EXPLAINER Why Britain’s Prisons are BURSTING

Britain's prisons are buckling at the seams with a little under 90,000 people currently serving custodial sentences. That is a number that grows year on year. It's constantly growing up going up with the prison population just about doubling since 1990. That means our prisons are currently at 99% capacity. To address the problem of overcrowding, the government has introduced an early release scheme meaning that from October, some 5,000 prisoners serving sentences of longer than 4 years will be set free at halfway point of their terms rather than the usual 2/3 mark. Child sex offenders, rapists, and groomers were excluded from the program, but prisoners convicted of manslaughter were not. That's been particularly controversial because as a result, two of the three convicted killers of the 28-year-old police constable Andrew Harper are eligible to be let out early as part of the scheme. Harper was killed in 2019 when three teenagers attempting to steal a quad bike drove their car at speed for a mile dragging the police officer with it. All three defendants were charged with murder but were cleared of that charge by a jury at trial. Instead, Henry Long was sentenced to 16 years in prison for manslaughter. His two co-defendants, Jessie Cole and Albert Bowers, who were both 17 at the time of Harper's killing, were sentenced to 13 years each for manslaughter. That sentencing happened in July 2020 in the middle of COVID meaning Cole and Bowers will have served half their sentence by early next year. The public backlash was immense at the time and it still is. A petition to block their early release has so far gathered over 900,000 signatures and today, Prime Minister Andy Burnham tried to address the issue releasing this statement online. I spent recent days considering in depth all of the issues involved and the range of advice I have received. I've been pushing for further progress. I have not accepted that it is impossible to do more. As a result, I've asked the Justice Secretary to fast-track the development of a plan for presentation to Parliament early next month to create more headroom within the prison system. I'm increasingly confident that a more focused approach along these lines will allow us to reduce the number of people released early and in the case of the most serious offenders, like those convicted of the killing of PC Harper, prevent their early release altogether. So, it sounds there's going to be an act of Parliament that basically stops certain people being subject to early release. Now, in his statement, Burnham mentioned three areas where he thought pressure on prisons could be eased, including removing convicted foreign national offenders to their home countries more quickly and housing some male prisoners in some parts of the women's prison estate. I'm not sure how that will go down or whether it would even be legal. Uh but the third option that'll be looked at is not only very credible, it's also a national scandal. That's the matter of what Burnham called the long-running injustice of people who were given indefinite prison sentences under the imprisonment for public protection scheme. This is really extraordinary. From 2005 onwards, Tony Blair's government gave British courts the power to jail people indefinitely for a range of crimes, including relatively minor ones. Uh most sentences in Britain have a fixed term set by a judge within a range set by law and based on a number of intersecting factors. Now, a prisoner may come up for parole before the end of their term, usually at the two-thirds mark. If they get it, they're released on license until the end of their term. But if they don't, uh they're still set free when they've served their time. There are some exceptions, like whole life orders, but on the whole, that's how the system works. But imprisonment for public protection jail terms were different. They had no end dates, only [snorts] a minimum term. Uh meaning there was no date where their time had been served and the person subject to it had been uh guaranteed freedom. Uh it was a bit like Kafka's trial. At that point, a prisoner came up for parole, but there was no guarantee they'd get it. Uh they could go up for parole time and time again and fail to get it each time, meaning someone who commits a crime normally carrying a sentence for a few months or years could find themselves incarcerated for decades. And I shouldn't be talking in the conditional because as you as you'll see in a moment, this happened to some people. Uh and if they were paroled, they could be put on license for 99 years, meaning the potential to be returned to jail anytime throughout their entire lives. This sounds made up. It's not made up. It's very real, and frankly, it's reprehensible. It also didn't apply to only adults. Children could be sentenced under similar powers. In 2012, coalition Prime Minister David Cameron scrapped those powers, calling the unclear, inconsistent, and uncertain nature of such law unwise. Uh and in 2024, David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, who introduced the law as a Labour Home Secretary, called the sentences his biggest regret. Frankly, he should be asking people for forgiveness in my view. But that was much too late though. Of the nearly 9,000 prisoners given indefinite sentences during the New Labour years, with over 2,000 people still in jail under the scheme. And the cases of gross miscarriages of justice are truly shocking. Take Martin Myers on the right here and pictured with his twin brother. He was handed an indefinite sentence with a 19-month minimum term in 2006 after he tried and failed to steal a cigarettes. He served 18 years in prison. When she was 22, Ronnie Sinclair was jailed under an IPP after she was arrested for robbery following a drunken row at a friend's barbecue. She served 16 years in prison for a crime that involved breaking a plant pot and tearing up a betting slip. Uh there's also Abdullahi Sulaiman who was handed a minimum sentence of just under 4 years in 2005 for stealing a laptop. He's still in prison. 21 years later and he has no idea when he's going to get out. For stealing a laptop, I'm not a fan of people who steal laptops, but dare I say that's excessive. Uh you can imagine the strain of never knowing whether you'll get out of prison years and years after serving the usual sentence for your crime. At least 94 people under IPPs have taken their own lives. Utterly extraordinary. Um and many people are still serving sentences under a law that we scrapped nearly 15 years ago. In July, the UN urged the UK to end IPP sentences warning of serious human rights violations. And today uh lawyers have written both to the Justice Secretary Alex Norris and the High Court to start a legal action over the sentences. Uh it shouldn't be hard to win, with the former Supreme Court Justice having already described the regime as {quote} the greatest single stain on our criminal justice system. Uh Dame Vera Baird uh is chair of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the last port of call for prisoners who've been denied parole. On Newsnight, she explained what she thought happened to the remaining IPP cases. >> What does that mean effectively to those people who are still on IPPs? You'd like to see those go. >> Well, I think they need re-sentencing. So, make no mistake. I mean, there will be some people on IPPs rightly, you know, who who are violent people who you wouldn't want to release. >> to their crimes, too. >> Yeah, exactly. But also because that it's about assessing dangerousness. Yeah, that's been done probably quite wrongly for young men who of course mature can mature quickly and change. But the I think the real point is that there are now ways in which we understand these sentences don't work. People do need to be let out. It needs to be done more wholesale than just coming to the CCRC where we will work as fast as we possibly can. But there are 2 and 1/2 thousand to go. And of course if you did get quite a lot of them out appropriately then you have to look at each of them in turn but re-sentence rather than look at the whole question is there a miscarriage of justice and so on. That would be a lot quicker. And of course it would contribute to emptying the prisons. >> So Michael, it's 2 and 1/2 thousand people. It's more than 2,000 people. We've got the prisons are full 99% full with 90,000 people. So we're let's say 2,000 people were released. Okay, maybe not all of them but a good good chunk of them, right? You're looking at freeing up I mean what 3% of overall capacity and actually doing the right thing. Why hasn't it happened already? >> Well, I suppose I I mean this is in a way why sort of policy around this is is difficult because it's if you just do it on a whim, right? It's very likely that someone will commit a crime that's heinous and then everyone will say why the hell did you do that? Right? And And that's why I suppose sort of the way the Andrew Harper the PC Harper case is is being discussed in the media. Feels like we're kind of doing the same cycle again which is you have outrageous case criminal justice policy driven by that. Um Just to sort of go into some of these IPP cases. So I only really looked at Martin Myers in detail. So he had threatened to knock someone out while he was trying to steal their cigarettes. That's why he got sentenced but he had previous convictions for dangerous driving, assault, theft, and burglary. So the idea of these sort of sentences would they be given to someone who seemed kind of dangerous for whatever reason. Um his case is extraordinary though. So the parole board and prison service made a bunch of mistakes. In 2011 they said they weren't releasing him because he was a sex offender and he'd mis- misused drugs in prison. He wasn't a fact sex offender. This was like an administrative error, but he couldn't read. So, he got his cellmate to read out the letter for him. The cellmate then thinks he's a sex offender in the next few years in prison, he's constantly getting beaten up because sex offenders get beaten up in prison. So, it's like it's it's outrageous. It's a horrific case and I'm sure that's sort of repeated among loads of these people. In terms of how sort of extreme cases drive this though, so sort of looking Why did these IPPs get introduced in the first place? Right? Because normally a policy happens for some kind of reason, even terrible policy. And this case was very much related to the high-profile horrific case of 8-year-old Sarah Payne, who was murdered in 2000. Now, the man who murdered her had recently been released from prison. Now, police and psychiatrists both thought he remained dangerous. So, they both thought he was likely to commit serious crimes, essentially against children, but he had reached the maximum term of his sentence. So, he was released. Right? So, the the government look at this and they say, "Well, this is a high-profile horrific case. Everyone is saying something must be done, right? This innocent 8-year-old child has been killed." Um and they said, "Well, it you know, at the moment, if someone's done their time, you have to let Even if you think they're likely to commit another crime, even if they seem incredibly dangerous, they've done their time, they have to be let out. So, that's why the IPPs come in. Then the IPPs end up, you know, you got a bunch of people just indefinitely sitting in jail. A big problem is that the parole service is under-resourced. So, you're not in a position to be able to actually make an accurate judgment whether someone is safe or not. But, that's you know, that's why all these things are difficult because you just need one high-profile case and then everyone's suddenly like, "Actually, we need to get much tougher again." I mean, also in terms of the numbers of people in prison, so this would be 2,000 people. Now, you know, I I imagine lots of those people should and can be released. The much bigger number of people in prison is the 13,000 people who are on recall. And all the sort of NGO documents I've been reading about this say this is a a really big problem, which is that there are lots of people who get released from from um prison but on license. So by the way, this is also important to note these, you know, PC Harper's killers, if they get released, they'll be on license for another third of their sentence. So for a significant number of years. And lots of people are getting recalled not because they've done anything particularly dangerous, but because they've missed an appointment. And so you've got this this cycle of people getting let out, they've got chaotic lives, they get brought straight back into prison because they've they've missed an appointment. This seems crazy. Why are they doing this? Mad, right? But then again, there's another high-profile case. So in 2022, Zara Aleena, um many people will remember this case, a young young law graduate raped and murdered by Jordan McSweeney. So sort of like someone that you know, the most horrific thing happened to someone with this bright future. He'd been released on license from prison just 9 days earlier. And this is key, his license had been revoked after he failed to meet probation officers, but he was not recalled to prison. So again, there are a bunch of failures here because the person was overworked, and he should have been sort of called high-risk instead of medium-risk. But now you've got this situation where everyone in the parole service is basically like, well, if I've got any doubt at all and they don't sort of come to their meeting, I'm going to send them back to prison cuz I don't want another high-profile catastrophe. And so lots of this is driven by high-profile catastrophes. And I think we do need to keep that in mind when we're thinking about PC Harper's killers, which is sort of very easy to take a high-profile case and say this means all the rules have to be changed. Then all the rules are changed, and then you end up with a bunch of situations like this where people are in prison for much longer than they need to be. >> So that's really intelligent commentary and context for people watching and listening, and it's really valuable. I get all of that, Michael. But I don't know any other criminal justice system in the world that has IPPs. I mean, I could be wrong. Where you basically have this rolling sentencing sort of strategy, and you don't have a maximum sentence, you have a minimum sentence. Now, if you were to make the argument with regards to all those cases, and that's why we should have much longer sentences, that's why we should have people in custody, you know, twice as long as they presently are. I mean, we can make that argument, we can have that conversation. But IPPs in particular just seem insane. I'm not in favor of IPPs. I appreciate that. I think [laughter] they were they were problematic. I'm more saying my point is this. So, you're saying that's a result of overreach by government responding misguidedly to public anger, which was entirely justified, right? But can't you do something where you say, "Well, you know what? Okay, the Home Secretary in certain circumstances can do something like this." Rather than having this whole sentencing regime like IPP, which affects thousands and thousands of people, you know, dozens of people have committed suicide who were in that regime. It just seems like complete overkill. And I suppose somebody like myself who's rather skeptical of the Blair era would say, "Actually, rather than just responding to public anger, there was something more cynical and ideological going on on the part of people like David Blunkett because they wanted to look like they were tough on crime." And actually, rather than being tough on crime, they contributed to a deeply dysfunctional criminal justice system, which to me is the more interesting interesting story here because we're more people in prison in Western Europe than any other country. We have higher rates of recidivism than any other country in Western Europe. We're still very safe compared to the US, but you know, compared to most Western European countries, we have higher rates of violent crime and so on. Also, rates of lower, you know, and less important crimes as well. We've basically decriminalized certain things like shoplifting and bike thefts in recent years. So, that to me seems like the biggest story actually. Successive governments trying to be quote unquote tough on crime, but actually making the problem much worse. Well, if the argument is that they, you know, so the prison population increased from about 1993. So, it started under John Major who said, "Prison works." Um the idea was that cuz I mean, I often you know, there's sort of sometimes I think quite wishy-washy liberal arguments with prison doesn't work because people come out and they reoffend. Well, well, it's still you know, it's better than no prison, right? For in in many of these cases. But, um, you then end up with the situation where sentences are constantly getting longer because of public pressure. And I suppose what I'm pointing out is that if you think that prison sentences were too long under New Labour, right? David Gauke wrote a review. So, about I think I think in 2023, which was basically saying there's been too much political competition to try and to to try and say we all think sentences should be longer. So, you have this ratcheting effect where if Labour try and reduce sentences, Tories say this is outrageous. If Tories try to reduce sentences, Labour say this is outrageous because there's always a political opportunity here. What's happened now, right? Is that Labour are were were giving people early release mainly because the prisons were full, but they're also implementing the Gauke review, which was an argument to say we should have prisoners serve more of their time outside of prison, um, under, you know, serving some kind of community sentence. And what's happened is Andy Burnham, you know, wants to be popular. He's looking where the pressure is and he's saying, I don't want to do any of this, right? He's saying he's not just saying PC Harper's, you know, uh, killers shouldn't get out immediately. He's saying he doesn't want anyone to get out early. He he he essentially wants to abandon the Gauke review, which was saying all of these problems happened under New Labour. And that's because there is, you know, there is no incentive to have a more liberal policy on this because public opinion goes in one direction. So, the point I'm making here isn't to justify the IPPs. It isn't to say, um, we should have early release. I don't even really know. But, I suppose what I'm saying is the way that the PC Harper case is being talked about is very similar to the kind of situation which led to the introduction of IPPs. >> So, you said that we're we're sending people to prison for longer and longer. In the case of um Andrew Harper, so he was he was killed by three people. One of them is viewed as the the primary agent in that manslaughter. They got a slightly longer sentence. The other two got slightly shorter sentences. But, they got what was it? 15 years? For manslaughter of a police officer, that doesn't seem particularly long. I think, you know, historically in the in the '50s and the '60s, you would have been hanged for that. >> For manslaughter, I'm not sure. I mean, I I don't know about >> seem especially long. >> know about that particular crime, but what I do know is that on aggregate um sentences for serious crimes got much longer. So, sentences for murder, for manslaughter, for especially sexual offenses, these have all got much longer than they were in the '70s and the '80s. I I I'm not in a position to be able to tell you how this sort of catches up when it comes to specific crimes, but that's just a sort of fact. >> particular case. And I think most people would say, "Well, look, this police officer was officer was killed in 2019, so it's 7 years ago. These guys were sentenced 6 years ago. They could be out inside a year. The idea of serving 7 years when you kill a copper, there's not many countries that happens. There's not many countries, Michael. So, but hold on. This This is the tension This is the tension politically, right? So, I'm sure statistically what you're saying is entirely correct. But, it's very hard when you're a politician, you got people like yourself in receipt of all the information saying, "Well, actually, the sentences are longer than ever." And then saying, "Well, hold on. These guys killed a copper. And, you know, they didn't seem contrite when they went down. You can see the video from it in in 2020. They're basically laughing. Um and they're out in 7 years. But, that's the challenge for Burnham, isn't it? >> Well, no, it's a challenge. Obviously, it's not easy. I I'm not I'm not saying Burnham should really do anything differently. I mean, he said, you know, if you want to make this argument about sending people to prison for for less time, you've got to expend a lot of political capital because it's a difficult argument to make, right? And Burnham has made a decision. I've got no idea what he actually believes on this issue, but he's made a political decision that he's not going to expend political capital on this issue, right? He He He doesn't want to be seen as soft on crime. Um he's said quite explicitly he wants to spend expend um political capital on social care. I think that's perfectly reasonable, right? If you want to say, "Look, I don't think there's this We've got reform job you know, biting at our heels. Um the the far right is insurgent. I don't actually think now is the time to expend capital on prison reform. I I think that's fine. I think that's a legitimate argument. Um I'm going to do it on social care or something else instead." I suppose my concern is if the left or anyone, journalism actually, because I think journalism doesn't have the same pressure as as politicians. If journalists are on the one hand saying, "God, I can't believe they came up with this overly authoritarian um sort of sentencing guideline." >> The IPPs. >> Yeah, these IPPs. I can't believe they did this. Or I can't believe that the prisons are so full because New Labour was authoritarian on crime. And at the same time, isn't it bloody outrageous that they're letting out PC Harper's killers? Because the reason we have more people in prison is because of the kind of storm we're seeing when it comes to PC Harper's killers, right? The The The two things can't be separated. >> And that's why we call Michael Walker the sober judge. >> Yes, thank you. I love that. >> Sober judge. You don't have to like it. You don't [clears throat] have to like >> Often they don't. [laughter] But you know what? A couple of months later they think, "My goodness, Michael Walker was right."