The Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence was introduced in England and Wales in 2005. It was intended for people considered dangerous, but whose offence did not merit a life sentence. Like a life sentence, it means a person can be in detention for a potentially unlimited period until they can prove that they are no longer a threat to the public. More than a decade after the IPP sentence was abolished, around 2,000 people continue to live under its shadow. Some remain imprisoned years beyond the minimum term imposed by the courts, while others have been released but remain subject to indefinite licence conditions, with the constant threat of recall to custody. Parliament abolished IPP in 2012 because it recognised the sentence was fundamentally flawed. Yet it wasn’t applied retrospectively, and those already serving it continue to experience its consequences. If Parliament concluded that IPP had no place in the future, why should those sentenced before its abolition remain subject to a sentencing framework that no longer exists?
Much of the debate surrounding IPP has focused on its indeterminate nature. That concern is well founded, but the deeper problem is that the sentence itself may undermine both rehabilitation and the reliable assessment of risk. Many people serving IPP have spent years navigating uncertain progression pathways, inconsistent access to rehabilitative programmes, repeated parole reviews and prolonged periods without clear expectations about what is required to secure release. This uncertainty is not simply frustrating; it can be psychologically damaging. Research consistently demonstrates that prolonged uncertainty, institutionalisation and restrictive prison environments contribute to depression, hopelessness, emotional dysregulation and disengagement. Over time, these experiences can shape behaviour in ways that reflect adaptation to prolonged confinement rather than an enduring propensity to harm others. If these effects are not recognised, risk assessments may become distorted, and end up measuring the consequences of the sentence itself rather than an individual’s future risk.
This process can be understood through the concept of environmental embodiment, which recognises that people’s thoughts, emotions and behaviour are continually shaped by the environments in which they live. Prison is not simply a setting in which risk is observed; it is an environment that actively influences psychological functioning. Years spent under an indeterminate sentence, characterised by uncertainty and institutional risk aversion, inevitably affect how people respond to stress, authority and repeated disappointment. The central problem is therefore not merely that IPP causes psychological harm. It is that the sentence may generate behaviours which are subsequently interpreted as evidence of continuing dangerousness. Risk assessment risks becoming partially self-referential, measuring the effects of prolonged indeterminate detention as much as the likelihood of future offending. The result is a self-reinforcing cycle in which the psychological consequences of the sentence are used to justify its continuation.
Calls for resentencing are sometimes portrayed as arguments for leniency. They are not. If the current framework compromises the reliability of risk assessment, then public protection is also compromised. Defensive decision-making, limited opportunities for rehabilitation and repeated cycles of release and recall do little to improve long-term public safety. Instead, they can weaken family relationships, discourage engagement with rehabilitation and undermine motivation for change. While improvements to the parole system are welcome, parole operates within the existing sentencing framework. It asks whether detention should continue under the current sentence; it does not consider whether that sentence itself remains proportionate or legitimate. The continuing operation of IPP raises fundamental questions about proportionality, procedural fairness and the legitimacy of ongoing indeterminate detention under a sentence Parliament has already abolished. These are sentencing questions, not simply parole questions.
A structured resentencing review offers a principled solution. Every person still subject to an IPP sentence should be automatically eligible for an independent resentencing review. The process should be transparent, time-limited and multidisciplinary, involving judicial oversight alongside expertise in psychology, probation, prison practice and rehabilitation. Decisions should explicitly consider how institutionalisation, limited access to rehabilitation and the psychological effects of indeterminate detention have influenced both behaviour and risk presentation. Possible outcomes could include conversion to determinate sentences with fixed end dates, immediate release on licence where appropriate, or conditional release supported by clearly defined objectives. In exceptional cases, it could mean continued detention, where compelling evidence demonstrates that it remains necessary for public protection together with appropriate rehabilitative provision.
A structured resentencing review would benefit not only those serving IPP sentences but also the wider criminal justice system. It would improve confidence that decisions about continued detention are proportionate, evidence-based and legally legitimate, while reducing unnecessary pressure on prisons and probation services. The continued operation of IPP is no longer simply a historical anomaly. It presents an ongoing challenge to the fairness, proportionality and credibility of the justice system. A resentencing review would not disregard risk; it would strengthen public protection by ensuring that decisions about liberty are based on contemporary legal principles and a more accurate understanding of how prolonged indeterminate detention shapes behaviour. Parliament recognised in 2012 that IPP had no place in the future. Justice now requires that recognition to be extended to those who continue to live under its shadow.
Sarah Markham is a visiting researcher at the IoPPN (Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience), King’s College London.
