His Majesty The KingBuckingham Palace
London
SW1A 1AA
(Date)A Humble Petition for Mercy and Attention to the Crisis of IPP Sentencing
Your Majesty,
I write to you with the deepest respect, humility, and desperation, as a concerned citizen and on behalf of those still suffering under the cruel and inhumane burden of the Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence a policy that continues to claim lives, despite having been abolished more than a decade ago.
Thousands of individuals, many of whom committed minor offences, remain trapped in prison under indeterminate sentences that offer no clear path to release. Some have served more than 15 years for offences that originally carried tariffs of two years or less. Many suffer from severe mental health deterioration; over one hundred deaths have occurred, including suicides, in a system that has stripped people of hope, dignity, and any sense of justice.
While I understand that the exercise of royal pardon is a constitutional formality subject to ministerial advice, I write to Your Majesty not only in hope of compassion, but as a moral appeal to the conscience of the nation. Your Majesty has long stood as a symbol of continuity, duty, and humanity and it is in that spirit I ask you to acknowledge the plight of IPP prisoners, many of whom are among the most forgotten and voiceless in our society.
This is a stain on our justice system that cannot be justified by public protection alone. It is prolonged punishment without end. Families are suffering, lives are being lost, and yet still there is delay, denial, and silence.
Your Majesty, I humbly ask you to use your position symbolically or practically to urge reflection, reform, and above all, mercy.History will remember how long this injustice was allowed to continue. I pray that your voice might help hasten its end.
History will remember how long this injustice was allowed to continue. I pray that your voice might help hasten its end.
I have included a few links below which offer further insight into the IPP sentence, its human impact, and the ongoing campaign to bring this national scandal to a close:
With the highest respect and hope,
Your humble and obedient servant,
(Your Full Name)
(Your Address –
(Your Email – optional)
Template letter to His Holiness Pope Francis, appealing for compassion and attention to the ongoing suffering of IPP prisoners. The tone is respectful, for leader of the Catholic Church.
The address the church of England: The Most Reverend Justin WelbyArchbishop of CanterburyLambeth PalaceLondon SE1 7JU (Date) you could start with letter with : Your Grace,.....
.Please feel free to adapt this letter to reflect your own experiences or views. Everyone’s story matters and the more voices, the stronger our call for justice. Try to keep your message focused and heartfelt. Avoid unnecessary detail or repetition, and speak plainly. The most powerful letters are often the simplest and most sincere.
His Holiness Pope Leo XIV
Apostolic Palace
00120 Vatican City
(Date)
A Humble Appeal for Compassion and Justice for IPP Prisoners in the United Kingdom
Your Holiness,
I write to Your Holiness with the deepest respect and humility, as a concerned member of the public and as one who believes in the sanctity, dignity, and redemptive potential of every human soul especially those who are forgotten by society.
I wish to draw Your Holiness's attention to a grave and ongoing injustice in the United Kingdom: the continued incarceration of individuals under the now-abolished Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence.
This policy, introduced in 2005 and officially abolished in 2012, has left more than 2,800 people trapped in prison with no fixed release date. Many of these individuals were originally sentenced to short minimum terms sometimes as little as 12 months but remain incarcerated 10, 15, even 20 years later, not for new crimes, but for perceived “risk” or administrative recall. Some have never been released at all.
The psychological torment this system causes is profound. Many of those still held are among society’s most vulnerable living with learning difficulties, neurodivergence, trauma, and severe mental illness. Over 100 individuals have died while serving IPP sentences, many by suicide. These are not just statistics. These are lives lost to hopelessness and despair, families shattered, and communities scarred.
Although the sentence has been condemned by the European Court of Human Rights, by UN experts, and by cross-party parliamentary committees, meaningful reform has been painfully slow. Political fear has outweighed mercy. The result is a form of indefinite punishment that serves neither public protection nor justice.
Your Holiness, I understand that the exercise of justice in each country is complex and that the Holy See does not intervene in secular legal processes. However, I humbly ask you to consider lending your moral voice and prayers to the many men and women still suffering under this unjust regime. A single word of compassion from Your Holiness could reignite public conscience, encourage leaders to act, and offer dignity to those who feel utterly forgotten.
Your lifelong advocacy for the poor, the excluded, and the imprisoned inspires hope in many. You have shown us again and again that no one is beyond God’s mercy. I ask, with all sincerity, that you consider acknowledging this suffering and urging those in positions of power to seek mercy and justice for the IPP prisoners.
I have included several links below which offer further context and testimony about the IPP sentence and its devastating impact: May your voice continue to uplift the downtrodden and remind us that no one is beyond redemption
Your faithful servant
(Your Full Name)
(Your Address )
...........................................................................................................................................
30 jun e 2025 . How can prisoners trapped on endless sentences persuade the Parole Board that they are safe to release? A psychologist offers advice.
The Supreme Court justice Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood once opined that the IPP (Imprisonment for Public Protection) sentence was “the greatest stain on the criminal justice system”. However, whilst the legislation was removed in 2012, the consequences live on, and concern continues to increase, particularly regarding the number of recalls.
Ministry of Justice figures show that at the end of December 2024, there were 1,569 individuals in prison having been recalled on IPP sentences. I wonder how long it will be before this figure is twice the number of never-released IPP prisoners?
Alarmingly, between January and September 2024, 471 individuals were recalled, and in the same period, 451 individuals who had been recalled were re-released. Why probation has become so risk adverse is poorly understood, and it will be important to try and find out from the Parole Board how many of those recalls were judged as ‘unfair’ by them.
However, my greater concern is the 1,035 IPP prisoners who have never been released at all, despite all of them being post-tariff. Why not release? What has gone wrong?
Possible answers are as follows:
a. I think that the most obvious reason is that IPP individuals still in prison, without having been released even once, have been tried out in open conditions, perhaps even more than once, and been returned to the closed estate. The reasons for this will be varied, but undoubtedly include substance misuse, and perhaps less-than-perfect compliance with external rules and regulations, i.e. expectations regarding self-management.
If that is the case, and you yourself are one of the 1,035, then my advice is that when you next appear in front of the Parole Board, you accept at least a significant share of personal responsibility for triggering a recall to closed. Then have a meaningful plan of how it is going to work out better next time around. And explain that plan clearly!
Unfortunately, the chances of a parole panel simply releasing you without you having to prove yourself in open conditions in this context are relatively small, and I advise you to think about going to open again first, and making it work for you this time.
b. For those who have never been tried in open, you also need to think long and hard about the Parole Board’s reasons as to why they did not make a recommendation on the last occasion. Then do what you can, or must, to indicate to them, next time around, that you are no longer exactly the same person. Therefore, you can learn from carefully and slowly reading the Board’s decision letter, and are quite prepared, in a variety of ways, to go to a location where there is much less supervision, and some contact with the general public. And be a good man! Learn to be your own policeman!
Of course, it is certainly possible that you are still, and regularly, demonstrating a variety of offence-paralleling behaviours. If that is the case, I suggest that you seek successful intervention to basically bring that to a juddering and immediate halt.
c. A third possibility is that you have had a recommendation for open but it was turned down by the Secretary of State. Recent figures, published by Inside Time in January 2025, show that the new Government has, in my opinion, a poor acceptance rate, given that the Ministry of Justice approved 64 cases, but blocked 54, i.e. an approval rate of only 54 per cent. If you are in this unfortunate boat, you should discuss this very carefully indeed with your legal advisor.
d. As many of you will know, I have very strong feelings regarding the effectiveness of psychological treatment within the prison estate. If, heaven forbid, you are on some form of waiting list for a ‘course’, do all that you can to make sure that you have the outcome information, i.e. evidence, regarding whether and when that course reduces risk in the community.
e. All of the well-known lawyers will know how to best present your case, and therefore please listen to them carefully, and undertake any homework exercises that they may assign.
f. As far as providers of independent assessments are concerned, I have to advise you to pick carefully, since some are better informed than others. Do seek your own copy of any information, or research, they refer to.
If they ask you to compare “old me” with “new me”, give this some time too.
g. There are three places not to be if you are an IPP prisoner applying for progression. They are the Close Supervision Centre, Segregation, or somewhere in dispersal on Category A. All of these locations and issues will need to be carefully addressed by your legal team, and very much so by any independent assessment. If you are unfortunately in one of those locations, you need to think long and hard about how you got there and, of course, why.
However, never forget the Parole Board’s test, which is: “Is it necessary for the protection of the public from serious harm that you are detained?” This assessment is about how you will behave in the community, and this is not necessarily wholly and simply driven by your behaviour within the prison estate.
Indeed, it may be possible for you to argue that the reason you are not in perhaps a standard category C location is to do with how the prison service itself is under stress through overcrowding, underfunding, or whatever, and your adverse location is simply an example of how you have been coping with that, albeit poorly.
I hope for the 1,035 that this is helpful. If I do get the opportunity to meet any of you, I very much look forward to that experience.
Dr Peter S Pratt is a consultant clinical and forensic psychologist
.......................................................................................................................................................................
What Gauke’s reforms might mean for you
30 june 2025. An Independent Sentencing Review led by former justice secretary David Gauke published its findings in May – and the Government has said it will adopt most of the recommendations. But the proposals raise questions for people in prison.
There is no doubt that the intention behind the Gauke review is to relieve the pressure on our overcrowded prisons.
Two significant measures designed to achieve this are a proposal to allow a significant number of people the chance to ‘earn’ release earlier than is currently possible, and a proposal to remove Parole Board oversight of recalls for people on standard determinate sentences (SDS).
These measures have been welcomed by some as “radical” and criticised by shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick as a “get out of jail free card for dangerous criminals”.
But a closer look at the proposed changes, along with the initial response by Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood as to what she will and will not implement, raises a number of concerns:
• In some cases release could be later
• There will still be a risk of people spending short and ineffective periods in prison
• The chance to ‘earn’ early release could disadvantage people from minoritised backgrounds or with health difficulties
• The overriding worry is that release dates will become a lot less certain for everyone.
Later release in some cases?
Despite concerns about increased early release, for some people, the earliest opportunity for release will be later, not earlier.
At the moment, some people can get Home Detention Curfew (HDC) from the 20 per cent mark. Under the new scheme, nobody will be released before they have served 33 per cent of their sentence in custody. This is because the Review proposes to abolish HDC – even though it now covers more people for a longer period than it ever has before. At present there is a presumption that those eligible for HDC will be released. Gauke’s Review states the “expectation” that “most” people on SDS would be released early. At a recent meeting in Parliament, the Prisons Minister said people should expect to be released at one third if they behave well. But it is clear that “earning” release is at the heart of the scheme.
Under the new scheme, it is unclear how or whether automatic release points will operate. It is most likely that they will remain in principle but will be later in many instances (moving from 40 per cent to 50 per cent). However, the Justice Secretary has said she will not place an “upper limit” on release dates, so that people who behave “excessively badly” will not be released at a fixed point before the end of their sentence.
There is no proposal in Gauke’s Review to maintain the automatic release point of 40 per cent introduced by SDS40: all references in the Review to what appears to be the equivalent to the current automatic release points are to the halfway point for ordinary SDS and two-thirds for the cohort of serious sexual and violent offences.
How will ‘earned’ release be decided fairly?
The chance to ‘earn’ early release sounds great. But it needs to be handled fairly, and everyone needs to have a chance to demonstrate they meet the test.
But it is already clear that not everyone on determinate sentences will get the chance to earn early release. The Justice Secretary has already said she will exclude anyone on an extended sentence or serving a sentence for a terrorism offence.
The Review proposes that the criteria should change over time. To start with, it suggests that release should be earned through ‘compliance’. It says this should include, but not be limited to, compliance with prison rules plus the expectation of engaging in purposeful activity, work, education and treatment where available. The Review is clear that violations/offences against discipline will result in the release point being pushed back. This means that things like prison disciplinary measures, or problems with attending work or education, will have an added consequence: they may prevent early release. Legal aid has not been available for treatment and conditions, sentence planning, or governor adjudications for many years on the basis that they do not have a direct impact on liberty. With the new system, they will impact on liberty. But there is nothing in the review about better access to legal support for people in prison for these things.
The Review anticipates that the goalposts will move and that as prison capacity eases and fuller regimes become possible, “compliance requirements for earned release should become more demanding”. We have seen how problems in accessing courses have affected people on IPP sentences and how, even though the number of children in prison has reduced by 80 per cent in the past decade, their conditions and opportunities to do meaningful work have not increased significantly.
It is not clear who will be making these decisions and how good behaviour will be measured. Will it be up to officers on the wing, or probation officers in OMU? Will it be possible to appeal negative decisions or apply again after a period of improved behaviour?
An end of short stays in prison?
Although Gauke says short stays in prison are disruptive and inefficient, there will still be lots of people spending less than 12 months in prison. This is because everyone on a standard determinate sentence will no longer be liable to Parole Board oversight when recalled. Instead, recalls will be for a fixed term of 56 days, with some flexibility for it to be shorter or longer (although it is not clear how that will work). Many will be relieved to know that recalls without any definite end point before the sentence end date will no longer be possible for fixed-term prisoners. But it is unclear why 56 days (around two months) is considered appropriate, and how those recalled by probation will be able to challenge an unjust recall.
With opportunity comes uncertainty
At present, around half of people in prison do not have an absolutely certain release date because they are on remand, recalled, or serving extended or indeterminate sentences. If the proposals in the Review are implemented as currently envisaged, almost nobody in prison will have an absolutely certain initial release date.
There is a real risk that, unless measures are put in place to ensure that the new system will operate fairly and people in prison are afforded appropriate opportunities to meaningfully challenge unfair decisions in prison that may affect release, then the well-intended changes will backfire.
Remember, these changes will all require a change in law. The detail of the proposals is still to be ironed out, and nothing is expected to change this year. This means that there is time to raise concerns and make the case for steps to be taken to ensure that the plans are implemented in a fair and progressive way.
Dr Laura Janes is a consultant solicitor and chair of the Association of Prison Lawyers
The Prison Reform Trust have produced an information sheet about the Senten-cing Review which you can request through their contact details on page 34
.................................................................................................................................................................
A Lawyer Writes
Call to free IPP inmates
JUNE 24 2025. Prisoners should all be released within two years, says former chief justice.
All IPP prisoners should be “released within a two-year window”, a working group led by a former lord chief justice has recommended. In a report published yesterday by the Howard League for Penal Reform, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd says the proposals “provide a route to ending this grave injustice while protecting the public”.
More than 2,600 inmates who were sentenced to imprisonment for public protection before the penalty was abolished in 2012 were still in prison at the end of last year. Among them were more than 1,000 who had served the minimum term set by the court — sometimes several times over — but had never been released.
At present, the Parole Board must decide whether an IPP prisoner’s continued detention is necessary for the protection of the public. The working group proposes that the Parole Board should be asked set a date within a two-year window when the offender will be released. The board would also decide how to achieve that safely.
“We recognise the concern that this might lead to setting a date to release people who may still considered a risk to the public,” the report accepts. So it lists a number of safeguards:
Setting a date up to two years ahead in the most serious cases would provide a long period of time to enable professionals and statutory agencies to work together to plan and help the IPP prisoner prepare for a safe release.
Those individuals who present the greatest concerns about risk could be prioritised to receive more support while being prepared for release and managed safely in the community.
Decisions could be reviewed or set aside in certain circumstances.
The secretary of state can now ask the Parole Board to set aside a decision if certain conditions are met.
The review makes other recommendations dealing with recalls, rehabilitation. aftercare, reviews and appeals.
On the two-year release proposal, the working party addresses its conclusions to the public at large.
We know that the remaining cohort of people serving IPP sentences includes some people who have committed very serious offences. These include sexual offences, which have occasioned serious harm to victims. These people have now been punished for far longer than would have been the case if they had been sentenced after the abolition of the IPP sentence and received an extended sentence.
While we appreciate public concern at the nature of this offending, contrary to common perception this group of prisoners have among the lowest rates of reoffending of anyone leaving prison.
Every day, people who have committed serious crimes are released from prison at their custody end dates. People serving IPP sentences who have more than served their time for these same serious offences also must be released. Our proposals would see this achieved in the safest way possible for the public.
The working party is well aware that successive governments have not been willing to risk releasing prisoners who are thought to remain dangerous. But it says that if nothing is done there is a “real risk that many will languish in prison until they die”.
..................................................................................................................
June 24 2025
Six recommendations have been put forward to end the #detention of people on #IPP sentences – including that the Parole Board give IPP #prisoners a certain #releasedate - within a two-year window - and set out the required action to achieve it safely. Quote
“Although 12 years have passed since the IPP sentence was abolished, it continues to cause despair to those serving it, and to their family and friends. We must now deliver justice for those who were left behind in 2012."
https://howardleague.org/news/expert-working-group-publishes-proposals-to-end-the-detention-of-people-on-ipp-sentences/…
.jpeg)
