lifers1.html - chapters 1-3 (this file)
lifers2.html - chapters 4-6
lifers3.html - chapters 7-10
lifers4.html - chapters 11-13
lifersap.html - appendices

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

1. Summary of Findings and Recommendations

2. Aims, Objectives and Methodology

3. Background and Context

4. Pre-sentence

5. Period Immediately Following Conviction

6. Long-term Prison System - First Stage

7. Roles of Staff in Custodial Phase

8. Mid-sentence

9. Different Needs

10. Open Conditions and Preparation for Release

11. Post-release supervision

12. Management of Work with Life Sentence Cases

13. A Strategic Blueprint for the Future

Appendix A.  Aims and objectives

Appendix B.  Prison and probation standards and criteria devised for thematic review

Appendix C.  Prison and probation services case samples

Appendix D.  Breakdown of life sentence cases in prison and on supervision in the community

Appendix E.  Life Sentence Plan analysis

Appendix F.  Quality of F75/Parole Board reports by group of staff

Appendix G.  UN recommendations on life imprisonment

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS

FOREWORD

Moreover, the Prison Inspectorate was particularly concerned that during 1996/97 60 per cent of lifers had passed their tariff by more than a year before being released on licence which, on the face of it, seemed to represent for some nothing less than a gross breach of natural justice, for which there must be a reason. That is not, of course, to say that every lifer should be released on time, because some may well still represent a danger to the public, or not yet have addressed their offending behaviour sufficiently to convince the Parole Board. Nevertheless, there was clear evidence to suggest that all was not right with the system in existence to manage life sentences. It also represents a considerable potential waste of public money, in view of the cost of keeping offenders locked up in prison.

The role of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons is to monitor and influence the treatment and conditions of prisoners across the prison estate. Amongst the tasks of HM Chief Inspector of Probation, is that of advising the Home Secretary on matters affecting probation services across the country. Life sentences are served both in prison and on licence to probation services in the community, whose responsibility it is to contribute to public protection by effective supervision of offenders.

Thematic inspections have been a regular feature of the work of HM Inspectorate of Probation for a number of years. Over the past three years, HM Inspectorate of Prisons has conducted three thematic reviews of different aspects of imprisonment, a venture that has been welcomed by both Ministers and the prison service. Our joint project has enabled us to follow the process of a life sentence from its inception in court through imprisonment to release into the community, drawing upon a very wide range of experience, including those of victims/families, and leading to a set of recommendations covering the whole lifer system.

The established methodology of the Probation Inspectorate formed the basis of the approach that was taken, but we drew upon the experience and best practice of both, with compromise and flexibility being the hallmarks of each stage of the process.

As mentioned previously, the number of prisoners serving life sentences has risen dramatically in recent years, and this growth seems set to continue, given changes to the law requiring life sentences for an increased number of crimes. Managing life sentence prisoners is centrally concerned with the management of risk and, from the outset, we discovered how much this impacted on the approach of both services.

Staff in local prisons have not received either appropriate guidance or resources, because the intention has always been that lifers should not remain there for lengthy periods but be moved to main centres as quickly as possible. However, the number of lifers spending in excess of a year in local prisons after sentence without any structured input before being moved to a main centre was a matter for serious concern. There is also an absence of adequate information to inform both risk assessment/management and sentence planning at the beginning of sentence. We believe that a solution to the exchange of information may lie in the proposed increased co-terminosity of police, Crown Prosecution Service, probation and prisons, all players in the early risk assessment and management of lifers. While the prison service is responsible for containment, the probation service has a key role in gathering information related to the offence, so as to inform sentence management including their contact with victims/families. The establishment of regional induction centres within nominated local prisons would seem a sensible solution.

The report emphasises the problems experienced at the next stage of the lifers system. A system which originally was designed to cope with less than 1,000 lifers is now struggling to meet in excess of 4,000. This situation will not improve given the recent legislation which will result in an increase in the number of life sentences passed.

The current lifer management system is not working well. Although overseen by the Lifer Management Unit who broker decisions between different parts of the prison service, there is no one postholder with overall accountability for the outcomes of lifer management. Marked variations exist in the quality of regimes for those serving life sentences, which stem from the absence of guidance from prison service headquarters as to what should be provided. Within the Lifer Management Unit itself there are no offending behaviour specialists. Management is largely a bureaucratic process and, although some action has been taken, procedures remain bureaucratic and unwieldy, causing delays which have serious natural justice implications. Current arrangements do not ensure the timely transfer of lifers through the prison system so that they are able to achieve release within the timescale of their tariffs, having challenged their offending behaviour and satisfied the Parole Board of their suitability for release. This is a system in urgent need of overhaul.

At a time when prisons are so overcrowded, it is difficult to understand why the prison service has not made urgent and determined efforts to ensure that prisoners do not spend more time than is necessary to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence and ensure adequate public protection. We conclude that this has not happened because no single unit/department is responsible for ensuring that sentence management for lifers is centrally directed, and that the prison system is not structured and resourced to cope with their needs.

Liaison between prison and home probation officers was generally strong in planning for release, although there is scope for more purposeful planning of resettlement leave. The respective roles of local and resettlement prisons, as well as probation hostels, need clarification to ensure that the use of these facilities is maximised and linked to risk assessment. The public can have confidence in the supervision of lifers released into the community, which is undertaken by probation services building on work undertaken by prison staff. The attention paid by probation services to resettlement and public protection matters was impressive, with the majority of lifers achieving stability in their lives after release. It was therefore very positive to find that in recent years reconviction rates of male lifers convicted for serious offences had fallen considerably and that there were no reconvictions of female lifers.

Our chief thanks in carrying out this review go to our two inspectors, Mrs Monica Lloyd and Mrs Frances Flaxington, who have worked tirelessly over a number of months, to lead the fieldwork, initiate and evaluate research, and write up the report. Each has had to learn and take account of the different methods of the other Inspectorate, including how they conduct their thematic reviews, and the result is a tribute to their dedication and determination. If, as we hope, the report results in a better system for handling lifers, both in prison and on life licence, the principal credit must go to them for a very remarkable and sustained piece of work. We are very grateful to other significant contributors whose names appear in the Acknowledgement section of this report.

We publish this report at a time of considerable optimism within the criminal justice system, in view of the Government's clear determination that all parts should work together and not in isolation from each other. Lifers represent both a challenge and opportunity to every single element of the system to demonstrate, individually and collectively, that it is possible to handle them more efficiently. The system for managing lifers must make a distinct contribution to the protection of the public, ensuring that release is delayed until offending behaviour has been challenged, but not wasting public money by keeping lifers in prison for any longer than is deemed necessary.

The report identifies steps which must be taken to improve the overall performance of both the prison and probation service's work with lifers. However, many of our findings have wider applicability to the resettlement of offenders, in particular the recognition that integration of the work of the two services is critical in ensuring effective practice. We are pleased to hear that the prison service intends to convene a multidisciplinary group to consider our recommendations. We hope that this report will help to form the basis of the agenda for work with lifers in the future.

SIR DAVID RAMSBOTHAM GCB CBE
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons

SIR GRAHAM SMITH CBE
HM Chief Inspector of Probation

Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special thanks must go to Jeremy Page, Head of the Lifer Review Unit for sharing his wide experience and knowledge on many aspects of work with lifers. Helpful advice was provided by Jane Hirst, the then Head of Specialist Services and Partnerships in the Home Office Probation Unit. Also appreciated was the assistance given by Usha Prashar and Anne Barker from the Parole Board and Mike Todd its Chief Executive.

Finally, the Inspectorates wish to acknowledge the advice and encouragement provided by Gary Redfern (assistant chief probation officer), Katherine Jeary (senior probation officer) and Tom Williams (governor) who, as well as being involved in the consultation group, made time to participate in visits to prisons and probation areas. Their expertise and swift responses to faxes were greatly valued. The responsibility for the report rests with the Inspectorates but the contribution of others was critical in its preparation.

FRANCES FLAXINGTON
HM Inspector of Probation

MONICA LLOYD
HM Inspector of Prisons

February 1999

Contents

(Dostoevsky, 1861)

Key findings

1.2 The importance of work with lifers* must be acknowledged due to the gravity of the offences, the lifelong consequences for victims and their families**, the indeterminate nature of the sentence for lifers and the sense of responsibility experienced by staff working with them.
* "Lifer" is used in this report to describe a person subject to a life sentence.
** "Victim" is defined as either the direct victim of the offence or his/her family where the offence had resulted in the victim's death or incapacity.

1.3 In recent years the number of life sentences has continued to rise and the pressures upon the prison system in managing them has become acute resulting in unacceptable levels of delays. However, the work undertaken in prison, coupled with close supervision by the probation service following release, is likely to have contributed to the fall in reconviction rates for male lifers for serious offences, in marked contrast to the higher reconviction rates for other types of offenders. Probation services have clearly demonstrated their ability to effectively supervise lifers over extended periods following their release from prison.

1.4 Within local prisons there was minimal provision for work with defendants remanded in custody facing a potential life sentence. Although there were some examples of good practice these were the result of local initiatives rather than part of a coordinated central strategy. Staff lacked clarity about their roles, and resources had not been identified to work with these prisoners. Specific consideration had not been given to the particular needs of female and young prisoners.

1.5 For the small number of defendants considered suitable for bail the work with them in probation hostels was of a high standard. Probation services varied both in the way they approached contact with defendants and their families and whether they prepared reports before trial.

1.6 Arrangements in local prisons for newly sentenced lifers were generally unsatisfactory. Routine assistance from a prison listener, "buddy scheme" or trained staff immediately after sentence was rarely found. At this stage of sentence many lifers had not received a formal induction, any form of assessment or attention from a key worker.

1.7 The potential to make a significant contribution to the induction, assessment and commencement of sentence planning for lifers in local prisons was not being realised. Brixton prison had begun to assess short tariff lifers whose offence had a sexual element but currently this was the only provision specifically being made for these lifers.

1.8 Following conviction there was a serious problem with the system for conveying the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) papers relating to the offence to prisons. The national agreement made by the prison service with the CPS had not proved successful. Prison staff were working with lifers addressing their offending behaviour in some cases for several years without detailed information. Most probation services had made their own local arrangements at the pre-sentence report stage with the CPS. The prison service and CPS were currently seeking a different approach to dealing with the problem. An effective arrangement is long overdue.

1.9 Many examples were found of high quality post-sentence reports prepared by the probation service as well as effective approaches to working with victims in complex situations. However, the absence of a significant proportion of reports and the failure to contact victims in some recent cases raised serious concerns. Following the initial post-sentence period it was difficult to justify the ongoing level of involvement by home probation services during the main part of the custodial sentence.

1.10 Two separate frameworks for sentence planning had been developed by the prison service over time and the lack of integration was evident. The completion of the initial assessment and subsequent reviews in the life sentence plan (LSP) were generally regarded as less important by staff at all levels than the older system of F75/Parole Board reports which were found to be of a higher standard. There was little evidence that sentence planning at later stages was based consistently on previous assessments and reviews.

1.11 The absence of central policy and guidance was largely responsible for the marked variation in the quality of the regimes in main centres and second stage prisons There had been no national analysis of the lifer population to determine what provision for offending behaviour work needed to be in place at this stage. However, commendable progress had been made in developing accredited programmes which were based on established effectiveness criteria, though there were gaps in provision for violent offenders and for women which the prison service was seeking to address. There were insufficient spaces, long waiting lists for the programmes, and inappropriate priority given to determinate prisoners in some cases. Although the quality of accredited programmes was high it had undermined the confidence of staff in other forms of group work.

1.12 Insufficient attention had been paid by the prison service to the needs of particular groups of lifers. Planning for those who would spend their natural life in prison was not occurring and the different types of regime required for female and young lifers had not been identified nor had the needs of lifers from ethnic minorities been explored.

1.13 The number of main centres currently available and the procedures for moving lifers through the prison system had been developed at a time when the number of lifers was small. There were unacceptable delays in moving lifers through the prison system which made it difficult for suitable lifers to be released on tariff. Although some action had been taken by the prison service to reduce these delays, procedures remained unwieldy and bureaucratic and further exploration was needed to find ways to ameliorate the situation.

1.14 There were lifers progressing through the system without having accepted full responsibility for their offending behaviour, which should have been addressed prior to their transfer to category C prisons. Further guidance was needed regarding how staff should respond to lifers who continued to deny their offences.

1.15 Many lifers found it difficult to adjust to the loss of privileges experienced on transfer to category C prisons which appeared to them to be a retrograde step. Despite the reintroduction of escorted town visits these were not being undertaken in the prisons visited.

1.16 Pressures on open prisons to address outstanding issues relating to offending behaviour detracted from their capacity to undertake testing and resettlement. The time that it was taking to complete Parole Board reviews was too long in many cases.

1.17 Liaison between prison and home probation officers was generally strong in planning for release, although there was scope for more purposeful planning of resettlement leave. The roles of open and resettlement units/prisons in preparing prisoners for release were being reviewed by the prison service and work with lifers at this stage needed specific consideration. It was encouraging to find that probation hostels were increasingly being used as part of resettlement plans. However, the respective roles of open and resettlement units/prisons, as well as the use of probation hostels in the resettlement process, required clarification.

1.18 Work with lifers following release was characterised by high levels of compliance and close supervision by the probation service, sustained for some over many years. The attention paid by the service to resettlement and public protection issues was impressive and the majority of lifers had achieved stability in their lives after release. Most work on outstanding matters relating to the offence and/or risk was undertaken on an individual basis, although in certain cases the level of reporting was unnecessarily high for the degree of risk that the lifer represented.

1.19 There was inconsistency and confusion regarding whether potential employers should be informed about the life licence. Ample evidence was provided of appropriate action being taken when a lifer gave cause for concern or failed to comply with the licence. Arrangements between the Lifer Review Unit (LRU) and probation services were seen as effective in a crisis situation in contrast to the systems for routine reporting. The procedures for mandatory lifers recalled to prison required review.

1.20 It was difficult to identify where overall accountability for work with lifers lay within the prison service and the arrangements for managing them within the prison estate were not effective. Although the Lifer Management Unit (LMU) and LRU had responsibility for lifer casework, they had no operational responsibility for the lifer estate, regimes, staffing or transfers. There was an absence of effective liaison between the prison service and Probation Unit.

1.21 Few prison service operating standards for lifers had been devised and the sole instructions for working with lifers in the community were national standards for throughcare. The Lifer Manual was not sufficiently detailed with regard to the roles of different staff working with lifers in prisons and for community supervision purposes many probation services had produced their own guidance. There was little evidence of work with lifers being evaluated by the prison or probation services or whether lifer work represented value for money.

1.22 In the prison service there were evident difficulties regarding the coordination of work with lifers which stemmed from the lack of clarity about the respective roles of staff. The potential for multidisciplinary working in most prisons was not being realised. Core tasks for work with lifers in prisons had not been determined centrally and this work was often not incorporated into either business plans or job descriptions. Probation staff were being held accountable by probation service managers for their work with lifers but the absence of effective systems within the prison service were apparent. There were insufficient staff working with lifers in the prison service who had attended specific training courses and training had not been provided for some managers and probation officers working with lifers in the community.

1.23 The findings from this thematic review reflected the wider resettlement issues facing the prison and probation services in working together. There was clearly scope for increased joint work and a common approach to risk assessment and management, the provision of offence related programmes and the training of staff, as well as monitoring and evaluating work with lifers.

Recommendations

1.24 It is recommended that:

The Prison Service should:

1. Devise and implement a strategy to address the individual circumstances of potential life sentence cases, including the coordination of work by uniform and specialist staff and the allocation of the necessary resources. (Para 4.26)

2. Ensure that following conviction:

(a) all newly sentenced lifers are transferred to regional local prisons within 28 days of sentencing;

(b) fast track induction centres are available in nominated local prisons to meet the needs of all newly sentenced short tariff lifers;

(c) all newly sentenced longer tariff lifers (alongside other newly sentenced long-term prisoners) spend a period in regional local prisons and undertake a rolling programme of induction and orientation;

(d) there is a revised framework for sentence planning which includes the opening of the Life Sentence Plan in regional local prisons;

(e) formal guidance for prison staff should be produced and the necessary resources for the above provided to ensure implementation. (Para 5.35)

3. Review its methods of sentence planning for lifers with a view to producing a single framework, based on the best of forensic practice, capable of integrating the contributions of different staff and informing decisions relating to risk assessment, de-categorisation and transfer. (Para 6.64)

4. Undertake an analysis of the criminogenic needs of the lifer population to identify the type and level of demand for programmes or other interventions and ensure suitable provision is made available. (Para 6.64)

5. Undertake a needs analysis of whole life tariff, ageing and disabled lifers, reviews the procedures for managing them and implements appropriate regimes. (Para 9.17)

6. Identify model regimes and operating standards appropriate for each stage of the lifer system taking into account the differential needs of female and young lifers as well as lifers from ethnic minority groups. (Para 12.35)

7. Review guidance relating to the core work on offending behaviour required to be completed prior to a move to open conditions and, with those lifers continuing to deny significant aspects of their offence, to identify relevant work for prison staff before and after transfer. (Para 10.40)

8. Specify the circumstances in which a psychiatrist's report is necessary and ensure that these are supplied by suitably qualified forensic psychiatrists to a specified format. (Para 7.34)

9. Take action to reduce delays in transferring life sentence prisoners. (Para 8.21)

10. Ensure that it is possible for lifers to address their areas of concern and for suitable lifers to be prepared for release within the timescale of their tariffs. (Para 10.40)

11. Ensure that lifer sentence planning is managed as a continuous process from the local prison stage through to release into the community. (Para 8.21)

12. Improve the arrangements for resettlement by reviewing the procedures for administering release on temporary licence and introducing greater local discretion. (Para 10.40)

13. Ensure that the review of resettlement takes account of the particular position of life sentence cases and clarifies the place and use of open and resettlement units/prisons. (Para 10.40)

14. To review procedures for mandatory lifers recalled to prison to ensure that they meet the requirements of natural justice. (Para 11.51)

15. Identify which part of the organisation is accountable for the management of lifers and ensure that the procedures in place for the administration of mandatory lifer cases operate fairly and accountably. (Para 12.35)

16. Reach an agreement which will allow local systems to be developed for the sharing of relevant information between the Police and Probation Services to inform the preparation of the Probation Service's post-sentence report. (Para 5.35)

17. Develop a protocol to ensure that effective systems are in place for the Prison Service to receive the Crown Prosecution Service papers attached to the Probation Service's post-sentence report. (Para 5.35)

18. Provide guidance regarding the work to be undertaken by probation services with defendants facing an automatic life sentence. (Para 4.26)

19. Review the guidance to probation services regarding the frequency of contact with lifers following release from prison. The requirement should be that lifers are seen as a minimum weekly for the first three months after release, fortnightly up to 12 months and monthly thereafter depending upon the risk assessment. (Para 11.51)

20. Review the current arrangements for routine reporting on individual lifers in the community. (Para 11.51)

21. Review the respective roles of all staff, including home probation officers, involved in work with life sentence cases by:

(a) setting clear expectations regarding their respective responsibilities within a multidisciplinary framework;

(b) developing a means to ensure that both seconded probation officer and psychological input with lifers is uniform across the lifer estate. (Para 7.34)

22. Review current training arrangements and implement a staff training and development strategy including joint provision. (Para 12.35)

23. Devise and implement systems in order to be able to assess value for money, quality and effectiveness of the work with lifers. (Para 12.35)

24. Post-sentence reports are routinely prepared within three months of sentence, contact with victims is undertaken and systems are in place for monitoring and quality control. (Para 5.35)

25. When a lifer finds work that employers are informed about the offence and the requirements of the life licence. (Para 11.51)

2. Aims, Objectives and Methodology

2.1 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons wrote to all prison governors and HM Chief Inspector of Probation to all chief probation officers (CPOs) and secretaries to probation committees in November 1997 informing them that a joint thematic review would be carried out. It was emphasised that the review would be the first occasion that the two Inspectorates had undertaken such an exercise, involving shared planning and fieldwork together with the preparation of a joint report.

2.2 The aims and objectives of the review* were:

Aims:

1. To undertake a joint thematic review to examine the arrangements made by the prison service and probation services for the management of people subject to life sentences both before and after their release from custody.

2. To make recommendations to develop the work of the prison service and probation services in jointly managing life sentence cases.

To examine, assess and report on the quality and effectiveness of the policies and practice of the prison service and probation services in relation to:

1. Pre-sentence work.
2. Sentence management.
3. Preparation for release.
4. Post-release supervision.

Methodology

2.3 Both Inspectorates were experienced in undertaking thematic work. For prison inspectors the emphasis was on gathering information to inform a national review whereas, for probation inspectors, it was the inspection of specific aspects of policy and practice. However, there were many common features which the current exercise sought to utilise. The framework and methodology for this review were developed following extensive discussion between the two Inspectorates.

2.4 A consultation group was formed which comprised staff from each Inspectorate together with: Jeremy Page, Head of the LRU; Tom Williams, governor of Leyhill prison; Gary Redfern, assistant chief probation officer (ACPO) Avon; Katherine Jeary, senior probation officer (SPO) Whitemoor prison; and, Jane Hirst, the then Head of Specialist Services and Partnerships in the Home Office Probation Unit. They provided wide-ranging advice, in particular on the standards and criteria developed as the basis for assessing work with lifers (see Appendix B), programme content, interview schedules and report formats. In addition, they participated in a number of visits and commented on the emerging findings. Apart from one probation area, each service and prison was visited by both a prison and probation inspector. Research assistants from HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMI Prisons) also took part in the prison work and both chief inspectors were involved in a number of visits.

2.5 To assist in planning the review, two seminars were held in December 1997 which allowed representatives of a wide variety of organisations to express their views on the lifer system. Inspectors met as part of the review the then Minister for prisons and probation, members of the judiciary, staff from Victim Support schemes, representatives of the Parole Board for England and Wales and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary. There were a number of visits to the LMU and LRU and meetings with prison service managers. Contact was made with a small number of researchers who kindly gave consent for their recent findings on lifers to be included in this report. Literature searches were carried out and work commissioned from the International Centre for Prison Studies.

2.6 As part of the review, written information through postal surveys was obtained from:

• all 37 local prisons which held potential life sentence prisoners on remand, setting out details of their current arrangements for dealing with such defendants
• the 61 prisons which held lifers in respect of their current lifer population, regime and contribution of uniform and specialist staff
• all 54 probation services, addressing details of work with lifers pre and post-release, available practice guidance, arrangements for managerial oversight of cases and staff training.

• telephone contact was made with eight open and resettlement units/prisons to gather details regarding procedures for the temporary release of lifers.

* Aylesbury Young Offender Institution (YOI), Albany, Askham Grange, Bullwood Hall, Durham (H Wing), Gartree, Lindholme, Long Lartin, Sudbury, Wakefield, Wellingborough and Wormwood Scrubs prisons.
** Derbyshire, Essex, Hereford & Worcester, Inner London, Lancashire, Norfolk, Teesside, West Glamorgan, West Yorkshire and Wiltshire.
*** Brixton, Kingston, Eastwood Park, Garth, Styal and Winchester prisons.

2.8 The review of the 12 prison establishments included meetings with governors, personal officers, medical staff, psychologists, seconded probation staff, education staff and workshop instructors, chaplains and members of the Board of Visitors. Probation area visits involved probation committee members, managers and staff including those responsible for hostels and the provision of group work. Representatives from other organisations such as the police and Victim Support schemes met inspectors. Discussions were held with groups of lifers in the prisons. A number of lifers were seen individually, some of whom were still in custody and others who had been released. Their personal officers (if they were still in custody) or the supervising probation officers (if the lifer was in the community) were also interviewed.

2.9 An extensive examination of prison and probation records was undertaken. Four samples* focused on:

• available documentation in prison establishments including LSPs and F75/Parole Board reports in 233 cases (prison record sample)
• probation records held by home probation officers on 152 lifers currently in prison (probation prison sample)
• probation records on 37 lifers released after 9 February 1996 (two year post-release sample)
• probation records on 61 lifers supervised in the community for over two years (long-term supervision sample).

2.10 Inspectors met with prison governors and CPOs to provide feedback on the visit and to discuss any implications. Separate reports were sent to the CPO and probation committee of each area visited, in keeping with normal HM Inspectorate of Probation (HMI Probation) practice.

Contents

3. Background and Context

Life sentence

3.2 Following the abolition of capital punishment, a life sentence became the mandatory penalty for persons convicted of murder. A discretionary life sentence can also be passed for other grave offences*. The Crime (Sentences) Act, 1997, introduced a third category, whereby judges are obliged to impose a life sentence following a second or subsequent conviction for a serious sexual or violent offence (known as a Section 2 automatic life sentence), unless the judge considers that exceptional circumstances exist for not doing so.

* Including manslaughter, rape, attempted murder, armed robbery, arson and some drugs offences.

3.3 When capital punishment existed for the most serious cases, it went largely unnoticed that many prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment were serving very short terms. Figures for the first 50 years of this century indicated that the average period served was just eight years. Sixty-eight lifers actually served less than three years, and only one over 20 years*. In the latest published statistics**, the average length of time served by those lifers released in 1997 had increased to 14.4 years for mandatories and 13.3 years for discretionaries, with 296 prisoners still in custody having served more than 20 years***. Table 1 shows the distribution of tariffs for mandatories, discretionaries and Her Majesty's Pleasure (HMP) lifers.

* Justice Sentenced for Life Reform of the law and procedure for those sentenced to life imprisonment (1996).
** Prison Statistics England and Wales (1997).
*** 296 of the 1,631 sentenced between 1965 and 1977.

Table 1: Tariffs for life sentence prisoners (Source: Prison service lifer database as of 15 December 1998)

Management of life sentences in England and Wales

* Smart, Pegg, Doody, Pierson. House of Lords judgement (24 June 1993).
** Secretary of State's directions for the release, recall and transfer to open conditions of mandatory life sentence prisoners.

3.7 Unlike those who receive mandatory sentences, prisoners serving discretionary sentences are informed in open court of the minimum period of time they must serve, i.e. "the relevant part" of the sentence, and can appeal against the decision. These cases are managed and reviewed by the Parole Board before tariff expiry, in the same way as mandatory prisoners, including recommendations for a move to open conditions which are subject to Ministerial approval. However, once the "relevant part" has expired, for those remaining in custody, the Parole Board then sits as a Discretionary Lifer Panel (DLP) to assess suitability for release. The lifer may attend and be legally represented. Release is binding on the Home Secretary's decision.

3.8 Following a recent judgement in the European Court,* young people sentenced to life detention at Her Majesty's Pleasure are now dealt with as discretionary lifers and release is decided at oral hearings by the Parole Board (HMP panels). However the tariff continues to be set by the Home Secretary. Prison service officials now consider annual progress reports on all lifers subject to detention during Her Majesty's Pleasure whose tariff has not yet expired and bring to the attention of Ministers exceptional progress which might justify a reduction. In addition, halfway through the tariff Ministers personally examine progress reports on each case to consider whether the original tariff remains appropriate. These lifers are able to submit their own representations as part of this process. A prisoner may ask for a review of their unexpired tariff at any time.

*The Secretary of State ex parte Hussain (1997).

3.9 The high level of Ministerial involvement in lifer cases is indicated by the number of cases they personally review which, during 1997/98, averaged 53 cases per month in relation to tariff setting, moves to open conditions and release. They also have to approve the return of a lifer from open to closed conditions.

The role of the probation service

3.10 The probation service works with lifers from the point they are defendants facing capital charges through to supervision of them as life licensees in the community. The life licence can include special conditions such as specifying where the lifer lives or forbidding contact with the victim's family. Such conditions are recommended by the Parole Board, often at the request of the probation service who have knowledge of the lifer and wishes of the victims/families. The licence may be revoked and the lifer returned to prison at any time. In all cases the licensee has the opportunity to make representations against recall (at an oral hearing of the Parole Board in discretionary cases). The supervision element of the licence may be cancelled by the LRU after a minimum of four years, but can be reimposed should the circumstances or conduct of the offender give rise to concern. The licence remains in force for the whole of the offender's life.

Work with victims

3.11 Following the Victim's Charter in 1990,* the expectation was articulated in a letter from the Home Office to probation services** in 1991 that victims should be contacted when the release of a lifer was being considered. In 1995, a national standard*** was introduced requiring probation services to contact the victim or victim's family within two months of sentence in cases of serious sexual or other violence, to provide information about the custodial process and determine any concerns which may be taken into account at a later stage. If the victims/families wish to be kept informed they will be contacted by probation service staff at key stages of the lifer's sentence and their views communicated as appropriate to the prison service. In all lifer cases including those sentenced prior to 1995, consideration must be given to victim issues before release on resettlement or life licence is permitted.

* Home Office Victim's Charter: a statement of the Rights of Victims of Crime (1990).
** Home Office CPO 41/1991 The Victim's Charter: Life sentence prisoners.
*** Home Office, Department of Health and Welsh Office National Standards for the Supervision of Offenders in the Community Supervision Before and After Release from Custody 7.13 (1995).

Growth in the lifer population

3.12 Official figures* indicate that between 1987 and 1997 there wasa 58 per cent increase in the male, and an 85 per cent increase in the female life sentence population (see table 2). This was despite a fairly steady homicide rate during the same period.* Comparisons with other countries for 1997, per 100,000 population, revealed variations from 1.42 in England and Wales, 1.60 in France, 7.34 in America to 19.88 in Russia.**

* Prison Statistics England and Wales (1997).
** Criminal Statistics. England and Wales (1997). The figure for Russia includes attempts.

Table 2: Total population and receptions into prison by type of prisoner and gender (1987/97) (Source: Prison Statistics England and Wales 1997)

* Prison Statistics England and Wales (1997).

3.14 The general prison population between 1987/97, amongst whom lifers were dispersed, had also increased in number, with the result that throughput of long-term prisoners from high to low security conditions was becoming ever more difficult. Table 3 provides evidence of the shortage of vacancies and consequent waiting lists for transfer of non-category A lifers at all stages of the system.

3.15 The LMU in a recent review of the lifer estate stated that although the capacity was theoretically adequate, in practice spaces were not available when required. They maintained that "because lifer places are not ring-fenced, they are understandably being filled with determinates. It would be unrealistic to expect all lifer spaces to be given over to lifers".* This had obvious implications for the timely movement of lifers through the prison system.

* 1 July 1998 submission from the LMU to the Estate Planning Committee Review of the Lifer Estate.

Table 3: Distribution of non-category A lifer population as of 27 July 1998 (1 July 1998 submission from the LMU to the Estate Planning Committee Review of the Lifer Estate.)

* R Hood and S Shute Unpublished memorandum to HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and of Probation on Parole Board decisions relating to reviews of mandatory life sentence prisoners University of Oxford Centre for Criminological Research (1998).

3.17 Of the 36 lifers undergoing their first Parole Board review to establish suitability for transfer to open conditions, two-thirds (24) were in category C conditions at the time of their review and 21 were recommended for a move to open conditions. Of the one-third (12) still in category B prisons, seven were recommended for a move to category C and two to open conditions. Therefore, for the sample under consideration and according to Parole Board assessments, only 13 out of the 36 (36 per cent) were not considered suitable for immediate transfer to open conditions, and only six cases (17 per cent) were not considered suitable for a progressive move of any sort.

3.18 Of 23 lifers undergoing their second review pre-tariff to establish suitability for release, 11 were in open conditions and all apart from one who had absconded and was reviewed in his absence were recommended for release. Another 10 were in category C conditions, of whom nine were recommended for open conditions. A further two were still in category B conditions; one of these was recommended for a transfer to category C with an early review, and one recommended to remain in thesecure estate. Thus only four (17 per cent) out of the 23 prisoners reviewed at this stage were not considered suitable for either open conditions or release.

3.19 When combining the two groups, of all those who were being reviewed prior to their tariff expiring, 49 out of 59 (83 per cent) received a recommendation from the Parole Board which, if there were no delays in the prison system and the Minister did not object, they could hope to achieve release "at or very near tariff".*

* This period could not be defined precisely by the researchers.

3.20 Figures were not available for lifers still in custody who had past their tariff date. Whilst recognising that not all lifers are suitable for release on tariff because of the risk that they still pose to the community or of concerns relating to public confidence, the number remaining in custody beyond tariff raises serious questions about the efficiency of the lifer system. Table 4 describes the number of lifers released on life licence.

Table 4: Life sentence prisoners released on life licence between April 1996 and March 1997 (Source: the LRU)

3.22 The prison service attribute the bulk of the delays to the increased length of a Parole Board review as a result of lifers taking time to formulate their own representations often with legal advice, and the failure to effect transfers in time for the work of the open prison stage to be completed before the subsequent Parole Board review begins. The Home Secretary, acknowledging these difficulties, has recently introduced changes to begin the parole process six months earlier in both category C and open conditions for those lifers who have made good progress.* These initiatives are intended to take 12 months off the current review timetable.

* Home Secretary's response to a Parliamentary question (9 July 1998).

Lifer profile

3.23 The postal surveys of local and lifer prisons revealed that at the beginning of February 1998 there were 3,503 convicted lifers in lifer prisons, and a further 315 in local prisons.* The 3,503 in lifer prisons included 107 who had been recalled following earlier release (a corresponding figure for local prisons was not collected). There were, additionally, 497 potential lifers on remand.** The postal survey of probation services indicated that 871 lifers were subject to supervision in the community.

* The figure for local prisons relates to the first week of March except for a few establishments which cover slightly different time periods.
** This figure understates the total number since, in some local establishments, the number was not known/available.

3.24 Appendix D provides a comprehensive breakdown of life sentence cases in prison and on supervision in the community.

Ethnicity

3.25 Statistics describing the ethnic profile of the life sentenced population are not routinely published and therefore there was no information to allow comparisons to be made over time. The following information, set out in table 5, was obtained to inform the thematic review.

Table 5: Ethnicity (Source: Prison and probation postal surveys)

The mental health of life sentence prisoners

3.27 Research into the mental health of those serving life sentences has not produced definitive results but indicates that levels of disturbance are higher for lifers than for other groups of prisoners. Lifers include a range of different personalities with differing motives for their offences and this may have contributed to the lack of clarity in research findings. Studies have also used different frameworks to diagnose mental disorder and selected their subject groups in various ways.* However, an important study in 1994 indicated that lifers were more psychiatrically disturbed than other prisoners** in terms of both personality disorder and, to a lesser extent, psychosis. Over a quarter of lifers in this study also had a history of self-harm compared with 16 per cent of non-lifers. A study by Dooley*** established that murderers made up 16 per cent of prison suicides, although they comprised just 4 per cent of the total prisoner population.

* HM Inspectorate of Prisons Review of Literature into Mental Health of Lifers (1998) (Awaiting publication).
** Swinton, Maden and Gunn Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, vol 4, pp 10-20 (1994).
*** Dooley Prison Suicide in England and Wales, 1972-1987 British Journal of Psychiatry, vol 156, pp 140-145.

3.28 This profile of disturbance is consistent with offences of extreme violence, some of which are the product not of criminal intent or personal gain but of dysfunctional personalities. It might also reflect the particular strains of living with the burden of guilt associated with the offence and of serving an indeterminate sentence.

Effects of long-term imprisonment

3.29 Studies of the effect of long-term imprisonment have concentrated on adult male prisoners and have not demonstrated the expected psychological deterioration. More recent research,* showed that, in general, although prisoners behave in a more introverted way whilst in prison, their previous social skills are not lost, but stored for future use and remain available for release. However, although long-term imprisonment may not in itself be damaging to robust personalities, its effects on dysfunctional personalities has not been established. For those coming into prison as young people, female prisoners and lifers who are known to be more personality disordered, the effect of long-term containment without remedial help may well be to cause further deterioration.

* Zamble and Porporino. Coping, Imprisonment and Rehabilitation: Some data and their implications. in Criminal Justice and Behaviour, vol 17, no 1 (1990).

Lifer reconviction

3.30 Reconviction figures for all lifers published in 1997* revealed that of those life prisoners released between 1972 and 1993, 9 per cent were reconvicted for a standard list offence** within two years of release, and 19 per cent of those released between 1972/90 within five years. In contrast, 50 per cent of adult male determinate prisoners discharged in 1994, and 46 per cent of female determinate prisoners were reconvicted within two years. Reconviction rates within two years for lifers had reduced from 13 per cent for those released between 1972 and 1980 to 5 per cent for the period 1989 to 1993. It was encouraging to find that for mandatory and discretionary lifers the reconviction rates for grave*** offences within five years of release had fallen from 5 and 8 per cent respectively for those released in the period 1972/80 to 2 per cent (for both types of lifer) for the period 1981/90.

* Home Office Statistical Bulletin issue 2/97.
** Includes all indictable and some serious summary offences (e.g. indecent exposure, assault on police and cruelty or neglect of children) but excludes most summary motoring offences and other less serious summary offences such as drunkenness and prostitution).
*** For which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

3.31 The above figures indicate that the likelihood of a released lifer being reconvicted for a further offence is substantially less than that of a released determinate sentenced prisoner, although the risk increases where there is a previous criminal history.

3.32 Between 1972 and 1980, 19 female prisoners were released on life licence, five of whom had been reconvicted by the end of 1995. Of the 52 female lifers released since 1981, no reconvictions for a standard list offence had been recorded against them, compared with the 46 per cent two year reconviction rate for female determinate prisoners discharged in 1994 referred to above.

3.33 Reconviction rates varied between different groups of lifers reflecting their previous convictions. Lifers with one or more previous convictions for any standard list offence were twice as likely to be reconvicted within two years as those with no previous recorded convictions (10 per cent as opposed to 5 per cent). Of lifers with one or more previous convictions, the two year reconviction rate was a little higher for discretionaries (11 per cent) than for mandatories (8 per cent).

3.34 The reconviction of any lifer following release is obviously a matter for serious concern. However, for lifers released from custody, the probation service, building upon the work undertaken in prison, have provided clear evidence of the efficacy of their procedures and systems which are likely to have contributed to the fall in reconviction rates.

Contents

HM Inspectorate of Prisons

HM Inspectorate of Probation

Home Office front page