Reforming Orders for Lifelong Restriction (OLR) in Scotland: Balancing Public Safety, Victim Protection, and Fundamental Justice

At Sovereignty, we are committed to a justice system that punishes serious crimes effectively, protects victims and the public, and upholds Scotland’s core principles of fairness and human rights. Orders for Lifelong Restriction (OLRs), introduced in 2006, are indeterminate sentences imposed by the High Court. Critics, including campaign groups, argue that OLRs are applied arbitrarily—sometimes to cases where the index offence appears less severe—raising serious concerns about proportionality, discrimination, and fairness in practice.

Our approved party policy opposes OLRs in their current indeterminate form, which permits indefinite detention based on speculative future risk assessments. This leads to arbitrary singling out of individuals, prolonged uncertainty, unequal treatment compared to other prisoners, and human rights concerns—mirroring flaws that led to the abolition of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences in England and Wales.

What Are OLRs and Why the Growing Concern?

Following conviction, a judge may order a risk assessment; if risk is deemed sufficient, the offender receives a punishment part (minimum term) followed by indefinite detention until the Parole Board approves release. Unlike other prisoners, OLR individuals have no fixed end date to work toward—the prison system revolves around release dates and progression paths that are often inaccessible or blocked for them due to limited rehabilitation programmes. This fosters hopelessness, psychological harm, and unequal treatment.

The Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC) discussion paper “A Human Rights Analysis of Orders for Lifelong Restriction” (September 2025, updated November 2025) highlights risks of breaching rights to liberty (Article 5 ECHR) and protection from inhuman/degrading treatment (Article 3 ECHR) due to indefinite detention without clear progression. SHRC Chair Professor Angela O’Hagan warned: “It’s inhumane to keep people incarcerated without any prospect of progression or release… that would be a breach of human rights. That is potentially unlawful, that potentially amounts to arbitrary detention.”

A September 2025 BBC report detailed 277 serving OLRs, with only 14 of 224 post-tariff prisoners released. Updated figures show 256 active OLR prisoners, with just 33 ever released overall. Examples include:

  • Paul Hutton (indecent assault; punishment part completed 2008, still detained due to programme access issues, exacerbated by later autism diagnosis; family describes “utter despair”).
  • Prisoners held 14–16 years beyond short tariffs.
  • A 2024 Court of Session ruling finding an Article 5 breach for denied “self-change programme” access.

These cases show how delays extend detention disproportionately, amid overcrowding addressed by a 2025–2026 early release scheme that explicitly excludes OLR/life sentences. International experts, like UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Dr. Alice Edwards, have called similar indeterminate sentences “unbelievable” in a modern democracy, describing preventive detention as arbitrary power that “flies directly in the face of what justice is meant to mean” and potentially amounting to torture due to psychological impact.

Campaigns like No to OLR (NOLR), supported by academics from the University of Glasgow and University of Stirling, highlight the human consequences of preventive punishment. The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (2022) likened indeterminate sentences to psychological torture.

Why This Is Sovereignty Party Policy

Our policy states: “The route to receiving an OLR sentence begins after the jury deliver a guilty verdict (or someone pleads guilty) with a judge arbitrarily ordering a risk assessment prior to sentencing. This enables anyone to be singled out and incarcerated indefinitely in prison e.g. political prisoners.”

We call for abolishing the indeterminate aspect and resentencing those beyond their punishment tariff. This addresses structural vulnerabilities without indiscriminate releases.

Indeterminate sentences relying on subjective, ongoing risk predictions (not proven crimes) risk ambiguous application or exploitation by bad actors/state elements under future pressures. While no widespread political misuse occurs in Scotland today, the framework’s speculative basis creates overreach potential—history shows indeterminate systems misused elsewhere against dissenters/vulnerable groups. Sovereignty safeguards civil liberties while demanding strong high-risk protections.

Core principle: Justice punishes proven crimes, not hypothetical future ones—undermining proportionality, presumption of innocence, and ECHR safeguards against arbitrary detention.

Conclusion

Sovereignty seeks fair, effective, rights-compliant justice: severe punishment for serious crimes, evidence-based risk management, no indefinite uncertainty. We stand with victims and communities for genuine safety.

We welcome input from court-experienced individuals—contact us to discuss strengthening alternatives and priorities.

Sources and Further Reading: