UN Working Group finds detention of five IPP Prisoners in the United Kingdom constitutes Arbitrary Detention in Landmark Case.

UN Working Group finds detention of five IPP Prisoners in the United Kingdom constitutes Arbitrary Detention in Landmark Case 

The detention of five IPP prisoners amounts to "arbitrary detention". This was the finding of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in a Legal Opinion published yesterday. The case was brought on behalf of Leroy Douglas, Abdullahi Suleman, Wayne Williams, Shaun Anton Lloyd and Joshua McRae. 

The Working Group is a UN body consisting of five independent international human rights experts drawn from around the world based in Geneva. It rendered a legal opinion after considering the arguments presented by both sides.   

The Petitioners were successful on all three grounds advanced. The Working Group found post-tariff detention to be arbitrary such that there was no legal basis in international law for their continued detention (Category I), that the parole system failed adequately to provide a means of testing the lawfulness of their continued detention (Category III), and, in the case of Mr Suleman, that the suspension of Parole Board hearings for psychiatric patients was discriminatory (Category V).  

(i) No Legal Basis in International Law (Category I) Violation 

In one of the first cases by an international body to find post-conviction preventative detention to be arbitrary, the Working Group found that there was no legal basis for the continued detention of the five prisoners under international law. This was because they failed to meet the cumulative requirements of paragraph 21 of General Comment 35 of the Human Rights' Committee, which states: 

"When a criminal sentence includes a punitive period followed by a non-punitive period intended to protect the safety of other individuals, then once the punitive term of imprisonment has been served, to avoid arbitrariness, the additional detention must be justified by compelling reasons arising from the gravity of the crimes committed and the likelihood of the detainee’s committing similar crimes in the future..." 

The Working Group rejected the Government's argument that only the punitive tariff needed to be proportionate, and the preventative period is governed solely by risk. The periods of post-tariff preventative detention ranged from 10 years to 17 years for index offences which included theft, robbery, attempted wounding and grievous bodily harm. However, the government's approach "effectively severs the required connection between offence gravity and detention duration". 

The Working Group found that the Government had failed to demonstrate "compelling reasons" for the continued detention of any of the five individuals and that preventative detention should only be used as a last resort. 

Those subjected to preventative detention post-tariff should not be treated like ordinary prisoners serving punitive sentences but instead be in a therapeutically distinct environment aimed at preparing them for release. 

The Working Group noted "the structural circularity" caused by the sentence, whereby the "psychological harm inflicted by the indeterminate sentence...itself generates behaviours and presentations that are relied upon as evidence of continued risk".  

(ii) Ability to challenge lawfulness of detention (Category III) Violation 

The Working Group found that the Parole Board reviews were inadequate as a mechanism to challenge lawfulness of detention in accordance with the requirements of Article 9(4) of the ICCPR for three reasons:  

First, the average time between referral to a final decision stood at 14 and a half months, which did not satisfy the requirement of review "without delay". 

Second, the ability of the Secretary of State for Justice to reject a Parole Board recommendation for a move to open conditions without rational justification amounted to executive override.  

Third, the test for parole was restricted to public protection but unable to consider "the proportionality of detention against the gravity of the original offence, consider whether detention remains a last resort, or take account of the cumulative harm caused by the sentence itself."  

(iii) Discrimination (Category V) Violation 

In relation to Mr Suleman, the Working Group found that the suspension of his parole review during his periods of hospitalisation amounted to discrimination based on psychiatric disability.  The Working Group urged the Government to take the steps necessary to remedy the situation, undertake a full and independent investigation, and "to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of their rights" 

The case was brought by Dr Muin Boase, Alun Jones KC of Great James Street Chambers. 

Dr Muin Boase says:  

"This UN opinion was rendered by an independent group of experts after full consideration of the legal arguments presented by both sides. It upheld all three grounds advanced by the Petitioners that their detention was arbitrary. It comprehensively rejected attempts by the UK Government to justify this cruel and inhumane sentence, which has had a devastating impact not only on the prisoners but also on their family members. The Government must act now to bring an end to this injustice by releasing prisoners who have served time well beyond their tariff and urgently bring forward legislation in accordance with the findings of the Working Group." 

The full text of Opinion No. 16/2026 (United Kingdom) is available here.