Readers have called on the government and Andy Burnham to address the imprisonment for public protection (IPP) scandal, which still affects over 2,000 prisoners, and to resist populist pressures on sentencing. In letters responding to recent Guardian coverage, correspondents highlighted the need for systemic reform, including mandatory consideration of protective orders in domestic abuse cases.
IPP Prisoners: A Lingering Injustice
Henry Rossi from Bristol wrote: “The government’s scramble to keep PC Andrew Harper’s killers behind bars while freeing up space in prisons is the latest example of UK policy shortcomings and a subsequent failure to remedy the scandal. None stand out more than the unaddressed injustice of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentences. Abolished over a decade ago and described as ‘psychological torture’ by the UN, over 2,000 people remain trapped in prisons on IPP sentences.”
Rossi noted that Andy Burnham has pledged to find an early resolution to the IPP crisis, but added: “Too often politicians have decried scandals, only to then kick the can down the road. Resolving IPP would end one of the greatest scandals in our criminal justice system and also ease the burden on our creaking prisons – resentencing IPP prisoners could free up the equivalent of four prisons. The time for acknowledging injustices and promising to conduct a review is over. It’s time to act.”
Sentencing Populism and the Causes of Crime
Nik Wood from London argued that governments of all stripes have bowed to pressure for ever longer sentencing, citing the campaign for mandatory life sentences for the killers of PC Andrew Harper. Wood noted that Conservative home secretary Douglas Hurd once said that prison is an expensive way of making bad people worse. He said: “The result is a prison service that hasn’t got room for all those the courts convict, nor enough staff or scope to reform and rehabilitate them for the benefit of society. The assault that has been made on Parole Board and probation decision-making and capabilities compounds this.”
Wood added: “Andy Burnham has inherited a decision that has nothing to do with judicially assessed sentencing and remission, merely to do with patching a hole in the balance sheet. If he does indeed want to avoid a repeat of this shambles, as you report, then he has to grow a backbone and stand up against the populist pressures to appear ‘tough on crime’, and find the money to be ‘tough on the causes of crime’.”
Protective Orders for Domestic Abuse Victims
Janet Carter, a retired barrister from Leeds, responded to an article about domestic abusers being released early from prison. She wrote: “There is an effective way for the government to mitigate this sad fact. This is to legislate to ensure that the court must always consider future protection in all cases of domestic abuse, rather than just focus on immediate incarceration.”
Carter suggested making it a presumption that the relevant “add-on” ancillary order is always considered whenever available, or give reasons why the order is not appropriate. She cited examples such as a restraining order with terms to exclude the perpetrator from the victim’s home and work areas for life, providing security whenever release occurs. She concluded: “Various protective orders are available, but they are not yet an obligatory consideration in open court. They should be, along with obligatory victim consultation before sentence.”
