The Enduring Harm of Imprisonment for Public Protection

By Eleanor Kirkland

Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences remain one of the most troubling failures of the modern criminal justice system. Although abolished in 2012, thousands of people still live with their consequences, either imprisoned far beyond their tariff or subject to lifelong licence conditions. The IPP framework has created a cycle of insecurity and prolonged harm, contributing to the very problem it sought to prevent.

What are IPPs?

Introduced under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and implemented in 2005, IPPs were designed to manage individuals deemed ‘dangerous’ but whose offences did not meet the threshold for a full life sentence[1]. Their stated purpose was to protect the public by ensuring that people assessed as posing a significant risk of serious harm could only be released once that risk had been reduced[2]. Unlike standard sentences, which set a maximum term, an IPP sets only a minimum tariff. After that tariff is served, there is no automatic release: a person can leave prison only once the Parole Board determines they no longer pose a risk[3]. Even then, they remain on licence for life and can be recalled to prison at any time[4].

In practice, IPPs function as a form of preventative detention. As described by the Howard League, they operate like life sentences despite the offence not being serious enough to warrant them, shifting the focus from responding to what someone has done to speculation about what they might do[5]. Critics justifiably argued that IPPs failed in their intended purpose and conflicted with principles of equal treatment. The former Prime Minister, David Cameron, acknowledged that they led to people receiving drastically different sentences for the same offence and were poorly understood by the public[6]. As a result, IPPs were abolished in 2012 through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act[7].

The Ongoing Consequences

Although IPP sentences were abolished in 2012, the change did not apply retrospectively, and thousands of people remained subject to their effects. Official figures published in 2024 revealed five people with tariffs of less than six months had still never been released, and a further 183 had tariffs of less than two years[8]. Overall, there remained 2,614 IPP prisoners in December 2024[9]. The House of Lords illustrated this with the case of James Lawrence, who was originally sentenced to just eight months but has now been imprisoned for eighteen years, more than twenty-five times his original tariff[10].

The enduring impact is also evident in the strict licence conditions for those released. In one case raised by the House of Lords, a man was recalled for nearly ten months, seventeen years after his original release, solely for failing to notify probation that he was going on holiday with his wife. Described as a “pernicious persecution of an individual’s hard-earned freedom” by Lord Scarisbrick[11], this case highlights how the structure of IPP licences allows minor procedural lapses to trigger disproportionate consequences. Such practices undermine the principle of rehabilitation and place additional pressure on a prison system that is already severely strained, while offering little genuine benefit in terms of public protection.

Psychological Harm of IPP

IPP sentences have had profound psychological consequences. Baroness Ludford highlighted that at least ninety IPP prisoners are known to have died by suicide,[12] and campaigners such as Cherrie Nichol have recounted cases of fellow prisoners who took their own lives because they believed the system offered no path to release[13]. Unfortunately, this bleak outlook is not irrational. Semin Kaycin reports her clients often struggle to access the rehabilitative programmes required to demonstrate reduced risk to the Parole Board. Many of her clients waited months for transfers to a prison offering these programmes, only to face another lengthy waiting list once assessed before they could begin them[14].

These systemic failures have prompted national and international concern. Dr Alice Jill Edwards, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, has stated that IPP sentences amount to “psychological torture”[15] and has warned that “some of the IPP prisoners are very likely being detained arbitrarily, by international standards, notably those who have been incarcerated for longer than they would have been on the ordinary definite sentencing system”[16]. Furthermore, in September 2025, the IPP Committee in Action submitted a case to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, accompanied by a letter to the Prime Minister. The complaint describes the IPP regime as inflicting severe psychological trauma not only on prisoners but also on their families, likened to “the grief experienced following a bereavement with no end”[17]. The letter also highlights the UK remains in breach of the European Court of Human Rights judgment in James, Wells and Lee v United Kingdom because the systemic deficiencies identified more than a decade ago still have not been resolved. These include chronic shortages of places on the courses required for release, repeated delays to Parole Board hearings, and a recall system so dysfunctional that it actively undermines progress towards rehabilitation[18]. That these harms remain routine more than a decade after abolition shows that the real question is no longer whether reform is needed, but why it has been avoided.

Political Inertia

The government has taken meaningful steps in recent years to address some of the most pressing problems created by IPP sentences. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 shortened the qualifying period for licence termination and introduced an automatic termination process for many licences[19]. These changes have enabled more than 1,700 people to leave the IPP framework in 2024[20]. However, these reforms stop short of fully resolving the injustice. The 2022 Justice Committee[21], the IPP Action Committee[22], the British Psychological Society[23], and others have all recommended a full resentencing exercise to convert remaining IPPs into determinate terms. Despite this, the government has resisted taking that final step, citing concerns about public protection[24]. Critics rightly argue that these concerns overlook the reality that many of the behaviours used to justify continued detention stem from the uncertainty and psychological strain inherent in the IPP system itself[25]. Ultimately, it seems the barrier to resolving IPP sentences is the same impulse that created them: prioritising the appearance of managing risk over delivering fair and proportionate sentencing.

[1] House of Lords Library, Sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection: Updated Action Plan (2024) https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/sentences-of-imprisonment-for-public-protection-updated-action-plan/ accessed 25 November 2025

[2] J Beard, G Sturge, S Lipscombe and G Oxley, Sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection (House of Commons Library Research Briefing SN06086, 2024) https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06086/ accessed 25 November 2025

[3] House of Lords Library, Sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection

[4] Ibid

[5] Howard League for Penal Reform, ‘What are IPP Sentences?’ https://howardleague.org/what-are-ipp-sentences/ accessed 19 November 2025

[6] Ibid

[7] Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, s 123

[8] UK Parliament, ‘Written Question 9796: Imprisonment for Public Protection — Licence Termination’ (17 October 2024) https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-10-17/9796 accessed 21 November 2025

[9] HL Written Question HL5974, Prison Sentences (House of Lords, 19 March 2025) https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-03-19/hl5974 accessed 1 December 2025.

[10] HL Deb 15 November 2024, vol 840, ‘Imprisonment for Public Protection (Re-sentencing) Bill [HL]’ Imprisonment for Public Protection (Re-sentencing) Bi - Hansard - UK Parliament accessed 24 November 2025

[11] Ibid

[12] Ibid

[13] D Taylor, ‘UK jail-escape trial reignites debate over indefinite sentences’ The Guardian (28 July 2025) https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jul/28/uk-jail-escape-trial-reignites-debate-over-indefinite-sentences accessed 19 November 2025

[14]S Kaycin, ‘Banged Up! Indeterminate Sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection’ (Russell-Cooke LLP, 2022) https://www.russell-cooke.co.uk/news-and-insights/news/banged-up-indeterminate-sentences-of-imprisonment-for-public-protection accessed 19 November 2025

[15] Howard League for Penal Reform, ‘What are IPP Sentences?’

[16] Yahoo News UK, ‘UN torture tsar attacks UK over “inhumane” indefinite jail terms’ (2023) https://uk.news.yahoo.com/un-torture-tsar-attacks-uk-over-inhumane-indefinite-jail-terms accessed 22 November 2025

[17]IPP Committee in Action, Letter to the Prime Minister regarding UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Complaint (11 September 2025, unpublished) (copy on file with author)

[18] Ibid

[19] Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, s 66

[20] Ministry of Justice and HMPPS, HMPPS Annual Report on the IPP Sentence 2024–25

[21] House of Commons Justice Committee, IPP Sentences: Third Report of Session 2022–23 (HC 266, 2022) https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/28825/documents/173974/default/ accessed 25 November 2025

[22] IPP Committee in Action, Letter to the Prime Minister regarding UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Complaint

[23] British Psychological Society, BPS Briefing: Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) Sentences (2024) https://cms.bps.org.uk/sites/default/files/2024-11/BPS%20Briefing%20-%20Imprisonment%20for%20Public%20Protection%20Sentences.pdf accessed 25 November 2025

[24] HL Deb 4 July 2025, vol 847, ‘Imprisonment for Public Protection (Re-sentencing) Bill [HL]’Imprisonment for Public Protection (Re-sentencing) Bi - Hansard - UK Parliament accessed 25 November 2025

[25] Howard League for Penal Reform, ‘What are IPP Sentences?’; HL Deb 4 July 2025, vol 847, Imprisonment for Public Protection (Re-sentencing) Bill [HL]