UN human rights experts have raised significant concerns over the UK government’s handling of prisoners still subjected to Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences. These experts have urged a thorough review and potential resentencing due to the severe psychological harm attributed to indefinite detention. Although Parliament abolished the IPP sentence in 2012, it continues to affect approximately 2,400 individuals across England and Wales. This includes not only those who have never been released but also others who were released and subsequently recalled to prison. Alarmingly, nearly three-quarters of these prisoners have been held for over a decade beyond their minimum terms.
The IPP sentence, introduced under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, was initially intended for offenders deemed dangerous yet not eligible for life sentences. Despite its abolition under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, the retrospective application was overlooked, thus perpetuating earlier sentences. According to official records, as of late March 2026, there were 896 prisoners who had never been released. During a recent House of Lords debate, figures revealed that 99 percent of these prisoners have already served beyond their tariffs. Justice Minister Lord Timpson noted a slight decrease in the number of never-released prisoners, coupled with a reduction in average Parole Board review times.
Highlighting specific cases, the UN experts cited individuals like Joseph Brady and Kerry Parish-McCann, who have been detained much longer than their original tariffs justified. These protracted detentions, combined with the cycle of release and recall, have significantly exacerbated mental health issues. Such conditions have led some, including the European Court of Human Rights in past rulings, to question compatibility with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, emphasizing disrespect for prisoners’ liberty and security.
The UK government’s current reliance on an IPP action plan, rather than pursuing a comprehensive resentencing strategy, has been criticized. The experts have highlighted the inadequacy of parole reviews, which fail to reassess the necessity of the original sentence. They advocate either for full resentencing or for initiating a process grounded in transparent eligibility criteria. More details on these developments can be found here.
The situation echoes broader concerns over the use of indefinite sentences, drawing warnings from various international bodies about the profound psychological impact on prisoners. The debate continues as stakeholders consider whether current measures adequately address the complex legacy of the IPP system.