🛑 Justice Alert: A sentence without an end: How the IPP fuels miscarriages of justice

In this article, I will examine the operation and enduring legacy of the IPP sentence, arguing that its continued existence represents one of the most significant miscarriages of justice in the history of our criminal justice system.

Before highlighting the inherent flaws of the IPP sentence and exploring potential avenues for reform, I will provide a brief outline of the historical development of the IPP sentence.

What is the IPP sentence?

The IPP was introduced by s.225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and came into force in April 2005.

It is an indeterminate sentence, which was imposed by the courts on a mandatory basis for offenders convicted of one of 96 violent or sexual offences punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years or more, and where an offender posed a serious risk of harm in the future.[1]

When imposing an IPP sentence, a judge would set a minimum tariff period to be served by the offender.

Following concerns over the high rate at which IPPs were being imposed,  the IPP sentence was significantly scaled back by reforms introduced in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

In an effort to cut down the number of individuals given IPP sentences, the Act amended s.225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

The reforms included a requirement that an IPP could only be imposed for offences carrying a minimum tariff of two years as well as a reduction in the number of qualifying offences. [3]

However, this abolition was not applied retrospectively, meaning that individuals sentenced to an IPP prior to this date remain subject to its terms.

What are the problems with the IPP?

Since its introduction, the IPP sentence has been marked by controversy and ongoing challenges.

Among the most serious are limited access to rehabilitation programmes, the disproportionately high rate of recall to prison while on licence, and the damaging impact that indefinite detention has on the mental and physical well-being of prisoners and their families.

Inadequate access to rehabilitation programmes

One of the most significant criticisms of the IPP sentence relates to the limited access that prisoners have had in securing a place on an accredited offending behaviour programme (OBP).

The completion of these programmes, which are designed to address an individual’s risk factors, is a key means by which prisoners can demonstrate a reduction in risk to the Parole Board and consequently progress toward release.

This lack of access largely stems from the New Labour government’s underestimation of how many individuals would be sentenced under the IPP regime.

At its outset, it was anticipated that only around 900 offenders would be subject to an IPP. In reality, a total of 8,711 IPP sentences were imposed across its lifespan.

Following an early legal challenge in the Court of Appeal concerning the lack of available OBPs, this issue was brought before the European Court of Human Rights in the landmark case of James, Wells and Lee v United Kingdom.

Following this damning ruling, one would expect access to rehabilitation courses to have significantly improved. However, there has since been little progress.

In the decade following the IPP’s abolition in 2012, there was a reported 60% decline in the availability of courses necessary for prisoners to demonstrate a reduced risk.

This ongoing failure to provide adequate provisions for accessing OBPs denies prisoners a fair opportunity to demonstrate a reduced risk, thereby significantly reducing their chances of securing release.

As a result, the IPP sentence continues to function in a way that is fundamentally unjust, leading to individuals serving disproportionately long periods in custody compared to the seriousness of their original offence.

The concerning recall rate

Another area in which the IPP sentence has received major criticism concerns its excessively strict recall procedures, described by the House of Commons Justice Committee as a ‘merry-go-round’.[6]

Serious concerns have been raised about the high number of individuals serving an IPP sentence who are recalled to custody while on licence.

Notably, 85% of all IPP recalls have involved no further offending, with the most common reason being minor breaches of license conditions, such as missing a meeting with a probation officer.

Once recalled to prison, an individual may only be re-released if the Parole Board is satisfied that they no longer pose a risk to the public.

A freedom of information request obtained by Sky News in 2024 revealed that only 83 released IPP-sentenced offenders have since been convicted of a further serious offence, amounting to only 1.7% of all IPP offenders released since the IPP’s abolition in 2012.

This low level of re-offending raises serious questions regarding the necessity of such an excessively strict recall system.

While this reform is welcome, its impact being deemed meaningful remains doubtful, given the sheer volume of recalls that continue to occur.

The result of such an excessively strict recall procedure means that IPP prisoners remain trapped in a cycle of release and recall and struggle to free themselves from the system.

These individuals also face significant challenges in fully reintegrating into society, as they live in constant fear of being recalled for minor breaches of their licence conditions.

Impact on mental and physical health

A further significant concern arising from the IPP sentence is its detrimental impact on the mental and physical well-being of those subjected to it.

This harm stems primarily from the indefinite nature of the sentence and the uncertainty that prisoners face over their potential release.

These concerns have been strongly echoed by Dr Alice Jill Edwards, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, who has argued that the toll of indefinite detention amounts to ‘psychological torture’ for prisoners.

While the statistics clearly demonstrate the harmful impact of the IPP sentence on those serving it, its effects reach far beyond just the prisoners themselves.

Close family members often suffer significant emotional distress and report experiencing severe stress and anxiety, brought on by the indefinite detention and the ongoing uncertainty over whether they will be reunited with their loved one.[8]

Given the concerning impacts that the IPP sentence imposes on prisoners and their close family members, it is clear that the IPP sentence is not fit for purpose.

In light of this, it is necessary to examine options for reform in order to address this ongoing injustice which is still affecting thousands of prisoners and their close family members.

In recent years, a number of reform proposals have been explored in response to the growing criticism of the IPP sentence.

Other suggestions have focused on legislative amendments, such as revising s.128 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, to shift the burden to the Secretary of State to demonstrate that a prisoner serving an indeterminate sentence continues to pose a risk and so should remain imprisoned.[9]

Efforts were recently attempted in the House of Lords to amend the Victims and Prisoners Bill to include a provision to place the burden of proof upon the Parole Board to demonstrate that an indeterminately sentenced prisoner remains unsafe for release.

However, despite these suggestions, it is clear to me that a full resentencing exercise for all remaining IPP-sentenced offenders to determinate terms remains the only viable recommendation for reform.

If enacted into law, the Bill would require the Lord Chancellor to conduct a full resentencing exercise within 24 months of its passing.

It remains unclear whether the IPP sentence will ever be retrospectively abolished.

What is clear, however, is that the IPP regime stands as one of the most flawed and damaging pieces of sentencing legislation in recent legal history.

Its impact on fuelling an overwhelming number of miscarriages of justice will forever stand as a permanent stain on our criminal justice system.

LLB (Hons), University of Bristol, 2025

Please let us know if you think that there is a mistake in this article, explaining what you think is wrong and why. We will correct any errors as soon as possible.

[1] HM Inspectorate of Probation, A thematic inspection of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) recall decisions (HM Inspectorate of Probation, December 2023) 1, 14

[2] Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, s28(6)(b)

[3] Harry Annison, ‘Tracing the Gordian Knot: Indeterminate-Sentenced Prisoners and the Pathologies of English Penal Politics’( The Political Quarterly, Vol. 89, No.2, April-June 2018) 197, 199

[4] Jacqueline Beard, ‘Sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection Research Briefing’ (House of Commons Library, 22 October 2024) 1, 6

[5] James, Wells and Lee v United Kingdom (2012) 56 EHRR 12 at para [221]

[6] House of Commons Justice Committee, ‘IPP sentences: Third Report of Session 2022-23’ (HC 266, 28 September 2022) 1, 43

[7] Jacqueline Beard, ‘Sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection Research Briefing’ (House of Commons Library, 22 October 2024) 1, 5

[8] Harry Annison and Rachel Condry, ‘The Pains of Indeterminate Imprisonment for Family Members’ (Prison Service Journal No 241, January 2019) 11, 16

[9] Harry Annison, ‘Tracing the Gordian Knot: Indeterminate-Sentenced Prisoners and the Pathologies of English Penal Politics’ (The Political Quarterly, Vol. 89, No.2, April-June 2018) 197, 202