IPP Sentences, Appeals & Challenges

The sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection was introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and operated between 2005 and 2012.
IPP was an indeterminate sentence. A prisoner was required to serve a minimum custodial period, known as the tariff, but reaching the end of that tariff did not result in automatic release.

IPP sentences were abolished prospectively in December 2012 by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. However, abolition was not made retrospective. As a result, prisoners who had already received an IPP sentence could continue to be detained after their tariff had expired.

Some prisoners have consequently remained in custody for many years beyond the minimum term originally imposed by the sentencing court.

Great James Street Chambers was instructed in an important international challenge brought on behalf of:

Leroy Douglas
Abdullahi Suleman
Shaun Anton Lloyd
Wayne Williams
Joshua McRae

The complaint was considered by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, part of the UN human rights system.

The UK Government contested the complaint and maintained that the IPP regime was compatible with the United Kingdom’s international human rights obligations.

In Opinion No. 16/2026, adopted during the Working Group’s 105th session and published on 23 July 2026, the Working Group rejected key aspects of the Government’s position.

The Working Group concluded that the deprivation of liberty of the five individuals was arbitrary and in contravention of Articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Articles 9(1) and (4), 2(1) and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The findings included that the detention fell within:

Category I – Absence of sufficient legal basis

The Working Group considered the continued detention of the individuals in question to be arbitrary within Category I of its framework.

Category III – Inadequate ability to challenge continued detention

The Working Group also concluded that the relevant mechanisms for challenging continued detention did not, in the circumstances considered, provide adequate protection against arbitrary detention.

Category V – Discrimination

In relation to Mr Suleman, the Working Group additionally found that the suspension of the parole process during his transfer to psychiatric hospital resulted in discriminatory treatment on the grounds of his psychiatric condition.

The Opinion represents a significant development in the continuing legal debate surrounding prisoners who remain detained under abolished IPP sentences.

Following the WGAD Opinion, proceedings have been commenced in the High Court of Justice.

Applications have been made on behalf of:

• Leroy Douglas;
• Wayne Williams;
• Shaun Lloyd; and
• Abdullahi Suleman.

The Secretary of State for Justice is an Interested Party to those proceedings.

Habeas corpus is a fundamental legal mechanism through which the lawfulness of a person’s detention can be brought before the court.

The applications ask the High Court to consider the consequences in domestic law of the Working Group’s findings and the lawfulness of the applicants’ continued detention.

The proceedings are ongoing and their outcome will be important in determining the extent to which the WGAD Opinion may provide a basis for further challenges by prisoners serving IPP sentences.

Every IPP case is different.

The WGAD Opinion does not automatically mean that every prisoner serving an IPP sentence is entitled to immediate release, and specialist legal advice should be obtained on the circumstances of the individual case.

However, the Opinion and the subsequent High Court proceedings raise important questions about prolonged post-tariff detention and the mechanisms available to IPP prisoners to challenge that detention.

Members of Great James Street Chambers can advise upon the potential remedies available in individual cases.

Relevant circumstances may include:

• the length of time served beyond tariff;
• the original offence and tariff imposed;
• previous and forthcoming Parole Board decisions;
• recommendations for release or transfer to open conditions;
• delays in parole reviews;
• access to offending behaviour programmes or other courses;
• delays in accessing treatment or rehabilitation;
• progression through the prison system;
• recommendations made by psychologists or other professionals;
• periods spent in segregation or psychiatric detention;
• previous releases and recalls;
• alleged failures by public authorities;
• mental health or disability issues affecting progression or parole; and
• any other circumstances potentially affecting the lawfulness of continued detention.

A detailed review of the prisoner’s history and documentation will ordinarily be required before advice can be given about the appropriate legal route.

Members of Chambers can advise in relation to a range of potential IPP issues, including:

• challenges concerning prolonged post-tariff detention;
• habeas corpus;
• judicial review;
• Parole Board proceedings and decisions;
• delays in parole reviews;
• progression and transfer to open conditions;
• access to rehabilitation and offending behaviour programmes;
• recall following release;
• human rights arguments;
• public law challenges;
• international human rights remedies; and
• potential challenges arising from the findings in WGAD Opinion No. 16/2026.

Where appropriate, members can work alongside solicitors to identify the most appropriate route for an individual prisoner.

Great James Street Chambers welcomes enquiries from solicitors acting for IPP prisoners.

We also recognise that many prisoners and their families are actively seeking advice about the significance of the recent UN findings.

Where permitted by the applicable regulatory framework, members who undertake Public Access work may be able to advise directly. Where a solicitor is required, the clerking team can explain the appropriate route for obtaining representation.

For an initial assessment, it is helpful to provide as much of the following information as possible:

• the prisoner’s full name;
• prison and prisoner number;
• date of sentence;
• offence;
• original tariff;
• date the tariff expired;
• whether the prisoner has ever been released;
• details of any recalls;
• date and outcome of the most recent Parole Board hearing;
• date of the next scheduled review;
• current categorisation;
• previous periods in open conditions;
• relevant psychological or psychiatric reports; and
• details of any previous legal challenges.

Copies of relevant sentencing remarks, Parole Board decisions and other supporting documents should also be provided where available.

If you are a solicitor representing an IPP prisoner, or are seeking specialist counsel in relation to an IPP sentence, please contact the Great James Street Chambers’ clerking team.

0207 440 4949

clerks@greatjames.co.uk