Public Law Update

Scheme of imprisonment for public protection irrational

In R (on the application of Wells) v Parole Board; R (on the application of Walker) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWHC 1835, [2007] All ER (D) 479 (Jul) the court was asked to consider the rationality of the government’s actions in introducing a new sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) while failing to anticipate its effect on the prison population and to provide for the increase in the number of lifer prisoners. There are currently 2,547 prisoners serving IPP sentences, with the median tariff being just 30 months. But the number of funded first stage and second stage prison places, required in order that an IPP (and lifer) prisoner can progress through the system towards release, has not risen since April 2005 when the new sentences were introduced. This is despite the introduction of the new sentences having increased the lifer population by 31% in 2006.

Lack of opportunity to demonstrate risk reduction

The essential problem