The risk of re-offending is not just a ‘reputational risk’ that ‘ministers will have to accept’ it’s a risk for the public that the public are being told to accept.
Yes, fair point. Penologists can discuss whether the risk of reoffending would have been higher or lower if the offenders had been given fixed sentences and then released on licence with support from the probation service.
Joshua, all you write is as always authoritative and clear. I only add a comment about those convicted of manslaughter.
Many of those convicted of manslaughter are convicted on the grounds of diminished responsibility: ie their mental state at the time of the homicide explains and to that extent excuses what they have done. Many of those so convicted are mothers of babies. As such, they are not to be categorised as dangerous. If all those convicted of manslaughter are to be lumped in with a cohort of those alleged to be 'dangerous' that creates a real injustice for those I have mentioned, many of whom are on the cusp of release.
John, you speak with great authority having had to sentence offenders in these circumstances. The problem is that, as I understand it, the early-release provisions cannot distinguish between "unlawful act" manslaughter and diminished responsibility manslaughter. There was an interesting example of the former today in which the judge had to handle the uncertainty over early release: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Sentencing-Remarks-Published-R-v-Mihai-and-Dumitru.pdf
Much wise comment has resulted from Joshua’s characteristically shrewd analysis.
I have long been anguishing over the shamefully becalmed IPP legacy.
Blaming previous Conservative governments might prove to be a two-edged sword since Blair,Brown and Starmer administrations exhibited no serious enthusiasm actually to do much about it. If-repeat, if- I should have wished to support the Badenoch opposition then I would encourage it to fire a salvo or several across the government’s bows to that effect, where that might quieten down this blame game.
The dilemma for this or any other executive is that what is needed to make any serious inroads is a two - pronged spasm of honesty AND courage. With that approach would have to come the initiation of suchlike as house arrest for the non violent as Ros Wright says AND a huge
, immediate investment in the Probation Service/ with a guarantee of continuity thereof. That would after all be far cheaper than prison building and more effective.
Also, see the
Observer’s Rachel Sylvester in last Sunday’s edition about “Scandi wings”.There needs to be less of the timidity and far more of the facing up to the reality, with no more “bidding wars” (as per Sir David Gauke) where the PCHarper affair is shaping up to be a species of just that.
Well done for highlighting the IPP scandal again, Joshua. As you've implied, there is a lot more scope for freeing up prison places by sorting out the grim farce of IPP than by tinkering with the rules around early release for those convicted of manslaughter.
Countries like Italy, France, Portugal, and Austria permit house arrest for non- violent offenders coupled with electronic tagging, which frees up prison space and allows offenders to work and care for their families.
The difficulty here is that all parties are adopting short-term tactics to a long-term problem, and making it a political football. While I realise it is completely naive, unless parties stop playing party politics with this it will never be solved. So, you have the current labour administration saying they have no choice due to the Conservative actions despite the fact that there is little evidence that new prisons are being commissioned, and the Conservatives are misleading the public on their actions. Philps (who appears to be the new Grayling) went around yesterday telling everyone that they built 14,000 places, conveniently forgetting that they also closed 13,000 places...
If there was political will, this could be solved, but it would require consensus on debt. Prisons are expensive. However, many of the Victorian prisons (many of which are not fit for purpose) are in prime real-estate positions (Durham, Manchester, Pentonville amongst others). If they sold off the land for housing, they would probably get more than what it would cost to build new prisons. But, you can't close the old ones until you've built the new ones, and Cat A and B prisons are very, very expensive. So, for about 5 years or so, you would have a couple of billion extra debt, and that would lead to political comments. If people decided to treat this debt differently, then we may get somewhere.
IPP is going to suffer the same problem. While IPP has become a disgrace, no party is prepared to do anything about it because it will blow up in their faces. The people currently in prison on IPP are the ones who the parole board have (consistently) held are not safe to be released. So, if any of them are released and do something, you can imagine the media headlines (see, for example, the Telegraph today where Sir Mark Rowley and the Telegraph are blaming courts for releasing Levy on bail). Something should happen but no politician is going to release IPP prisoners where a semi-judicial body have decided they are guilty. The CA are currently creating a series of legal fictions to quash IPPs, and I suspect that is the way it will continue.
Re Cole and Bowers, I think you are right in your analysis, Joshua. They could decide "all prisoners over x years shall not be released under the SA 2026" or they could say, "anyone convicted of a crime against a police officer". I suspect they will end up doing the latter. But, it's back to my point at the begining. This is taking a couple of deckchairs away while rearranging the rest.
Dealing with the IPP question might (probably would) create some headroom in the prisons. But just cutting the knot does not feel like the way to do it. The endogenous mental problems seem like an obstacle to doing anything but a painstaking case-by-case safety review - dangerous behaviour after release should not be treated as a mere unavoidable cost of doing business.
The risk of re-offending is not just a ‘reputational risk’ that ‘ministers will have to accept’ it’s a risk for the public that the public are being told to accept.
Yes, fair point. Penologists can discuss whether the risk of reoffending would have been higher or lower if the offenders had been given fixed sentences and then released on licence with support from the probation service.
Joshua, all you write is as always authoritative and clear. I only add a comment about those convicted of manslaughter.
Many of those convicted of manslaughter are convicted on the grounds of diminished responsibility: ie their mental state at the time of the homicide explains and to that extent excuses what they have done. Many of those so convicted are mothers of babies. As such, they are not to be categorised as dangerous. If all those convicted of manslaughter are to be lumped in with a cohort of those alleged to be 'dangerous' that creates a real injustice for those I have mentioned, many of whom are on the cusp of release.
John, you speak with great authority having had to sentence offenders in these circumstances. The problem is that, as I understand it, the early-release provisions cannot distinguish between "unlawful act" manslaughter and diminished responsibility manslaughter. There was an interesting example of the former today in which the judge had to handle the uncertainty over early release: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Sentencing-Remarks-Published-R-v-Mihai-and-Dumitru.pdf
Much wise comment has resulted from Joshua’s characteristically shrewd analysis.
I have long been anguishing over the shamefully becalmed IPP legacy.
Blaming previous Conservative governments might prove to be a two-edged sword since Blair,Brown and Starmer administrations exhibited no serious enthusiasm actually to do much about it. If-repeat, if- I should have wished to support the Badenoch opposition then I would encourage it to fire a salvo or several across the government’s bows to that effect, where that might quieten down this blame game.
The dilemma for this or any other executive is that what is needed to make any serious inroads is a two - pronged spasm of honesty AND courage. With that approach would have to come the initiation of suchlike as house arrest for the non violent as Ros Wright says AND a huge
, immediate investment in the Probation Service/ with a guarantee of continuity thereof. That would after all be far cheaper than prison building and more effective.
Also, see the
Observer’s Rachel Sylvester in last Sunday’s edition about “Scandi wings”.There needs to be less of the timidity and far more of the facing up to the reality, with no more “bidding wars” (as per Sir David Gauke) where the PCHarper affair is shaping up to be a species of just that.
Well done for highlighting the IPP scandal again, Joshua. As you've implied, there is a lot more scope for freeing up prison places by sorting out the grim farce of IPP than by tinkering with the rules around early release for those convicted of manslaughter.
Thank you. It's an issue Burnham has mentioned more than once — so he may well try to do something about it.
Countries like Italy, France, Portugal, and Austria permit house arrest for non- violent offenders coupled with electronic tagging, which frees up prison space and allows offenders to work and care for their families.
The difficulty here is that all parties are adopting short-term tactics to a long-term problem, and making it a political football. While I realise it is completely naive, unless parties stop playing party politics with this it will never be solved. So, you have the current labour administration saying they have no choice due to the Conservative actions despite the fact that there is little evidence that new prisons are being commissioned, and the Conservatives are misleading the public on their actions. Philps (who appears to be the new Grayling) went around yesterday telling everyone that they built 14,000 places, conveniently forgetting that they also closed 13,000 places...
If there was political will, this could be solved, but it would require consensus on debt. Prisons are expensive. However, many of the Victorian prisons (many of which are not fit for purpose) are in prime real-estate positions (Durham, Manchester, Pentonville amongst others). If they sold off the land for housing, they would probably get more than what it would cost to build new prisons. But, you can't close the old ones until you've built the new ones, and Cat A and B prisons are very, very expensive. So, for about 5 years or so, you would have a couple of billion extra debt, and that would lead to political comments. If people decided to treat this debt differently, then we may get somewhere.
IPP is going to suffer the same problem. While IPP has become a disgrace, no party is prepared to do anything about it because it will blow up in their faces. The people currently in prison on IPP are the ones who the parole board have (consistently) held are not safe to be released. So, if any of them are released and do something, you can imagine the media headlines (see, for example, the Telegraph today where Sir Mark Rowley and the Telegraph are blaming courts for releasing Levy on bail). Something should happen but no politician is going to release IPP prisoners where a semi-judicial body have decided they are guilty. The CA are currently creating a series of legal fictions to quash IPPs, and I suspect that is the way it will continue.
Re Cole and Bowers, I think you are right in your analysis, Joshua. They could decide "all prisoners over x years shall not be released under the SA 2026" or they could say, "anyone convicted of a crime against a police officer". I suspect they will end up doing the latter. But, it's back to my point at the begining. This is taking a couple of deckchairs away while rearranging the rest.
Dealing with the IPP question might (probably would) create some headroom in the prisons. But just cutting the knot does not feel like the way to do it. The endogenous mental problems seem like an obstacle to doing anything but a painstaking case-by-case safety review - dangerous behaviour after release should not be treated as a mere unavoidable cost of doing business.