“I don’t visit the prison anymore to see him because he’s unrecognisable. His eyes are dark. He’s exhausted – mentally, physically, emotionally.”
This is how Clara White speaks about her brother, Thomas White, who has been in prison for the past 11 years. His crime? Stealing a mobile phone.
During that time – much of which Thomas has spent in solitary confinement – Clara has witnessed her brother “languish” in his prison cell while his mental health has deteriorated to the extent that he has now been diagnosed with psychosis and suffers from hallucinations.
“His language was becoming something we didn’t understand,” she tells Sky News.
“He would tell us that he met Moses in the segregation unit. He wore his bedding as his own clothes. He went round the wings and he would bless people who tell him that he’s Jesus Christ.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:06
What is an IPP sentence?
The picture she paints of her brother in prison is a far cry from the musically talented but troubled person who entered it, aged 27, having been handed a special kind of prison sentence that courts in England and Wales could impose between 2005 and 2012.
Called sentences of imprisonment for public protection, IPPs were open-ended prison sentences that were intended for the most serious violent and sexual offenders who posed a significant risk of serious harm to the public but whose crimes did not warrant a life term.
The government’s stated aim was to bring in a new sentence to “ensure that dangerous violent and sexual offenders stay in custody for as long as they present a risk to society”.
But not long after they were introduced, fears grew among politicians that IPPs were being applied too broadly and catching more minor offenders as well as the most serious – partly due to the fact that previous convictions were taken into account when determining whether someone posed a “significant risk”.
Image: Thomas White when he was younger
Thomas was sentenced to two years for stealing the mobile phone in a non-violent exchange back in 2012, but because he had 16 previous convictions for theft and robberies, he was given an IPP sentence and has served 11 years.
He has only met his son, Kayden, once – when he was nine months old.
Although IPPs have now been abolished, the change was not applied retrospectively, meaning there are potentially thousands more prisoners like Thomas who are being detained for far longer than their original term intended.
Calls are growing for the government to resentence those who remain in jail.
And in an extraordinary intervention, Alice Jill Edwards, the UN’s special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, has described IPP sentences as “psychological torture”.
‘Unclear, inconsistent and uncertain’
The objective of IPPs was to ensure that repeat offenders who were deemed a risk to the public were not just released at the end of their tariff, but would instead only get out once they had proved they had reformed their character.
Under IPPs, the fate of the prisoner effectively lay in the hands of the parole board, which alone would determine whether or not they could be released based on whether they still posed a threat to society.
But frustrations quickly grew that access to mandatory rehabilitation courses needed to satisfy the parole board were being denied – either through a lack of availability or through long waiting lists – leading to a Catch-22 type situation that left IPPs in a state of limbo.
By 2011, there was growing recognition that IPPs were not working. David Cameron, who was prime minister at the time, called the sentences “unclear, inconsistent and uncertain”.
A year later, in 2012, they were abolished by the coalition government.
But because of the decision not to make this retrospective, many of those who were inside when they were scrapped have stayed inside. Today, that number stands at nearly 2,900 people – including 1,312 prisoners who have never been released.
Image: Aaron Graham and Cherrie Nichol pictured last year
‘He sits and waits for the day’
One such prisoner is Aaron Graham, who was 25 years old when he was sentenced to two years and 124 days for grievous bodily harm in 2005, in which the victim was left with a broken cheekbone. Eighteen years later, he is still in prison.
His sister, Cherrie Nichol, says he “sits and waits for the day” he will get to experience life outside of prison walls.
“My brother got involved in a fight with two other lads – one of them got off, and my brother and another guy got sentenced,” she explains.
“Aaron ended up with an IPP. At the time, he took it on the chin – he had two years and 124 days to serve, he thought he would pull his socks up and get home.
“When things didn’t materialise after a few years, after a few excuses, people started to take their own lives.”
Since 2005, 81 people serving IPP sentences have taken their own lives, including nine in the whole of 2022 – a record annual total.
“I realised I might lose my brother, on a sentence of no hope,” Cherrie says. “I don’t want him to be next.”
She adds: “Yes, my brother got into a fight and he should have had the time he got. But Aaron does not pose a risk – the only risk is him dying in prison not being able to cope with his sentence and what it’s done to him; the longer he’s left not knowing when he may be home.”
Image: Aaron Graham when he entered prison, aged 26
‘Psychological torture’
Ms Edwards at the UN is unequivocal that the preventative aspect of IPPs – keeping people in prison for what they might do – is wrong.
“I do think this is one of the most scandalous stories in the British justice system in a long while,” she tells Sky News in an exclusive interview.
“The psychological effects on the individuals would amount in my opinion, depending on an individual assessment, to psychological torture – or at least psychological, inhuman or cruel treatment. It’s certainly of that calibre.”
Why were IPPs introduced?
IPPs were introduced in the Criminal Justice Act of 2003 and came into effect in England and Wales two years later.
The government’s stated aim was to bring in a new sentence to “ensure that dangerous violent and sexual offenders stay in custody for as long as they present a risk to society”.
In its white paper of 2002, the government said it wanted to ensure that the public are “adequately protected from those offenders whose offences do not currently attract a maximum penalty of life imprisonment but who are nevertheless assessed as dangerous”.
An example of a serious offender who was given an IPP sentence was John Worboys, the black cab rapist, who was first jailed in 2009 for 19 sex offences against 12 women over a three-year period.
One of the main criticisms levied at the IPP sentence was that it was applied too broadly and was poorly targeted.
Courts could impose IPPs where an offender had been convicted of one of 96 specified “serious” violent or sexual offences – carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years or more.
But an offender was also presumed to pose a “significant risk” if they had previously been convicted of one those serious offences, as well as a further 57 “specified offences” with a maximum sentence of between two and seven years.
According to the Sentencing Academy, this is one factor that explains why IPPs were used more frequently than the government perhaps intended.
It explained: “Unless the court found it unreasonable to do so, where an offender was convicted of one of the serious offences and they had a previous conviction from one of the list of 153 specified offences, they had to consider the offender to be dangerous and impose an IPP sentence.”
This led to what the HM Chief Inspector or Prisons called an “explosion” in the number of people receiving IPPs.
‘Follow the evidence’
There is one man who has led the charge for IPP reform for decades.
His name is Lord David Blunkett – the former Labour home secretary who introduced them back in 2005.
He explains that while the motive behind IPPs was “well intentioned”, he feels “deep regret” for the long-term consequences felt by those serving them.
Image: Former home secretary David Blunkett introduced IPP sentences in the Criminal Justice Act of 2003
“While the original intention, I stand by because it was a very reasonable thing to do, the implementation was a major mistake, and I’ve taken my share of blame for that,” he says.
“I obviously have deep regrets because of the consequences to individuals down the line – which is why I’m in touch with so many of them, and have spent a number of years now trying to bring about rapid and reasonable change.”
Lord Blunkett is supporting a campaign by Sir Bob Neill, the Conservative chair of parliament’s Justice Select Committee, that is urging the government to carry out a resentencing of the remaining IPP population.
Sir Bob is calling for this through an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill going through parliament, which he says has received cross-party support.
“What I’m proposing in my amendment is that because it’s unusual to retrospectively change sentences – but not impossible – that we set up an expert committee of senior judges and lawyers to give the government the best steer on how best to do that.”
Image: Aaron Graham and Cherrie Nichol as children
Sir Bob hopes that the justice secretary, Alex Chalk, will show a more of willingness to consider his proposals than his predecessor Dominic Raab, who flatly rejected the suggestion on the grounds resentencing would “give rise to an unacceptable risk to public protection”.
MPs and families have identified in Mr Chalk a potential for reform of the system, given his past statements about IPPs.
Mr Chalk, who replaced Mr Raab in April, has called IPP sentences a “stain on our justice system” that “should never have happened”.
However, like his predecessor, Mr Chalk has described facing a “conundrum” in wanting to solve the “injustice” of the IPP sentence while also feeling a duty to “protect the public”.
The justice secretary has revised the IPP “action plan” started under Mr Raab which aims to solve the dilemma by reducing the number of those in prison even further.
For many, it is simply not enough.
In a direct appeal to Mr Chalk, Sir Bob said: “Alex is a good man and a highly experienced criminal barrister. He’s actually seen these sentences in operation in a way that some of his predecessors perhaps hadn’t.
“So I say to him, ‘Alex, you’re a lawyer – follow the evidence’.”
Image: Justice Secretary Alex Chalk has called IPP sentences a ‘stain’ on the criminal justice system
‘The revolving door’ – life on recall
Another aspect to the IPP sentence that hangs over prisoners, and which the government may be more inclined to reform, is recall.
If an IPP prisoner is released, they are put on licence with strict conditions. If a prisoner breaches their licence conditions, they could be sent back to prison at any time.
The licence is for life but they can apply to have it terminated after 10 years. One concession the government is thought to be considering is reducing that period to five years.
According to the campaign group Ungripp, since 2015, when reliable data began to be published, there have been 4,434 incidents of recalling people serving an IPP sentence, including some who may have been recalled multiple times.
Lord Blunkett believes there are now more people in prison on IPP because they’ve been recalled from their licence conditions than there are who have never been released.
“We’re going to reach a silly situation where for very small reasons, the recall conditions end up with a very large cohort, who simply go in and out the revolving door,” he says.
“That has to be broken – otherwise, people just don’t have the chance to restore their lives.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:19
Ex-IPP prisoner’s ‘total loss of hope’
‘I’m not able to live a normal life’
One IPP prisoner who understands the daily reality of being on recall is Anthony Hipkiss.
Anthony is an ex-IPP prisoner who served 16 years for threats to kill under an IPP sentence and was released in February.
He has been recalled back to prison three times under a licence that he is now subject to for at least 10 years. He says he lives in constant fear of being sent back to prison and cannot fully reintegrate into the community and family life.
“There’s something about this sentence which always stays with you,” he tells Sky News.
“I’ve got a weekly reminder of what I’m serving, I still wear a tag on my leg, which tells me everyday I’m serving that sentence.
“When I see a prison van going past I think ‘what if?’ Sometimes I think they’re coming for me.
“I’m not able to live a normal life. I don’t have permission to do anything.”
Image: Garth prison in Lancashire, where Thomas White is currently being held
Anthony now works for an organisation called On the Out, which aims to help people leaving the criminal justice system.
“I’ve got an unbelievable support network around me – my family and my church and so on but a lot of it is down to me. The onus is on me not to put things wrong this time.”
Asked to reflect on the incidents that put him in prison, he acknowledges it was right he spent time behind bars.
“I was a threat. I was a danger,” he admits. He says the third time he was recalled gave him the “kick up the backside” he needed and showed him “what IPP was all about”.
But he adds: “I never thought I’d be here 16 years later, still going for probation, I don’t think the incident warrants a life sentence. I don’t think the crime warrants a whole life sentence.”
The overall toll of serving an IPP sentence has been tough. He says at his lowest point, he tried to take his own life on three occasions.
“I got to such a point where I was like, I don’t want live no more,” he said. “This thing’s literally become a death sentence for some people.”
‘The international community is watching’
For the UN’s Ms Edwards, the “repetitive” recalling of people could amount to “abuses of process, abuses of power”.
“The government, or the courts, need to really assess whether that detention is lawful. It might be lawful under the law – but that doesn’t mean it’s lawful under international human rights law.”
Her conclusion has led her to believe that IPP prisoners could have a case to take to the European Court of Human Rights, which previously described the sentences as “unlawful”. She has also written to the government urging it to carry out a review of IPPs.
“I hope that there’s some redress without the families needing to go through the laborious process of going through court. But of course, that is open to them.”
‘We’ll do everything we can’
After Thomas’s behaviour became more and more erratic, Clara pushed for an independent psychiatric assessment, which recommended that he be transferred to a psychiatric hospital.
It reads: “Mr White did describe a sense of hopelessness about his sentence and the outcome of recent parole hearings.
“It is probable that this negative experience has contributed to the development of his delusion system and his voices.
“Mr White’s views mirror those identified in the report, which emphasises the psychological harm caused by the IPP sentence, leading to feelings of hopelessness, despair, and which presented a challenge to their progression.”
Families and campaigners hope that with Sir Bob’s amendment, the government will address their pleas for their loved ones to be resentenced.
But could politics, once again, be the deciding factor in the fate of these prisoners?
With a general election potentially just 12 months away, families – and indeed some MPs – are concerned that no political party will want to act out of fear that one mis-step, or one wrong release, could generate a backlash in the media.
Image: Clara White and her nephew, Kayden
On that, Lord Blunkett has a clear message.
“If change is not made in the House of Commons, we’ll do everything we can in the House of Lords.
“We’ve just got to get common sense back into this situation – for the sake of all those including their families who have been suffering this for so long.”
The Ministry of Justice said its updated IPP action plan will provide support for prisoners who are at risk of self harm or suicide and will allow greater access to rehabilitation programmes to help secure their future release and employment.
A spokesperson said: “We abolished IPP sentences in 2012 and have already reduced the number of unreleased IPP prisoners by three quarters. We will continue to help those still in custody to progress towards release.
“These offenders were deemed a serious risk to the public and we make no apologies for putting public protection first by ensuring that each release is properly assessed by the Parole Board.”
Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK. In the US, call the Samaritans branch in your area or 1 (800) 273-TALK
Solana decentralized finance (DeFi) protocol Loopscale has temporarily halted its lending markets after suffering an approximately $5.8 million exploit.
On April 26, a hacker siphoned approximately 5.7 million USDC (USDC) and 1200 Solana (SOL) from the lending protocol after taking out a “series of undercollateralized loans”, Loopscale co-founder Mary Gooneratne said in an X post.
The exploit only impacted Loopscale’s USDC and SOL vaults and the losses represent around 12% of Loopscale’s total value locked (TVL), Gooneratne added.
Loopscale is “working to resume repayment functionality as soon as possible to mitigate unforeseen liquidations,” its said in an X post.
“Our team is fully mobilized to investigate, recover funds, and ensure users are protected,” Gooneratne said.
In the first quarter of 2025, hackers stole more than $1.6 billion worth of crypto from exchanges and on-chain smart contracts, blockchain security firm PeckShield said in an April report.
More than 90% of those losses are attributable to a $1.5 billion attack on ByBit, a centralized cryptocurrency exchange, by North Korean hacking outfit Lazarus Group.
Launched on April 10 after a six-month closed beta, Loopscale is a DeFi lending protocol designed to enhance capital efficiency by directly matching lenders and borrowers.
It also supports specialized lending markets, such as “structured credit, receivables financing, and undercollateralized lending,” Loopscale said in an April announcement shared with Cointelegraph.
Loopscale’s order book model distinguishes it from DeFi lending peers such as Aave that aggregate cryptocurrency deposits into liquidity pools.
Loopscale’s main USDC and SOL vaults yield APRs exceeding 5% and 10%, respectively. It also supports lending markets for tokens such as JitoSOL and BONK (BONK) and looping strategies for upwards of 40 different token pairs.
The DeFi protocol has approximately $40 million in TVL and has attracted upwards of 7,000 lenders, according to researcher OurNetwork.
United States Senator Jon Ossoff expressed support for impeaching President Donald Trump during an April 25 town hall, citing the President’s plan to host a private dinner for top Official Trump memecoin holders.
“I mean, I saw just 48 hours ago, he is granting audiences to people who buy his meme coin,” said Ossoff, a Democrat, according to a report by NBC News.
“When the sitting president of the United States is selling access for what are effectively payments directly to him. There is no question that that rises to the level of an impeachable offense.”
Senator Ossoff said he “strongly” supports impeachment proceedings during a town hall in the state of Georgia, where he is running for reelection to the Senate.
The Senator added that an impeachment is unlikely unless the Democratic Party gains control of Congress during the US midterm elections in 2026. Trump’s own Republican Party currently has a majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
TRUMP holders can register to dine with the US President. Source: gettrumpmemes.com
On April 23, the Official Trump (TRUMP) memecoin’s website announced plans for Trump to host an exclusive dinner at his Washington, DC golf club with the top 220 TRUMP holders.
The website subsequently posted a leaderboard tracking top TRUMP wallets and a link to register for the event. The TRUMP token’s price has gained more than 50% since the announcement, according to data from CoinMarketCap.
The specific guest list is unclear, but the memecoin’s website states that applicants must pass a background check, “can not be from a [Know Your Customer] watchlist country,” and cannot bring any additional guests.
On April 25, the team behind TRUMP denied social media rumors that TRUMP holders need at least $300,000 to participate in an upcoming dinner with the president.
“People have been incorrectly quoting #220 on the block explorer as the cutoff. That’s wrong because it includes things like locked tokens, exchanges, market makers, and those who are not participating. Instead, you should only be going off the leaderboard,” they wrote.
The TRUMP token jumped on news of the private dinner plans. Source: CoinMarketCap
Legal experts told Cointelegraph that Trump’s cryptocurrency ventures, including the TRUMP memecoin and Trump-affiliated decentralized finance (DeFi) protocol World Liberty Financial, raise significant concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
“Within just a couple of days of him taking office, he’s signed a number of executive orders that are significantly going to affect the way that our crypto and digital assets industry works,” Charlyn Ho of law firm Rikka told Cointelegraph in February.
“So if he has a personal pecuniary benefit arising from his own policies, that’s a conflict of interest.”
Crypto investor sentiment has seen a significant recovery from global tariff concerns, but analysts warn that the market’s structural weaknesses may still result in downside momentum during periods of weekend illiquidity.
Risk appetite appeared to return among crypto investors this week after US President Donald Trump adopted a softer tone, saying that import tariffs on Chinese goods may “come down substantially.”
However, the improved investor sentiment “does not guarantee that Bitcoin will avoid volatility over the weekend,” analysts from Bitfinex exchange told Cointelegraph:
“Sentiment improvements reduce fragility, but they do not eliminate structural risks like thin weekend liquidity.”
“Historically, weekends remain vulnerable to sharp moves — especially when open interest is high and market depth is low,” the analysts said, adding that unexpected macroeconomic news can still increase volatility during low liquidity periods.
Bitcoin (BTC) staged a near 11% recovery during the past week, but its rally has previously been limited by Sunday liquidity dynamics.
BTC/USD, 1-year chart. Source: Cointelegraph
Bitcoin fell below $75,000 on Sunday, April 6, despite initially decoupling from the US stock market’s $3.5 trillion drop on April 4 after US Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell warned that Trump’s tariffs may affect the economy and raise inflation.
The correction was exacerbated by the lack of weekend liquidity and the fact that Bitcoin was the only large liquid asset available for de-risking, industry watchers told Cointelegraph.
“While improved sentiment creates a more stable foundation, cryptocurrency markets are still susceptible to rapid movements during periods of reduced trading volume,” according to Marcin Kazmierczak, co-founder and chief operating officer of RedStone blockchain oracle firm.
“The sentiment recovery provides some cushioning, but traders should remain cautious as weekend liquidity constraints can still amplify price movements regardless of the current market mood,” he told Cointelegraph.
Crypto investors may have “maxed out on tariff-related fears”
Cryptocurrency markets may have priced in the full extent of tariff-related concerns, according to Aurelie Barthere, principal research analyst at crypto intelligence platform Nansen.
“It feels like we’ve maxed out on tariff-related fear,” she told Cointelegraph, adding:
“While many remain uncertain about where things are headed over the next month or so, it also seems like markets were just waiting for the slightest signal that we’re back in the game.”
“Whether the rally is sustainable depends on whether we can break through previous resistance levels, at least in isolation. It could have legs, as markets now seem to believe there’s a ‘Trump put’ under equities, the US dollar and US Treasurys,” Barthere added, warning of more potential volatility amid the upcoming negotiations.
Nansen previously predicted a 70% chance that crypto markets will bottom and start a recovery by June, but highlighted that the timing will depend on the outcome of tariff negotiations.
The tariff negotiations may only be “posturing” for the US to reach a trade agreement with China, which may be the “big prize” for Trump’s administration, according to Raoul Pal, founder and CEO of Global Macro Investor.