Burnham orders review into indefinite jail terms offering fresh hope to thousands trapped in prison
Andy Burnham has ordered justice secretary Alex Norris to review Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences, the indefinite jail terms that have left thousands of prisoners without a release date years, or even decades, after their original tariff expired. The move is intended to help ease Britain's prison overcrowding crisis and comes after sustained pressure from campaigners, affected families and international human rights bodies, who argue the sentences are unjust and psychologically damaging.
IPP sentences were introduced under Tony Blair's government in 2005 and abolished in 2012, but not retrospectively, leaving hundreds of people still serving them, some for relatively minor offences such as stealing a mobile phone. The review was announced alongside changes to the early release scheme that will exclude rapists and serious child sex offenders. It follows a UN Human Rights Council report branding the sentences "arbitrary" and akin to psychological torture, a demand from UN rapporteurs to resentence almost 2,400 people still held, and an admission from the policy's architect, Lord David Blunkett, that introducing IPP was his "biggest regret." Ninety-six IPP prisoners have taken their own lives in custody.
In short
- Burnham orders review of IPP indefinite jail sentences
- Aims to ease prison overcrowding and address long-standing injustice
- UN had branded the sentences a form of psychological torture
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
IPP sentences are fundamentally unjust and require urgent review. Individuals serve indefinite terms long after their original tariffs expire, sometimes for minor offences, whilst the UN has condemned these sentences as arbitrary and akin to psychological torture. The policy's creator, Lord Blunkett, has called it his biggest regret, 96 prisoners have died by suicide, and a review is morally imperative to prevent further harm.
The case against
Whilst IPP sentences may have design flaws, public protection must remain paramount. These individuals remain imprisoned because they were deemed dangerously unpredictable and unsuitable for fixed release dates. Hastily releasing those designated as incapable of reliable rehabilitation could expose the public and previous victims to serious risk, so any review must proceed with extreme caution and rigorous safeguards.
Explained simply
Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences were introduced in England and Wales in 2005 for people judged to pose a risk of serious harm. A judge set a minimum term, or tariff, but prisoners could be released only when a parole board decided they were safe to leave prison. The sentences were abolished in 2012, but the change did not cover people already serving them.
That left some people in prison long after their minimum terms had ended, sometimes without knowing when they might be released. Campaigners and families have raised concerns about the effects on prisoners’ mental health, while the continued detentions have also drawn criticism from international human rights bodies. The issue matters to prisoners and their families, and to a prison system facing overcrowding.