Understanding IPP Sentences: A Shameful Legacy in Criminal Justice

A poem by Joe Outlaw captures the plight of those serving IPP sentences:

Reflection staring back at me, I do not recognise.

Sunken cheeks, ashen skin and weary, tired eyes.

My body fails me nowadays, my strength is in the past.

The years I’ve spent in prison may also be my last.

My family growing older and some now passed away.

This sentence has deprived me of much more than I can say.

[from INQUEST]

Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences have long been a subject of contention in England and Wales. Introduced in 2005 under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, IPP sentences were designed to protect the public from serious offenders who posed a significant risk of harm. However, their implementation, impact, and eventual abolition have left a lasting mark on the justice system and the lives of those affected.

What Are IPP Sentences?

IPP sentences were indeterminate sentences given to offenders convicted of serious violent or sexual crimes. Courts could impose an IPP if the crime didn’t merit a life sentence but the offender was deemed a future risk to public safety.

How IPP Sentences Worked:

1. Tariff Period: Offenders were required to serve a minimum term (the tariff) as determined by the court. This period reflected the severity of their crime.
2. Post-Tariff Detention: After serving the tariff, prisoners remained in custody until the Parole Board determined they were no longer a threat to the public.
3. Licence on Release: Once released, offenders were subject to an indefinite licence, meaning they could be recalled to prison for breaches of their licence conditions, concerning behavior, or new offences.

Release was never automatic. The burden was on the prisoner to prove they no longer posed a risk—a challenge that left many detained well beyond their tariff.

The issue of recall has added another layer of complexity and controversy to IPP sentences. According to data from September 2020, in addition to the 1,895 IPP prisoners who had never been released, a further 1,357 individuals were back in custody after being recalled. This marked a 13% increase from the previous year.

Most of these recalls were not for new offences but for minor breaches of release conditions or issues linked to mental health challenges. For these individuals, and their families, the experience has been likened to a Kafkaesque nightmare of uncertainty, despair, and hopelessness. They remain indefinitely detained unless and until they can meet the stringent demands of persuading the Parole Board that they no longer pose a risk to public safety—a test that can be extraordinarily difficult to pass.

A System in Crisis

By 2012, widespread criticism of IPP sentences had emerged due to their unintended consequences. Despite being introduced to address public safety concerns, the system quickly became overwhelmed:

• Overcrowded Prisons: Thousands were serving IPPs, many of whom had completed their tariff but remained in custody indefinitely.
• Lack of Rehabilitation Programs: The European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2012 that the UK’s failure to provide adequate rehabilitation services for IPP prisoners rendered their continued detention "arbitrary" and unlawful.
• Psychological Toll: Many prisoners faced severe mental health challenges due to the uncertainty surrounding their release. Cases of self-harm, hopelessness, and suicide among IPP prisoners highlighted the devastating human cost. One such case was that of Tommy Nicol who took his own life on an IPP sentence. He died in 2015, two years over his minimum tariff with no hope of being released. He described the IPP sentence as the ‘psychological torture of a person who is doing 99 years’.

Reforms and Abolition

Recognising the flaws in the system, reforms began in 2008 under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act. Judges were given greater discretion, and a new "seriousness" threshold was introduced to ensure IPP sentences were used more sparingly. However, these changes came too late for many already serving an IPP sentence.

In 2012, the coalition government abolished IPP sentences through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO). Instead, life sentences for repeat serious offenders and extended sentences for dangerous individuals were introduced. However, the abolition was not retroactive, leaving thousands still serving indeterminate sentences.

The Ongoing Legacy of IPP Sentences

Despite abolition, as of 2023, nearly 3,000 individuals remain imprisoned under IPP sentences, with many held years beyond their tariff. In February 2023, the government rejected calls for a resentencing exercise recommended by the House of Commons Justice Committee, citing an updated action plan to aid prisoner progression toward release.

In November 2024, a milestone was reached when indefinite probation oversight for approximately 1,800 rehabilitated IPP offenders who had completed their prison terms was finally lifted. Yet, the challenges for those still incarcerated remain significant.

Incompatibility with Human Rights

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and other experts have criticised the IPP sentencing system as cruel and degrading, emphasising its violation of international human rights laws. Key concerns include:

• Arbitrary Detention: The lack of a clear path to release created uncertainty that contravened the prohibition against arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
• Mental Health Impact: The indefinite nature of sentences caused significant psychological harm, with many prisoners describing the experience as akin to "psychological torture."
• Impact on Families: The prolonged detention and indefinite recall system strained relationships and disrupted family life, adding to the sentence's lasting consequences.

The Case for Resentencing

Advocates, including human rights organisations, legal experts, and former prisoners, continue to call for a comprehensive resentencing program. The argument is clear: a fair and just system must provide legal certainty, humane treatment, and opportunities for rehabilitation.

As one expert noted, "The single greatest stain on our criminal justice system cannot be erased without addressing the plight of those still caught in its shadow."