Angela Allen/ShutterstockAs part of plans to deal with nearly-full prisons in England and Wales, Andy Burnham has pledged to bring an end to indeterminate imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentences. For those serving these sentences, this is a long-awaited development. IPP sentences were abolished in 2012, but not retrospectively. Currently, 2,271 IPP prisoners remain in custody in England and Wales. They were introduced in 2005 to protect the public from “dangerous” offenders, but the definition of dangerous was broad and resulted in the sentence being imposed on many lower-risk offenders.IPPs function like life sentences: prisoners serve a minimum term (say, 10 years), after which point they are eligible to apply for release. Unlike other sentences, IPP prisoners can only be released from prison by the independent Parole Board – there is no automatic release date set.The IPP sentence has garnered much media interest over the years because of the shocking plight of prisoners serving this sentence. Being incarcerated is bad enough, but the indefinite nature of the sentence has led to widespread feelings of despair and isolation among this population and their families. The late Lord Brown, a former supreme court justice, described the IPP sentence as the “greatest single stain on our criminal justice system”. Even David Blunkett, who introduced the sentence as home secretary, has expressed regret.A justice select committee inquiry into the IPP sentence took place in 2022. The government of the time disregarded many recommendations, including the proposal that all IPP prisoners should have sentences reviewed and then be re-sentenced under current rules. Since then, Keir Starmer’s government introduced the IPP Action Plan to improve the support provided to IPP-sentenced prisoners. The plight of IPP-sentenced prisoners was again highlighted in 2024, when Starmer’s government brought in early release to deal with prison overcrowding. However, none were given automatic release. Appealing for releasePrior to 2016, a condition of the IPP sentence was that these prisoners could only be released by the Parole Board through an oral hearing. Since then, some people can be released without an oral hearing, with the Parole Board making the decision via a paper-based assessment. However, the vast majority of prisoners still have to undergo an oral hearing. These are conducted in a question-and-answer format, where parole board members ask questions and the prisoner and other witnesses answer.Prisoners and professionals give evidence of the prisoner’s conduct while in custody, the factors that might lead them to reoffend, and reports of their engagement with rehabilitation programmes. Ultimately, the members of the Parole Board must determine whether it is still necessary to confine a prisoner for the protection of the public. If the answer is no, then they direct the prisoner to be released under supervision of the probation service. IPP prisoners have found it harder than other prisoners to be released through parole hearings and – once released – face high rates of recall. In September 2022 the number of IPP prisoners who had been recalled exceeded the number of unreleased IPP prisoners. When IPP sentences were replaced in 2012, the same types of offenders did not have as high a recall rate, and the new sentences had a fixed, rather than indefinite, recall period. This suggests that the IPP sentence itself is partly responsible for the overall increase in the prison population.During the pandemic, the Parole Board was forced to conduct all hearings remotely, either by telephone or video link. Since the removal of pandemic restrictions, the board has continued to use remote technology as the default way to conduct hearings, deeming this to be a “fair and effective” way of holding most hearings. Around 93% of hearings are held remotely. Regardless of mode, oral hearings should be “inquisitorial” and not “adversarial”, according to the Parole Board’s guidance. Communication breakdownsOur research, conducted in 2023, reveals some of the additional barriers that IPP prisoners face when working towards release. Combining our linguistics and criminal justice expertise, we analysed oral hearings involving IPP prisoners to see whether remotely-held hearings were more or less adversarial than in-person hearings. To do this, we focused on “why” questions asked by panel members to prisoners, for example: “Why did you commit the offence?” Questions like this prompt prisoners to answer with an account, for example: “Because I needed to get money”.“Why” questions can be interpreted as confrontational and “face-threatening”, especially when the recipient is judged to be responsible for engaging in problematic or criminal behaviour. We focused our analysis on particularly adversarial “why” questions, which also displayed the questioner’s viewpoint. For example: “Why did you behave so badly in the beginning?” We found that in remote hearings, these adversarial “why” questions were used more frequently when compared with in-person hearings, to a degree that was above the level of chance. This could mean it is more difficult for IPP prisoners to represent themselves in this mode of hearing, with implications for fairness and justice.Why is this the case? It is possible that Parole Board panel members are compensating for some of the broader communication problems with remote technology by asking tougher questions.Elsewhere, we have found that breakdowns in communication are more common in remote hearings than in-person hearings. This may lead people to interact in more direct ways. Further research has found that participants in oral hearings often view the remote mode as a barrier to productive interaction. Our findings suggest that IPP prisoners are acutely affected by this. Others have similarly found that the remote mode is associated with problems in other justice settings. The oral hearings analysed for this research occurred before and during the pandemic, it is now the norm to deliver remote hearings in a number of judicial and quasi-judicial settings. In a positive move, the Parole Board has since introduced mandatory training around questioning vulnerable prisoners, which should improve the way remote hearings are delivered.Few would disagree with Burnham’s pledge to end the IPP sentence, but the exact process is unclear: who will be released and will the process be fair? Despite improvements in technology and a willingness to improve practice in remote settings, the particular vulnerabilities of IPP prisoners needs to be borne in mind. Our research suggests that if IPP prisoners will still need to undergo a hearing, careful consideration needs to be given to how they are carried out.This research was partially funded by the British Academy/Leverhulme Small Grants award. Additionally, Jake Phillips receives funding from Tenacious Awards for ongoing research on the IPP Action Plan.This research was partially funded by the British Academy/Leverhulme Small Grants award.