In a significant development for Britain's justice system, five men serving indefinite Imprisonment for Public Protection sentences have been referred to appeal courts, offering new hope to thousands still trapped under the abolished jail terms.
Landmark Review Launched After Precedent-Setting Cases
The Criminal Cases Review Commission has announced it is sending five cases to be reconsidered by judges after launching a major review of IPP sentences. This follows a series of successful appeals that have established important legal precedents regarding how these controversial sentences were applied to young offenders.
The open-ended sentences, which were scrapped in 2012 and have been described as "psychological torture" by United Nations officials, have left thousands of prisoners incarcerated for periods up to twenty-two times longer than their original minimum tariffs. This includes many who were children at the time of their offences and received a youth version called Detention for Public Protection.
Recent Success Stories Pave the Way
The CCRC launched their comprehensive review after observing a pattern of successful appeals. Remarkably, eight out of twelve previous appeals resulted in sentences being either quashed, reduced, or substituted entirely.
One notable case involved Leighton Williams, a father-of-three who was wrongly handed an IPP sentence with a thirty-month tariff for a drunken fight when he was just nineteen years old. He served nearly sixteen years under the sentence before it was finally quashed and replaced with a five-year determinate sentence by the Court of Appeal last year.
Three appeal judges finally set him free on 9 May 2024, aged thirty-six, after determining that the original sentencing judge had incorrectly counted a previous offence committed when Williams was seventeen against him. Had he received a standard sentence, he would likely have been released by age twenty-two.
After his release, Williams revealed the profound personal cost, stating: "I have missed out on growing up with my friends. Going out. Getting a trade, being able to work. Just living a normal life." He acknowledged his wrongdoing but questioned the proportionality of his punishment, adding: "I deserved to go to jail – I understand that. There is no doubt about that. But for the length of time – I don't think you can justify that."
In a similar October ruling, Darren Hilling's IPP sentence was quashed and substituted because the sentencing judge had failed to properly consider his age and maturity when he committed his crime at twenty-one. These rulings have established legal principles that could impact numerous other IPP and DPP prisoners sentenced as teenagers or young adults.
The Five Cases Now Under Review
The five latest cases referred for appeal include:
- Benjamin Hibbert – Convicted of three counts of sexual assault at Preston Crown Court in December 2009. He received a DPP sentence with a two-year minimum tariff when aged fifteen or sixteen at the time of the offences.
- Stuart O'Neill – Convicted of rape at Manchester Crown Court in October 2009. He was sentenced to IPP with a minimum term of three years and six months. His previous appeal was dismissed in March 2010. He was twenty when sentenced.
- Jay Davis – Convicted of possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear or violence at Portsmouth Crown Court in October 2006. He received an IPP sentence with a nine-month minimum term. He was nineteen at the time of the offence.
- Luke Ings – Convicted of two counts of robbery and two counts of battery at East Berkshire Youth Court in March 2006. He received a DPP sentence with a minimum term of one year nine months minus eighty-one days on remand. He was seventeen at the time of the offence.
- James Ward – Convicted of arson and criminal damage in June 2006 at Leicester Magistrates' Court and sentenced at Leicester Crown Court. He received a one-year sentence minus sixty-three days on remand. He was twenty at the time of the offence.
The cases of Hibbert, O'Neill, and Davis are being referred to the Court of Appeal, while Ings' and Ward's cases are being referred to the Crown Court.
Systematic Approach to Historical Injustices
CCRC chair Dame Vera Baird KC explained the commission's comprehensive approach: "The CCRC has set up a special project group following the Hilling, Williams and Sillitto decisions because the principle set out there seems likely to be applicable to other people still on IPPs or DPPs."
She continued: "For many years there has not been such a possibility for such people. So, we have set up a focussed team of case review managers and a specialist standing committee of Commissioners to ensure specialist experience and expertise in both investigation and decision-making for these cases."
The scale of the issue is substantial, with the CCRC currently receiving an average of sixteen IPP or DPP cases each month and approximately one hundred and ten cases awaiting review. The commission has also begun examining earlier IPP and DPP cases that were previously rejected to determine if the new legal precedents might affect those decisions.
Dame Vera expressed optimism about the process, stating: "I am pleased we have already been able to refer the sentences of these five people. The judgments that have been made recently by the Court of Appeal provide an important opportunity to try to help other young people who were in similar circumstances at the time of their conviction and who received sentences of this kind."
She encouraged others in similar situations to come forward, noting: "Anyone else in a similar situation and who – importantly – has exhausted their appeal rights is free to get in touch with us." This systematic review represents the most significant effort to date to address what many consider one of Britain's most enduring justice system failures.
