A United Nations expert has echoed calls for a judicial review of the contentious Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences in England and Wales. These sentences, criticized for detaining individuals indefinitely, continue to affect over 2,500 people despite their abolition over a decade ago.
Alice Jill Edwards, the special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, has highlighted proposals from the UK House of Lords. These proposals recommend current or former justices review the cases of prisoners still serving under IPP terms. Edwards stated, “A reconsideration exercise led by experienced judges is a pragmatic compromise that could pave the way toward individualised and just outcomes for those affected.”
The IPP sentences were introduced in 2005, designed for offenders deemed dangerous but whose offenses did not warrant life sentences. Although abolished in 2012, the abolition did not apply retrospectively. As a result, numerous individuals remain imprisoned under conditions that have been described as damaging and indefinite. Edwards emphasizes the need for robust mental health pathways for affected prisoners, noting the essential alignment with human rights standards. This aligns with prior concerns expressed by the European Court of Human Rights, which criticized these sentences for violating Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly the right to liberty and security. More context can be found in the JURIST article that discusses these developments.
In 2022, the Justice Committee described IPP sentences as “irredeemably flawed” and linked them to increased self-harm among prisoners, asserting the need for a time-limited expert committee to advise on resentencing. Although this recommendation remains unimplemented, the House of Lords’ recent proposal under Clause 19 seeks to address what has been termed a “prison crisis.”
Edwards’ advocacy for reconsideration aligns with the broader international discourse on the use of indeterminate sentences. Her statement emphasizes that such sentences should only address the most severe crimes and be applied on an individual basis, considering all relevant factors. This reflects a significant shift towards reforming sentencing laws to ensure they serve justice effectively while upholding human rights.