IPP prisoners need resentencing – before even more lives are lost

The justice secretary, Alex Chalk, a relative newcomer to the cabinet table, has distinguished himself, if only by comparison, as one of the more rational and pragmatic members of Rishi Sunak’s team. As far as the balance of power at the top of government goes, over the past six months or so, the departures of Dominic Raab and Suella Braverman, and the arrival of Mr Chalk and the return of David Cameron, give some hope to anxious observers that the Tory slide into populist nationalism has at least stalled.

However, Mr Chalk’s decision not to organise for the resentencing of thousands of inmates held under so-called imprisonment for public protection (IPP) tariffs is a disappointment. These sentences place prisoners – who are guilty of offences and may indeed be dangerous – at more risk to themselves and to their fellow inmates and prison staff because of the psychological pressure of simply never knowing when or if they might be considered for release.

Designed to deal with a particular type of criminal capable of reoffending, but who has not yet done so, the system seems to have been used far more freely than the last Labour government anticipated at the time the IPP was instituted, about 20 years ago.

David (now Lord) Blunkett, the home secretary at the time, has expressed his regrets about the law he took through parliament. As prime minister, Lord Cameron found IPPs to be “unclear, inconsistent and uncertain”, and he swiftly ended the practice in 2012 – for new cases that came before the courts.

The mistake the Cameron administration made, which is now being repeated, was not to make abolition retrospective. As a result, there are still many continuing and egregious abuses of the criminal justice system: almost 3,000 trapped in prison with no clear hope of release – nearly 700 of whom have served more than 10 years longer than the minimum term they were given. At a time when pressure on prison places is so great, it seems doubly unwise to stick with IPP.

Putting it bluntly, Mr Chalk’s policy is something of a cop-out. All he is now doing is implementing new parole rules for ex-IPP prisoners – which are only of any use after release. The problem for the IPP prisoners and those charged with their care, is that the date of release remains indeterminate – there is not even a notional maximum term. In some respects that is a worse position than someone handed a whole life order – and manifestly unjust. It is no surprise that so many IPP prisoners reoffend while behind bars, and some attempt suicide. There is no incentive for them to behave or attempt rehabilitation, and of course that makes life far more difficult for governors and officers.

If release never comes, then more flexible parole is irrelevant. Now, it may be that Mr Chalk genuinely believes that his new rules on parole and the existing periodic review of cases are the best way forward. Or he may be unduly fearful of the reaction of his party’s perennially vengeful hard right. Or mass resentencing might all be too much of a strain on the system. Most likely, as a matter of practical politics, it is a combination of those sorts of factors.

In any case, the grievous problems – caused by a surprisingly large cohort of such cases – are going to persist until the next justice secretary, very likely a Labour one, has to revisit this insupportable system. It is simply unjust, and it is time to end it.