An end in sight? – Expert recommendations on Indefinite sentences for Public Protection (IPPs).
IPPs followed from good intentions but turned out to be bad law, inadequately supported and harmful. Is an appropriately informed solution finally in sight? A Howard League working group, chaired by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, suggests so1.
This story is based in England and Wales, but Scotland struggles with similar legislation, and maybe other countries do too. How can people who have been convicted of a criminal offence, who appear to be at risk of more or worse offending best be protected from such progression? – and the wider community better safeguarded too?
In England and Wales, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 created a new sort of life sentence. Under this, after criminal conviction for sexual or violent offending and evidenced risk of further offending, it was considered that both offenders and the public would benefit from the offender receiving a probably short time in prison, but supplemented with indefinite community supervision; in-prison time – the tariff or payback for the crime – would be determined by the trial judge. During the indefinite supervision, however, if there appeared to be evidence of any breach of conditions, then the person could be returned to prison. Release was not, however, automatic on reaching the tariff, but to be determined by Parole Board advice to the Minister of Justice. As usual with new legislation, there was no contemporaneous research to test the provision. Had there been, then the extent of its failure might have been apparent much sooner.
Nevertheless, concerns were apparent within three years of its implementation. Initial views were that IPPs were too widely used, catching up less serious offenders – so many of them, in fact, that they were beginning to strain prison and parole systems. Good intentions were suffocated because prisoners could not access interventions they needed to show that they were no longer a risk to society. In part response, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 introduced a seriousness threshold for the sentence, indicated by a minimum tariff of two years.
This did little to resolve concerns. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 followed, abolishing the sentence. This, however, meant only that no new IPPs could be made. Serious problems remained for the thousands still serving IPPs in prison, or liable to reimprisonment, who could only see that, had their court hearing been scheduled after this, they could no longer be given such a sentence. Their own situation was unchanged.
Third sector organisations and others have sought to evidence the problems and campaign for consequently meaningful change. The United Group for Reform of IPPs (UNGRIPP)2, for example, provides information, testimonies from those under IPPs and their families and provides support for them, including legal support. Considered parliamentary responses have followed – for example the 2022 House of Commons Justice Committee Report on IPP sentences3, setting out further supportable solutions, in particular, here, resentencing. Academics have taken an interest, including Sophie Ellis of Cambridge University’s Institute of Criminology, who led a 2022 multidisciplinary, multi-agency seminar. Crime in Mind hosted a webinar, much of which is still available online for members4.
The Howard League for Penal Reform has worked consistently since this sentence was introduced to highlight and resolve its problems5. This latest paper was launched in the House of Lords on June 23rd 2025. Drawing on the expertise of lawyers, HMPPS pathway experts, psychologists, psychiatrists, academics and lived experience, it briefly and logically outlines six practical solutions. Inevitably these must attract co-operation from key institutions – the Parole Board, the Ministry of Justice, mental health and other community services and the Courts.
The report calls for:
- The Parole Board to set a release date within a two-year window, accompanied by a statement of requirements to achieve that safely, whilst taking into account that many/most of those still in prison under IPPs are way over tariff.
- A Recall Test. Mindful that the sentence’s provision for recall is intended to be protective of everyone, but in practice often used in haste, rigorous application of a Recall Test is advised. Accepting that, in an emergency, return to prison may be the safest immediate response to a crisis, actual recall, with all its implications, should not occur without formal review by the Probation Service and evidence of a causal link between the concerning behaviour and raised risk of significant new serious harms. Further, a new arrest should not, in itself, be a ground for recall, but rather the law should take its course. Given a sufficiently serious charge, the individual can anyway be detained under custodial remand without implementing IPP recall. In addition, there should be a swift opportunity to scrutinise the Probation decision by a Judicial Member of the Parole Board or a District Judge.
- Reintegration and rehabilitation that acknowledges that, unlike other life sentences, IPP sentences could become spent. A relevant section of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 may help here.
- Enhanced community aftercare – this follows from recognition that many of these people were on the threshold of needing psychiatric rather than justice services at the point of sentencing, and nearly all have developed problems needing treatment and expert support, probably in part as a consequence of the chronic uncertainty imposed by this sentence. For people detained under mental health legislation, s.117 of the Mental Health Act 1983/2007 imposes a duty to provide appropriate aftercare. That should apply here too.
- Restore annual licence termination reviews – thus simply returning to the position that existed before the amendments to the Police, Crime and Courts Act 2022.
- Enhanced approach to criminal appeals. Every person still serving an IPP should have access to a special Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) process, which could expedite their application to the full Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) sentence review, prioritising those unreleased and most over-tariff and supporting legal representation.
3 https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/28825/documents/173974/default/
4 https://www.crimeinmind.co.uk/indefinite-sentences-for-public-protection-ipps-a-call-for-action/
5 https://howardleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/IPP-report.pdf
Research can transform lives. We want to support discoveries about what helps people with mental disorder who have been victims of criminal behaviour, or perpetrators of criminal behaviour, and their families, and the clinicians and others who treat them and, indeed, the wider community when its members are in contact with these problems. More effective prevention is the ideal, when this is not possible, we need more effective, evidenced interventions for recovery and restoration of safety.
Please help us by donating to Crime In Mind – DONATE TO CRIME IN MIND HERE
If you would like to become a Member of Crime In Mind please visit our website here.
Membership entitles all Members to the following benefits:
- Access to private members page on dedicated website containing Members discussion forums, document archive and resource libraries.
- Access to recordings of our previous webinars and seminars.
- Free attendance at suitable events awarding up to 10 CPD hours per annum.
- Opportunity to join the Executive committee subject to the conditions of the Articles of Association.