lord Woodley is taking a Private Members’ Bill on IPP resentencing through the House of Lords. These and other developments could continue to focus ministerial minds in ways that might be helpful.
Governments often oppose innovations right up to the moment they agree to support them. While a full resentencing exercised still appears, at best, some way off, we should remind ourselves that effective campaigning on IPP has delivered results and that some of the government’s current red lines will not necessarily remain red lines in the future.
We should retain hope in the possibility of further change – and act accordingly – while savouring this hope with a robust realism about the obstacles ahead.
Further reform is possible. It will, though, require organisation, determination and relentlessness.
Richard Garside
Director
Further action to reform joint enterprise law
Last month, we shared our plan to ensure that every MP would see a copy of The legal dragnet by Nisha Waller, which examines the law and prosecution practice concerning secondary liability, often referred to as ‘joint enterprise’.
Thank you to everyone who donated towards the print and distribution costs so far, we really appreciate your help and are happy to confirm that we will start distributing the report to every MP next week. If you would still like to help in this last stretch, please consider making a donation.
The legal dragnet highlights how joint enterprise laws are vague and wide in scope, causing systemic injustice, including overcriminalisation, over-punishment, discriminatory outcomes, and convictions where there is no compelling evidence of intent and a defendant’s physical contribution is minimal. The bottom line is clear: the government must make good on its commitment to reform the laws on joint enterprise as soon as possible.
Meanwhile, next month, our Head of Programmes Helen Mills will be attending the launch of a Westminster Commission on Joint Enterprise. The Commission, chaired by Lord Woodley, will be hosted by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Miscarriages of Justice.
100 days of Labour
As Labour reached its first 100 days, the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies revisited the demands outlined in July’s joint letter – signed by more than 70 campaigners, criminal justice experts, and civil society representatives – for Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence reform.
Read what we made of early progress, or lack of it, on IPP here.
Recent action on Imprisonment for Public Protection
While the government has yet to address all the demands in the joint letter, we have been following other parliamentary actions on IPP this month:
- The second reading of Lord Woodley’s Private Member’s Bill has now been confirmed for 15 November. If passed, the Bill would enable a resentencing exercise for all those currently subject to an IPP sentence, whether in prison or the community.
- We prepared a parliamentary briefing on the IPP sentence to support peers taking part in that second reading of the Bill, as well as parliamentarians that took part in a parliamentary debate on IPP, led by MP Bambos Charalambous, earlier this week.
- Lord Timpson yesterday wrote to our Director, Richard Garside, stressing the government’s commitment “to supporting those still serving [IPP sentences] to move towards a safe and sustainable release.” This letter arrives just as newly released government statistics show that the pace of IPP prisoner releases remains painfully slow.
Working Paper series
Last month we launched our new Working Paper series with Dr Mike Lauder’s paper Imprisonment for Public Protection - A failure of the Perfect World Paradigm. The purpose of the series is to provide a vehicle for research and analysis of an exploratory and innovative nature. Please do take a look at our guidelines for more information on the series and how to propose a working paper.
Commentary and analysis
As the UK looks to Texas for solutions to its prison woes, Michele Deitch – a distinguished senior lecturer at the University of Texas at Austin – explains how the Texas reforms are not being portrayed accurately and that the picture being presented of Texas is overly rosy.
She writes:
“Texas has done some good things to bring down its prison population, and those approaches deserve attention by UK leaders. But we have not done nearly enough, and there are some misunderstandings about the reforms that were made to get to this point.”
Interested in submitting a comment piece? Drop us a line.
What’s what in The British Journal of Criminology?
For more than sixty years, The British Journal of Criminology has published some of the most significant research in the field.
A number of open-access advance articles have been published this month:
- Sophie Martens and Ben Crewe compare prison safety in England & Wales and Norway.
- Shane Horgan, Ben Collier, James Stewart and Daniel R Thomas explore an emerging algorithmic model of policing.
- Nicola Harding, Emily Cooper, Tony Sales, Andy McDonald and Sarah Kingston reimagine fraud theory to inform financial crime prevention.
- Ross McGarry looks at criminology’s collaboration with state-based institutions.
- M H (Mieke) Kox considers unauthorised migrants’ perceptions of the legitimacy of the Dutch immigration system.
Prison Service Journal survey
The Prison Service Journal (PSJ) editorial board are keen to understand more about its readers, how to engage with them better, and to explore how to reach a wider audience.
If you would like to complete their survey please follow this link (the survey should take no more than 2 minutes and the results are anonymous).
The next issue of the PSJ will be out next month, and, if you haven’t had a chance already, the September issue is available to read and download here.
Upcoming – Mike Guilfoyle essay prize
At the end of November, we will be launching, in partnership with probation staff union Napo, a new essay prize in memory of Mike Guilfoyle. A long-standing friend of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, and a Napo stalwart, Mike wrote us regular articles on probation practice based on his vast experience. We will share more details about the essay prize in our next eBulletin.
Support our work
In the last 12 months, around one pound in every ten we received in income came from individual donations. We are so appreciative of the vital support we receive from our donors and supporters.
If you like what we do, and can afford to make a donation to support our important work, we would be very grateful.
You can also spread the word about our work by forwarding on this bulletin to others and encouraging them to sign up.
