Andy Burnham, the current leader of the Labour Party, has committed to ending the use of Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection (IPP) as part of his broader strategy to tackle overcrowding in prisons across England and Wales. Introduced in 2005, these sentences were meant to protect the public from dangerous offenders. However, the term "dangerous" was interpreted broadly, leading many lower-risk offenders to receive IPP sentences. Unlike standard life sentences, IPPs require prisoners to serve a minimum term before being eligible for release, but they are only released by the independent Parole Board, with no automatic release date. This system has drawn criticism for being overly harsh and inconsistent. As of now, over 2,271 IPP prisoners remain in custody. Although IPP sentences were abolished in 2012, they were not applied retroactively to those already serving them. Critics, including the late Lord Brown, a former Supreme Court justice, have called IPPs the "greatest single stain on our criminal justice system." Even David Blunkett, the former Home Secretary who introduced the sentence, has expressed regret over its implementation. A 2022 inquiry by a justice select committee recommended reviewing all IPP sentences, but the government at the time ignored the advice. In response, the current Keir Starmer government introduced the IPP Action Plan to support these prisoners, though it has not yet fully addressed the issue of their indefinite detention. The process for releasing IPP prisoners involves an oral hearing with the Parole Board. Until 2016, all such hearings required in-person attendance, but now most are conducted remotely via video or phone. These hearings are meant to be "inquisitorial," focusing on understanding the prisoner's behavior and rehabilitation, rather than being "adversarial," like a courtroom trial. However, research from 2023 suggests that IPP prisoners face unique challenges, particularly in remote hearings. Studies found that panel members ask more "why" questions in remote settings, which can be perceived as confrontational and may hinder prisoners' ability to effectively present their case. Despite efforts to improve the process, questions remain about the fairness and effectiveness of the system. While the Parole Board has introduced training for handling vulnerable prisoners, the broader issue of whether IPP prisoners should still be subject to such hearings remains unresolved. Burnham’s pledge to end IPP sentences is widely supported, but the practical steps for implementation—such as who will be released and how the process will be fair—are still unclear. The unique vulnerabilities of IPP prisoners must be carefully considered, especially as remote hearings become the norm in various justice settings.