Weeding the garden: The Third Way, the Westminster tradition and Imprisonment for Public Protection

TLDR: The authors argue that the perceived need for the IPP sentence and its ultimate form was the result of New Labour ministers' reliance on the Third Way political ideology and its implications for criminal justice policy.

Abstract: This article engages with the Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence of the UK Criminal Justice Act 2003, a prominent measure against ‘dangerous offenders’, in a ‘substantively political light’ (O’Malley, 1999). It provides an interpretation based on policymakers’ beliefs and traditions. I argue that the perceived need for the IPP sentence and its ultimate form was the result of New Labour ministers’ reliance on the Third Way political ideology and its implications for criminal justice policy. In addition, in terms of the policymaking process, I suggest that the ‘Westminster tradition’ conditioned policymakers’ actions in relation to the IPP sentence, in ways that were crucial to its outcome. The article concludes with an examination of the moral significance of these beliefs and traditions by reference to Bauman’s discussion of the dangers of a modern ‘garden culture’.

Full text

Weeding the Garden: The Third Way, the Westminster tradition and
Imprisonment for Public Protection
Harry Annison, School of Law, University of Southampton, UK
Post-acceptance version
The final, definitive version of this paper has been published in Theoretical Criminology
(2014) 18 (1) 38-55 by SAGE Publications Ltd, All Rights Reserved. © Harry Annison
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362480613497779

2
Weeding the Garden: The Third Way, the Westminster tradition and
Imprisonment for Public Protection
Harry Annison, School of Law, University of Southampton, UK
Abstract:
Concern at the nature of penal politics and its outcomes is widespread, not least in relation to
the continued drive towards preventive measures (Dennis and Sullivan, 2012). This trend is
well demonstrated in the UK by the Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence,
introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. This article engages with this prominent
measure against ‘dangerous offenders’ in a ‘substantively political light’ (O'Malley, 1999:
189), providing an interpretation based on policymakers’ beliefs and traditions (Bevir and
Rhodes, 2003). In it, I argue that the perceived need for the IPP sentence and its ultimate
form was the result of New Labour ministers’ reliance on the Third Way political ideology
and its implications for criminal justice policy. In addition, in terms of the policymaking
process, I suggest that the ‘Westminster tradition’ conditioned policymakers’ actions in
relation to the IPP sentence, in ways that were crucial to its outcome and subsequent effects.
The paper concludes with an examination of the moral significance of these beliefs and
traditions in reference to Bauman’s (1989) discussion of the dangers of a modern ‘garden
culture’.
Key words: New Penology; Crime Policy; Politics; Bauman; Ideology
Biographical note: Harry Annison is a Lecturer in Law at the School of Law,
University of Southampton. His research interests include penal politics, desistance from
crime and the theory and practice of interpretive political analysis.

3
Contact Details: h.annison@soton.ac.uk; School of Law, University of Southampton,
Highfield, Southampton. SO17 1BJ.

4
WEEDING THE GARDEN: THE THIRD WAY, THE WESTMINSTER TRADITION
AND IMPRISONMENT FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION
Concern at the direction of penal policy and the nature of penal politics has been, and
continues to be widespread, not least in relation to the continued drive towards pre-emptive
and preventive measures (Dennis and Sullivan, 2012; Zedner and Ashworth, 2008). Risk has
‘moved from the periphery to the core of criminological theorizing and crime control
practice’ (Loader and Sparks, 2007: 84). In the UK, this trend in criminal justice policy is
well demonstrated by the Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence, an
indeterminate prison sentence created by the New Labour government in 2003. This article
takes up Pat O’Malley’s (1999: 189) invitation to engage with such developments ‘in a more
substantively political light’, presenting an interpretive political analysis of a particular
development in penal policy in a specific locale.
In so doing, this article reveals two key ways in which political beliefs and traditions
were central to the development of the IPP. First, the Third Way ideology, fundamental to
New Labour policymaking in general terms, informed the perceived need for such a sentence
and its ultimate form. This ideological position – containing both rehabilitative and
eliminatory strands – interacted with a developing risk paradigm to result in this latest
iteration of measures targeted at the ‘dangerous’. Second, the ‘Westminster tradition’
(Rhodes et al., 2009: chapter 3) conditioned policymaking officials’ actions in relation to the
IPP sentence, influencing its eventual outcome and effects. It served to limit the perceived
boundaries of legitimate activity for civil servants which, combined with officials’ distance

5
from criminal justice practice and those subject to it, reduced their moral engagement with
the nature and likely effects of the sentence.
1
In conclusion, the beliefs and processes described below are interpreted through the
lens of Zygmunt Bauman’s discussion of the dangers of a modern ‘garden society’ (Bauman,
1989: 92); a culture which seeks to eliminate irrelevant, useless and harmful ‘weeds’ and
which by its institutional arrangements serves to separate moral evaluation of means from
their ultimate ends (Bauman, 1989: 92). If ‘moral duty has to count on its pristine source: the
essential human responsibility for the Other’ (Bauman, 1989: 199), it is argued that the extant
political beliefs and traditions served to close off policymakers’ human responsibility for one
particular ‘Other’: the ‘dangerous offenders’ targeted by the IPP sentence.
The IPP sentence and its effects
The IPP sentence, whether measured in terms of its form or effects, stands as a striking
development in recent British sentencing policy. As of 31 March 2012, over 6,500 IPP
sentences had been imposed since their implementation in April 2005, with 3,506 held
beyond their tariff date (Prison Reform Trust, 2012a: 21). The growth of this population has
fundamentally changed the nature of the prison population, with one in five prisoners now
serving indeterminate (life and IPP) sentences (Prison Reform Trust, 2012b: 20).
The IPP sentence was the central measure of the ‘Dangerous Offenders’ sentencing
regime introduced by Part 12, Chapter 5 of the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003. If a
defendant was found to be ‘dangerous’ and an IPP sentence imposed, the trial judge was to
state the minimum term commensurate with the seriousness of the offence (the ‘tariff’).
2
After expiry of the tariff, the offender would be released on licence only if the Parole Board
1
It should be emphasized that the present article is not intended to present an exhaustive history of the creation
of the IPP sentence, but rather to focus on the concerns, beliefs and traditions most central to its development.
2
To reflect the policy as regards determinate-sentenced prisoners, the tariff would be set at half the equivalent
determinate sentence length for the offence committed: s82A, Powers of Criminal Court (Sentencing) Act 2000.

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What have the authors contributed in "Weeding the garden: the third way, the westminster tradition and imprisonment for public protection" ?

This trend is well demonstrated in the UK by the Imprisonment for Public Protection ( IPP ) sentence, introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. This article engages with this prominent measure against ‘ dangerous offenders ’ in a ‘ substantively political light ’ The paper concludes with an examination of the moral significance of these beliefs and traditions in reference to Bauman ’ s ( 1989 ) discussion of the dangers of a modern ‘ garden culture ’. In addition, in terms of the policymaking process, I suggest that the ‘ Westminster tradition ’ conditioned policymakers ’ actions in relation to the IPP sentence, in ways that were crucial to its outcome and subsequent effects. 

Q2. What is the definition of a ‘social action’?

An ‘adiaphoric’ social action is one which has become ‘neither good nor evil, measurable against technical...but not moral values’ (Bauman, 1989: 215). 

Q3. What did Crawley and Sparks mean by thoughtlessness?

For them, thoughtlessness denoted ‘a certain moral and affective flattening, without which it may be difficult to sustain institutional routines’ (Crawley and Sparks, 2005: 353). 

Q4. What was the motivation behind the creation of the IPP sentence?

The creation of the IPP sentence flowed from a straightforward assumption that suchrisk technologies could facilitate the better protection of the public from dangerous offenders, a desire compelled by the Third Way ideology: 

Q5. What is the definition of a ‘binding constraint’?

With officials socialized into the Westminster tradition, their duty to follow the orders of their political rulers becomes a ‘binding constraint’ (Rhodes, 2011: 129). 

Q6. What was the main motivation behind the creation of the IPP sentence?

rather than being driven by the developments in actuarial risk assessment tools per se, the creation of the IPP sentence was primarily motivated by the dominant Third Way ideology and an assumption that developing risk assessment technologies could serve its attendant goal – the elimination of ‘dangerous offenders’. 

Q7. What were the sources of information collected?

In addition, a wide range of documents, including government publications, reports, speeches, newspaper articles, autobiographies, Hansard, internal reports and meeting minutes, were collected and analysed. 

Q8. How long could a prisoner be sentenced to life imprisonment?

While inmost circumstances the tariff period for a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment would average 15 years (Prison Reform Trust, 2012b: 20), that of an IPP prisoner could potentially be measured in months, if not weeks. 

Q9. What is the main reason why the IPP sentence was abolished?

Some writers have cast the IPP sentence as primarily the result of cynical politicians seeking to gain electoral advantage by assuaging perceived popular fears of crime and criminals with little regard for the consequences (Tonry, 2004). 

Q10. What is the moral dimension of IPP?

Rhodes’ (2011: 227) observation that the specialization inherent in bureaucraciesleads to ‘tunnel vision’ thus takes on an important moral dimension.