First published in the Law Gazette on 16 September 2026
Few sentencing regimes have attracted as much criticism as imprisonment for public protection.
Introduced in 2005 for offenders considered to pose significant risk of serious harm, IPP sentences were abolished for new cases in 2012. The then coalition government concluded, rightly, that the regime was ‘not defensible’.
Its central flaw was disproportionality. Prisoners could remain incarcerated long after completing the tariff imposed for their original offence because release depended upon demonstrating that they no longer posed a risk to the public. Some have therefore spent years beyond their tariff.
The Justice Committee has been similarly forthright. In 2022, it described IPP sentences as ‘irredeemably flawed’ and recommended resentencing the remaining cohort. It identified inadequate access to rehabilitation, delays in the parole system, and the damaging psychological effects of indefinite detention.
The system of recall has compounded these problems.
Released IPP prisoners remain subject to licence conditions and can find themselves returned to custody, sometimes without committing a further offence. The Committee described this as a ‘recall merry-go-round’.
However, there is an important distinction between recognising the failings of IPP and supporting the inclusion of IPP prisoners within a generic early release scheme, for IPP is an indeterminate sentence. Unlike a determinate sentence, completion of the tariff does not automatically trigger release.
The question is not how much of a sentence has been served, but whether continued detention remains necessary for the protection of the public. That distinction matters.
Where the Parole Board has assessed an individual as continuing to present a serious risk, that judgement cannot simply be overridden by an automatic release formula designed primarily for determinate sentences.
I recognise the government has inherited a difficult problem as successive governments, of all persuasions, have failed to invest in expanding prison capacity, but the responsibility now falls on them to address it. Pressure on our prisons should not become an excuse for circumventing the safeguards that exist to protect the public.
If ministers believe the existing IPP framework is unjust, they should address it directly and transparently, through legislation. That means improving access to rehabilitation, speeding up Parole Board decisions, tackling inappropriate recalls, and establishing a fair route towards resentencing or licence termination.
More importantly, it also means ensuring decisions about release continue to reflect the individual risk posed by each prisoner. IPP prisoners should not be left languishing indefinitely because of systemic failures, but nor should public protection be compromised in an effort to ease pressure on our prisons.
The government must now find the courage to undertake principled reform in the sentencing regime rather than dismantling its safeguards through the back door.
