Hello,
Over the years, we have worked with a small number of men serving IPP sentences, and I thought I would try to describe some of the extreme difficulties this sentencing framework has caused.
An IPP sentence, Imprisonment for Public Protection, was introduced in England and Wales in 2005 under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It was designed for individuals deemed to present a significant risk of serious harm, but whose offences did not warrant a life sentence. The sentence includes a minimum tariff (the time to be served before parole eligibility), followed by potential indefinite detention until the Parole Board determines that the person is safe for release. Upon release, individuals remain subject to lifelong licence conditions.
Essentially, this means that an individual may have received what appeared to be a relatively short minimum tariff, but the real difficulty comes afterwards, how to prove to the Parole Board that they no longer present a risk to public protection.
It is also important to recognise how difficult it is for a Parole Board to formally determine that someone is safe and no longer a risk to the public.
These Parole Board hearings are now mostly conducted remotely, over video link, and rely heavily on the ability of the prison and probation services to ensure that prisoners and reports etc, come before the Board in a timely manner. When key staff are unable to attend, or when the required support and rehabilitative programmes have not been made available to the prisoner, decisions cannot be made. This often results in adjournments and delays of many more months.
The men we have worked with have eventually been assessed as safe for release. However, after years languishing in prison, often facing repeated rejection following Parole Board decisions… many are left as profoundly damaged individuals.
There are currently around 1,000 men still serving IPP sentences in custody, and approximately 1,500 who have been recalled. In total, around 2,500 men remain subject to IPP provisions.
In our experience, it is incredibly hard for these men to believe that their lives can still be worthwhile. Over 50% of IPP prisoners have self-harmed, a stark indication of the psychological toll this sentence has taken.
Despite changes to IPP (2023) and some modest progress, we still have a form of incarceration that feels profoundly unjust. Although the IPP sentence itself was abolished (2012), it continues to devastate lives.
Campaigners have pushed for IPP reform, but the government has rejected resentencing despite backing from the Justice Select Committee.
A Howard League report proposes practical changes, including a more achievable Parole Board release test, clear release dates, and better support for prisoners preparing for release.
At the very least, it should be possible to provide a clear and definite end point to the sentence, while still ensuring that any ongoing risks are properly managed.
Which would be more humane.
Chris
26th February 2026