OUR COMPLETE POSITION
Complete retrospective abolition
Every remaining IPP and DPP sentence must be extinguished
IPP Committee in Action calls for urgent primary legislation extinguishing every remaining IPP and DPP sentence—whether the person is imprisoned, detained following recall or living in the community. Complete retrospective abolition means that no person may continue to be imprisoned, recalled or supervised under the authority of an IPP or DPP sentence. Abolition cannot be made dependent upon a review process lasting several years. All decisions affecting continued detention, release or replacement of an IPP sentence must be made urgently by independent courts under the direction of a National IPP Judicial Panel. Probation must disclose its records and give evidence, but it must not examine its own assessments, control the review, determine its conclusions, delay release or exercise a veto.
THE BASIS FOR ABOLITION
In Opinion No. 16/2026, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found the post-tariff detention of five IPP petitioners arbitrary under international law. It found no legal basis in international law for their continued detention, concluded that the Government had failed to establish compelling reasons why their risks could not be managed by alternative measures and found that the parole system did not provide an effective mechanism for challenging the lawfulness of their detention. Separately, in joint communication AL GBR 8/2026, United Nations human-rights experts stated that reported levels of psychological deterioration, self-harm and suicidality had led them to conclude that many IPP sentences had become forms of psychological torture and/or psychologically cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. They considered the suffering inflicted by the State to extend well beyond the harm inherent in a lawful sanction.
A SELF-REINFORCING INJUSTICE
The Working Group identified the structural circularity of IPP: psychological harm inflicted by the indeterminate sentence can itself generate behaviours and presentations that are subsequently relied upon as evidence of continuing risk:
“psychological harm inflicted by the indeterminate sentence … itself generates behaviours and presentations that are relied upon as evidence of continued risk.”
— United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Opinion No. 16/2026
The State subjects people to prolonged uncertainty, institutionalisation, repeated disappointment, inadequate psychological care and obstructed progression. Those conditions can cause or intensify trauma, emotional dysregulation, hopelessness, disengagement and prison behaviour.
That behaviour may then be recorded in OASys assessments, psychological reports and parole dossiers as evidence of continuing dangerousness—and used to justify still further detention. Following release, unstable accommodation, unmet mental-health needs, inadequate support and disproportionate licence conditions may cause crisis or non-compliance. That behaviour may then be recorded as evidence of risk and used to justify recall and renewed indefinite detention.
Joint UN communication AL GBR 8/2026 warned that the low threshold for alleged risk and sweeping recall powers place people subject to IPP on:
“a never-ending merry-go-round of excessive punishment, release and re-imprisonment (if they are released at all).”
— United Nations human-rights experts, AL GBR 8/2026
These findings expose a circular system operating both inside prison and following release: the State may cause or aggravate psychological deterioration and destabilising behaviour, record the resulting behaviour as risk, and then use that alleged risk to continue detention or order recall. The State must not be permitted to create or aggravate behaviour through an indefinite sentence and then rely upon that same behaviour to continue the sentence.
SOURCES
UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Opinion No. 16/2026
Joint UN communication AL GBR 8/2026
1: ESTABLISH AN URGENT NATIONAL IPP JUDICIAL PANEL
Within 30 days of the legislation receiving Royal Assent, the Lady Chief Justice must establish a National IPP Judicial Panel. The Panel should be chaired by a Lord or Lady Justice of Appeal and comprise appropriately authorised High Court judges and senior circuit judges sitting simultaneously in regional panels across England and Wales.
Senior judges—not probation, HMPPS, prisons or the Parole Board—must direct, supervise and determine every review affecting continued detention, release or replacement of an IPP or DPP sentence.
Each judicial panel must be supported by an independent multidisciplinary team containing:
• independent forensic psychologists;
• forensic psychiatrists and neuropsychiatrists;
• OASys and risk-assessment specialists institutionally independent of the Ministry of Justice and HMPPS;
• specialists in trauma, institutionalisation, neurodivergence and disability;
• sentencing lawyers;
• rehabilitation and resettlement specialists; and
• people with relevant lived and family experience.
These experts must advise the judges and independently examine the evidence. They must not replace judicial decision-making. The Ministry of Justice, HMPPS, prisons and probation must disclose all relevant records and may be required to give evidence, but none may control the review, determine its conclusions, delay release or exercise a veto. Every affected person must receive publicly funded specialist legal representation, complete disclosure of the evidence, an opportunity to submit and challenge evidence, a fully reasoned judicial decision and an effective right of appeal.
2: IMPOSE ENFORCEABLE NATIONAL DEADLINES
The review must operate simultaneously across England and Wales rather than proceeding one case at a time through the existing probation and parole systems.
The legislation must require:
• publication of the IPP Public Accountability Dataset within 21 days;
• identification and preservation of every relevant case file within 30 days;
• preliminary legality and risk triage for every imprisoned or recalled person within 90 days;
• immediate determination of apparently unlawful sentences and cases in which no current serious risk is identified;
• completion of every imprisoned and recalled case within six months; and
• completion of reviews for people living in the community within a further three months.
Cases involving short tariffs, extreme periods served beyond tariff, apparent sentencing illegality, serious illness, disability or acute psychological deterioration must be prioritised. Failure by the State to produce the necessary evidence within the statutory deadline must create a presumption of immediate unconditional release. That presumption may be displaced only where a senior judge identifies specific and compelling evidence of an imminent risk of serious harm. Administrative delay must never become a new justification for continued detention.
3: PUBLISH THE IPP PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY DATASET
As a matter of urgent public interest, the Government must publish one anonymised, person-level record for every person who remains subject to an IPP or DPP sentence.
For every case, the dataset must disclose:
• a permanent anonymised case identifier;
• the complete statutory titles and legislative provisions for every offence of conviction;
• the number of counts;
• the date of every relevant offence;
• the dates of conviction and sentence;
• the sentencing court;
• the person’s age at sentence;
• the maximum lawful penalty for each offence at the relevant date;
• whether every offence satisfied the applicable “specified offence” requirement;
• whether every offence satisfied the applicable “serious offence” requirement;
• whether an IPP or DPP sentence was legally available;
• the tariff or minimum term imposed;
• the tariff-expiry date;
• total time served;
• years and months served beyond tariff;
• whether the person has never been released, has been recalled or is living in the community;
• every release and recall date;
• the number of recalls;
• the recorded reason for every recall;
• time spent in custody following each recall;
• the number and dates of parole reviews, hearings, deferrals and adjournments;
• the outcome of every parole review;
• whether the person has been convicted of any further serious offence; and
• the outcome of the independent legality, OASys and risk reviews.
The dataset must be downloadable, searchable, updated quarterly and accompanied by clear definitions, source information and a public corrections log. Names, victim information and protected personal information need not appear in the public version. Complete identified records must, however, be supplied securely to the National IPP Judicial Panel, independent experts, the affected person and their legal representative. Data protection must not be misused as an excuse for concealing the legality, proportionality and operation of these sentences.
WHY PUBLICATION CANNOT WAIT
In Niki Dean Haycock v R [2026] EWCA Crim 1105, a solicitor examining a parole case discovered that the IPP sentence had never been legally available for any of the offences of conviction. The individual had remained subject to that unlawful sentence for nearly 20 years.
The Court of Appeal quashed the IPP, substituted the lawful extended sentence and freed him from the IPP licence. The Court stated:
“We have no way of knowing whether there are other such cases”
and identified a “clear and urgent need” for a system capable of finding them.
The State must therefore publish the offence-level information necessary to identify every potentially unlawful IPP or DPP sentence. Without person-level data, unlawful detention may remain hidden until an individual solicitor happens to discover it.
4: Audit whether every IPP was lawful
Every remaining IPP and DPP sentence must be examined urgently under the authority of the National IPP Judicial Panel to establish whether the sentence was legally available for the actual offences of conviction under the legislation in force on the relevant date.
The review must examine:
• the indictment;
• the precise offences of conviction;
• the applicable legislation;
• the dates of the offences;
• the maximum penalties then available;
• the statutory IPP or DPP eligibility requirements;
• whether each offence was both a “specified offence” and a “serious offence” as legally defined;
• the sentencing remarks;
• the pre-sentence report;
• previous appeal proceedings;
• the calculation of the tariff;
• the sentence that would otherwise have been imposed; and
• whether the correct court imposed the sentence.
Where an IPP or DPP sentence appears to have been imposed unlawfully, the case must be referred immediately to the appropriate appellate court with publicly funded specialist representation. Where the lawful determinate or extended sentence has already expired, the individual must be released and freed from every IPP or DPP licence condition.
WHY THIS AUDIT IS URGENT
In Niki Dean Haycock v R [2026] EWCA Crim 1105, the Court of Appeal found that an IPP sentence had never been legally available for any of the offences of conviction. The Court quashed the IPP, substituted the lawful extended sentence and freed the appellant from the IPP licence. The judgment exposed a profound failure in the existing system. The Court stated: “We have no way of knowing whether there are other such cases” and identified a “clear and urgent need” for a system capable of identifying them. No individual should remain imprisoned or supervised under an unlawful sentence merely because nobody has examined the original sentencing record.
SOURCE
Official judgment: Niki Dean Haycock v R [2026] EWCA Crim 1105
5: Review every OASys record
Every current and historical OASys assessment must be subjected to an independent judicial examination directed and determined by senior judges of the National IPP Judicial Panel.
The judges must be supported by independent forensic psychologists, psychiatrists, neuropsychiatrists, OASys specialists and other relevant professionals who are institutionally independent of the Ministry of Justice, HMPPS, prisons and probation. The process must not consist merely of probation completing another OASys assessment using the same assumptions, records and institutional practices. Probation must disclose its evidence, but it must not examine or validate its own work, control the review or determine its outcome.
The Judicial Panel and its independent experts must examine:
• every historical OASys assessment;
• sentencing remarks and the pre-sentence report;
• the complete record of the index offence;
• parole dossiers and decisions;
• psychological, psychiatric and neuropsychological reports;
• prison security and behavioural records;
• adjudications and their outcomes;
• release and recall history;
• conduct in the community;
• evidence supplied by the affected person and their family;
• physical and mental-health information;
• disability and neurodivergence information;
• access to—or denial of—treatment and offending-behaviour work;
• institutionalisation and the psychological effects of indeterminate detention; and
• protective factors, maturity, ageing and evidence of change.
The judicial examination must determine:
• whether the information is current, complete and factually accurate;
• whether allegations have been repeated without proper verification;
• whether historical or static factors are being misrepresented as current dynamic risk;
• whether alleged prison behaviour is genuinely offence-paralleling;
• whether there is a demonstrated connection between that behaviour and a present risk of serious offending in the community;
• whether the behaviour arose from or was aggravated by IPP detention, trauma, institutionalisation, disability, neurodivergence, mental illness, unmet treatment needs or the prison environment;
• whether behaviour occurring only inside prison is being wrongly treated as evidence of likely serious offending outside prison;
• whether protective factors and evidence of change have been properly recognised; and
• whether any identified risk can be managed through a less restrictive and properly supported community response.
Every affected person and their legal representative must receive the evidence, the revised assessment and the Judicial Panel’s reasons. They must have a publicly funded right to correct factual errors, commission independent evidence and appeal the decision. The presence of prison misconduct must not automatically establish dangerousness. The absence of recent, serious and genuinely offence-relevant behaviour must weigh strongly in favour of immediate release.
THE REQUIRED REMEDY
Where alleged risk behaviour was caused or aggravated by IPP detention, prison conditions, psychological trauma, institutionalisation, disability, neurodivergence, mental illness, unmet treatment needs, unstable accommodation or inadequate support following release, it must not be recycled as proof justifying further detention or recall. Senior judges must distinguish behaviour arising from the prison environment or the effects of indefinite punishment from behaviour demonstrating a present risk of serious offending in the community. Continued detention or recall must require recent, independent and cogent evidence establishing a genuine connection between the alleged behaviour and a current risk of serious community offending. Where that connection is not proved, Section 6 must apply: immediate unconditional release or immediate termination of every IPP or DPP licence condition and recall power.
The State bears the burden of establishing present risk using recent, reliable, verified and cogent evidence. The individual must not continue to carry an impossible burden of proving that they will never offend.
6A: Release unless risk is proved
Where the State cannot establish a current, serious and offence-relevant risk using recent, reliable, verified and cogent evidence, the National IPP Judicial Panel must order the person’s immediate and unconditional release. For a person already living in the community, every remaining IPP or DPP licence condition and recall power must terminate immediately.
This applies particularly where:
• there is no recent offence-paralleling behaviour;
• the alleged risk is based substantially upon the historical index offence;
• OASys has not been properly updated or independently verified;
• prison behaviour is better explained by the effects of IPP detention, trauma, institutionalisation, disability, neurodivergence, mental illness or unmet treatment needs;
• the person has not been convicted of a further serious offence while released;
• recalls resulted from technical breaches, unstable accommodation, unmet needs or inadequate support; or
• identified needs can be addressed safely through a properly supported community response.
There must be:
• no IPP or DPP licence;
• no IPP or DPP recall power;
• no compulsory probation supervision derived from the abolished sentence; and
• no continuation of punishment under another administrative name.
Housing, mental-health care, trauma treatment, addiction services, family support, education and employment assistance must be offered and properly funded for at least 12 months. For this group, that assistance must be voluntary. Refusal or withdrawal from support must not permit punishment, recall or reimprisonment. Where serious current risk is not proved, continued detention cannot be justified.
6B: Life review for rare cases
Release into the community must not automatically exclude an exceptional case from judicial review. Equally, imprisonment, recall, a high tariff or an offence label must not predetermine the outcome. Following the legality audit and independent multidisciplinary risk review, the National IPP Judicial Panel may refer an exceptional case to a specially constituted court comprising three senior judges. This jurisdiction must apply equally to people who remain imprisoned, have been recalled or are living in the community.
A discretionary life sentence may be substituted only where the three-judge court is satisfied that:
life imprisonment was legally available for the original offence at the date it was committed;
the proven circumstances and exceptional seriousness of the original offending were capable of justifying discretionary life under the law applicable at the original sentencing hearing;
the decision is based upon the original offending and applicable sentencing law—not merely a high tariff, an offence label, a present OASys classification or behaviour caused or aggravated by IPP;
recent, reliable and independently tested evidence demonstrates a continuing risk of the most serious harm;
substitution is fully compatible with Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights and does not impose an unlawful retrospective heavier penalty;
the person receives complete disclosure, specialist publicly funded representation, an oral hearing and an effective right of appeal; and
all time already served is credited in full.
A person already living in the community must not be returned to custody merely because their case has been referred or because a life sentence is substituted. Where life imprisonment is lawfully substituted, the court may direct that the person’s existing release continues as release on life licence. The person will then remain on licence for life under the legal framework applying to other life-sentenced prisoners. Licence conditions must remain necessary, proportionate and individually justified. Any recall must be based upon verified evidence of a serious and current risk, followed by urgent independent judicial scrutiny. The court must consider the person’s entire record in the community, including compliance, stability, protective factors, further offending and evidence of change. Successful release must carry substantial weight and must never be disregarded merely because the original offence was serious. Where life imprisonment was not legally available, was not justified by the original offending or cannot lawfully be substituted, the IPP sentence must still be extinguished. The case must instead be determined under the transitional-order provision or the ordinary laws applying to everybody else. The exceptional category must remain genuinely exceptional. It must never become a mechanism for recreating IPP under another name.
Relevant legal framework: Life sentences and lifelong licence · IPP licence termination · ECHR Article 7—retrospective penalties
7. Truth, participation, support and reparation for victims, bereaved families and staff
Retrospective abolition does not erase the seriousness of the original offences or the harm experienced by victims and their families. Nor should victims be asked to forgive, reconcile or endorse the campaign’s position. For too long, victims have been invoked in political arguments about IPP without always receiving the sustained information, support, participation and care that genuine concern for victims requires. The People’s Inquiry and the implementation of retrospective abolition must therefore include an Independent Victims and Survivors Panel.
The Panel must:
include victims and survivors of original offences, bereaved relatives, specialist victim-support organisations and independent advocates;
operate voluntarily, independently and through trauma-informed practices;
provide funded psychological support, independent advice and appropriate safeguarding;
enable victims to contribute evidence about their experiences of sentencing, parole, release, communication and support;
advise upon safety planning, information rights, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence;
protect privacy and prevent the unauthorised disclosure of personal information; and
ensure that victims are treated as participants in justice rather than instruments of political rhetoric.
Victims must receive timely, accurate and sensitive information about any judicial review, replacement sentence or release process affecting their case. Existing rights to information, representation and support must be preserved and strengthened.. The Panel must not determine individual sentences, exercise a veto over release or be used to justify retaining the abolished IPP sentence. Decisions concerning detention and release must remain with independent courts applying law and verified evidence. The State must also recognise the harm experienced by current and former prison governors, prison officers, probation practitioners, psychologists, healthcare professionals, chaplains, educators and other staff required to administer IPP.
An independent and confidential national care and aftercare programme must provide:
specialist trauma, bereavement and moral-injury support;
immediate and long-term assistance following self-harm, attempted suicide or a death connected with IPP;
protected time to obtain treatment without professional disadvantage;
confidential peer-support and counselling services independent of line management;
support for staff who have repeatedly managed people experiencing hopelessness and psychological deterioration; and
protected routes through which staff can provide evidence, raise concerns and contribute to institutional reform.
No member of staff should be left alone with the psychological consequences of administering a sentence that Parliament abolished, particularly following the death of somebody in their care. Truth and accountability must encompass everybody harmed by IPP: victims of the original offences, people subjected to the sentence, their families, bereaved families and the professionals required to administer it. IPP must become a catalyst for a more lawful, humane and honest system—one that protects society without abandoning victims, prisoners, families or staff.
8. Turn IPP costs into care and repair
“IPP currently represents an estimated direct custodial cost of approximately £127 million annually and more than £250 million over two years. The total economic and social burden is likely to be higher and must now be independently audited.”
Maintaining the IPP sentence carries an enormous financial as well as human cost.
Published analysis estimated that imprisoning the IPP population cost approximately £145.8 million during 2024. Using the latest official custodial population and published average prison costs produces a current direct estimate of approximately £127 million annually—or £254 million over two years if the population and average cost remained unchanged. These figures cover imprisonment only. They do not capture the full costs of recall, probation supervision, parole proceedings, courts, legal aid, secure hospitals, healthcare, self-harm, deaths in custody, investigations, inquests, staff sickness and turnover, family hardship, lost employment or long-term psychological harm. The Government must publish an independently audited Whole-System IPP Cost and Savings Statement within 60 days of the abolition legislation receiving Royal Assent.
That assessment must separately identify:
direct prison expenditure;
the cost of IPP recall and re-release proceedings;
probation and Parole Board expenditure;
court and legal-aid costs;
secure-hospital and healthcare expenditure;
costs arising from self-harm, deaths, investigations and inquests;
staff sickness, trauma, retention and replacement costs;
housing and emergency-support expenditure;
the economic effects upon released people and their families; and
the wider social costs of institutionalisation, unemployment and family disruption.
Abolition must not become a Treasury windfall.
The legislation must establish a ring-fenced, independently governed IPP Abolition, Recovery and Workforce Fund for an initial period of 24 months. The Fund must receive an immediate statutory allocation, followed by the verified net savings created through reduced imprisonment, recall and administration.
During the first 12 months, funding must prioritise:
secure housing and practical resettlement;
independent psychiatric, psychological and neuropsychological assessment;
trauma treatment, suicide prevention and addiction care;
physical healthcare and disability support;
family reunification and support;
education, training, employment and financial stability;
independent legal representation;
support for victims and survivors participating in the Inquiry;
confidential trauma, bereavement and moral-injury care for affected staff; and
urgent support following an IPP-related death, attempted suicide or serious self-harm.
During the second 12 months, funding must sustain:
long-term psychological and psychiatric treatment;
continuing housing and community support;
education, employment and peer-led recovery;
family and child support;
victim participation, information and reparation;
continuing care and aftercare for current and former staff;
independent monitoring of outcomes; and
research into institutionalisation, trauma, recall and non-recurrence.
Support provided to released people must be voluntary and must never be converted into another form of punishment, compulsory supervision or disguised recall power. The Fund must publish quarterly accounts showing how much money has been redirected, where it has been spent and what outcomes have been achieved. Its governance must include people directly affected by IPP, families, victims and survivors, independent clinicians, staff representatives and financial-audit specialists. Money previously consumed by indefinite punishment must be redirected towards healing, safety, accountability and rebuilding lives.
“WE WILL SELL TO NO MAN, WE WILL NOT DENY OR DEFER TO ANY MAN EITHER JUSTICE OR RIGHT.”
— Magna Carta 1297, Chapter 29
IPP Committee in Action is a lawful, peaceful and democratic civil-society movement. We exercise our democratic rights to investigate matters of public concern, publish evidence, express opinions, associate with others, assemble peacefully, contact and petition elected representatives, seek remedies through the courts and engage with national and international institutions. Every element of our work—including the People’s Inquiry, legal proceedings, parliamentary engagement, public meetings, correspondence, research, media activity and peaceful protest—is pursued through proper legal, constitutional and democratic channels. Respect for democratic institutions does not require silence in the face of injustice. The rule of law binds the Government and public authorities just as surely as it binds the citizen. Challenging the continued operation of a sentence that Parliament abolished is not a rejection of the rule of law—it is an insistence that the rule of law be honoured. We reject violence, threats, intimidation, harassment, hatred and unlawful action. Our campaign rests upon verified evidence, reasoned argument, peaceful advocacy, judicial independence and democratic accountability. We will remain stern in our demands, respectful in our conduct and unwavering in our pursuit of truth, accountability, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence.
Justice must not be denied. Justice must not be deferred.
Constitutional sources: Magna Carta 1297, Chapter 29 • Constitutional Reform Act 2005, section 1 • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 10 • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 11 • UK Parliament: the UK constitution