Dozens dead and hundreds locked up for 10 years too long: Injustice of indefinite prison terms laid bare

Dozens of prisoners have died while remaining indefinitely incarcerated, and hundreds have spent over a decade beyond their original sentence, according to new data revealing the scale of the crisis surrounding indefinite prison terms. Almost 700 individuals remain in custody under these sentences, having served at least ten years longer than initially intended. Among them, 856 have never been released, despite serving significantly more time than required. Others, approximately 1415, have been released and subsequently recalled to prison multiple times, often for minor breaches of license conditions. The issue stems from the Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) system, which was introduced in 2005 and designed to keep dangerous offenders in custody indefinitely unless deemed safe for release. The policy was abolished in 2012, but its effects continue to impact thousands of prisoners. Analysis of prison records reveals that nearly all of the 2271 inmates still under IPP orders have completed their minimum sentence. Many have endured prolonged periods of uncertainty, with some spending up to 20 years behind bars for non-violent offenses such as theft. Andy Burnham, the deputy prime minister, has announced plans to introduce legislation aimed at ending indefinite sentencing. He emphasized the need to address the overcrowding of prisons and the ethical concerns raised by the current system. Speaking in the House of Commons, Burnham stated that the government would seek to balance public safety with fairness, ensuring that those who have genuinely served their time are not kept in limbo. His comments followed a campaign led by The Independent, which has long highlighted the plight of IPP prisoners and called for comprehensive reform. The government has acknowledged the severity of the situation, with a spokesperson stating that the review process will prioritize fairness and public protection. A cross-party oversight group is being formed to determine the criteria for releasing IPP prisoners, though the process is expected to take considerable time. Justice Secretary Alex Norris is set to present detailed proposals in parliament later this week. Legal experts have condemned the system as fundamentally flawed. Former Lord Chief Justice Lord John Thomas, who oversaw the judiciary from 2013 to 2017, described IPP sentences as “preventative detention.” He argued that the practice violates core principles of justice, noting that it punishes individuals based on potential future behavior rather than past actions. Thomas criticized the lack of retrospective application of the abolition law, leaving thousands in a legal limbo where they could be detained indefinitely without clear guidelines. The psychological toll of indefinite incarceration has been severe. Over 96 prisoners have committed suicide since the policy was implemented, driven by despair and the absence of a clear path to freedom. Many others have suffered mental health deterioration, with some reporting feelings of hopelessness and isolation. The United Nations has previously labeled the system as akin to “psychological torture,” citing the indefinite nature of the sentences and the lack of transparency in parole decisions. Recalls for IPP prisoners have become routine, often triggered by minor infractions such as missing a curfew or failing to maintain contact with probation officers. On average, these prisoners spend more than two years in custody each time they are recalled, even for non-criminal violations. In the year to September 2025, only 24% of recalled IPP prisoners faced charges related to new offenses, while the majority were imprisoned indefinitely for non-compliance with existing conditions. As the debate intensifies, calls for reform grow louder. Advocacy groups argue that the system is outdated and unjust, demanding immediate action to rectify the harm caused to thousands of individuals. With legislative changes on the horizon, the focus now shifts to determining how best to transition from the IPP model to a fairer system that respects both public safety and individual rights.