Lives Lost under IPP

A Growing Record of Lives Lost

The People’s Inquiry is creating the most comprehensive publicly accountable record yet assembled of people who have died while serving—or remaining subject to—an Imprisonment for Public Protection or Detention for Public Protection sentence. This work covers deaths in prison custody, following recall and while living on licence in the community. It includes deaths officially classified as self-inflicted, natural causes, homicide, drug-related, other non-natural and awaiting classification.

What is currently confirmed

92 self-inflicted deaths in prison custody
From the introduction of the IPP sentence in 2005 to December 2025.

44 self-inflicted deaths while on IPP licence in the community
Between April 2019 and March 2025. Earlier IPP-specific community records have not been centrally collated, and later figures have not yet been published.

These figures do not represent the complete number of lives lost. There is currently no comprehensive public record identifying every IPP/DPP death across custody and the community.

Every number represents a person

This is not simply a statistical exercise. Each death represents a person, a family and a network of people living with loss. Names and personal information will be published only where they can be responsibly verified and where publication respects dignity, privacy, safeguarding and the wishes of bereaved families. The Inquiry recognises both the harm experienced by victims of crime and the harm subsequently caused through the operation of the IPP sentence. These truths are not mutually exclusive. Neither should be used to silence or diminish the other. Our purpose is not to exploit death or victim involvement for political advantage. It is to establish the truth, identify preventable failures, learn from repeated warnings and secure better criminal justice outcomes, accountability, reparation and non-recurrence.

Evidence register in development
Last reviewed: 31 August 2026

What Official Data Shows—and Omits

Official statistics provide part of the picture, but they do not provide a complete account of the lives lost under IPP.

Government records confirm:

• 92 self-inflicted deaths in prison custody between 2005 and December 2025.

• 44 self-inflicted deaths among people serving IPP sentences on licence in the community between April 2019 and March 2025.

• 26 deaths classified as natural causes in prison custody during 2023, 2024 and 2025 alone.

• At least 292 deaths from all recorded causes in prison custody between 2005 and 2025, calculated from successive official Parliamentary answers. This remains a minimum because some recent deaths may still be awaiting classification.

However, the Government does not publish a complete, named, person-level IPP/DPP deaths register. IPP-specific community records before April 2019 have not been centrally collated. Published community statistics do not identify every natural-cause, drug-related, accidental, homicide or unclassified death involving a person serving an IPP/DPP sentence. Recent classifications may also change following toxicology results, death registration or a coroner’s inquest. The figure of 44 community deaths must therefore be understood correctly: it represents confirmed self-inflicted deaths during a restricted period—not every IPP-related death in the community.

Why the People’s Inquiry is acting

The absence of a complete public record prevents proper scrutiny of patterns, institutional failures and potentially preventable deaths.

The Inquiry will bring together:

• Official Ministry of Justice and HMPPS statistics.

• Prisons and Probation Ombudsman investigations.

• Coroners’ conclusions and Prevention of Future Deaths reports.

• Parliamentary questions and government responses.

• Probation, recall and community-supervision evidence.

• Evidence provided by bereaved families and affected people.

• Responsible reporting and independently verifiable public records.

Every entry will distinguish confirmed fact, official classification, coronial conclusion, family testimony, informed inference and matters that remain unresolved. Where records conflict, the conflict will be shown openly. Corrections will be logged rather than silently replacing earlier information.

IPP self-inflicted deaths in custody and the community — UK Parliament, 17 March 2026
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2026-03-09/HL15302

IPP deaths recorded as natural causes in custody, 2023–2025 — UK Parliament, 25 March 2026
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2026-03-18/HL15700

Coroners’ warnings and the prevention of further deaths

A death should not be treated as an isolated tragedy when earlier investigations have already identified the same danger.

The People’s Inquiry is constructing a chronological record of coroners’ conclusions, Prevention of Future Deaths reports, official responses and subsequent IPP deaths. This will allow the Inquiry to examine:

• What risks were identified.

• Which public authorities received the warning.

• What action was promised.

• Whether that action was completed.

• Whether substantially similar failures occurred again.

• Who, if anyone, was held accountable.

What we have identified

Our initial investigation has identified at least eleven IPP-related inquests or Prevention of Future Deaths reports in which the sentence, prolonged detention, recall liability or associated institutional failures were materially relevant.

At least eight contain particularly direct warnings about risks affecting other people serving IPP sentences:

Steven Trudgill — 2016
The coroner warned that vulnerable people serving IPP sentences beyond tariff faced continuing risks of self-harm, inadequate mental-health provision and infrequent opportunities for release consideration.

Lewis Powter — 2022
Following a community drug-related death, the coroner identified recall anxiety and inadequate arrangements for multi-agency information-sharing concerning vulnerable IPP licence-holders.

Matthew Price — 2024
The coroner found that the continuing IPP sentence had adversely affected his mental wellbeing and warned specifically about the welfare of people living under IPP supervision in the community.

Francis Williams — 2024
The jury found that the IPP sentence caused his state of mind and thereby caused his death. The coroner warned of a particular form of despair among people unable to see a realistic end to the sentence.

Scott Rider — 2024
After Mr Rider had served approximately seventeen and a half years against a minimum term of 23 months, the coroner described his treatment as inhumane and indefensible and warned that further deaths could occur without action.

Sean Davies — 2024
The coroner addressed the recognition of IPP status as a potential risk factor for suicide and self-harm and considered the need for individual risk formulation and review.

Scott Berry — 2025
The coroner warned that people remaining imprisoned long beyond tariff continued to experience deteriorating mental health, limited progression and little hope of release.

Ronald Meikle — 2026
The coroner expressly identified IPP status as a material vulnerability associated with hopelessness, chronic frustration, deteriorating mental health, substance misuse and self-neglect.

Further relevant coronial evidence concerning Thomas Nicol, Haydar Jefferies and John Phillips connects IPP detention or recall with serious mental-health deterioration, institutional failure or the circumstances leading to death, although the formal matters requiring preventative action also addressed wider healthcare and prison-system failures.

From warning to accountability

A Prevention of Future Deaths report is a statutory warning, not the conclusion of the accountability process. The People’s Inquiry will examine what each coroner identified, how every responsible authority responded, what action was promised, and whether reliable evidence demonstrates that the action was implemented and sustained. The publication of an institutional response will not, by itself, be treated as proof that the identified danger was removed. The Inquiry will distinguish between assurances, proposed action, completed action and independently verifiable evidence of change. Where warnings recur, deadlines pass, responses remain outstanding or implementation cannot be demonstrated, that failure will be recorded transparently. This work will support truth, accountability, reparation and the prevention of further deaths.

Initial Case Evidence

Matthew Price — community, 2023

The coroner’s warning

Matthew Price’s mental wellbeing had been adversely affected by the continuing impact of his IPP sentence. The coroner identified his anxiety about recall and his fear that seeking mental-health support could damage his prospects of having the sentence terminated. The Ministry of Justice was asked to consider the welfare of people serving IPP sentences in the community.

The institutional response

HMPPS referred to suicide-prevention training and guidance for probation staff, an IPP-specific briefing, trauma-aware and person-centred learning, and work to produce a holistic IPP staff guide. It stated that the probation learning offer would be evaluated and reviewed in September 2024.

What remains to be proved

Publication of the response does not establish whether the promised measures reached every relevant practitioner, improved practice or reduced risk. The response did not identify a named delivery owner for each measure, and some proposed action had no firm completion date.

The Inquiry will examine

The People’s Inquiry will seek the promised September 2024 evaluation, staff completion and coverage data, the final IPP guide, evidence of national implementation and any assessment of outcomes for IPP licence-holders in the community.

[Read the coroner’s report and official response]

Francis Williams — community, 2023

The coroner’s finding and warning

Francis Williams had lived under an IPP sentence since 2006. The inquest found that the sentence contributed to a particular form of despair and an absence of hope. Although he should have been considered for licence termination, the referral did not happen. The jury found that the IPP caused his state of mind and consequently caused his death.

The coroner warned that probation officers must remain alert to the heightened risk of suicide and self-harm among people serving IPP sentences. He also identified an urgent need for practitioners to understand the processes for suspending supervision and terminating an IPP licence.

The institutional response

HMPPS referred to suicide-prevention training, an IPP-specific briefing, trauma-aware learning and guidance concerning the termination of IPP licences. It stated that licence-termination guidance and a seven-minute briefing had been issued to probation staff in September 2023.

What remains to be proved

The response did not demonstrate whether every eligible IPP licence-holder—including people whose supervision had been suspended—was identified and referred at the correct time. Training and guidance cannot, without audit evidence, establish that the referral failure identified at the inquest has been eliminated.

The Inquiry will examine

The People’s Inquiry will seek the applicable guidance, the number of eligible licence-holders, referral and termination data, records of missed or delayed referrals, staff-training coverage and evidence of remedial action following identified failures.

[Read the coroner’s report and official response]

Ronald Meikle — custody, 2024

The coroner’s warning

Ronald Meikle was serving an IPP sentence at HMP Woodhill. The coroner identified IPP status as a material vulnerability requiring structured support, regular review and coordinated care. The report raised wider concerns involving clinical risk, mental-health provision, substance use, information-sharing, prolonged isolation and emergency response.

The institutional response

Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust described a series of measures, including weekly safety meetings, addictions-referral audits, revised handovers, mental-health waiting-list reviews and additional safeguards for people experiencing prolonged isolation. The Trust stated that IPP status was being explicitly considered within clinical risk-assessment and referral processes.

What remains to be proved

These statements describe measures said to be operating or being developed. They do not, without supporting records and outcome evidence, prove that the measures were consistently implemented or that the risks identified by the coroner were removed. A complete set of responses from every recipient of the coroner’s report has not yet been established by the Inquiry.

The Inquiry will examine

The People’s Inquiry will seek every institutional response, meeting and audit records, referral and waiting-time data, staff-training evidence, incident reviews and proof that IPP status materially changed individual care and safeguarding decisions.

[Read the coroner’s report and published responses]

Sean Davies — custody, 2023

The coroner’s warning

Sean Davies died while serving an IPP sentence in custody. The coroner identified IPP status as a potential suicide and self-harm risk factor. The warning concerned the need for this vulnerability to be recognised through individual risk formulation, appropriate safeguarding and continuing review.

The required institutional response

The report was directed to the Ministry of Justice and HMPPS. A statutory response was required explaining the action taken or proposed, its timetable, or why no action would be taken.

Current accountability status

The case appears on the Chief Coroner’s official register of Prevention of Future Deaths reports for which a response remained outstanding. The People’s Inquiry has not treated the absence of a published response as a clerical detail. It represents an unresolved accountability issue concerning a formally identified risk of further deaths.

The Inquiry will examine

The People’s Inquiry will seek any late response, the reason for the delay, the officials responsible for responding and evidence of national action to ensure that IPP status is incorporated into suicide-risk formulation and safeguarding decisions across the prison estate.

[Read Sean Davies’s Prevention of Future Deaths report]

[Check the Chief Coroner’s official non-response register]

How to read this accountability tracker

Response published: We have located an official response, but its publication does not prove that the promised action happened or worked.

Implementation unverified: The authority describes action, but we have not yet obtained enough evidence to verify that it was consistently implemented or effective.

Response outstanding: An official response remains recorded as outstanding by the Chief Coroner.

Verification continuing: The Inquiry is still locating and examining responses or supporting evidence. This does not necessarily mean that no action occurred.

This is a developing evidence record. New evidence and corrections will be dated and recorded transparently.

Help us complete the record

Government statistics cannot tell the whole story. Bereaved families, friends, advocates and professionals may hold information that has never been brought together publicly.

The People’s Inquiry welcomes contact from anyone with knowledge of a person who died while:

• Imprisoned under an IPP or DPP sentence.

• Detained following recall under an IPP or DPP licence.

• Living in the community while still subject to an IPP or DPP sentence.

• Receiving hospital, probation, approved-premises or other state-supervised support connected to that sentence.

We particularly want to hear about deaths described as natural causes, self-inflicted, suicide, drug-related, accidental, homicide, unclassified or awaiting an inquest. You do not need to prove the whole case before contacting us. Initial information may include a name, date, location, prison or probation area, PPO report, inquest, coronial report or information about the person’s IPP/DPP status.

Dignity, consent and family involvement

Contacting the Inquiry will not automatically result in a person’s name or story being published. Before publishing personal information, we will consider verification, consent, privacy, safeguarding, the wishes of bereaved families and any active inquest or legal proceedings. Families will be offered meaningful involvement in how their loved one is represented. We will not reduce people to statistics, sensationalise their deaths or use bereavement to score political points. The purpose of this work is truth, accountability, learning, reparation and the prevention of further harm.

Please do not submit confidential records, medical information or sensitive evidence through an ordinary website contact form. Contact us initially with only enough information for the Inquiry team to respond safely.

Our methodology and ethical framework

Remembering lives. Establishing the truth. Preventing further deaths.

CONTENT WARNING

This page discusses deaths in custody and the community, suicide, self-harm, trauma and bereavement. Please look after yourself while reading. If you need immediate emotional support, Samaritans can be contacted free at any time on 116 123. Further sources of support are available on our Safeguarding and Wellbeing page.

WHY THIS RECORD EXISTS

Every person who has died while trapped within, recalled under or otherwise affected by an Imprisonment for Public Protection sentence was more than a statistic. They were a person with a name, a history, relationships and people who cared about them. This page is being developed as a carefully sourced public record of known deaths connected with IPP and Detention for Public Protection sentences. It will bring together official investigations, inquest findings, Prevention of Future Deaths reports and other reliable evidence that is currently scattered across different public systems. Its purposes are to remember those who have died, assist public understanding, identify recurring institutional failures and help prevent further loss of life. It will also support the evidence-gathering work of the People’s Inquiry into IPP. This is not presented as a complete government count. To our knowledge, no single official public record currently brings together every death across prisons, secure hospitals, approved premises and the community involving somebody subject to an IPP or DPP sentence. We will therefore describe this as the most complete publicly evidenced record we can presently establish—not as a final or definitive total.

WHO WILL BE INCLUDED

The principal register will cover verified deaths involving people who were:

• imprisoned under an IPP or DPP sentence, including after recall;

• detained in a secure hospital while still subject to an IPP or DPP sentence;

• living in approved premises or elsewhere in the community while subject to an active IPP or DPP licence; or

• otherwise confirmed by an authoritative source to have remained legally subject to the sentence at the time of death.

Deaths occurring after a sentence or licence had been terminated will not be added to the principal total. Where reliable evidence indicates that continuing sentence-related harm may have materially affected somebody after termination, the case may be recorded separately as contextual evidence. It will be clearly labelled and will not be merged into the principal register.

HOW CASES WILL BE VERIFIED

We will give greatest evidential weight to:

• Prison and Probation Ombudsman fatal-incident investigation reports;

• inquest conclusions and coroners’ findings;

• Prevention of Future Deaths reports, also known as Regulation 28 reports;

• court judgments;

• Ministry of Justice, HM Prison and Probation Service, NHS or other official records; and

• official responses to investigations and coroners’ recommendations.

Reliable journalism, published research, parliamentary material and information supplied by families may provide important additional evidence. The source and status of that information will always be identified. Family testimony is valuable evidence and will be treated with respect. However, we will distinguish between a family’s account, an allegation, an official finding and a fact independently verified from more than one source. A person will not be publicly named on the basis of rumour, an unsourced social-media post or information that we cannot adequately verify. Where a case is known but essential facts remain unresolved, it may be held privately as a provisional record until sufficient evidence becomes available.

WHAT EACH RECORD WILL SHOW

Where the information is available and appropriate to publish, each entry will record:

• the person’s name and age;

• the date and place of death;

• the sentence and minimum tariff imposed;

• time served beyond tariff;

• whether the person had never been released, had been recalled or was living on licence;

• the officially recorded cause or classification of death;

• the inquest conclusion;

• links to any Ombudsman investigation or Prevention of Future Deaths report;

• officially identified failings, concerns and recommendations;

• responses from the responsible authorities;

• links to the underlying sources;

• the status of our verification; and

• the date on which the entry was last reviewed.

We will mark information as unknown where it has not been established. We will not fill evidential gaps with assumptions.

CAUSATION AND RESPONSIBLE REPORTING

Inclusion in this record will not, by itself, mean that the IPP sentence has been legally or medically established as the cause of a person’s death. We will use the terminology contained in the relevant official evidence. For example, a death may be described as self-inflicted in one official dataset while a coroner’s legal conclusion uses different language. We will not describe a death as suicide unless that description is supported by an appropriate official finding or is clearly attributed to a named source.

Each case will distinguish between:

• what has been officially established;

• what a family, representative or other source has reported or alleged; and

• what remains unknown or unanswered.

Where an investigation identifies a connection between the sentence, recall, treatment, institutional failure and a death, we will report that finding accurately and link to its source. We will not overstate what the evidence proves.

AVOIDING DOUBLE-COUNTING

One death can appear in several places: prison records, Ministry of Justice statistics, an Ombudsman investigation, an inquest, a Prevention of Future Deaths report and media coverage. Those records must not be added together as though they represent different people. Every case will therefore be checked across the available sources and assigned a single record. Totals will always state their date range, setting, definition and verification status. Different official datasets may use different reporting periods and classifications. Where figures cannot properly be compared or combined, we will say so.

DIGNITY, PRIVACY AND FAMILY INVOLVEMENT

This is a record of human lives, not a spectacle and not a collection of content. Names will be published only where supported by a legitimate public source or provided with appropriate authority. Photographs, personal histories and family quotations will be used only where permission has been given or the material has already been legitimately placed in the public record. Where practical and appropriate, we will seek to give bereaved families an opportunity to check personal details and identify factual errors. We will consider genuine requests concerning privacy, safety, cultural sensitivity and the welfare of surviving relatives. Any material correction will be recorded transparently under our Complaints and Corrections policy.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Recognising state harm does not erase, minimise or compete with the harm experienced by victims and survivors of crime. Both truths must be capable of being heard. The People’s Inquiry will approach the original offence, its impact and subsequent state actions with seriousness, honesty and care. Victims and survivors must not be invoked to delay scrutiny, defend institutional failure or score political points. Their participation must be genuine, informed and capable of shaping better criminal justice outcomes. The Inquiry’s Victims and Survivors Panel and its Lived Experience and Families Panel will have important but independent roles. Neither group’s experiences will be used to silence or discredit the other. Justice cannot be built by creating a competition between different experiences of harm.

ACCOUNTABILITY, REPARATION AND NON-RECURRENCE

The record will help the People’s Inquiry examine whether recurring patterns exist across individual deaths, including failures involving mental healthcare, self-harm prevention, progression, release planning, recall, licence conditions, communication and institutional accountability. Reparation may include acknowledgment of harm, truth, apology, access to records, meaningful support, redress, memorialisation, accountability and measures designed to ensure that the harm is not repeated. The purpose is not merely to count deaths after they have happened. It is to learn what institutions knew, what they did, what they failed to do and what must now change to protect life.

SUBMITTING INFORMATION

If you know of a death that may fall within this record, or hold a relevant public document, please contact us through our Contact page using the subject:

LIVES LOST EVIDENCE

Please provide the person’s name, their connection to the IPP or DPP sentence and details of any publicly available report or reliable source. Do not email original, confidential or highly sensitive documents until a secure method of receiving them has been agreed. Submitting information through the website does not yet constitute formal submission of evidence to the People’s Inquiry. A separate evidence protocol and secure submission process will be published before formal evidence-gathering begins.

CORRECTIONS AND REVIEW

Accuracy matters. If you believe that an entry is incomplete or factually wrong, please use our Complaints and Corrections procedure. We will review credible correction requests, preserve a clear audit trail and update the record where the evidence requires it. The verified individual register will appear below once the initial evidence review has been completed.

Methodology version 1.0
Last updated: 31 August 2026