It is time to release prisoners trapped by inhuman endless jail terms
Abolished in 2012 for its inherent flaws, it nonetheless continues to trap thousands of people in a cruel legal limbo, as a debate in the House of Lords today will no doubt highlight.
It is long past time that every person still serving an IPP sentence be resentenced. The continued use of this now-defunct punishment is both unjust and, arguably, inhumane.
At its core, the IPP sentence allowed judges to hand out indeterminate prison terms for offences that did not justify life imprisonment but were deemed serious enough to warrant extended supervision. Offenders were given a 'tariff' – the minimum time they must serve before being considered for release. Many of these tariffs were shockingly short, some as low as two years. Yet thousands remain in prison long after these tariffs have expired.
Why? Because release is dependent not on time served, but on proving to the Parole Board that they are no longer a danger to the public – a nebulous, subjective, and often unreachable standard.
This flips the basic presumption of justice on its head. In a fair system, the state must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt to imprison a person. Under IPP, once the tariff is served, the burden of proof shifts unfairly to the prisoner. It is no longer the state's job to justify incarceration; it is the prisoner's burden to earn freedom. This is particularly problematic when access to rehabilitative programmes, often required for parole, is limited or unavailable – especially in overcrowded prisons. The system sets people up to fail and then blames them for not succeeding.
Moreover, the psychological toll of such indefinite punishment is catastrophic. Suicide and self-harm rates among IPP prisoners are significantly higher than average. Many live in a state of constant uncertainty and despair, unsure if they will ever be released, even decades after their offence. It is not unusual to find individuals still imprisoned for minor crimes – such as theft or assault – that would today warrant only a few years behind bars, yet they languish without a release date. The punishment no longer fits the crime, if it ever did.
The injustice of the IPP system has been widely recognised. The House of Commons justice committee labelled it "irredeemably flawed" and called for all remaining IPP prisoners to be resentenced. The European Court of Human Rights has also condemned aspects of the sentence as incompatible with human rights obligations.
Yet the government has so far refused to act decisively, citing public safety and political sensitivity. This is a failure of courage and leadership. Protecting public safety does not require trampling basic rights or holding people indefinitely for crimes long past. Dangerous individuals can be managed through proper risk assessment and robust parole conditions – not through perpetual punishment without end.
Resentencing every IPP prisoner is not only fair, it is necessary. It would give judges the opportunity to reconsider the nature and severity of each offence and impose a proportionate, fixed sentence with clear guidance for release. For many, this would mean immediate or imminent freedom; for others, it would offer clarity, rehabilitation goals, and hope – something the current system wholly lacks. Justice demands consistency, proportionality, and transparency. The IPP sentence undermines all three.
Some argue that resentencing might release dangerous individuals back into society. But the risk can be responsibly managed without recourse to indeterminate detention. Modern sentencing tools, community supervision, mental health support, and parole frameworks are all capable of mitigating risk. Perpetual incarceration without due process is not a solution – it is a violation.
Britain prides itself on the rule of law, but this chapter of penal policy betrays that principle. IPP sentences should not only be consigned to history – they must be actively undone. Every person still caught in this Kafkaesque trap deserves a proper sentence, a path to rehabilitation, and a chance at freedom. Anything less is a continuation of a deep and unforgivable wrong.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
16 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
I'm a 'hard enough b*****d' to lead the country... despite collapsing under pressure to own MPs over benefit cuts
Keir Starmer has insisted he is a 'hard-enough bastard' to lead the country – despite capitulating to his own MPs over benefit cuts. In a bizarre aside, the Prime Minister pushed back against suggestions that recent U-turns have wrecked his political authority. Asked whether he was tough enough to drive through change following a series of reverses, he told the BBC 's Political Thinking podcast that he was 'proud' of his record in government. 'We need to reflect on where things have not gone according to plan, and the Welfare Bill was one of them,' he said. 'But we also need to emphasise the very many good things we have done.' The Arsenal fan denied that he had 'lost the [Labour] dressing room'. And when podcast host Nick Robinson revealed that a former football team-mate had described Sir Keir as a 'hard bastard', the PM responded: 'I'm a hard-enough bastard to find out who said that so I can have a discussion with them.' His comments echoed Ed Miliband's much-mocked bravado in 2015 when he responded to questions about his suitability for power by declaring: 'Hell, yes, I'm tough enough.' Downing Street declined to comment further on Sir Keir's words yesterday, but insisted the PM was not a 'pushover' despite caving in to pressure to make huge U-turns on welfare cuts, the winter fuel payment and grooming gangs in recent weeks. Sir Keir did acknowledge an array of blunders, saying caving into Labour rebels on welfare was a 'tough day' and that he regretted a speech warning that uncontrolled immigration could turn Britain into an 'island of strangers'. The PM tried to make a virtue out of U-turns on issues such as the national inquiry into grooming gangs, arguing it was 'common sense' to 'look again' when doubts were raised. 'I'm not one of these ideological thinkers, where ideology dictates what I do,' said. 'I'm a pragmatist. You can badge these things as U-turns – it's common sense to me. If someone says to me, 'here's some more information and I really think it's the right thing to do', I'm the kind of person that says, 'well, in which case, let's do it'.' In a message to Labour MPs, Sir Keir said the Government needed to 'emphasise the many good things we have done'. 'We're only just starting. This in a sense is the toughest year, so we're only just beginning,' he said, adding that he did not 'pretend' that the Labour revolt this week which forced him to neuter his benefit curbs was not a 'tough day'. 'I take responsibility,' he said. 'We didn't get the process right.' But he insisted the Government had 'done some fantastic things' and 'driven through so much change'. The PM said that included bringing down waiting lists in the NHS, as well as 'loads of improvements in schools and stuff that we can do for children'. Sir Keir went on: 'Whether that's rolling out school uniform projects, whether it's school meals, breakfast clubs, you name it – and also [bringing in] a huge amount of investment into the country. 'And of course we've been busy getting three trade deals.' When our political leaders try to 'talk tough' 'Am I tough enough? Hell, yes, I'm tough enough.' Ed Miliband, March 2015, on whether he was tough enough to be PM. 'You worked so hard, you didn't feel you'd drunk ten pints by four o'clock, you used to sweat so much.' William Hague, August 2000, boasting he drank 14 pints a day as a teenage delivery worker. 'I am a fighter, not a quitter.' Liz Truss, October 22, the day before she resigned as Prime Minister. 'I have to confess, when me and my friend, sort of, used to run through the fields of wheat – the farmers weren't too pleased about that.' Theresa May, June 2017, on the naughtiest thing she had done.
Daily Mail
17 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Hard man fantasy of a PM losing control
Mad Frankie Fraser, Iron Mike Tyson, Ronnie and Reggie Kray. To this list of notorious tough guys, we must now add Keir Starmer – a streetfighter straight outta Reigate. The genteel Surrey suburbs might not seem a natural breeding ground for bruisers, but friends say the PM's upbringing belies the inner beast. 'He's a hard bastard,' they tell the BBC 's Nick Robinson. Sir Keir humbly agrees. 'A hard enough bastard,' he says. Really? Is he even the hardest member of Cabinet? It would be a brave punter who backed him over three rounds against Angela Rayner, or indeed in an alley fight with his gimlet-eyed enforcer Pat McFadden. All this nonsense is, of course, designed to make Sir Keir out to be a strong and macho leader. In truth, it makes him look silly and desperate. On his first anniversary in power, he appears weaker and more out of touch than ever. A survey this week shows one in three people who voted Labour 12 months ago now regret it. The big surprise is that it's only one in three. The backbench rebellion which shredded his welfare reforms and had his Chancellor sobbing in the Commons was his greatest humiliation. But there have been many other errors, U-turns and betrayals of his manifesto promises. No one voted for a £40 billion tax raid, the scrapping of winter fuel allowance, releasing thousands of dangerous prisoners early or the outrageous surrender of the Chagos Islands. His boast that he would 'smash the gangs' trafficking migrants across the Channel has been an ignominious failure, the growth he promised has flatlined and borrowing has soared. The only people to have really benefited from Starmer's first year are the public-sector unions, whose members have received bumper pay rises and a new workers' charter, which places a raft of stifling obligations on hard-pressed employers. And what are the omens for Sir Keir's second year (assuming he survives it)? For anyone with savings, property, a pension fund, a small business, it threatens to be far worse than his first. He has lost control of his parliamentary party and with it any chance of cutting back the ballooning state. Indeed, his newly empowered MPs, most of whom have never had a job outside politics, charities or the public sector, are likely to demand even higher public spending. For example, they will no doubt push for lifting the two-child benefit cap, which would be a huge payday for those with large families but cost upwards of £3.5 billion – more money we don't have. The only way to pay for this ever-growing financial black hole is for our lame-duck Chancellor to raise yet more tax. As usual, the burden will fall on the hard-pressed families of middle Britain. It would be a betrayal of Labour's central manifesto promise but, as we have learned in this year, Sir Keir is not a man of principle. He may think of himself as a hard man, but he's deluding himself. Every time there has been a genuinely tough decision to be made – on welfare, the grooming gangs inquiry, winter fuel allowance and much else – he's buckled. His fellow tough guy Mike Tyson famously said: 'Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.' This is effectively what's happened to Sir Keir. If he ever had a plan, it's in tatters. And the country will pay the price.
Times
31 minutes ago
- Times
Public sector bigger than before Covid under SNP
Scotland's public sector will remain more bloated than it was before the pandemic even if SNP ministers hit a target requiring some departments to cut one in eight jobs, experts have warned. IPPR Scotland, a think tank, said a promise to protect and in some cases expand frontline roles while finding overall staffing reductions of 0.5 per cent by 2030 would mean exposed departments have to slash 20,000 posts to plug a projected spending gap approaching £5 billion. However, even if the target is met this would 'not undo the increases in devolved public services since 2019', according to separate analysis published by the Fraser of Allander Institute, based at the University of Strathclyde. The institute's independent economists also downgraded their growth forecasts for the Scottish economy and predicted 0.8 per cent growth this year, and just 1 per cent in 2026. This is despite ministers claiming Scotland is a 'modern, high-growth country', an assertion the IPPR analysis said 'might be generously described as optimistic'. Before Holyrood went into recess for the summer, the finance secretary, Shona Robison, outlined the need to tackle a £2.6 billion shortfall in day-to-day resource spending and £2.1 billion deficit on capital projects, which she blamed on 'Westminster austerity'. However, critics lambasted the SNP for 'years of gross financial incompetence', with a significant proportion of the black hole explained by the creation of more generous devolved welfare payments and a ballooning and increasingly well-paid public sector. The wage bill for the devolved public sector is close to £30 billion, which is about 55 per cent of the block grant funding from Westminster. Public sector pay is projected to reach £32 billion by 2029-30 even if the overall workforce shrinks. The Fraser of Allander Institute said that although some of the increases in staffing were accounted for by the creation of Social Security Scotland to administer new devolved welfare payments, this did not account for most of the rapid expansion. 'It's laughable for SNP ministers to claim Scotland is a high-growth country based on the facts,' the Scottish Tory MSP Craig Hoy said. 'The reality is we're a high-tax, low-growth nation as a direct result of their policies. 'The nationalists' addiction to a bloated, inefficient public sector is the reason nobody has faith in their ability to make the cuts needed to plug the huge black hole they have created in Scotland's finances.' Hoy added: 'Their failure to fully pass on the rates relief available to businesses south of the border, coupled with them making Scotland the highest taxed part of the UK, explains why the growth rate here is even lower than the anaemic rate Keir Starmer is presiding over.' There were about 590,000 public sector workers in Scotland in 2024, representing 22 per cent of the workforce. The proportion is lower than in Northern Ireland and Wales but far higher than in England, where 17 per cent of workers are employed by the state. The size of the public sector workforce in Scotland grew by 11 per cent between 2017 and last year, with average public sector pay almost 5 per cent higher than the UK as a whole. Robison said last week that reducing overall staff numbers by 0.5 per cent, largely through 'natural attrition and recruitment controls', could lead to £700 million of savings. Compulsory redundancies, she said, could be used as a 'last resort', reversing a long-standing ban. A 0.5 per cent reduction in the 550,000 workers for devolved functions would mean 11,000 full-time jobs being cut. However, the IPPR said that as frontline jobs, which account for the vast majority of roles, were being protected, the axe would fall heavily on those that were not. 'Taken together, that would mean the rest of the devolved public sector facing staffing cuts of around 3 to 3.5 per cent per year or a drop of about 13 per cent by 2029-30,' a blog co-authored by IPPR Scotland director Stephen Boyd said. 'That amounts to around 20,000 jobs. 'Can the public-sector backroom bear cuts of that scale? Does the distinction between frontline and backroom make any sense? Are there really thousands of backroom public-sector roles that can be replaced by technology over the next four years? 'The Scottish government risks finding out that the answers to these questions are unlikely to be the ones they need to achieve a pain-free balancing of the budget.' Ivan McKee, the public finance minister, said: 'It is clearer than ever that Scotland's economy is being impacted by challenging global trading conditions and uncertainty, conditions mirrored across the rest of the UK.' McKee added: 'We are taking ambitious steps to grow the economy by pursuing new investment, building export potential and driving and capitalising on the Scottish innovation at the forefront of many key global industries. 'But we are doing all of this without the full economic powers of independence that are needed to fully address the issues facing Scottish businesses. We need decisive action from the UK government to counter the damaging economic impacts of Brexit and business uncertainty. This includes reversing its decision to increase employers' national insurance contributions which, as the Scottish Chambers of Commerce has highlighted, is severely damaging business confidence, investment, growth and jobs. 'As set out by the finance secretary last week, savings rising to £2.6 billion in 2029-30 will ensure funding can be targeted at frontline services such as the NHS, social security, action to eradicate child poverty and other priorities. This includes our commitment to reduce annualised Scottish government and public bodies' corporate costs by 20 per cent over the next five years.'
