Left in limbo: The continuing scandal of IPP sentences

There were 8,711 IPP and DPP sentences imposed between 2005, when the sentence was first given, and 2012, when they were abolished. They were introduced followed a review of sentencing carried out in July 2001 entitled ‘Making Punishments Work — a Review of the Sentencing Framework’ for England and Wales. IPP sentences were subsequently introduced by the then Home Secretary David (now Lord) Blunkett who has subsequently said that their introduction was a mistake and “the biggest regret” of his time in government. That is a striking admission, which has been endorsed by subsequent Justice Secretaries including Kenneth (now Lord) Clarke KC and Alex Chalk KC as well as distinguished former Judges such as Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, former Lord Chief Justice, and the late Lord Browne of Eaton under Heywood, the former Law Lord and Supreme Court Justice (as it then was).  

At 31 March 2025, the number of ‘unreleased’ IPP prisoners fell by 14% to 1,012 over 12 months. Over two-thirds of the ‘unreleased’ IPP prisoners who have served their minimum tariff period have been held for at least ten years beyond the end of their tariff. As of March 2025, 94 people on IPP sentences had taken their own lives in prison. And in the five years to April 2024, a further 37 people on IPP sentences had taken their own lives after their release.

IPP sentences were created by section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. They were subsequently modified and then finally abolished by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The abolition was with prospective effect, as such they remain a lawful sentence for which licence conditions can be imposed and recall proceedings commenced. 

An IPP sentence could only be imposed where a Defendant was convicted of a specified sexual or violent offence (listed in Schedule 15) carrying a maximum sentence of ten years or more and the court considered that the Defendant posed a significant risk of serious harm as defined in subsection (1)(b). An offender was dangerous if the court assessed that there was: “a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by him of further specified offences”. The CJA 2003 required the court to make the assumption of dangerousness for those over 18 if the offender had been convicted on an earlier occasion of a specified offence, unless it was unreasonable to do so, although this assumption was removed in 2008.

If the Defendant was convicted of an offence which carried life imprisonment, the court was required to impose a discretionary life sentence if the seriousness of the offence justified it. When passing sentence the court was required to set a relevant custodial period, after this period was served their release was dependent upon the recommendation of the Parole Board. As such, there was no determinate point at which the Defendant would be released, similar to the sentences under the Dangerousness provisions in the Sentencing Act 2020. 

The Court of Appeal considered the imposition of IPP sentences when it heard thirteen conjoined appeals in R v Roberts [2016] EWCA Crim 71. The Court reiterated that its purpose was not to consider penal reform or the potentially unintended consequences, but simply to review whether the sentence imposed was lawful and appropriate. In each case the minimum term has long expired; for example the minimum term for one of the appellants, Roberts, was under a year; he was sentenced when 18 in May 2006. The Court of Appeal stated, and they have been proven to be correct, that it “will not be easy to find a solution”. The Court further stated “It must, in our democracy and in accordance with the rule of law, be for Parliament to provide a correction for the outcome if it so wishes,”.

One of the less recognised consequences of an IPP sentence is that those who are remanded for a subsequent offence will not be considered ‘serving’ for the new offence until the date of sentence. This issue was recently considered by the Court of Appeal in R v Costin [2025] EWCA Crim 729 where it was held that whilst a reduction could be considered, there was no statutory application. 

In the 9 years since the Court of Appeal gave judgment in Roberts, the question of the solution to the IPP problem has been debated at length. In the immediate aftermath, the IPP (Imprisonment for Public Protection) Action Plan was introduced in November 2016. This focused on improving support for individuals serving IPP sentences and facilitating their safe and sustainable release. It included a pilot program to enhance support within Approved Premises and during the transition to new accommodation. The plan also aimed to ensure effective HMPPS systems and processes to support IPP prisoners’ progression through their sentences. The action plan has been subject to a number of revisions since its introduction. 

In 2021-22, the House of Commons Justice Committee, chaired by one of the authors, carried out a detailed inquiry into the issues sentences, including identifying possible legislative and policy solutions, which were contained in their report published in September 2022 (available on the House of Commons website). 

The primary recommendation was that the Government brings forward legislation to enable a resentencing exercise in relation to all IPP sentenced individuals (except for those who have successfully had their licence terminated)”. The Government response in February 2023 did not agree, suggesting that it would lead to individuals who were not safe for release being freed without formal supervision. The Government’s position was that the IPP action plan, suitably updated, remains the best option by which these offenders can progress towards safe release.” The Committee’s view on the plan was scathing, it found a “surprising” absence of detail in the plan, which it said lacked “a clear strategic priority and ownership, as well as operational detail, timeframes and performance measures”.

In November 2024, amendments were introduced which reduced the period required for termination of IPP sentence from 10 years after first release to 3 years. In addition, offenders who were released from custody at least 5 prior and not sent back to prison in the last 2 years had their licences automatically terminated. In July 2024, the Lord Chancellor Shabana Mahmood stated “The situation with IPP prisoners is of great concern … We want to make progress with that cohort of prisoners”. 

There have been further developments with the appointment of a working group and subsequent publication of expert recommendations on Ending the detention of people on IPP sentences, chaired by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd; Former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales on 23 June 2025. This report made six key recommendations:

1. The Parole Board should be asked to set a date as to when a person will be released within a two-year window, and what is required to achieve that safely;
2. A more rigorous application of a recall test; it should be impermissible to initiate recall for a breach of licence conditions without evidence of a causal link between the concerning behaviour and the index offence and this behaviour directly raises the significant risk of serious harm. This is in addition to arrest not being a ground for recall of a person serving an IPP sentence. The recall decision should be independently confirmed to determine if the test for recall has been properly applied and whether the person serving the IPP can resume their licence or, if necessary, needs to be returned to prison;
3. IPP sentences can become spent, using the term of punishment imposed by the sentencing judge as the relevant sentence under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974;
4. Introduction of an aftercare offer to all people serving IPP sentences released from custody with health or social care needs, equivalent to the aftercare duty provided under s.117 of the Mental Health Act 1983;
5. Recommend that the right to apply for an annual review is restored to the position that existed before the amendments in the Police, Crime and Courts Act 2022.
6. The hurdles for bringing an appeal are reduced, by creating a positive obligation for every person serving an IPP to have access to a special CCRC process, which can expedite their application to the full Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) to appeal their sentence. This should include the prioritisation of those unreleased and most over-tariff and supporting individuals to be legally represented.

These recommendations have already been received positively as part of the ongoing House of Lords debate on Lord Woodley’s Imprisonment for Public Protection (Re-sentencing) Bill. The Bill includes a proposal to make provision for a resentencing exercise in relation to all Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentenced individuals, and to establish a time-limited expert committee to advise on the practical implementation of the resentencing. 

The Bill was last debated on Friday 4 July 2025 as it progressed into committee stage. During the second reading, Lord Timpson (prisons minister) stated that indefinite IPP jail terms are a “stain on our justice system”. However, it appears that the Government are still not of the view that resentencing is an appropriate solution, Lord Timpson having stated during the committee stage that the Government maintain reservations about the risk to public protection that the Bill presents. Lord Woodley ended the debate expressing his disappointment that it had not progressed to Lord Timpson agreeing to move forward or holding a vote on the Bill. 

The current state of affairs leaves little prospect for resentencing provisions being introduced in light of the attitude of the Government and the perceived risk posed by IPP prisoners. Instead, it appears more likely that the recommendations of the expert committee will be introduced alongside further updates to the IPP action plan. 

Concern remains both within Parliament and beyond as to whether these measures will be sufficient to meet the gravity of the situation. Unless IPP prisoners have access to the rehabilitative courses they are required to complete before qualifying to release, which many currently do not, they are caught in a vicious cycle in which they become more institutionalised and harder to rehabilitate than they were to start with. It is a classic case of legislation having unforeseen and unexpected consequences. The debate on this topic is unlikely to be over anytime soon.