1. 'Reducing Risk: Integration or Aversion
'Reducing Risk: Integration or Aversion? Risk assessment, management and the use of IPP in England and Wales'.
Hazel Kemshall
Professor of Community and Criminal Justice,
De Montfort University
Hazel Kemshall SASO Conference Nov 2010

2. Hazel Kemshall SASO Conference Nov 2010
Current Position
6,130 IPP prisoners in England and Wales (MoJ figures)
Of these some 2,850 have passed their tariff date
Only 99 had been released by June 2010, with approx 24 recalled
Each prisoner costs £40,000 per year
2,120 had not finished one programme as of July 2010
November sees a review of IPP sentencing
Back ground if required: From recent inspection report.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 created a new sentence of IPP for adults
and a parallel sentence of DPP for children and young people under-18.
These new sentences were similar to a life sentence of imprisonment in
that:
! the court set the minimum term . the .tariff. - which had to be
served before the release date could be determined by the
Parole Board
! offenders were not released until they had satisfied the Parole
Board that they could be safely managed in the community
! after release, offenders were subject to a life licence and could
not apply for it to be suspended for at least ten years.
2.2. The sentence was available for any one of 95 serious violent or sexual
offences (ranging from manslaughter to indecent assault) that carried,
but did not always attract, a maximum sentence of ten years or more.
In addition, until July 2008, if an offender had previously committed one
of the 95 serious violent or sexual offences, or any offence from a
further list of 58 (which included, for example, affray or criminal
damage), the court had to make a presumption of dangerousness, that
is, that the offender posed a significant Risk of Serious Harm (RoSH) to
the public. The court was then required to impose an IPP, unless
presented with information about the offence or the offender, which
made an indeterminate sentence unreasonable.
2.3. The combined effect of the wide range of specified offences and the
presumption of dangerousness ensured a rapid increase in the use of
Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection 13
indeterminate sentences, giving rise to widespread concerns∗. By July
2007, the number of sentences passed had exceeded NOMS. estimates
for IPPs by some 600. Some offenders were sentenced to IPPs with
short tariffs, one as low as 28 days. Although most would have received
a custodial sentence of some kind before the introduction of the IPP, the
increase put considerable pressure on prison resources as IPP prisoners.
rate of release was much slower than that of prisoners serving a
determinate sentence.
The government acted to address some of these concerns. The Criminal
Justice and Immigration Act 2008 removed the presumption of
dangerousness and allowed courts greater discretion in the use of IPPs.
It also introduced a minimum tariff for IPPs, normally two years of
actual custodial time.
2.5. Following the implementation of the Criminal Justice and Immigration
Act 2008, in July 2008, the rate of new IPP sentences being passed fell
by about a half. In the six months up to July 2008, 850 IPP sentences
were made, averaging 141 per month, whereas the number for the next
six months halved to 420, an average of 70 per month. The numbers
held in prison, however, continued to rise at an annual rate of 20%,
because of the continuing slow rate of release.
Hazel Kemshall SASO Conference Nov 2010

3. Hazel Kemshall SASO Conference Nov 2010
Growing Controversy
Prison Governors Association has called for end to IPPS and the end to the ‘bureaucratic limbo’ of such prisoners
IPPs are ‘unfair and inhumane’
Parole board has become ‘risk averse’ post high profile SFOs
Prison Reform Trust report June 2010
Ken Clarke’s ‘rehabilitation revolution’ and challenge to the ‘bang em up’ culture
Too high a proportion for lower risk offences-proportionality and seriousness not adhered to
Projection: 12,000 IPPs by 2012
Approx one third IPPs are for robbery HMI prob and HMI prisons report 2010.
Hazel Kemshall SASO Conference Nov 2010

4. Hazel Kemshall SASO Conference Nov 2010
Recent Research
Jessica Jacobson and Mike Hough for the Prison Reform Trust, 2010
Key points: lack of offending behaviour programmes, limited parole board capacity, risk aversion, lack of rehabilitative opportunities in prison, cannot ‘prove’ safe to release
HMIProb and HMIPris March 2010:
“Given that the present position is unsustainable, a major policy review should be conducted at Ministerial level, analysing the costs and benefits of these sentences”.
Hazel Kemshall SASO Conference Nov 2010

5. Hazel Kemshall SASO Conference Nov 2010
Impact on Prisoners
‘Kafka-esque limbo’
Hopelessness, nothing to lose, fatalism
Fractured contact with families, especially for young male prisoners
Frustration, lack of incentive, no future goals
Long waiting times for group/treatment programmes (despite appeal court judgement)
Hazel Kemshall SASO Conference Nov 2010

6. Impact on Practice and Key Agencies
Volume against the under-resource
Quality of Pre-sentence reports inadequate for IPP decision making
Judges’ decision making
Difficulties with key terms and risk thresholds
Lack of prison programmes
‘Bottle necking’ in local prisons
Poor quality sentence and risk management plans
Hazel Kemshall SASO Conference Nov 2010

7. Aversion or Integration?
The persuasive logic of the precautionary principle
Politically risk averse (until the money runs out)
The resurgence of rehabilitation
‘Holistic’, ‘balance’ and recent HMIP report
GLM, integration, and community supervision
Hazel Kemshall SASO Conference Nov 2010

8. Some Broader Considerations
Precaution and aversion versus integration and rehabilitation
Seizing the agenda in the age of austerity
‘Blended protection’- through enhanced community supervision, prevention, and creditable rehabilitative strategies
Caution- beware the displacement of risk onto those least able to manage it!
Hazel Kemshall SASO Conference Nov 2010

9. Hazel Kemshall SASO Conference Nov 2010
References
Bennett, J. (2008) The social costs of dangerousness: prison and the dangerous classes, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, King’s College London
Hebenton, B. and Seddon, T. (2009) ‘From Dangerousness to Precaution: Managing sexual and violent offenders in an insecure and uncertain age’, British Journal of Criminology, 49,
Howard League for Penal Reform (2007) Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection, Prison Information Bulletin 3, London: Howard League for Penal Reform
HMI Probation and HMI Prisons (2010) Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection: A joint inspection. London: HMI Probation and HMI Prisons.
Jacobson, J. and Hough, M. (2010) Unjust Deserts: imprisonment for public protection. London: Prison Reform Trust.
JUSTICE (2009) A New Parole System for England and Wales, London: JUSTICE.
Kemshall, H. (2008) Understanding the Community Management of High Risk Offenders. Open University Press.
Ministry of Justice (2009) Population in custody monthly tables: June 2009 England and Wales, Ministry of Justice Statistics Bulletin,
Hazel Kemshall SASO Conference Nov 2010

10. Hazel Kemshall SASO Conference Nov 2010
References Continued
Ministry of Justice (2010) Sentencing Statistics: England and Wales 2008, Ministry of Justice Statistics Bulletin
Parole Board (2009) Annual Report and Accounts: the Parole Board for England and Wales 2008/09, London: The Stationery Office
Prison Reform Trust (2007) Indefinitely Maybe? How the indeterminate sentence for public protection is unjust and unsustainable. A Prison Reform Trust briefing, London: PRT
Sentencing Guidelines Council (2008) Dangerous Offenders: Guide for Sentencers and Practitioners, Version 2, July 2008,
Hazel Kemshall SASO Conference Nov 2010