The Scottish Human Rights Commission has warned that Orders for Lifelong Restriction (OLRs) — a form of indefinite sentence used for serious sexual and violent offenders — risk amounting to "inhuman and degrading" treatment because prisoners often have no prospect of release and suffer psychological distress.
Introduced in 2006 and unique to Scotland, OLRs require an offender to serve a minimum jail term known as the punishment part, after which they remain in custody until the Parole Board for Scotland directs release. If released, offenders remain subject to strict licence and risk-management measures for life. Campaigners and relatives of prisoners have told the commission that long waits for parole decisions, limited access to rehabilitation programmes and backlogs in risk assessments have left many with no realistic indication of when, or if, they will be freed.
There are currently 277 prisoners serving OLRs in Scotland. Of those, 224 have completed the punishment part of their sentence but only 14 have been released. The Risk Management Authority, which oversees risk assessments and management plans for OLRs, said the 277 prisoners were involved in crimes affecting a total of about 1,600 victims.
The commission's discussion paper said uncertainty over the prospect of release was causing "psychological distress" and warned that the practice could amount to arbitrary detention in breach of human rights obligations. "It's inhumane to keep people incarcerated without any prospect of progression or release and that's what we're concerned about, because that would be a breach of human rights," SHRC chair Professor Angela O'Hagan told BBC Scotland News.
Family members of people serving OLRs have joined calls for a review. Shirley Hutton, whose brother Paul was given an OLR after pleading guilty to two charges of indecent assault, said he had completed his minimum term in 2008 but had been refused parole four times and was diagnosed with autism six years ago. "He goes through cycles where he feels just utter despair and it's very hard for us to know how to comfort him, because it is a hopeless situation," she said. "How do you keep somebody hopeful when there is no hope?"
The commission and campaigners said some prisoners had served relatively short punishment parts but remained detained for many years. They cited one case in which a prisoner was eligible for parole after serving 18 months but remained in custody almost 16 years later, and another case of a 14-month punishment part where the individual was still imprisoned 14 years on. In 2024, a judge ruled that the human rights of an OLR prisoner had been breached because he had been unable to attend a court-ordered "self-change programme," highlighting concerns about access to rehabilitative programmes.
Not all voices support abolishing OLRs. Groups representing victims of crime and some politicians say the orders are necessary to protect the public from people assessed as posing a continuing high risk. Jeane Freeman, a former Scottish government minister who was a member of the MacLean Commission that recommended creation of OLRs more than 25 years ago, said the sentence remains important for public protection but agreed that how OLRs are delivered should be examined. "If you introduce anything that is new and has a direct impact on people, you need to be willing to review how it's working and make changes if they're necessary," she said.
Mark McSherry, chief executive of the Risk Management Authority, said judicial reviews have found the OLR framework to be compliant with human rights and that the orders contain safeguards against arbitrary detention. He argued that OLRs were operating as intended but acknowledged that a more individualised approach to rehabilitation was required.
A Scottish government spokesperson said OLRs were only used following risk assessments carried out by accredited experts and that decisions on release are taken by the Parole Board for Scotland, which will only direct release "when they are satisfied that imprisonment is no longer necessary for the protection of the public." The Scottish Prison Service said it had established an OLR Recovery Team to provide "dedicated case management and psychological support for people serving these sentences, to better meet their risks and needs."
The debate in Scotland mirrors criticism of a similar sentence in England and Wales, the Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection, which was abandoned in 2012 after sustained legal and political controversy, although that regime lacked some of the procedural safeguards included in Scotland's OLRs. Human rights campaigners say the focus now should be on ensuring timely access to risk assessments and rehabilitation, clearer pathways to parole where appropriate, and parliamentary scrutiny to assess whether current practice meets human rights standards.
Legal and policy stakeholders have called for a review of how OLRs operate, balancing public protection with the rights of prisoners. The Scottish Human Rights Commission has urged the Scottish government and Parliament to examine whether the system is delivering both the intended protection for the public and appropriate safeguards against prolonged, indeterminate detention.
