More than a decade has passed since Parliament abolished the Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence, yet almost 2,000 people remain subject to its consequences. IPP was introduced under the Criminal Justice Act in 2005 as an indeterminate (potentially indefinite) sentence to detain individuals judged a risk to the public when their tariff didn’t merit a full life sentence. Some are still in prison years after completing the minimum term imposed by the courts. Others have been released but continue to live under indefinite licence conditions, such as curfews or electronic monitoring, and restrictions on travel, including obtaining permission to leave the UK or stay away from home overnight, painfully aware that sometimes merely a perceived increase in risk could see them recalled to custody. Much has been written about whether this is fair; I believe the debate now needs to move further.
Parliament abolished IPP in 2012 because it accepted that the sentence was fundamentally flawed. It failed to provide prisoners with the support – including psychological – needed to return safely to society and had damaging effects on mental health and behaviour. Yet those already serving IPP remained trapped within the very sentencing framework Parliament concluded should have no place in the future. As such, the more important question is whether the experiential impact of the IPP sentence itself on prisoners may have altered the very evidence regarding the risk they may pose to others which is used to justify the continuation of their sentences. If so, decisions intended to protect the public may be relying on evidence that has been shaped, at least in part, by the sentence Parliament itself decided should never again be imposed.
Prison is not simply a place where risk is observed; it is an environment that actively shapes psychological and behavioural functioning. Years spent under an indeterminate sentence characterised by uncertainty, institutional control and repeated disappointment in parole hearings inevitably affect how someone responds to stress, authority and setbacks. Living with that level of uncertainty is not just frustrating; it can be psychologically damaging. Psychological research has consistently shown that prolonged uncertainty, institutionalisation and restrictive environments can contribute to depression, hopelessness, emotional dysregulation and disengagement. Over time, people adapt to survive prison life. Those adaptations may be humanly understandable within that environment but can later be interpreted as evidence that the individual remains ‘too risky’ to release. Thus, some of the evidence used to justify continued detention may have been created, at least in part, by the detention itself. Risk assessment can therefore become self-reinforcing, with the daily operation and impact of the sentence exacerbating the concerns that justify its continuation. The constitutional problem is therefore not that Parliament abolished IPP while almost two thousand individuals, many of whom come from disadvantaged backgrounds, remain subject to it. It is that continued detention may now depend on evidence that has been provoked by the experiences of the very sentence since it was abolished as a result of its Parliamentary-accepted harms.
Decisions intended to protect society should rest on the most reliable evidence available. If the sentencing framework itself distorts the evidence on which those decisions are based by not taking into consideration the impact of detention and institutionalisation of this kind, public protection is weakened rather than strengthened. This helps explain why repeated cycles of continued detention, release and recall often fail to achieve lasting rehabilitation. Defensive decision-making, limited opportunities to demonstrate reduced risk and the constant possibility of recall can weaken family relationships, undermine motivation and discourage meaningful engagement with rehabilitation. Stability becomes increasingly difficult to achieve.
For me, this points towards a relatively straightforward solution. Every person still serving an IPP sentence should receive an automatic independent resentencing review. That review should be transparent, time-limited and overseen by the courts, supported where appropriate by expertise from psychology, probation, prisons and rehabilitation. It should explicitly consider how prolonged indeterminate detention, institutionalisation and limited opportunities for rehabilitation may have influenced both behaviour and current assessments of risk. Resentencing is sometimes portrayed as though it would involve opening the prison gates. It would do no such thing. A resentencing review is simply a judicial reconsideration based on contemporary evidence, modern sentencing principles and a fuller understanding of the psychological consequences of prolonged indeterminate detention. Where compelling evidence demonstrates that someone continues to present a serious and genuine risk to the public, courts should retain the power to order continued detention. Public protection must remain paramount, however within this there is a real need to improve the conditions of detention for extant IPP prisoners to ensure they receive effective intervention and support to address and reduce this risk. This would require a multi-dimensional approach including timely access to accredited offending behaviour programmes and psychological interventions; comprehensive person-centred mental health assessment and treatment; personalised sentence planning with regular, meaningful reviews of progress; education, vocational training and employment opportunities to support rehabilitation; enhanced case management and continuity between prison, probation and healthcare services; adequate staffing and specialist training for prison and probation personnel; and improved access to legal advice and support in preparing for Parole Board reviews.
The difference is that these decisions would rest on evidence that is as reliable, balanced and scientifically informed as possible, and lead to effective support and rehabilitation
Resentencing alone, however, would not solve every problem. For those released into the community, recall should be reserved for cases involving genuinely serious risk rather than technical breaches of licence conditions. Stable housing, healthcare, employment, psychological support and effective probation supervision all play essential roles in helping people build stable lives and reducing the likelihood of further offending. Rehabilitation is not only about programmes and supervision. It is also about whether people are given a genuine opportunity to believe that change is possible. Someone who is repeatedly told, explicitly or implicitly, that they remain too risky may eventually come to see themselves that way, and act accordingly. Conversely, when people are treated as capable of change and are supported to build different futures, they are far more likely to develop the confidence and motivation needed to do so. Hope alone is never sufficient, but without it meaningful rehabilitation becomes far more difficult. Reducing unnecessary recall is therefore not simply a matter of compassion or fairness; it promotes stability, strengthens desistance and ultimately improves public protection. A resentencing review would benefit more than the individuals still serving IPP sentences. It would strengthen confidence that decisions about continued detention are proportionate, evidence-based and legally legitimate. It would also reduce unnecessary pressure on prisons and probation services while ensuring that the justice system reflects contemporary evidence as well as contemporary values.
Parliament accepted in 2012 that IPP had no place in the future. More than a decade later, the question is no longer whether that decision was right. It is that almost 2,000 people continue to live under a sentence that Parliament itself concluded should never again be imposed. Until that contradiction is addressed, IPP will remain not simply a historical mistake but an ongoing challenge to the fairness, credibility and legitimacy of our justice system. A structured resentencing review would begin to resolve that contradiction while strengthening both justice and public protection.
About Sarah
Sarah is a pure mathematician and mental health survivor with deep lived experience of the intersection of mental health and the criminal justice system.
She is passionate about promoting grounded, equitable human rights-based practice within the secure and forensic and prison mental health services and environments.