It is true that some IPP prisoners are SO, but many aren't. That allows governments to concentrate on the publicity and campaigns around those non-SO prisoners. The law makes plenty of use of "if the Parole Board directs" and "unless", which covers most things. Where the automatic end of licence comes in is two years after the qualifying period, if the licence has been continuously in force throughout the two years, making it five years. The effect of that is that instead of Probation having to start considering applications to end IPP supervision, the licence will end at that point. Even then, non-SO ex-prisoners can just go on their way, while SO ex-prisoners still have indefinite SOR to deal with. The police will be aware that the person in question was given an IPP sentence and may factor that into their risk assessments, possibly including their response to an application to end notification requirements after the initial fifteen years are up. It is definitely an improvement, but it does rely on the prisoner being released, the new law only takes effect once the prisoner has been released. I can't see any mention of the release process being changed, so it would still be up to the Parole Board. Given the way they have been treated in recent years, you couldn't blame them for being risk-averse.

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

Interestingly the reforms to IPP licences came from the last Tory govt, although it didn't take effect until this month. They pushed it through with no media outcry, despite the people involved being 'dangerous' and including some SO. Never lose sight of the fact that plenty of things happen under the radar, without the tabloids interfering.

As ever, this comes down to us all hoping that sooner or later, someone will apply logic to the situation. Never lose sight of the fact that we are the people the tabloids keep warning their readers about. In addition to politicians not wanting to be seen as going soft on criminals, they definitely don't want to be open to accusations of going soft on SOs. The whole criminal justice system is slanted that way, and as much as reform might be needed, it will only happen if someone, somewhere, can say, "We had no alternative; what else could we do?"

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

Hi
I agree with your logic and wish they would; see Review given to the Tory's and parts accepted into the new Justice Bill that I think is now with the Lords

Before the election, the report's recommendation concerning the SOR 15 yr review was changed from the recommendation that the Police be able to apply after 10 yrs for a low risk offender to be discharged, to staying at 15 yrs but the Police can apply. This dismaded me but I put it down to politics.

Speaking on risks see; Justice Inspectorates report
One point they raise is "Reoffending amongst sexual offenders is lower than that of general offenders. Indeed, those who are deemed lower risk have measured reoffending risks similar to the general population and some researchers argue that the resources to manage such cases would be better expended in primary prevention and victim support. "

Being on the SOR for life and after 3 assessments which all rejected my undertaking/being placed on a SO treatment course; I still smile when they say the SOR is not a punishment!

We can live in hope





Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------

This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.

A huge change for those on life licences, with the waiting times for a review cut from 10 years to 3 and many who have already been out for 5 years having their licence terminated.

I wonder if this increases the chances of a review of the disproportionately long waiting times for SOR and SHPOs? The basic principle is that if someone has been out for 5 years without re offending they are no longer a risk and that deciding whether someone is a risk can be done after just 3 years.

Contrast that with SHPOs where the minimum length is 5 years and the waiting time for lifetime reviews is at least 15 years. Those on IPP sentences were originally considered so dangerous that they could be detained forever if necessary. However many with lifetime SHPOs have been released after less than 3 years in prison.

The logic of cutting the waiting times for a review is simple. It saves the police huge amounts of time and money, if they can move people off more quickly. There is also a review of sentencing more generally on the way, which I expect will recommend greater use of community sentences. Again, this all about cutting costs and keeping the prison population down.

The numbers of SHPOs issued in the last year increased by 8% to over 6,000. The numbers on the SOR topped 70,000 for the first time. These headline figures often trigger a review of some kind and we also have the Creedon report recommending change.