What is the future of indeterminate prison sentences?

Last Week the European court of human rights ruled that indeterminate prison sentences (IPPs) breached prisoner’s human rights. The Ministry of Justice has three months to decide whether to appeal the decision.  But does holding convicts without a release date protect society?  Or are IPPs a drain on resources and morally wrong?

IPPs were brought in by previous Labour home secretary David Blunkett to appease a shocked electorate in the wake of the murder of schoolgirl Sarah Payne. Today there are over 6,000 prisoners in England and Wales currently without a release date – 3,500 of these prisoners have already served their time but have no idea when they will leave prison.

Although these open-ended sentences were recently abolished, prisoners who were previously convicted are now stuck in the system and IPPs are still being dished out despite the change in law. Three months after passing the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of offenders Act, which abolished IPPs, how should judges deal with the serious offenders which they believe to be a risk to society?

Without the IPP option, judges leave themselves open to public backlash if lenient sentencing results in an offender committing a violent crime upon release. However, at the heart of the UK’s justice system is an ethos of rehabilitation, and unless adequate programmes are available, many inmates face an indefinite stretch inside.

As well as human rights issues, there is also the cost to the taxpayer to consider. Staying at Her Majesty’s pleasure without a release date brings with it population management issues. Many prisoners are moved regularly to help tackle overcrowding, and as a result they may find rehabilitation programmes are oversubscribed. Without completing a course they have no chance for parole – and so the cycle continues.

So what is the answer? Essentially, those serving indeterminate sentences are not only being punished for what they have done, but also what they may do in the future. But is this fair? Only time will tell what will happen to those trapped in the system. But one thing is certain – without the option to impose IPPs, the criminal justice system will have to impose clever and efficient systems to ensure the time prisoners spend inside is conducive to lowering their risk of reoffending. As a legal profession what’s your opinion? Let us know by commenting below.

Central Division location: Patently obvious?

The hot topic in the legal world at the moment is that of the European Unified Patent Court and the discussions surrounding where it should be located.

The debate over the harmonisation of patent law across the European Union has been raging for many years but disagreements among EU governments have so far hindered any efforts to create the single patent regime. Following strong opposition from Spain and Italy over language issues earlier this year, 25 countries of the 27 EU members were prompted to move ahead with the process. However the only remaining issue yet to be decided on is the location of the central division.

Munich, Paris and London are all potential locations however ministers still haven’t been able to agree on which one to pick. The current favourite amongst ministers is rumoured to be Munich, but why does location matter?

The country that wins the Central Division will hold an unrivalled market as well as economic gain. If London is unsuccessful in its bid, it may mean that UK Patent lawyers would need to relocate in order to practice in the competitive profession.

So what does this mean for UK lawyers in the long term? Could this even mark the death of UK patent law as we know it? It’s far too early to tell but we will be watching this debate develop with great interest. What’s your view? Let us know by commenting below.