Two men who spent nearly 20 years in prison under controversial indefinite detention sentences have been released after their terms were quashed. Both were originally sentenced as teenagers to what were described as Detention for Public Protection (DPP) orders, a youth-version of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences.

One of the men, Luke Ings, received his sentence in 2006 at the age of 17. He was given a DPP order with a minimum tariff of 21 months following a robbery and an altercation at a McDonald’s outlet. The DPP and IPP sentencing framework, introduced to protect the public from offenders deemed dangerous, effectively allowed for prisoners to remain incarcerated indefinitely unless they were deemed no longer a threat. This system has faced significant criticism for resulting in extended, often indefinite, imprisonment beyond original minimum terms, especially among young offenders.

Ings and the other individual, both sentenced almost two decades ago under this regime, were held far longer than their minimum tariffs because they were unable to demonstrate to parole boards that they no longer posed a risk to society. Over the years, this has raised questions about the fairness of the DPP and IPP system, particularly for offenders convicted as juveniles.

After a prolonged legal process, both men’s sentences were recently overturned, leading to their release. The moves come amid broader efforts to review and address the legacy of indefinite custodial sentences that many consider a miscarriage of justice. Critics argue that the system’s emphasis on risk assessments and public protection disproportionately affected young prisoners and did not provide adequate avenues for rehabilitation or release.

Supporters of the sentencing measures maintain that they serve an important public safety function by managing offenders considered a continuing threat. However, cases like these highlight the challenges in balancing public safety with fair and proportionate punishment.

The release of Ings and the other individual sheds light on the decades-long impact of the DPP and IPP sentences and adds momentum to calls for reform of sentencing and parole procedures for prisoners sentenced under these now-discontinued regimes.