Martin Myers attempted to steal a cigarette. Tommy Nicol stole a car. John Wright, then 17, head-butted a younger child and stole his bike. For these relatively minor crimes, they received grossly disproportionate sentences of the length you might expect for murderers.
Martin Myers is still in jail for attempted robbery of that cigarette back in 2006. John Wright is now 34 and has spent 17 years in jail. Tommy Nicol took his own life while in prison on an indeterminate sentence.
These are just a few of the cases highlighted in the recent series by the Guardian on imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentences. In force between 2005 and 2012, IPPs were intended for offenders who had committed serious crimes and presented a risk of causing serious harm to the public, designed to detain them until they no longer represented a risk. The sentences included a minimum period, or tariff, after which prisoners could be considered for release, but crucially, they had no end date.
Many more people were detained than anticipated – 8,711 of the sentences were issued in total. But although the decision was made to abandon them in 2012, with the government saying they were “not defensible”, it was not retrospective. As a result, nearly 3,000 prisoners in England and Wales remain in jail under these sentences today, as well as many others who have been released but face the ongoing prospect of immediate recall to prison.
They are experiencing a punishment that is inhumane and often amounts to psychological torture. That is not a term I use lightly. As the UN special rapporteur on torture, I review dozens of cases of the mistreatment of prisoners around the world ranging from gross overcrowding in dilapidated jails in many Latin American and Asian countries, to persons being held incommunicado or without charge in places that are “off the map”.
IPP prisoners are experiencing a form of psychological torment, which is something that many survivors of torture tell me is worse than any physical violence. For those who remain jailed, people on IPP sentences must satisfy the Parole Board that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public for them to be confined. And yet, few have access to the rehabilitation programmes that are needed to demonstrate that reduction in their risk to the public. The result is they often wait years, decades even – as the cases I’ve highlighted showcase – languishing in prison, not knowing when they will be released. If they are refused release, they must wait another year before applying once again.
Even for those released, the pain does not end. They face the threat of being recalled back to prison for being late for an appointment, or for admitting to feeling suicidal to a probation officer. The outcome can mean forgoing help when it’s greatly needed. Matthew Price, who was jailed for grievous bodily harm in 2010 and spent three years in jail, remained on tariff and ended his life in June 2023. He had ongoing anxiety that seeking help could negatively impact his application for discharge, according to the coroner who oversaw his case.
“This cohort often experiences a particular kind of despair,” noted Nick Armstrong KC, the coroner who presided over the inquest into the death of Francis Williams. He was another IPP prisoner who had warned he was considering taking his own life. Armstrong’s opinion bears out in the facts: IPP prisoners are two-and-a-half times more likely to harm themselves than others in the prison population. As many as 90 IPP prisoners have taken their own lives.
Last August, I wrote to the government, with other independent UN human rights experts, asking for a resentencing programme of all remaining IPP prisoners as “a matter of utmost priority” – that’s UN-speak for immediately.
And yet, the government and the opposition are missing the opportunity to comprehensively reform these discredited sentences. The victims and prisoners bill, now passing through parliament, has been amended with welcome reforms, but MPs rejected a resentencing exercise. Peers are due to vote on other amendments on Tuesday, and they must put justice and fairness at the heart of their considerations – values the British justice system is meant to be based on.
Even a partial resentencing exercise for those still serving sentences for more minor crimes would be a step forward. Without this, campaigners and prisoners are likely to take the government to court over these abuses, taking up valuable court time and costing the public purse for years to come.
Citing public safety as the reason not to immediately resentence IPP prisoners, as the justice secretary, Alex Chalk has done, is misleading. The UK, like any society with a strong rule of law, has measures to protect the community after prisoners are released. Locking people up and “throwing away the keys” is not a legal or moral solution.