A complaint being lodged with the UN claims IPP prisoners are being arbitrarily detained, as a bombshell letter proves David Lammy agrees the jail terms are a ‘grave injustice’
The IPP scandal’ of prisoners trapped on indefinite
The United Nations will investigate whether Britain is breaching human rights law by arbitrarily detaining prisoners trapped on abolished indefinite jail terms, The Independent can reveal.
Campaigners and their legal team are launching a landmark complaint on behalf of five men who have served a combined total of 84 years incarcerated under Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) jail terms, including for minor crimes, as highlighted by The Independent.
The case, due to be lodged with the UN’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on Thursday, includes a bombshell letter from new justice secretary David Lammy, which proves he agrees the jail term is a “grave injustice” which causes “simply horrendous” mental trauma.
The letter, written in 2021 when he was shadow justice secretary, says the implementation of the jail term was “tragically flawed”, adding: “It is now painfully clear that the IPP sentence was far too broad, and many low-risk offenders are serving IPP sentences today for committing minor offences in the past.”
Although the sentence was scrapped in 2012 following a damning ruling from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), it was not abolished retrospectively, and successive governments have resisted calls to resentence more than 2,500 still languishing without a release date.
However, following his appointment as justice secretary and deputy prime minister in last week’s cabinet reshuffle, campaign group IPP Committee in Action is calling for Mr Lammy to finally put right the miscarriage of justice.
International human rights expert Dr Muin Boase told The Independent the jail term was a “national scandal” and akin to the miscarriages of justice uncovered in the Post Office scandal.
The five tragic cases being sent to the UN, which have all been highlighted by The Independent over the past 18 months, include:
- Leroy Douglas, 43, who has served almost 19 years without release for street robbery of a mobile phone
- Abdullahi Suleman, 42, is still in jail 20 years after he was handed an IPP for a laptop robbery, having been recalled for missing a hospital appointment
- Shaun Anton Lloyd, 39, who has been hauled back to prison four times and served 12 years and four months for two street robberies committed when he was 18
- Wayne Williams, 37, has spent more than 19 years in prison without release for a 23-month jail term for attempting to injure a police officer in a fight
- Joshua Mcrae died in his cell last year, aged 34, having served more than 16 years for a four-year tariff for grievous bodily harm
The government will have 60 days to respond to the 30-page complaint over the treatment of the five men. Following this, the UN working group will issue an opinion on whether Britain is arbitrarily detaining the prisoners.
Shirley Debono, who founded the campaign group after her son, Shaun Lloyd, was handed an IPP sentence for stealing a phone, said: “This is the greatest miscarriage of justice. Our loved ones are suffering psychological torture, locked up in arbitrary detention.
“Our government condemns such treatment in China and Russia, yet is committing the same act here in the UK.”
The mother, who has spent a year compiling the complaint with Dr Boase, is due to hand in the papers alongside MPs and campaigners at No 10 on Thursday.
Their claim alleges the open-ended jail term is irredeemably flawed and the length of the prisoners’ incarceration bears no relation to the original crimes.
It further alleges that England and Wales are breaching international law because of the mental anguish for prisoners and their families, after 94 prisoners have taken their own lives after losing hope of being freed.
The UN special rapporteur on torture, Dr Alice Edwards, has previously condemned the jail terms as “psychological torture”.
The complaint also alleges the UK remains in breach of the 2012 ECHR decision, which resulted in the sentence being abolished, with many IPP prisoners still waiting months to access courses needed for their release or facing a chaotic system of Parole Board delays.
IPP prisoners must prove to a parole board that they are no longer a risk to the public to be released. After this, many find themselves in a vicious cycle of recall, which can see them hauled back to prison indefinitely for breaches of strict licence conditions.
“It’s so embarrassing for a developed country with such a great legal history to be brought before the UN,” Dr Boase said, urging the government to “have the courage to right the wrong of this injustice”.
“My first-year law students understand that this is fundamentally wrong,” he added.
“What comes up time and time again is these prisoners have lost hope. We want to restore hope to those people and their families that will put pressure and shame the government on what is effectively a national scandal.”
Mr Lloyd was just 18 when he was handed an IPP sentence with a two-and-a-half-year tariff for pushing someone to the floor and stealing their phone. After he was chased by the victim, he handed it back and apologised.
He served eight years before he was first released and has been recalled to prison four times despite never being charged with another crime.
His heartbroken mother, Ms Debono, who is also calling for a meeting with the prime minister Sir Keir Starmer, said the jail term has had a devastating impact on the father and his two children, aged nine and seven.
“It has had a massive impact on his mental health and his wellbeing,” she said, noting he has spent his whole adult life under the shadow of the jail term.
“He never feels safe because [of] being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and he knows he will be recalled. You always have that fear. It’s damaged him, its damaged his mind.”
It has also taken a toll on Ms Debono, who has dedicated years to campaigning on his behalf.
She added: “I go to bed thinking about Shaun, and I wake up thinking about Shaun. It doesn’t leave me, day in day out, I am serving the sentence with Shaun.”
In an appeal from inside HMP Wayland, in Norfolk, Leroy Douglas revealed his desperation to start a second chapter of his life crime-free.
He has served almost 19 years for robbing a mobile phone to feed his drug habit. Despite getting clean inside and completing 36 prison courses, he has served his sentence almost eight times over and still has no release date
“I am really happy to be part of this landmark UN case, which I hope will bring embarrassment to the UK government,” he said.
“Year after year they have continued my detention when experts have told them I am not a risk to the public.”
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “It is right that IPP sentences were abolished. We are determined to make progress towards safe and sustainable releases for those in prison, but not in a way that undermines public protection.”Secret prison documents show government plan to tackle IPP scandal will fail | The Independent
Katherine Gleeson
Personal Reflections on Human Rights Failures and Systemic Oversight
While the United Nations investigates whether Britain is breaching human rights in relation to IPP prisoners ,
I want to add my own perspective based on personal experience and observation. From attending meetings, following developments with the traffic light system, and tracking systemic administration failures, it is clear that structural and procedural issues have repeatedly disadvantaged vulnerable prisoners. I Personally attended number government meeting and advents along with prison concerning IPP prisoners. at which David Lammy, then a Member of Parliament, was present. A number of other relevant officials were also in attendance, all of whom were required to participate in the discussion.Mr Lammy discused the issues around IPP prisoners and those of colour stated that he was aware of me and acknowledged reading the IPP prisoners blog . This demonstrates that the challenges associated with IPP sentences were known to senior stakeholders at the time.Despite repeated efforts to bring attention to the systemic failings and human impact of the IPP system, there was little substantive action.
They may some what know
however From my perspective, a significant factor in the ongoing failures was that many MPs and officials did not understand the IPP sentence or the changes causing widespread despair and deaths. Communication between government bodies was poor or non-existent despite familes bring it to there attention , and there was no clear reporting system that would have allowed MPs or ministers to understand the seriousness of the situation. Families’ accounts of the entrapment, mental health deterioration, and systemic harm were often not fully believed or acted upon.
From attending these meetings, observing developments with the failing project called the traffic light system, and tracking systemic administration failures, it is clear that structural and procedural issues have repeatedly disadvantaged, the vulnerable prisoners. These include failures to provide reasonable adjustments, inadequate communication with prisoners and families, and delays that prolonged detention unnecessarily.
My reflections highlight the human impact behind the statistics and legal arguments, and suggest areas where additional scrutiny or corrective action could strengthen both the legal claims and broader human rights protections.
Families attended meeting repeatedly to share their experiences of despair, highlighting the mental health impact on prisoners, including cases where individuals had been admitted to mental health hospitals. This ensured the Parole Board was aware not only of procedural failures but also of the human consequences of prolonged detention and systemic maladministration.
Prior to the introduction of the IPP traffic light system, allocation of progression resources systematically favoured prisoners with shorter sentences or less complex needs. Those serving longer sentences or with significant vulnerabilities, including severe mental health difficulties or learning disabilities, were consistently deprioritised. In effect, the most complex cases were delayed in receiving the support required to progress, while straightforward cases were advanced first. This created structural disadvantage and entrenched inequities, which persisted into the design of the traffic light system.
The IPP traffic light system was introduced as a project intended to facilitate progression towards safe release. However, in practice, it disproportionately disadvantaged prisoners with disabilities or complex needs, with many placed in the “red” category at the outset, limiting their opportunity to progress. Concerns were raised that the system risked further disadvantaging the most vulnerable prisoners rather than prioritising them for support.
The traffic light project operated for approximately eleven years. During this period, stalled progression, continued detention, and deaths among IPP prisoners occurred. Despite repeated evidence that the project was not achieving its intended aims, it continued without meaningful review for a said time of 11 years ?, adjustment, or early termination. This represents a serious failure of institutional oversight and accountability, including inadequate monitoring, insufficient expertise among those managing the project, and a lack of transparent reporting to affected prisoners, families, or the public.
Official figures and investigative reporting demonstrate the ongoing impact of systemic failure. According to Ministry of Justice figures obtained via Freedom of Information, at least 520 prisoners serving abolished IPP sentences are projected to remain incarcerated as late as March 2030, many having already served well over 20 years. These figures exclude prisoners recalled to custody, those detained in secure hospitals, and individuals released but subsequently re-incarcerated, meaning the total number affected is likely higher.
Senior judicial authority has acknowledged the severity of the situation. Lord John Thomas has described the government’s approach to IPP prisoners as a “failure” and warned that the ongoing injustice remains unresolved.
Families and civil society have consistently raised concerns, highlighting the psychological, social, and procedural harms experienced by prisoners and their loved ones. Many affected individuals no longer have meaningful support networks outside prison, further compounding disadvantage. Consideration of evidence from prisoners placed in the “red” category under the traffic light system including the circumstances of their categorisation, their awareness of it, and the impact on their progression would provide important context regarding the practical effects of the system and its disproportionate impact on vulnerable prisoners.
The persistence of these issues over more than a decade demonstrates that structural barriers to progression and release were not addressed with sufficient urgency. This is directly relevant to Article 6 (access to justice), as affected individuals may not have had a realistic or effective pathway to challenge continued detention or to secure timely progression. A system that continues for over a decade without meaningful reform constitutes a substantial barrier to practical access to justice.
Full disclosure of project records, including Freedom of Information data, is necessary to establish the extent of systemic failure, evaluate the impact on prisoners, and inform any remedial steps required to restore fairness, compliance with human rights obligations, and equitable access to progression and release.
All my points
Prior structural disadvantage procedural, and systemic failure. foreseeability and repeated failure,
which strengthens the claim.
Traffic light project flaws
access to justice and delays in progression.
Lammy meeting and early awareness
-
11-year project is nothing but a continuation and oversight failures, while deaths continued.
-
Seriousness of systemic failure
-
FOI figures and judicial commentary
-
Evidence from prisoners and family impact
Lammy meeting and early awareness . Parole board , Independent decision-making body responsible for determining release ,including IPP prisoners. . Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS), which was part of the Ministry of Justice, assessment, and operational work for high-risk prisoners, including preparing cases for the Parole Board.They were often physically co-located or worked closely together, which is why you may recall “the Parole Board and the justice side” being in the same buildingand one paying the others wages.
Before the traffic light project observations and reporting at the time indicated that the Parole Board and the Ministry of Justice were co-located in the same building, creating structural inefficiencies in case processing and oversight. While this arrangement has reportedly changed in recent years once i brought it to light , it is unclear what evidence exists to demonstrate that procedural or operational improvements have been implemented in practice.Historically, case progression was managed through a slow and inadequate administrative system, resulting in delays that disproportionately affected prisoners with complex needs, including those subject to IPP sentences. Cases were effectively funnelled through the slowest available processes, creating unnecessary barriers to timely progression and release.The persistence of these inefficiencies highlights a repeated failure of institutional systems, including poor monitoring, ineffective communication, and inadequate review mechanisms. These failures compounded structural disadvantage, undermined confidence in procedural fairness, and further restricted access to justice under Article 6.Evidence from FOI requests, prisoner case histories, and judicial commentary indicates that these issues were foreseeable, yet they persisted for many years. The combination of slow administrative processes, structural inefficiencies, and lack of transparent oversight constitutes a systemic failure that had measurable adverse effects on vulnerable prisoners.
Maintains a formal, legally persuasive tone directly supports Article 6, and indirectly strengthens Equality Act / disability claims. Avoids personal blame or emotive language, focusing on institutional responsibility and structural issues. Can be used as part of the claim, background chronology, or Human Rights analysis.
European Court of Human Rights & Indeterminate Sentences
-
In 2012, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that indeterminate sentences (including IPPs) as they were operating breached Article 5(1) ECHR (the right to liberty) because people could be detained indefinitely with no realistic chance of release.
This ruling was about the principle of indefinite detention and the lack of real progression prospects.https://gardencourtchambers.co.uk/indeterminate-sentences-are-a-breach-of-human-rights-under-article-51-echr/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
2. Government Response
-
In direct response to widespread legal and public criticism, the UK Government abolished IPP sentences in December 2012, stating the system was “not defensible”.
However, abolition was not retrospective — meaning existing prisoners remained on those sentences.https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06086/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
3. Subsequent Oversight, Reports and Inquiries
-
In September 2022, the UK Justice Committee (a parliamentary oversight body) published a report finding IPP sentences “irredeemably flawed” and calling for a comprehensive resentencing programme for those still serving them.
-
In early 2023, MPs expressed regret that the government rejected that recommendation to review all old IPP sentences.https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/102/justice-committee/news/186118/mps-regret-government-rejecting-review-of-ipp-sentences/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
4. Government Legislative Action
-
The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 included changes aiming to reduce licence termination review periods (from ten years down to three years), and the government committed to annual reporting on progress for IPP prisoners.https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/sentences-of-imprisonment-for-public-protection-hm-prison-and-probation-service-annual-report/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
5. Current Situation (as of early 2026)
-
Although IPP sentences were abolished in 2012, thousands of people remain in custody under those sentences more than a decade later. As of March 2024 there were nearly 2,800 IPP prisoners, most of whom had served beyond their tariff.
-
Government action plans (e.g., licence termination changes) have been introduced, but many prisoners still cannot progress to release, and campaigners and judges have continued to describe the ongoing situation as unjust.https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/sentences-of-imprisonment-for-public-protection-hm-prison-and-probation-service-annual-report/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
SUMMARY
The European Court ruled the principle of indeterminate detention was unlawful under human rights law in 2012.
The UK abolished IPP sentencing later that year but did not remove existing sentences.
Over a decade later, thousands still remain in custody, having served far beyond their minimum terms with ongoing progression barriers.
Government responses have been partial and incremental, but have not yet resulted in widespread resentencing or comprehensive redress.
Putting this Together: Timeline & Impact
Year Event / Decision 2005 IPP sentences introduced.
https://ccrc.gov.uk/ipp-sentences/?utm_source=chatgpt.com2012 European Court of Human Rights finds indeterminate sentences incompatible with Article 5(1) ECHR.https://gardencourtchambers.co.uk/indeterminate-sentences-are-a-breach-of-human-rights-under-article-51-echr/?utm_source=chatgpt.com Dec 2012 UK government abolishes IPP sentencing (not retrospectively).https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06086/?utm_source=chatgpt.com 2022 Justice Committee finds IPP regime “irredeemably flawed”. 2023 Government chooses not to adopt broad resentencing.https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/102/justice-committee/news/186118/mps-regret-government-rejecting-review-of-ipp-sentences/?utm_source=chatgpt.com programme.https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/102/justice-committee/news/186118/mps-regret-government-rejecting-review-of-ipp-sentences/?utm_source=chatgpt.com 2024–2025 New statutory measures (Victims and Prisoners Act) and reduced licence terms are introduced but many remain detained. https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/sentences-of-imprisonment-for-public-protection-hm-prison-and-probation-service-annual-report/?utm_source=chatgpt.com Prolonged Failure Despite Legal Obligations
Despite the European Court of Human Rights ruling in 2012 that indefinite detention without realistic progression breached Article 5(1) ECHR, and despite the UK government abolishing IPP sentences later that year, thousands of prisoners remain in custody more than a decade later.
Subsequent parliamentary inquiries and Justice Committee reports have repeatedly identified systemic failures and called for comprehensive resentencing programmes. While some administrative changes have been made, these have not effectively addressed the backlog or structural disadvantage.
This prolonged inaction demonstrates a persistent barrier to access to justice under Article 6, as affected prisoners are unable to secure timely review, release, or progression despite legal obligations and public awareness of the issue. The government’s partial measures, introduced more than ten years after the original rulings, have not eliminated the injustice, highlighting the need for structural and procedural reform.
This makes it submission-ready, ties directly to Article 6, and emphasises systemic failure over time.
Wells & Lee v UK (2012)
In 2012, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that indeterminate sentences (including IPP) amounted to an arbitrary deprivation of liberty in violation of Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) because prisoners had no realistic prospect of release once their tariff expired. https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/james-wells-and-lee-v-uk-indefinite-detention-and-arbitrary-deprivations-of-liberty/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
This judgment confirmed that the way IPP sentences were being operated — not just imposed — was unlawful, because detained individuals were effectively held indefinitely without a genuine opportunity for parole or progression.https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/james-wells-and-lee-v-uk-indefinite-detention-and-arbitrary-deprivations-of-liberty/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Government Response (2012)
Following the ECHR ruling and widespread legal and political criticism, the UK abolished IPP sentences in December 2012, describing them as “not defensible”. However, existing sentences were not removed retrospectively — meaning people already serving IPP terms remained in custody under the old regime.https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06086/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Continued Human Rights and Oversight Issues
-
In 2023, a UN human rights expert called for an urgent review of the sentencing scheme on human rights grounds, noting that nearly 2,900 people were still detained under the scheme as of the end of 2022. https://www.ungeneva.org/en/news-media/news/2023/08/84439/un-expert-urges-immediate-review-discredited-uk-sentencing-scheme?utm_source=chatgpt.com
New statutory measures (Victims and Prisoners Act) and reduced licence terms are introduced but many remain detained. The UK has not been formally sued in the European Court again specifically on IPP, but domestic and international criticism remains grounded in human rights concerns about indefinite detention without effective review.
Current UK Situation (2024–25)
-
-
As of 31 March 2025, there were around 2,544 people serving IPP sentences in England and Wales, including both unreleased prisoners and those recalled to custody.https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmpps-annual-report-and-accounts-2024-to-2025/hmpps-annual-report-and-accounts-2024-25-performance-report-html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
- Many have served far beyond their original tariff with limited or delayed opportunities for parole or release.https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmpps-annual-report-and-accounts-2024-to-2025/hmpps-annual-report-and-accounts-2024-25-performance-report-html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
| 2024–25 |
| Large numbers still detained; CCRC refers cases for appeal. |
So How Long Has It Been?
-
It has now been over a decade (more than 13 years) since the ECHR found the operational effects of indeterminate detention unlawful, yet thousands of IPP prisoners remain in custody under the legacy regime because the abolition was not retrospective and systemic issues were not comprehensively resolved.https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/james-wells-and-lee-v-uk-indefinite-detention-and-arbitrary-deprivations-of-liberty/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
What This Means for Your Claim
You can legitimately argue that:
-
The UK was on clear notice of human rights concerns decades ago.
-
The continued detention of IPP prisoners without effective progress mechanisms represents a longstanding structural failure to provide meaningful access to justice under Article 6 (and liberty under Article 5).
-
The government’s responses, while incremental, have not eliminated the injustice highlighted by the ECHR and other oversight bodies.
Current Human Rights Action (UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention)
In September 2025, campaigners, affected prisoners, and international legal representatives filed a formal complaint with the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) on behalf of several IPP prisoners still detained long after the sentence was abolished. The complaint argues that:
-
Continuing detention of IPP prisoners after abolition amounts to arbitrary detention under international law,
-
The ongoing incarceration violates human rights protections against indefinite detention,
-
The UK’s refusal to provide systematic resentencing or fair release mechanisms is a denial of a meaningful remedy and arbitrary detention.
This complaint has been prepared and served to the UN Working Group, marking what is likely the first international legal action of its kind against the UK government over IPP.https://www.ippsolidaritymovement.co.uk/about?utm_source=chatgpt.com
-
What the WGAD Complaint Alleges
The submission made to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention argues that the continued detention of IPP prisoners is:Arbitrary and unlawful under international human rights law (e.g., ICCPR)
Cruel, inhuman or degrading because of indefinite uncertainty and systemic procedural barriers
A violation of the right to a remedy, because the UK government has failed to put in place an effective legal framework for progression or resentencing.
Procedural Fairness / Access to JusticeArticle 6 ECHR: Right to a fair trial / fair procedurePrisoners often could not understand or appeal their case due to illiteracy, cognitive issues, or lack of support.Repeated maladministration or refusal to communicate clearly with prisoners violates procedural fairness.Potential claim: Systemic procedural unfairness compounded by indefinite detention and poor administration.
Specific Cases in the WGAD Submission
Currently serving extended IPP terms are central to this complaint. They have spent many years often decades incarcerated far beyond their original tariffs for relatively minor offences. Their cases include:
Leroy Douglas – almost 19 years in prison for a short tariff offence, still without release date,
Shaun Anton Lloyd – over 12 years and multiple recalls,
Abdullahi Suleman and Wayne Williams – decades of imprisonment,
Joshua Mcrae – died in custody after serving 16+ years. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/ipp-sentence-un-arbitrary-detention-b2823189.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Government’s Response Window
After the UN WGAD receives the complaint, the UK government will have typically 60 days to respond. After that, the Working Group will issue an opinion on whether the detention amounts to arbitrary detention under international human rights law.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/ipp-sentence-un-arbitrary-detention-b2823189.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Why This Matters for a Claim
· This ongoing international complaint strengthens your legal position because it shows:The systemic nature of IPP injustice is recognised outside the UK legal system.
· International human rights bodies regard prolonged IPP detention as potentially unlawful.
· There is active legal pressure on the UK to address these issues at the highest level of international law.
1. Core International Human Rights Angles Already Noted
· The WGAD complaint has already focused on:Arbitrary detention / unlawful detention (Article 5 ICCPR / ECHR)
· Cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (Article 3 ECHR / ICCPR Art. 7)
· Indefinite uncertainty and lack of progression mechanism
· Violation of the right to a remedy (Article 2 ICCPR / Art. 13 ECHR)
2. Potential Additional Legal Angles to Explore
A. Disability and Reasonable Adjustments (Discrimination)
· Many IPP prisoners had learning difficulties, mental health conditions, autism, ADHD, dyslexia, etc.
· Possible claim: Article 14 ECHR + Equality Act 2010 violations:
· Failure to provide accessible information about rights and progression.
· Failure to appoint advocates, case workers, or support staff for disabled prisoners.
· Systemic disadvantage caused by traffic light project and prioritisation that ignored the most vulnerable.
· Legal impact: Could frame this as discriminatory failure to secure access to justice.
B. Procedural Fairness / Access to Justice
Article 6 ECHR: Right to a fair trial / fair procedure
· Prisoners often could not understand or appeal their case due to illiteracy, cognitive issues, or lack of support.
· Repeated maladministration or refusal to communicate clearly with prisoners violates procedural fairness.
· Potential claim: Systemic procedural unfairness compounded by indefinite detention and poor administration.
C. Systemic Government Oversight Failures
· Repeated failures over more than a decade to act after ECHR ruling.
· Lack of timely implementation of sentencing reform or comprehensive resentencing.
· Could argue a breach of positive obligations: the government has a duty to actively protect human rights, not just refrain from violating them.
Establish the Link Between Systemic Failure and Avoidable Deaths
· Traffic light system / IPP administration: This shows projects and administrative failures (slow processing, lack of prioritisation for vulnerable prisoners) directly contributed to prolonged detention.
· Foreseeable risk: It was foreseeable that indefinite detention and lack of progression for high-risk or vulnerable prisoners would lead to mental health deterioration, self-harm, and suicides.
· Evidence: to to use that the Ministry of Justice reports, FOI data, and news articles (like the Independent article i mentioned) to demonstrate how many prisoners died while waiting for release or progression.
Framing deaths under these legal angles:
· Human Rights Act / Article 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment):
· The state has a duty to protect prisoners from inhuman or degrading treatment, which includes foreseeable risk of death or serious self-harm.
· Prolonged failure to act constitutes a breach of this duty.
· Duty of care / negligence:
Authorities owe a duty of care to prisoners to provide safe conditions and adequate oversight.
· Failure to properly manage the IPP system, monitor vulnerable prisoners, or stop failing projects could be argued as negligence contributing to avoidable deaths.
Systemic Accountability:
Emphasise that these were not isolated incidents —multiple deaths occurred over years, showing a pattern of avoidable harm caused by structural and administrative failures.
Practical Steps for the Claim
· List documented deaths linked to the IPP or traffic light system (using reliable sources).
· Connect each death to systemic failures, e.g.:
· Delay in parole review
· Inadequate mental health support
· Prioritisation of easier cases over high-risk / vulnerable prisoners
· Show repeated failure despite warnings: ECHR ruling, parliamentary reports, FOI evidence, UN complaints.
Link to your own claim:
· Demonstrates serious consequences of maladministration
· Supports your claim for damages, systemic acknowledgment, and reasonable adjustments
Legal Framing
D. Failure to Inform or Empower Families / Advocates
· Families often had no effective way to challenge IPP decisions or understand progression.
· Denial of access to legal advice or inability to participate in reviews could be framed as violation of Article 8 (family and private life).
E. Potential Cumulative Harms
· Psychological trauma caused by indefinite detention could reinforce Article 3 (inhuman/degrading treatment).
· Cumulative disadvantage over decades for vulnerable groups strengthens discrimination and access to justice arguments.
Next Step: Legal Focus
List the person’s rights and protections: Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 14 (ECHR) + Equality Act 2010.
Map failures against each right:
· What the government or council did or failed to do
· How the individual/prisoner/family was disadvantaged
· Highlight systemic vs individual failures:
· Structural issues (e.g., slow admin, co-location of Parole Board and Ministry of Justice, traffic light project)
· Procedural issues (e.g., lack of reasonable adjustments, poor communication)
Cite supporting evidence:
· UN WGAD complaint
· ECHR 2012 James, Wells & Lee ruling
· Parliamentary reports / FOI data
· Cases of IPP prisoners still held (Douglas, Suleman, Lloyd, etc.)
· Translate into clear claims for your submission:
· Human rights violations (Article 3, 5, 6, 8, 14)
· Discrimination (Equality Act 2010)
· Maladministration / procedural unfairness
Human Rights & Systemic Context Section for IPP Claim
1. Access to Justice – Article 6 ECHR
The right to a fair hearing under Article 6 ECHR has been repeatedly undermined for IPP prisoners. Despite the European Court of Human Rights ruling in James, Wells & Lee v UK (2012) that indefinite detention without a realistic prospect of release is unlawful, thousands of prisoners remain incarcerated decades beyond their tariff.
Systemic failures contributing to this breach include:
1. Structural inefficiency: Co-location of the Parole Board with the Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry of Justice paying staff, risks undermining the independence of decision-making.
2. Slow and ineffective administration: Case processing was funneled through outdated systems that disproportionately delayed release for prisoners with complex needs.
3. Lack of proactive oversight: Projects such as the IPP traffic light system ran for 11 years without review, failing to address obvious disadvantage and risk to vulnerable prisoners.
4. Inadequate communication and information provision: Prisoners were often unable to understand their legal rights or case progression, and families were denied sufficient access to information and advocacy.
These factors cumulatively prevent IPP prisoners from accessing justice in a meaningful way, violating Article 6 and positive state obligations to protect human rights.
2. Indefinite Detention & Cruel/Inhuman Treatment – Articles 3 & 5 ECHR
The indefinite and extended nature of IPP sentences, combined with systemic administrative delay, constitutes a form of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment under Article 3 ECHR.
Evidence of harm includes:
· Mental health deterioration and suicides linked to prolonged detention
· Lack of structured opportunities for progression or release
· The prolonged uncertainty of sentence duration and parole review outcomes
· These outcomes are foreseeable, yet the government failed to act, compounding the suffering of prisoners over years, in violation of both Articles 3 and 5.
3. Discrimination & Reasonable Adjustments – Article 14 ECHR / Equality Act 2010
Many IPP prisoners have disabilities, including learning difficulties, ADHD, autism, and mental health conditions.
Failures include:
· Lack of reasonable adjustments: Prisoners were not provided with accessible information or support to understand their rights and case progression.
· Disadvantage in projects: The IPP traffic light system systematically prioritised “easier” cases, leaving vulnerable prisoners (including disabled individuals) at a disadvantage.
· Absence of advocates or appointed support: No structures were implemented to ensure prisoners could access legal advice, communicate effectively, or participate meaningfully in parole hearings.
These failures amount to discrimination under Article 14 ECHR and the Equality Act 2010, further compounding access to justice violations.
4. Right to Respect for Family and Private Life – Article 8 ECHR
Families were denied meaningful participation in case progression and often had limited access to information regarding prisoners’ status or risks.
Unnotified audits, inspections, and poor communication disrupted family contact and undermined dignity and private life, creating additional psychological distress for both prisoners and relatives.
5. International Oversight – Current UN Working Group Case
In 2025, a complaint was filed with the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) on behalf of five IPP prisoners.
The complaint asserts:
· Ongoing detention is arbitrary and unlawful under international law
· Conditions create indefinite uncertainty and cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment
· The UK has failed to establish an effective framework for progression or resentencing
This demonstrates that international human rights bodies recognise the systemic nature of the injustice, strengthening arguments under Article 6 and supporting the claim for remedy, compensation, and reform.
6. Systemic Failure & Government Accountability
Despite repeated warnings and legal rulings, including:
· ECHR 2012 ruling (James, Wells & Lee v UK)
· Parliamentary Justice Committee reports (2022)
· FOI evidence of slow processing and failures in the traffic light system
The UK government has failed to implement meaningful change, leaving thousands still disadvantaged.
This reflects:
· Repeated maladministration
· Failure to prevent discrimination and rights violations
· Lack of proactive monitoring or structural reform. The ongoing impact on prisoners, their families, and wider public confidence demonstrates serious systemic failure requiring urgent remedy.
Your Claim
This section establishes:
Clear legal rights breached – Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 14; Equality Act 2010
Systemic failures and patterns of maladministration
Evidence-based grounding – ECHR rulings, WGAD complaint, FOI data, parliamentary reports
Current and ongoing harm – psychological, procedural, and discriminatory
International recognition – strengthens weight of claim and urgency
Damages under (Vento bands)
The WGAD complaint has already focused on:
Arbitrary detention / unlawful detention (Article 5 ICCPR / ECHR)
Cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (Article 3 ECHR / ICCPR Art. 7)
Indefinite uncertainty and lack of progression mechanism
Violation of the right to a remedy (Article 2 ICCPR / Art. 13 ECHR)
Potential Additional Legal Angles to Explore
A. Disability and Reasonable Adjustments (Discrimination)Many IPP prisoners had learning difficulties, mental health conditions, autism, ADHD, dyslexia, etc.Possible claim: Article 14 ECHR + Equality Act 2010 violations:Failure to provide accessible information about rights and progression.Failure to appoint advocates, case workers, or support staff for disabled prisoners.Systemic disadvantage caused by traffic light project and prioritisation that ignored the most vulnerable.Legal impact: Could frame this as discriminatory failure to secure access to justice.
how to make a complaint regarding your son daughter who has an IPP sentence.
Where to sent your complain
Email: wgad@ohchr.org
Postal Address:
United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Palais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland.Tip: If sending by email, attach your complaint as a PDF with all supporting documents. Clearly label annexes.
How to Make a Complaint to the UN About Arbitrary Detention
If you or your loved one are being held in prison in a way that seems unfair, indefinite, or unlawful, you may be able to submit a formal complaint to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD). This is a group of independent human rights experts who review cases where people are detained without proper legal justification.
Even if you’ve never heard of WGAD before, you can still make a complaint. Think of it as an international body that checks whether governments are holding people without following proper law or fair procedures.
Who Can Submit a Complaint
-
Individuals themselves, if they are detained
-
Family members or representatives of the detained person
-
NGOs or legal representatives acting on behalf of someone
You don’t need to be a lawyer — you just need clear facts, dates, and supporting evidence.
Step-by-Step Guide to Submitting a Complaint
-
Write an Introduction / Summary
-
Explain who the person is, how long they’ve been detained, and why it seems unfair.
-
Keep it simple: “My son/daughter, [Name], has been detained for [X years] under an indefinite sentence that was abolished in 2012. Despite this, they remain in prison without a realistic chance of release.”
-
-
Provide Identification Details
-
Full name, age, nationality
-
Current place of detention (prison or institution)
-
Any disabilities or vulnerabilities
-
-
Explain the Facts of the Case
-
Date of arrest / sentence
-
Original offence and sentence length
-
How long they’ve already been held
-
Attempts to appeal or challenge detention in the UK
-
-
List the Human Rights Violations
-
Explain which rights are being violated (for example, indefinite detention, lack of fair trial, cruel or degrading treatment).
-
Include evidence such as letters, news reports, statistics, or government documents.
-
-
Describe Domestic Remedies Tried
-
Appeals to courts, complaints to government departments, correspondence with MPs, or criminal case reviews.
AttemptedWGAD wants to see that you tried to resolve this in the UK first.
Example phrasing:
I and my family have repeatedly attempted to challenge [Name]’s detention, including:
-
Appeals to the courts and the Criminal Cases Review Commission
-
Correspondence with MPs and the Ministry of Justice
-
Participation in Parliamentary inquiries regarding IPP sentences
Despite these efforts, no effective remedy or release has been provided.
-
-
-
Request Relief / Action
-
Ask the UN to review the case and recommend release or a proper legal review.
-
Suggest systemic reforms so others don’t suffer the same way.Example phrasing:
I respectfully request the Working Group to:
-
Find that the continued detention of [Name] is arbitrary and unlawful under international law.
-
Recommend that the UK government immediately review their detention, and provide a framework for release or resentencing.
-
Urge the UK government to implement systemic reforms to prevent further arbitrary detention of IPP prisoners, including accessible procedures for vulnerable prisoners and families.
-
-
-
Attach Supporting Evidence
-
Letters from officials, reports from the Ministry of Justice, news articles, personal statements, etc.
-
Number your annexes so the UN can follow them easily.
News articles (Independent, Guardian) reporting on IPP cases example
-
Parliamentary or Justice Committee reports
-
FOI requests / Ministry of Justice statistics
-
Personal statements from prisoner or family
hospital admitted/evidence
Each annex should be clearly numbered and referenced in the complaint.
supporting Evidence / Annexes
Attach documents that back up your claims. Examples:
-
Letter from to mp,s and reply's acknowledging systemic injustice
-
News articles (Independent, Guardian) reporting on IPP cases
-
Parliamentary or Justice Committee reports
-
FOI requests / Ministry of Justice statistics
-
Personal statements from prisoner or family
-
-
-
Sign and Declare
-
Include your name, relationship to the detained person, contact details, and date.
-
You can submit electronically or by post.
Declaration / SignatureFinish with:
I declare that the information provided is true to the best of my knowledge and I am submitting this complaint on behalf of my [son/daughter] [Name].
Include your name, contact details, and date. If submitting electronically, you can type your name as signature.
Important Tips
-
Be factual and concise. Avoid blaming or emotional language focus on systemic failures, dates, and evidence.
-
Include any evidence of mental health issues, disability, or family impact.
-
Keep a copy of everything you submit.Alleged Human Rights Violations and I’ve noted some others in the article.
This is the legal heart of the complaint. Focus on how the detention violates international law.
Use this table format in your form or submission:
Right / Law
How it’s violated
Evidence / Supporting Info
Article 5 ECHR (Right to Liberty)
Indefinite detention without realistic chance of release
ECHR 2012 Wells & Lee ruling; Ministry of Justice FOI figures; ongoing detention beyond tariff
Article 6 ECHR (Access to Justice)
Prisoner unable to meaningfully appeal or challenge detention
Delays, maladministration, traffic light project, poor communication
Article 3 ECHR (Cruel/Inhuman/Degrading treatment)
Extended uncertainty causing mental trauma, depression, risk of self-harm
Prisoner statements, 94 IPP prisoner deaths, mental health reports
Article 8 ECHR (Family life)
Family excluded from understanding or challenging detention
Poor communication with families; denied access to progression info
Article 14 ECHR / Equality Act 2010
Discrimination due to disability or learning difficulties
No reasonable adjustments, inaccessible information, prioritisation of easier cases in traffic light system
You can reference your notes, news articles, and letters as evidence.
Make a Complaint to the UN About Arbitrary Detention by doing so you help your fellow IPP prisoner all get home.
If you or your loved one are being held in prison in a way that seems unfair, indefinite, or unlawful, you may be able to submit a formal complaint to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD). This is a group of independent human rights experts who review cases where people are detained without proper legal justification.
Even if you’ve never heard of WGAD before, you can still make a complaint. Think of it as an international body that checks whether governments are holding people without following proper law or fair procedures.
Who Can Submit a Complaint
· Individuals themselves, if they are detained
· Family members or representatives of the detained person
· NGOs or legal representatives acting on behalf of someone
· You don’t need to be a lawyer — you just need clear facts, dates, and supporting evidence.
Pro Bono Legal Help for IPP Prisoners’ Families
If you are a barrister, solicitor, or legal professional in London, we may be able to secure pro bono legal assistance for families of IPP prisoners.
If you are willing to help a parent fight for the release or fair treatment of their child under an Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence, we would be very grateful for your support.
Our goal is to challenge indefinite detention that continues despite the sentence being abolished in 2012, and to help families navigate international human rights mechanisms such as the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) or, eventually, the European Union.
*If you are a barrister or solicitor willing to provide pro bono counsel for a family, or can guide them through the process, please contact me directly at :KatherineGleeson@aol.com
Here’s how you can help :
-
Pattern Recognition: WGAD can see that IPP prisoners are not isolated victims — it’s a systemic issue. The more individual complaints, the more the UN can report that the problem is structural, not accidental.
-
International Pressure: Each submission adds weight. The UK is much more likely to take action if the UN issues recommendations citing dozens or hundreds of cases rather than just one family.
-
Public Awareness & Advocacy: Coordinating multiple submissions also helps draw attention from media, MPs, and human rights organizations, which can push the UK government to act faster.
-
Collective Impact: Even if a single case doesn’t lead to immediate release, having multiple coordinated submissions can lead to:
-
Resentencing programs
-
Administrative reform
-
Policy changes that allow release of many IPP prisoners
-
How to Make a Complaint to the UN Nation About Arbitrary Detention of your Son or Daughter
If you or your loved one are being held in prison in a way that seems unfair, indefinite, or unlawful, you may be able to submit a formal complaint to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD). This is a group of independent human rights experts who review cases where people are detained without proper legal justification. Even if you’ve never heard of WGAD before, you can still make a complaint. Think of it as an international body that checks whether governments are holding people without following proper law or fair procedures.
Structure the Letter “Simply
- Introduction – one
paragraph stating you are submitting a complaint for your child and why.
- Victim
Information – basic details only.
- Facts –
short bullet points of the IPP sentence, over-tariff time, and main
impacts.
- Rights
Violated – list Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 14 with 1–2
lines each explaining why.
- Remedies
Tried – brief note that you contacted courts,
MPs, or agencies.
- Request –
clear actions you want the UN to recommend.
- Supporting
Evidence – list documents by title only/date if
possible.
Use Simple, Strong Language: Avoid long paragraphs. Avoid emotional overload stick to factual, verifiable impacts. Example:“ Alice Max has served over 10 years beyond their tariff. They have not had a meaningful opportunity for release, despite multiple parole applications. This indefinite detention causes severe mental distress and violates Articles 3, 5, and 6 of the ECHR.”
Make it Readable Use headings and bullet points. One page if possible (2 pages maximum).Make it easy for someone reading quickly to s). Make violations and urgency.
Exactly — that’s right. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) doesn’t need a full life story. They want clear facts, evidence, and a demonstration of systemic issues.
Here’s why you don’t need to over-explain:
They have access to independent sources. They can check reports, news articles, Parliamentary records, and official statistics themselves. You just need to point to the evidence you have.
Clarity is stronger than detail Long personal stories can dilute the main points. Short, factual bullets make it much easier for them to see: Over-tariff detention administrative failure / delays Mental health impact. Rights violations
Systemic focus matters most only individual experiences. If they see many complaints show the same issues, it strengthens all case.
Template letter
Victim Information
Date
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Palais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
Email: wgad@ohchr.orgFull Name: Alice Max (example)
Age: 35
Nationality: British
Current Place of Detention: HMP Example and address, England. Prison Number………
Vulnerabilities: Mental health conditions, anxiety, depression; impacted by prolonged uncertainty and indefinite detentionIntroduction
I am submitting this complaint on behalf of my child, [Child’s Name], who is currently detained under an Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence in England.
Despite the UK abolishing IPP sentences in 2012, my child has now served [Number of Years Beyond Tariff] years beyond their original tariff without a realistic prospect of release.
Guidance: Keep this introduction simple. The UN wants to see facts and impact, not emotional stories. Focus on:
- The length
of detention beyond tariff
- Impact
on mental health or family life
- Evidence
that the detention is systemic, not isolated
Facts of the Case
- 2005:
Alice Max sentenced to an IPP for a non-violent offence, with a tariff of
3 years.
- 2012:
IPP sentencing abolished (not retrospective). Alice Max remains detained.
- 2012–2025:
Multiple parole applications submitted; all delayed due to administrative
inefficiencies, traffic light system delays, and structural barriers.
- 2021:
Evidence shows UK officials, including MPs, were aware of systemic
failures but little remedial action was taken.
- Impact:
Prolonged detention has caused severe anxiety, depression, and loss of
hope for the future. The family reports significant emotional distress and
social hardship.
- More info
if necessary
Human Rights Violations
- Article
5 ECHR – Right to Liberty: Indefinite detention beyond tariff
without realistic chance of release. Evidence: ECHR 2012 Wells & Lee
ruling; ongoing detention statistics; Ministry of Justice FOI data.
- Article
6 ECHR – Right to a Fair Trial / Access to Justice:
Inability to meaningfully appeal or understand case. Evidence: Delays,
maladministration, traffic light project, poor communication.
- Article
3 ECHR – Prohibition of Cruel/Inhuman/Degrading Treatment:
Psychological trauma, anxiety, hopelessness caused by indefinite
detention. Evidence: Prisoner statements, medical records, family
testimony, known IPP deaths.
- Article
8 ECHR – Right to Family Life: Families excluded from meaningful
participation or information. Evidence: Limited communication with family,
inability to participate in parole hearings.
- Article
14 ECHR / Equality Act 2010 – Discrimination:
Failure to provide reasonable adjustments for disability or mental health
needs. Evidence: No accessible information, lack of advocates,
disadvantaged by traffic light system.
- Add more
where necessary
· This is the legal heart of the complaint. Focus on how the detention violates international law.
· Use this table format in your form or submission:
Right / Law
How it’s violated
Evidence / Supporting Info
Article 5 ECHR (Right to Liberty)
Indefinite detention without realistic chance of release
ECHR 2012 Wells & Lee ruling; Ministry of Justice FOI figures; ongoing detention beyond tariff
Article 6 ECHR (Access to Justice)
Prisoner unable to meaningfully appeal or challenge detention
Delays, maladministration, traffic light project, poor communication
Article 3 ECHR (Cruel/Inhuman/Degrading treatment)
Extended uncertainty causing mental trauma, depression, risk of self-harm
Prisoner statements, 94 IPP prisoner deaths, mental health reports
Article 8 ECHR (Family life)
Family excluded from understanding or challenging detention
Poor communication with families; denied access to progression info
Article 14 ECHR / Equality Act 2010
Discrimination due to disability or learning difficulties
No reasonable adjustments, inaccessible information, prioritisation of easier cases in traffic light system
Domestic Remedies Attempted
- Appeals
to domestic courts, including Criminal Cases Review Commission referrals
- Correspondence
with MPs and the Ministry of Justice
- Participation
in parliamentary consultations on IPP sentences
- Despite
these efforts, Alice Max remains detained beyond their tariff without
effective review
Request for Relief / Action
I respectfully request that the Working Group:
- Determine
that the continued detention of Alice Max is arbitrary and unlawful
under international law.
- Recommend
that the UK government immediately review the detention and provide
an effective legal mechanism for release or resentencing.
- Urge
the UK government to implement systemic reforms to prevent further
arbitrary detention, including accessible procedures for vulnerable
prisoners and families.
Attach Supporting Evidence (Annexes)
- Letters
from officials acknowledging IPP systemic failures (e.g., David Lammy,
2021)
- News
articles reporting IPP cases and deaths (Independent, Guardian)
- Parliamentary
Justice Committee reports (2022)
- FOI
requests and Ministry of Justice statistics showing prolonged detention
- Personal
statements from prisoner and family members
- hospital
Declaration
I declare that the information provided is true to the best of my knowledge. I am submitting this example complaint on behalf of my child, Alice Max, to highlight the arbitrary and unlawful nature of IPP detention in the UK.
Submitted by: [Name of parent or guardian]
Relationship to detainee: Parent / Guardian
Contact Information: address… [Email / Phone]
Date: [Insert date] Sign it.Submit by email to wgad@ohchr.org or post to the Geneva address above.
Who Can Submit a Complaint Individuals themselves, if they are detained Family members or representatives of the detained person
NGOs or legal representatives acting on behalf of someone You don’t need to be a lawyer — you just need clear facts, dates, and supporting evidence.
-
Supporting documents do the heavy lifting – You attach letters, reports, statistics, news articles, and FOI data. Your letter just summarizes the key points and links to evidence.
-
-
