Total recall

The use of recalls has rocketed in recent years. Back in 1993 there were perhaps fewer than 100 people in England and Wales who were in prison having been recalled. Currently, there are around 12,000.

The sharp rise in the number of prisoners under recall is one of the more immediate factors behind the current prison population crisis.

Individuals subject to the awful Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence appear to be particularly vulnerable to recall to prison.

IPP prisoners who have never been released account for around two per cent of the sentenced prison population. Recalled IPP prisoners – those sent back to prison for a breach of their release conditions – account for around 14 per cent of the total recall population.

Given that the widespread use of recall to prison is a relatively recent phenomenon, there is a good argument to make that the large majority recalls are unnecessary. It is, though, particularly important to understand why released IPP prisoners are being recalled.

A report published last week by the Probation Inspectorate, based on a review of recall decisions, suggests that it is not down to recall-happy probation officers. The recall decision ‘was right in the majority of imprisonment for public protection sentences’, the press release claimed.

‘Right’ is a particularly unfortunate word to use here – whether by accident or design – leaving the casual reader to conclude that it was the right thing to do for public safety, or perhaps the morally right thing to do, to recall those released IPP prisoners who were sent back to prison.

But as the press release goes on to explain, all that is being claimed is that the majority of recall decisions has been ‘taken in line with the policy’. Needless to say, this rather mundane observation does not make for as good a headline as the rather misleading one the Inspectorate’s media managers chose.

In essence, the Inspectorate is saying that the Probation Service has a policy on recalls, and that in most cases they follow the policy. So far, so what. It is certainly good to know that, in most cases at least, probation practitioners are not making random decisions to recall people, or are doing so capriciously.

The reasons for recall, the Probation Inspectorate report explains, are for all the usual reasons people are recalled to prison:

• patterns of behaviour giving rise to concern
• not being responsive to supervision requirements
• drug and alcohol problems
• chaotic behaviour

Broadly speaking (and yes, to generalise greatly of course) the policy is that when released IPP prisoners exhibit these and other behaviours that  fall in line with the policy, they should be recalled to prison. And so they are, ‘in line with the policy’.

But what if the policy is wrong? As already noted, the threat, and reality, of recall for released prisoners has grown markedly over recent years. To say that probation officers make recall decisions ‘in line with the policy’, is not the same as saying that released IPP prisoners should be subject to widespread and regular recall.

Released IPP prisoners are themselves particularly vulnerable to recall. Many have spent years in prison beyond the initial term set by the judge at their trial. This is crazy-making stuff and makes the adjustment to life outside difficult at best.

As the Inspectorate report also points out, IPP prisoners get inadequate support preparing for release, and inadequate support adjusting to life outside prison They are being set up to fail, and unsurprisingly some do. When this happens, they go back to prison, ‘in line with the policy’.

It is just a shocking case of institutional failure, at various points in the system, with IPP prisoners, and those under an IPP sentence who have been released, being given a thoroughly raw deal.

Rather than the threat of recall, released IPP prisoners should get excellent resettlement support, and receive compensation for the dreadful ordeal they have been put through.

The problem here is not with probation officers, or the Probation Inspectorate.

Over the years, probation officers have lost much of the discretion and scope to make professionally appropriate and ethically grounded decisions described so vividly by Mike Guilfoyle, in his many articles over the years for this website.

The Probation Inspectorate does not set the policies around recall, or around IPP more generally. In her Foreword, the Interim Chief Inspector, Sue McAllister, describes the IPP sentence as ‘flawed’. She also nods towards the call for a resentencing exercise of IPP prisoners, made last year by the House of Commons Justice Committee.

This situation presents some stark choices. Individuals could remain in prison indefinitely; or, as we have seen in this inspection, they may be repeatedly released and recalled, becoming increasingly difficult to manage in the community. Alternatively, with legislative change, they could be released with an end date in sight – as they would have been had they served a determinate sentence.

In other words, solving this problem is not a matter for technocrats and practitioners. It is a matter for politicians. IPP prisoners are left languishing in prison for years after the period of custody set by the court because of political decisions made by ministers and MPs. Probation officers recall IPP prisoners ‘in line with the policy’ because of political decisions made by ministers and MPs.

Meanwhile, government ministers and most MPs are, for the most part, offering platitudes, when they are not simply ignoring the problem. It is a situation described last week by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture as ‘insanity’.

Read this important analysis on #IPP recall… this insanity has to stop! https://t.co/aGvz7jH6Fa

— Alice J Edwards UN Special Rapporteur Torture (@DrAliceJEdwards) December 14, 2023

The Probation Inspectorate has done us all a favour by highlighting what happens when good people implement bad policies.

We need to keep the pressure on ministers and MPs to end the insanity of the IPP sentence once and for all.