Imprisonment for Public Protection. Psychic Pain Redoubled

In this piece I preview some of our main conclusions and recommendations.

Background

Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP), a sentence introduced in 2005, consists of two parts: a period of imprisonment, described as a tariff, imposed as a punishment for an offence; and an indefinite period, during which the prisoner may apply for supervised release.

The Parole Board must be satisfied that the prisoner is safe to release – a high bar in practice. Some of these tariffs are remarkably short yet the public safety test for release remains in place; the individual must remain under post-release supervision for at least ten years and possibly for life.

Though the sentence was abolished in 2012, those sentenced before that date continued to be held under it. Evidence about the psychological impact of the sentence can be obtained from official reports and statistics, psychological studies, and testimony to the ongoing Justice Committee inquiry into IPP.

Prior vulnerabilities

There is good evidence that many prisoners especially those convicted of violent offences have suffered multiple Adverse Childhood Experiences, which are known to lead to mental stress and forms of ill-health.

Mental health challenges were already frequent among those who had been sentenced to IPP: almost one in five IPP prisoners had previously received psychiatric treatment.

Uncertainty and helplessness

The IPP sentence imposes an indeterminate timescale which is known to be psychologically difficult to cope with. The negative impacts of prolonged uncertainty are manifest in helplessness and a loss of hope, which affect mental health and well-being. Not knowing when they can resume their life course creates additional stress, compounding the distress felt by prisoners’ families. Such feelings have a corrosive effect on willingness to undergo the process of seeking approval for release.

Negotiating a psychological obstacle course

Ironically, in what has been called ‘reverse diversion’, prisoners’ mental health difficulties are regarded by officials as disallowing progression towards release. In general, mental health services in prisons are inadequate, according to the Justice Committee.

It is possible for prisoners to be transferred and to serve their sentences in secure mental health facilities. Numbers are low, but the proportion of IPP prisoners in mental health facilities is double the proportion of life sentenced prisoners.

Annually, less than a tenth of IPP prisoners have started or completed an offending behaviour programme in the period from 2017, with predictable declines since the pandemic struck in 2020.

The experiences of IPP prisoners constitute a therapeutic injustice: the provision of services falls far short of meeting the needs, while the complexities of purported risk reduction strategies increase the confusion

Evidence suggests that, though seen as stepping stones to release, the programmes do not have the effects intended.

Since 2015, IPP prisoners are meant to be screened for the Offender Personality Disorder (OPD) pathway. The evidence surrounding treatments administered in prisons for personality disorder does not encourage confidence about their effectiveness. Despite the pivotal role envisaged for psychological practices in helping IPP prisoners, professionals encounter entrenched difficulties in forming and maintaining productive relationships with IPP prisoners. The dominance of risk assessment creates tensions which are hard to resolve.

The experiences of IPP prisoners constitute a therapeutic injustice: the provision of services falls far short of meeting the needs, while the complexities of purported risk reduction strategies increase the confusion.

Long term effects: rising distress and despair

As the post-tariff period of imprisonment rises, and setbacks in obtaining release are encountered, the psychological impacts of their circumstances become more acute, and families too are increasingly exposed to distress.

Over a considerable time, official reports have identified a raised risk of self-harm and suicidal behaviour among IPP prisoners. The annual rates of self-harm incidents per IPP prisoner were calculated and then compared with the rates for those on life sentences; the data show that IPP prisoners consistently suffer a higher rate.

The persistence of anxiety: release and resettlement

Finally obtaining permission to be released does not remove anxieties, as individuals on licence can be recalled to prison, not simply for an offence but for a breach of their licence conditions. The most frequent reason for recall identified in independent research, using an official sample, was ‘non-compliance’ with supervision. Anxiety is heightened for family members who share the constant burden of compliance with the individual’s stringent conditions of licence.

The availability of psychological interventions in the community appears inadequate to support released prisoners on licence. Recent evidence from inspectors suggests that links with community mental health services are poor, making it more challenging to face the practical tasks of resettlement, such as finding suitable accommodation or employment.

Recommendations

Evidence does not support the sentence’s claims of reliable progress towards successful release and psychological recovery: on the contrary, its harms are clear.

In order to restore a sense of justice and hope, those past their tariff – the vast majority – should be released without delay

Hence the logic of abolition in 2012 should be urgently and comprehensively applied to all those still held under its regime. In order to restore a sense of justice and hope, those past their tariff – the vast majority – should be released without delay, first of all; others should be given a release date, on a case-by-case basis, by judicial or executive decision.

The issues faced by any government seeking to unravel and remedy the effects of the sentence are complex and require consultation with all the stakeholders, not least representatives of the families affected. At this stage we believe that consideration should be given to a number of concrete proposals:

Short-term

• A systematic programme of mental health assessment should be launched which must focus on needs.
• Like all statutory medical assessments, it should be open to including attention to any current, known and pressing risks to the public; however, it would not be obliged to give undue weight to the index offence.
• A programme of close and immediate support should be provided to enable those released to rejoin their families and adjust satisfactorily to freedom.
• Reasonable steps should be made to inform victims and to determine whether, in relevant cases, individuals are to be registered on ViSOR (Violent and Sex Offender Register) or made subject to other safeguarding arrangements.

Medium-term

• A holistic and adequately funded programme of recovery should be designed with attention to family, education, employment, housing and social inclusion
• Adequate and prompt state reparations should be assessed on the basis of failures to provide programmes or meet known mental health needs, and unjustified time in confinement.

Long-term

• A review of all forms of indefinite detention should be instigated in order to arrive at common principles restricting its scope, defining clear limits and establishing powers of review.
• Parliament should create an overarching legislative Code, influenced by provisions in the Human Rights Act, against which any new proposals for legislation on indefinite detention should be tested.

---

Selected coverage of this article

• The ‘vast majority’ of IPP prisoners be released without delay and properly compensated, The Justice Gap, 6 September 2022