Indefinite sentences are morally wrong – why will Labour not end them?

Editorial: We urge Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, to think again. These sentences offend against the fundamental principles of justice

In opposition Shabana Mahmood was ‘concerned’ about IPP sentences (PA)

Everyone agrees that indefinite prison sentences were a mistake. They were introduced by the Labour government in 2003 as a “tough” measure to deal with criminals guilty of serious crimes who might continue to be a danger to the public after serving a minimum sentence.

Such prisoners could be released only if the Parole Board agreed – and could be recalled if they broke the terms of their licence, which could last a lifetime.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2012 that such imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentences were unlawful, and they were abolished – but not for about 3,000 prisoners still serving them.

David Blunkett, who devised the legislation as home secretary, said earlier this year that it was his “biggest regret”. He admitted that it has “resulted in deeply damaging outcomes”. More than 700 offenders, many of them initially imprisoned for relatively minor crimes (contrary to Lord Blunkett’s intention), have served 10 years longer than their minimum term.

Now John Thomas, who served as lord chief justice from 2013 to 2017, has backed The Independent’s campaign for all IPP prisoners to have their terms converted into normal time-limited sentences. “I think everyone accepts this punishment was a mistake,” he said. “It’s just morally wrong.”

The uncertainty created by indefinite sentences has in many cases contributed to mental health problems for prisoners. Lord Thomas told The Independent: “You can’t say, ‘Oh, they have been in a long time and now they are dangerous – and because we have made them dangerous, we can’t release them.’ I mean, you have to accept a degree of state responsibility. However you look at it, it is the state that’s caused this problem.”

We have reported on a number of shocking cases, including that of James Lawrence, a father who is still in prison 18 years after he was sentenced to a minimum of eight months for threatening someone with a fake gun, and that of Abdullahi Suleman, who has spent 19 years behind bars, having originally stolen a laptop. As Lord Thomas said, “You just can’t keep people locked up in case they do something.”

In opposition, Shabana Mahmood was “concerned” about IPP sentences. She said that there seemed to be “limited availability” of the courses needed by prisoners to demonstrate their reformed behaviour, and added: “I am also concerned that there may be a disparity on racial grounds.”

Now that she is justice secretary in a new, reforming government, however, her concerns seem to be outweighed by the need to repeat the previous administration’s line, which is that “public protection must come first”.

In a statement last month, Ms Mahmood sought to take credit for reforms introduced by the Conservative government that will take effect in stages, next month and next year. These changes, to reduce the length of licences for the release of IPP prisoners from 10 years to three, are welcome, but they do nothing for those who have never been released.

We urge Ms Mahmood to think again. These sentences offend against the fundamental principles of justice. We accept, of course, that many of those who have received them have committed serious crimes and may well still be dangerous. But by putting their release in the hands of the Parole Board, which is bound to take an excessively cautious view, the justice system is treating them differently from other offenders, including many who are more dangerous to the public.

At a time when Ms Mahmood is, rightly, releasing other prisoners before their allotted time because of the prison capacity crisis, it is doubly unjust to keep these prisoners in jail, in Lord Thomas’s words, “in case they do something”.

Neither Lord Thomas nor Lord Blunkett is a bleeding-heart liberal. Both recognise a policy that has gone wrong and caused grave injustice. Ms Mahmood should take the chance to put it right.