Preventing the early release of PC Harper's killers is not just the right thing - its actually quite simple

At the time of writing the petition calling on the Government to stop the early release of two of PC Andrew Harper’s killers has reached 836,314. The number continues to grow and it seems safe to assume that the petition launched by the Thames Valley Police Federation will soon reach one million signatures.

It feels almost inevitable that the Government will have to back down, because this is about a political choice, not a matter of law as some people are suggesting. There have been many interviews, discussions and thousands of words written about this case, but I wanted to take the time to set out just how simple the solution to this situation is.

The Sentencing Act 2026 received Royal Assent and became law in January of this year. There was some discussion in the media about the legislation as it moved through Parliament, but it was often overshadowed by bigger political stories and it certainly did not break through into the public consciousness. That was until the evening of 21st July when the Telegraph broke the story that two of the three men who killed PC Andrew Harper were set to be included in the new early release scheme.

Henry Long, Albert Bowers and Jessie Cole were all convicted of manslaughter over the killing of Andrew in 2019. The driver of the vehicle, Henry Long, that dragged PC Harper to his death was given a longer sentence which precluded him from the early release scheme. Under the terms of the Sentencing Act the other men, Albert Bowers and Jessie Cole, are set to be released from prison early next year.

As a result of the killing of PC Harper, a new offence was created, often referred to as Harper’s Law.  The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 requires a mandatory life sentence for anyone found guilty of killing an emergency service worker whilst in the performance of their duties. This was to overcome what some people saw as a “loophole” that Harper’s killers were convicted of manslaughter, not murder. A new offence cannot be applied retrospectively, which is an important point in the current debate. Some in Government are mistakenly - or possibly deliberately - claiming that the campaign to keep Bowers and Cole in prison is a retrospective one. It is not.

What Harper’s Law does is demonstrate the Parliament can differentiate based on who the victims of an offence was. It was clear from that debate that the creation of the law was not about holding the lives of police officers or other emergency workers above the lives of the rest of us, but recognising that when performing their duty these men and women represent us all. An attack on them is more than the loss of an individual life, but an attack on our society. 

It is to Andy Burnham’s credit that he agreed to review the Sentencing Act. It is legislation that was passed before he was in Parliament, let alone even Prime Minister. The broad changes that he has outlined, to exclude rapists and some sex offenders from early release should be welcomed. Yet the Government seems stuck on this particular case despite there being a simple solution.

There are already some exemptions from early release in the Sentencing Act - for those with whole life sentences for example. Burnham now plans to introduce further categories of exemptions for rapists and others. So there is clearly no problem with a carve out in certain circumstances.

The arguments against it from the Government appear to be twofold. Firstly that it would be retrospective, contrary to our usual legal precedents; and secondly that they cannot create a specific exemption for individuals without keeping all manslaughter offenders in prison and risking the collapse of the system.

The proposal is not retrospective. To apply Harper’s Law now would not just mean they were not released early, but would increase their sentences to Life. Whilst many might consider that desirable, that is not the argument being used here. Instead what we are campaigning for is that they are not released early under the provisions of the Sentencing Act 2026. In fact, far from being retrospective, all it is actually doing is seeking to ensure that their sentences are reinstated to that which would have been the case at the time they were found guilty. There can be no question of this being retrospective either legally or by the concept of natural justice. They were sentenced in 2020 and the campaign seeks to ensure they would serve their sentence as per the legal situation as it was then.

The Government has undermined the second point themselves. No-one is seriously suggesting that primary legislation should name the two individuals in question - although I would argue that as Parliament is sovereign this would be entirely possible albeit highly unusual. Instead the circumstances of their case simply need to be described in general legal terms. Burnham seems to be suggesting exactly that with grooming gang convictions, where the Government are now looking to create a subset of indecent assault convictions that would be excluded from early release.

So the solution is simple, an amendment to the legislation that simply requires two clauses: 

(a) [The impact of the Sentencing Act 2026] does not apply-

(i) in relation to a person serving a sentence of imprisonment for manslaughter

(ii) the offence was committed against an emergency worker acting in the exercise of functions as such a worker.

The definition of an emergency worker is already defined by the Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 and in section 68 of the Sentencing Code who were acting in the exercise of their functions. This includes police officers, National Crime Agency officers, prison officers, custody officers, firefighters and paramedics.

This exemption is not retrospective, it does not rely on Harper’s Law, it does not increase their sentences. It relies on legislation that existed prior to their offence for its definitions and simply describes a subject of manslaughter offences. It creates no new offence and simply reinstates their original sentence.

There may be some other cases that the public are not aware of which would fall under this category, but this can reasonably be estimated to be less than ten individuals - certainly not enough to overwhelm the prison system. I do have a concern that civil servants feel it would be difficult for them to identify these cases. It may have to be done manually and could leave the Government open to legal action. The convenience of the system should not be a reason not to take action, if this is part of the reason behind the refusal to act it needs urgent political direction from Ministers.

I believe the public pressure now being applied on the Government means that the politics of this case create an inevitability of a welcome U-turn. I have been advocating for the Conservative opposition to table the amendment set out above (or a version of it) when the Government brings its own proposed changes in September. The urgency of the matter suggests that they will need emergency legislation in the brief window of two weeks when Parliament sits after the summer recess and before the party conferences. 

If a stand alone amendment is presented to MPs along the lines I have suggested, where there are clearly no significant impacts on prison numbers, then I cannot see how it would be possible for the Government to whip its MPs to oppose the measure. If they face this prospect in September, why on earth would Andy Burnham not take the easy route out in August and accept what is being proposed. 

There is no partisan victory for the new Prime Minister to hold his line on this. There is no serious argument about prison numbers given the tiny cohort that we are talking about. It is the right decision, and in the long run, Burnham can still put himself on the right side of the argument.

I am optimistic about the success of this campaign, but it will only come with the continued support of the public and pressure from all sides. It will be a great relief for Andrew’s family, many in the wider policing community and the general public if Albert Bowers and Jessie Cole remain in prison. Nevertheless we need to be clear that this will not resolve many of the other issues of the Sentencing Act.

Undoubtedly we have a shortage of prison spaces and this is not the first early release scheme we have seen. The big difference in this case is that there is no risk assessment of individual offenders. Previous schemes, despite their own flaws, have allowed for exceptions to be made based on the risk individuals might pose. This legislation is a blanket release of thousands of people simply based on the crime they were convicted of. The apparent exclusion of rapists and child sex offenders is welcome but if we win the battle over the PC Harper case, thousands of victims will still feel let down.

There is a strange mismatch between actual sentence inflation over recent years and early release schemes that move in the opposite direction. I have a more radical view that we should be honest with the public. If someone is sentenced to 10 years, but likely to be released after only 5, then that is how we should describe it to the public, the perpetrator and the victim. Periods on licence should be additional to the custodial sentence set out. 

The arguments about prison capacity, early release and sentencing policy will continue long after the issue of Andrew Harper’s killers has been resolved, but for now, please add your name to the petition at change.org/pcharper.