IPP Prisoners

Debate between Lord Keen of Elie and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Monday 20th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the recommendation of Michael Gove, the former Secretary of State for Justice, in his November 2016 Longford Lecture that the approximately 500 Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) prisoners “who have been in jail for far longer than the tariff for their offence” should be released.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, we estimate that there are approximately 200 IPP prisoners who have served longer than the maximum term available for their offence. Release of IPP prisoners is a decision for the Parole Board, made on the balance of risks the offender poses to the public. To improve the efficiency with which IPP cases pass through the parole system, a new unit has been established within the Ministry of Justice, working closely with the Parole Board.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

That is a disappointing if unsurprising Answer, and apparently an answer to an earlier question of mine about prisoners who had served beyond the maximum term. This refers to those who have served way beyond their tariff term. Would not the Minister agree that there comes a point in the life of an IPP prisoner, even if he cannot persuade the Parole Board that he will never reoffend, when he has served so many years—seven, eight, nine, 10—beyond his tariff term that simple justice demands his immediate release?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

The noble and learned Lord raises a complex and difficult problem. It was said previously that this sentencing policy was the legacy of a Labour Government. That is unfair. It was a wrong turning in sentencing policy undertaken with the best of intentions which fell victim to the law of unintended consequences. Successive Labour, coalition and Conservative Governments have wrestled with a simple solution to a complex question. If we were going to resolve this matter as simply as the noble and learned Lord suggests, we would not start from where are at present.

Imprisonment for Public Protection Sentences

Debate between Lord Keen of Elie and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Tuesday 11th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many people still serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection have been detained for longer than the maximum term of imprisonment otherwise statutorily prescribed for their offence, and what plans they have for the release of those people.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

The required detailed data are not routinely collected. However, an exercise to estimate the number of current prisoners sentenced to an IPP who have served beyond the maximum term available for their offence indicates that there are around 200 such prisoners. The independent Parole Board directs the release of a prisoner serving an IPP sentence who has completed his tariff only when it is no longer necessary on the grounds of public protection for the prisoner to be detained.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that somewhat sobering Answer. Given that statistic, given that the whole IPP scheme was abolished four years ago in 2012 as being inherently unjust, given that there are 600 to 700 prisoners serving years beyond their tariff terms—sometimes eight to 10 times as long—given that more than half of IPP prisoners self-harm, and given the recent excoriation of the system by an ex-Lord Chancellor, Kenneth Clarke, in a radio programme as being a “stain” on the system and its condemnation by the three last Lord Chief Justices, does the Minister agree that it is high time that steps were taken to bring this continuing scandal to an end?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

Steps are being taken to reduce the population of IPP prisoners. Indeed, in the last year the largest number did in fact qualify for release. The parole service carries out independent examinations for this purpose, and where IPP prisoners fail to respond at these parole hearings the National Offender Management Service has now brought in psychologists and policy experts to undertake a central case review of those IPP prisoners, in the hope that they can complete their tariffs and then progress to open conditions.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Lord Keen of Elie and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Wednesday 13th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood]

I was not intending to say anything this afternoon, let alone on this amendment, but following what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, have said, it occurs to me that if one widens out the provision that is the subject of Amendment 48 to introduce some essentially non-legal consideration, one would have to make it subject also, as routinely across this legislation, to ministerial approval. They must be answerable for that non-legal aspect. I therefore suggest that this might be a situation in which one should have two primary decision-makers, not therefore judicial oversight but judicial primary decision-making on the legal aspect—such as whether it is in truth a legal professional privileges situation and whether, in so far as criminal purpose is relied on, that is satisfied. However, in so far as the wider terrorism situation is being addressed, the justification for all that should initially be put at the ministerial door as well.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, the Government recognise the importance of legal professional privilege—the client’s privilege—in the context of the rule of law. This is perhaps one of the most important issues that we will consider in the context of the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, outlined the operation of legal professional privilege and explained what is sometimes termed the iniquity exception. He went on to identify what he considered to be the issue of principle that we are concerned with in the context of the amendment and invited me to indicate whether I agreed with his outline of privilege—the iniquity exception—and the principle with which we are concerned. I am happy to concur and accept his clear exposition of the position in that regard. So I shall not elaborate on what is legal professional privilege or the iniquity exception, except to this extent. What is termed the iniquity exception arises where the client is using the conversation with the lawyer in furtherance of a criminal purpose, whether or not the lawyer is a witting party to that. If the lawyer is unwittingly used as a tool or a conduit, the iniquity exception would apply in those circumstances as well; with that, we have no difficulty.

However, there are further circumstances in which the iniquity exception would not necessarily obtain, and when a very important piece of intelligence might become available if the communication was considered by the relevant authorities. I go back to a scenario that I shared with number of noble Lords when we discussed this in recent days. An agency may have intelligence to suggest that an individual is about to carry out a terrorist attack. It knows that he is in contact or about to be in contact with a legal adviser, and it has reason to believe that that contact with the legal adviser might reveal information that could assist in averting the terrorist attack. The example is where the client might refer to his whereabouts. He might say, “I’m in Paris”, or “I’m going to be in Paris tomorrow”, or “I’m in London”, or “I’m going to be in London tomorrow”. It is that piece of intelligence in the course of the privileged communication that is critical. I know that some commentators—and, indeed, the Bar Council—have suggested that that would fall within the iniquity exception; it does not. Indeed, if we try to stretch the iniquity exception, we damage the concept of legal professional privilege, so we must be very careful about how we approach this.

So there is that exceptional situation—and it must be exceptional before any warrant could be contemplated—in which intelligence gleaned from such a conversation would be of critical importance. I stress the word “intelligence” because on occasion it is very easy to refer to this as evidence. Such intelligence would never be admissible in a court of law, so let us be careful about that. We are talking about intelligence as such, not evidence.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, suggested that this would be such an unusual event that to approve the power would be to approve a power of purely theoretical value. With great respect to the noble Lord, the fact that something is highly unusual or highly exceptional does not render the power theoretical. The power may not have been employed in the past and it may not be employed in the foreseeable future; that does not render the power theoretical. The occasion may arise, in the face of a terrible terrorist threat, in which such intelligence can be made available to the appropriate agencies. If we bring down a guillotine, LPP will be denied to them. So the power is not theoretical.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made the very good point: we are really dealing here with the question of balance. Should we intrude upon what we see as legal professional privilege—that fundamentally important concept—for the sake of a highly exceptional case in which such intelligence could be critical? There is an element of balance there.