Proposed Changes to IPP Sentence while we wait for Andy Burnham to End IPP.
IPP Proposal for changes to the IPP sentence untill Andy Burnham Ends the IPP
7 September 2026
IPP COMMITTEE IN ACTION
IPP IS NOT BEING ENDED — IT IS BEING STALLED
Dear Alex Norris
Secretary of State for Justice
We have listened carefully to what Prime Minister Andy Burnham is saying about Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP), and we are deeply concerned about what is actually happening.
We are being told that IPP will be dealt with during this Parliament — potentially by 2029.
For people who have already spent 10, 15, 20 years or more living under an abolished sentence, that is not an acceptable answer.
IPP was abolished for new cases in 2012 because it was recognised as fundamentally flawed. Yet the people who were already serving IPP were left behind.
They were not given the same protection.
They were left with an indefinite sentence that can continue long after their original tariff has expired.
Some have spent years beyond their minimum tariff. Some have been released only to live under the threat of indefinite recall. Families have been destroyed. Children have grown up. without parents. Relationships, homes, jobs and lives have been lost.
And now, after all these years, we are being told to wait again.
Wait for another review.
Wait for another plan.
Wait for another committee.
Wait for another Parliament
Wait until 2029.
How much longer are IPP prisoners and their families expected to wait?
The most important development in this entire fight has been the intervention of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.
The Working Group considered the cases of four IPP prisoners and found that their continued detention in the circumstances before it constituted arbitrary detention. It called upon the
UK Government to take steps to remedy the violations.
This is not simply another campaign group making a political argument.
This is a United Nations human rights mechanism that has examined the issue and made findings concerning arbitrary detention.
Campaign groups, Organisations, and many others has also warned that the Government's IPP Action Plan, by itself, cannot solve the injustice without legislative change. Around
2,400 people remain either in prison or subject to indefinite recall.
So what is the Government's response?
We were told that the Government recognised the injustice.
And now we are being told that this could potentially be dealt with by the end of this Parliament.
That is another three years.
For someone who has already served 15 or 20 years under IPP, three more years is not a political timetable.
It is three more years of their life.
And this is where we fundamentally disagree with the Government's approach.
You cannot treat IPP as an ordinary sentencing policy that can simply be reviewed at your convenience.
The sentence itself has already been abolished.
The question now is what happens to the people trapped in the consequences of a sentence that Parliament has already decided should no longer exist.
The Government cannot keep kicking this problem down the road.
And we will not stand quietly while they do it.
We believe what we are seeing, risks becoming stalling dressed up as action.
We hope we are wrong.
We genuinely hope the Prime Minister proves us wrong.
If Andy Burnham really intends to end the injustice of IPP, then there is a very simple way to demonstrate it:
Bring forward the legislation.
Give us a timetable.
Tell IPP prisoners and their families exactly what is going to happen.
PUBLIC PROTECTION MUST REMAIN AT THE FOREFRONT
We also want to make one thing absolutely clear: public protection must remain at the forefront of any solution to the IPP crisis.
We are not asking the Government to simply release people who continue to pose a serious risk to the public without safeguards.
We recognise the importance of protecting victims, families and the wider public.
But public protection and justice should not be presented as opposing principles.
We can and must have both.
There are practical interim measures that could be introduced while legislation for retrospective abolition is being prepared and implemented.
For those IPP prisoners who received the highest tariffs and committed the most serious offences, one option for the Government to consider would be resentencing them to life Imprisonment.
If and when they are assessed as safe to release, they would then remain subject to a life licence, providing a continuing legal framework for supervision and recall where necessary.
This would provide an important safeguard for public protection while replacing the fundamentally flawed IPP sentence with a recognised sentence that has a clear legal framework.
We have done our research and come up with the below. We believe this would work.
Proposed Reintegration and Transition Program (RTP).
We have proposed that IPP prisoners who are approved for release should be released onto a Reintegration and Transition Programme (RTP), rather than an IPP licence.
The RTP would provide a fixed 12-month period of supervision, with conditions tailored to the individual’s needs, rehabilitation and assessed risk. This could include requirements around residence, reporting, treatment and support, together with proportionate restrictions where necessary for public protection.
We now believe that IPP prisoners should be released from the IPP licence and placed instead on a Reintegration and Transition Programme (RTP) for a fixed period. The purpose of the RTP would be to support safe reintegration into the community, with conditions tailored to the individual’s needs and risk.
The RTP would not be a continuation of the IPP sentence or an IPP licence. It would provide a structured period of support and supervision to help individuals rebuild their lives while maintaining appropriate public protection.
Where a person commits a new offence, but the police consider that the matter can be dealt with by releasing them on bail, they should not automatically be recalled under the IPP system. They should be treated in the same way as any other person, with a magistrates’ court or judge deciding whether a custodial sentence is appropriate.
If custody is imposed, it should be because of the new offence and the sentence imposed by the court, not because the person remains subject to an IPP licence.
After successfully completing the 12-month period without recall, the person would be discharged from the RTP . Those currently recalled who have not committed a further offence should also be eligible to be considered for release onto the RTP.
I believe this would provide a fairer and more proportionate way of managing IPP prisoners after release, while maintaining proper public protection and reducing the unnecessary pressure and uncertainty created by the current IPP licence system. It could also alleviate pressure on the probation service.
Probation officers are currently dealing with people subject to IPP licences and recall arrangements that can continue indefinitely. This creates an open-ended responsibility for an already pressured service, with no clear end point.
Moving suitable recalled prisoners onto a defined one year period of Reintergration and Transition Programme would give probation a clear period in which to manage their reintegration, assess their progress and address any risks.
It would also allow probation services to concentrate their limited resources on those who genuinely require intensive and continuing supervision, rather than maintaining indefinite oversight of people who have not been charged with a further offence.
These measures would therefore provide a balance between justice, rehabilitation and public protection, while giving the Government time to introduce the legislation necessary for full retrospective abolition.
The answer cannot be to keep people imprisoned indefinitely simply because the Government has not yet decided how to resolve the consequences of a sentence that
Parliament abolished in 2012.
Public protection does not require indefinite detention.
What is required is a proportionate, evidence-based system that identifies genuine risk, manages that risk appropriately and gives people a clear pathway back into society.
That is why we are calling for retrospective abolition of IPP, supported by sensible interim and transitional measures that protect the public, reduce unnecessary pressure on the prison and probation services, and finally bring this injustice to an end.
THE GOVERNMENT MUST ACT
Commit to retrospective abolition.
Deal with those still imprisoned.
Deal with those living under indefinite recall.
Deal with the indefinite licence.
And make sure that people who have already served years beyond their original tariffs are not simply left waiting until 2029.
Because the Government has already been given a warning by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.
The UN has identified the problem.
The families have identified the problem.
The prisoners have identified the problem.
Campaigners have identified the problem.
Lawyers have identified the problem.
Parliament has debated the problem for years.
We don't need another plan to identify the problem.
We need the Government to ACT.
IPP was abolished in 2012.
It is now 2026.
Fourteen years have passed.
How many more years must people lose before the Government finally decides that enough is enough?
2029 is not justice for people who have already lost decades.
We will continue to speak for the prisoners who cannot speak for themselves.
We will continue to stand beside their families.
And we will continue to demand that the Government listens to the United Nations, listens to Parliament, listens to the lawyers, listens to the families and — most importantly —listens to the people whose lives have been destroyed by IPP.
No more stalling.
No more kicking it into the future.
No more promises without legislation.
END IPP.
RETROSPECTIVELY.
NOW.
Shirley Debono
IPP Committee In Action
https://ippcommitteeinaction.com