One Response

1. 03 August 2025
   Parole Board Secretariat
   Parole Board for England and Wales
   10 South Colonnade
   Canary Wharf
   London E14 4PU
   Dear Sir or Madam,
   I and many experts, campaigners, families, and even former prison staff believe that the Parole Board is significantly out of date with both the modern public view and the realities inside the prison system especially in complex cases like IPP (Imprisonment for Public Protection) prisoners, long-term mental health issues, and rehabilitative progress.
   Here’s a breakdown of why:
   Stuck in a Risk-Averse, Punitive Model
   • The Parole Board often makes ultra-cautious decisions, prioritising “public protection” to the point of blocking release even when risk is low or manageable.
   • This may no longer reflect public opinion, which is shifting toward rehabilitation, justice reform, and the trauma caused by indefinite sentences (like IPPs).
   Mental Health and Trauma Often Ignored
   • Many prisoners, particularly IPPs, have developed or worsened complex PTSD, depression, or psychosis due to prolonged imprisonment.
   • Yet parole panels frequently fail to properly weigh the impact of the sentence itself on someone’s risk, or the effect of long-term institutionalisation.
   Poor Understanding of Prison Conditions
   • The Board often relies on outdated expectations of “progress”:
   • Courses that aren’t available
   • Behaviour standards that ignore the impact of trauma
   • Unrealistic release plans or “proofs” of change in understaffed and broken systems
   • Parole decisions can demand things the prison system can’t actually deliver, setting people up to fail.
   Disconnected from the Public Mood
   • The public is becoming more aware of injustice in the prison system, especially after media reports on IPP prisoners, wrongful convictions, or excessive delays.
   • There’s growing concern about:
   • Mental health deterioration in prison
   • The use of indeterminate sentencing
   • People being kept inside long after their original tariff
   • Parole Board are slow, opaque, and out of step with this changing view.
   Delays and Bureaucracy
   • Parole hearings are repeatedly delayed, years.
   • Prisoners may be kept inside simply because reports or beds aren’t ready, not because of actual risk. This undermines fairness and confidence in the justice system.
   Lack of External Scrutiny or Modern Reform
   While some reforms have been discussed, the Parole Board still:
   • Operates with limited accountability.
   • Keeps many hearings and reasons private.
   • Are behind in paroles oral hearings.
   • Is largely self-regulating, with few challenges to its decisions.
   This contrasts with the push for transparency and oversight in other public bodies. Doesn’t fully grasp today’s prison conditions. Undervalues rehabilitation and mental health and is falling behind a public that increasingly sees the need for compassion, reform, and justice over indefinite punishment.
   Fails in reasonable adjustments
   This lack of openness makes it hard to understand or challenge decisions. Reasons for decisions are often vague or not fully explained, leaving prisoners and families confused. Different panels can make very different decisions on similar cases. There’s often no clear, consistent criteria or standards. Psychological assessments outdated or incomplete.
   Overreliance on Paperwork and Reports
   • Decisions often depend heavily on written reports from prison staff, probation officers, or psychologists.
   • These reports may be biased or incomplete, especially if the prison environment is hostile or resources are limited.
   • The Board rarely visits prisoners or engages directly beyond the hearing.
   Failure to Recognise Progress
   • The Parole Board sometimes demands proof of progress that’s impossible within prison constraints.
   • If a prisoner has missed courses due to prison shortages, that can be held against them unfairly.
   • Long sentences and institutionalisation themselves may cause behaviours seen as “risky,” yet the Board may not adjust for this.
   Long Delays and Backlogs
   • Cases can be delayed for months or years.
   • Important decisions about release are postponed, extending imprisonment unnecessarily.
   • This causes huge stress and uncertainty for prisoners and families.
   Systemic failure by the prison and probation services to provide the necessary support and opportunities for release.
   • The original idea behind IPP was that prisoners would serve a minimum tariff, then demonstrate reduced risk through rehabilitation and progress before release.
   • Many IPP Prisoners Have Served Far Beyond Their Tariff Without Release
   • The excessive time spent beyond tariff — often years or decades — is not due to lack of eligibility or risk alone, but to systemic barriers preventing progression.
   • Many IPP prisoners have been denied access to accredited rehabilitation courses required for parole or recall clearance.
   • Overcrowding, funding cuts, or institutional failures meant courses were unavailable or waitlists too long.
   • This lack of access is a failure of the prison system to provide the “service” essential for prisoners to demonstrate readiness for release. The excessive over-tariff times are less about the individual prisoner’s risk and more about the system’s failure to offer necessary rehabilitation pathways and timely parole hearings.
   Consequences Are Unjust and Counterproductive
   • Unnecessary prolonged imprisonment is a human rights issue.
   • It wastes public resources.
   • It undermines public safety by not facilitating successful rehabilitation and reintegration.
   The over-tariff incarceration of IPP prisoners reveals a profound failure by the criminal justice system to provide the essential rehabilitative services and fair parole processes necessary for release. This systemic failure has trapped many individuals indefinitely, exacerbating harm rather than promoting public protection.
   Government’s 2012 Human Rights Defence vs. Ongoing Failures
   Government’s 2012 Position
   Following human rights challenges, the government argued it was taking steps to reform the IPP system and related sentencing issues. They claimed progress was underway, and therefore they should not be held liable for ongoing harms.
   Reality: Continued Failures and Harm
   Despite promises, systemic problems persist:
   • IPP prisoners remain trapped beyond tariff.
   • Rehabilitation services remain insufficient or inaccessible.
   • Mental health crises and suicides have increased.
   • Structural reforms have either been slow, piecemeal, or ineffective.
   Switching Around But Not Solving
   The government has made some procedural changes but failed to address core issues like course availability, parole delays, and long-term trauma. This amounts to rearranging deck chairs, not fundamentally fixing the system.
   Consequences Demand Renewed Accountability
   The continuing harm, avoidable deaths, and human rights breaches mean the government’s previous claims of “making changes” no longer shield it from accountability. The human rights duty to protect life and prevent inhuman treatment remains unmet.
   Legal and Moral Imperative for Action Now
   The government should be held to account for these ongoing breaches. Independent investigations, effective reforms, and reparations are overdue. Public and parliamentary pressure must insist on genuine, measurable improvements — not just promises.
   Lack of Focus on Rehabilitation and Reintegration
   • The Board may focus more on risk avoidance than on supporting successful release and reintegration.
   • This can result in revolving door cases, where prisoners are released then recalled quickly.
   Limited Accountability and Oversight
   • There’s minimal external oversight or appeal mechanism.
   • The Parole Board’s decisions are difficult to challenge.
   • This limits checks and balances on their power.
   Limited Feedback from Prisoners and Families
   The Board rarely gets honest, detailed feedback from those most affected (prisoners and families), so they miss out on important perspectives.
   To Risk Adverse Mindset on IPP prisoner than other prisoners
   The priority is seen as protecting the public, so the Board may be reluctant to admit mistakes for fear of public backlash or political pressure.
   Changing an institution like the Parole Board
   Means asking for clear, practical reforms that help break the cycle of “not knowing”:
   • Regular Independent Audits and Reviews
   Request that an independent body regularly audits the Parole Board’s decisions, processes, and outcomes — reporting publicly on problems and improvements needed.
   • Mandatory Training on Mental Health, Trauma, and Disability
   Ask that all Board members undergo continuous training to understand neurological disabilities, trauma, and mental health issues so decisions better reflect prisoners’ realities.
   • Inclusion of Prisoners and Families in Feedback and Policy Development
   Suggest creating formal channels for prisoners and families to give feedback which the Board must consider seriously and publish responses to.
   • Consistency in Decision-Making
   Demand the development and publication of clear guidelines and standards to reduce inconsistent decisions.
   • Stronger Accountability Mechanisms
   Recommend setting up an independent oversight committee with the power to investigate complaints and in quick time, challenge decisions, and enforce “changes required.”
   • Timely Hearings and Reduced Delays
   Push for guaranteed maximum waiting times for parole hearings to reduce unnecessary prolonged imprisonment.
   • Better Integration with Prison Rehabilitation Services
   Ask that the Parole Board coordinates more closely with rehabilitation programs and education, to realistically assess prisoners’ progress and release readiness.
   Can the Parole Board to clarify what specific changes they are making and not the ones they have done, especially given ongoing concerns that decades long over tariff incarceration continues. It’s reasonable to expect transparency about concrete reforms, measurable progress, and how they are addressing systemic failures.
   If you believe the government has failed in its obligations despite promises of reform to the UDHR raising the issue with international human rights bodies can be a powerful way to seek accountability and pressure for change.

   ________________________________________

   Formal Complaint to the United Nations Human Rights Committee / International Human Rights Body
   Submitted by: Katherine Gleeson

   Date:03 August 2025
   Ongoing Violations of Human Rights in the UK through the Continued Use and Mismanagement of Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection (IPP)
   To Whom It May Concern,
   I am submitting this complaint as a concerned, advocate, affected by the UK’s continued failure to resolve the human rights crisis surrounding IPP (Imprisonment for Public Protection) sentences. Despite repeated promises of reform and assurances made by the UK Government as far back as 2012, the reality in 2025 is that hundreds of individuals remain imprisoned years or even decades beyond their original tariffs. The State has failed in its legal, moral, and human rights duties.
   Background and Government Assurances
   In 2012, following criticism and legal challenges under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the UK Government claimed it was making necessary reforms to the IPP regime. These assurances were used to deflect greater legal scrutiny and international accountability. Yet, more than a decade later, those promised changes have either stalled, been diluted, or proven ineffective.
   Current Human Rights Violations
   1. Arbitrary Detention
   Thousands of IPP prisoners have served well beyond their minimum tariffs, some for over 10 or 15 years longer. This constitutes arbitrary detention under Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
   2. Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
   The mental health crisis among IPP prisoners is worsening. Many suffer from complex PTSD, suicidal ideation, and institutional trauma. Continued incarceration without access to necessary rehabilitation programs or timely parole hearings constitutes a violation of Article 5 of the ECHR and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
   3. Denial of Fair Process and Rehabilitation
   Access to rehabilitation programs is often unavailable due to overcrowding and systemic failure, yet prisoners are denied release for failing to complete them. This amounts to punishment without opportunity for remedy.
   4. Lack of Accountability and Transparency
   The Parole Board operates with limited oversight and often lacks transparency in its decisions, contributing to prolonged and unexplained detentions.
   Urgent Request for International Scrutiny I respectfully request that the Human Rights Committee:
   • Urgently review the UK’s ongoing handling of IPP prisoners.
   • Investigate breaches of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and ICCPR.
   • Recommend that the UK Government immediately adopt time-limited and trauma-informed pathways to release.
   • Call for reparations and official recognition of the harm caused by the IPP regime.
   Conclusion The UK Government has had over a decade to rectify this injustice. Instead, lives have been lost, families traumatised, and international standards of justice undermined. I ask that your office take immediate steps to investigate and intervene.

   Thank you for your attention.
   Yours faithfully,
   Katherine Gleeson
   IPP family campaign

   Reply