moved Amendment No. 81:
81: Clause 13, page 10, leave out lines 11 and 12
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns IPPs. In moving it, I am aware that I will be opposed not only by the Government but also by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. It is so rare that I find myself in discordance with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, that I thought that I should mark the occasion by an introductory observation.
The conditions for imposing an IPP are: first, that the crime must be one of 153 specified sexual or violent offences; secondly, that the offence must be capable of attracting a sentence of 10 or more years of imprisonment; and, thirdly, the offender must pose a significant risk of causing death or serious injury by the commission of further offences. In such cases, the judge must impose an IPP. The offender must serve a minimum tariff before he can be considered for release but can be held in custody as long as he is considered to pose a threat to public safety.
The latest figures indicate that at least half of all sentences given for threats to kill, child sex offences, arson and sexual assault, resulted in a tariff of less than two years. That means that if the Government press ahead with their plans, those individuals will not be eligible for IPPs, given that their sentence length would be below the ““to be introduced”” threshold. Does the Minister accept that there is a reason that judges sentence people to IPPs and that it is because they are dangerous? Why are the Government so keen to remove this power from the courts? Is it not the case that these proposed changes are dangerous and have more to do with reducing the prison population than protecting the public?
By definition, the offenders who would now no longer be eligible to receive IPPs would be those who had committed serious sexual or violent offences and who posed a significant risk of causing death or serious injury by reoffending, but where the offence for which they were being sentenced would otherwise have carried a fixed-term sentence of less than four years. I beg to move.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Kingsland
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 26 February 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
699 c612 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:57:54 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_448661
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_448661
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_448661