Five Indefinite IPP Sentences Referred for Appeal Following Landmark Court Rulings
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has taken the significant step of referring five indefinite sentences imposed under the controversial Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) scheme, and its equivalent for children, for appeal. This decision follows recent Court of Appeal judgments that quashed similar sentences on the grounds that the young age and maturity of the offenders were not properly considered at the time of sentencing.
The Legacy of IPP and DPP Sentences
IPP sentences were introduced in 2005 with the intention of indefinitely detaining serious offenders who were deemed to pose a risk to the public. The equivalent for individuals under 18, known as Detention for Public Protection (DPP), followed the same principle. Both regimes were abolished in 2012, but crucially, this change was not applied retrospectively, leaving thousands still serving these open-ended terms.
In a stark condemnation, former Supreme Court justice Lord Brown described IPP sentences as "the greatest single stain on our criminal justice system." This criticism has been echoed by figures including former Labour Home Secretary David Blunkett, who oversaw their introduction, and a UN torture expert, highlighting how these sentences have led to individuals languishing in prison, often for relatively minor offences.
Grounds for Appeal Based on Youth and Maturity
The five referrals specifically involve prisoners who were all relatively young at the time of their sentencing, with the sentences imposed more than fifteen years ago. Notably, none had a minimum tariff exceeding three and a half years, yet all remain incarcerated. The CCRC's action is based on the legal principle established in recent Court of Appeal cases, such as those of Leighton Williams, Darren Hilling in 2024, and Steven Sillitto last year.
Dame Vera Baird KC, the chair of the CCRC, stated that this principle "seems likely to be applicable to other people still on IPPs or DPPs." She emphasised that the recent judgments provide a vital opportunity to assist other young people who were in similar circumstances when convicted and received such sentences.
Details of the Five Cases Referred
The individuals whose sentences have been referred are:
- Benjamin Hibbert: Convicted in 2009 of three counts of sexual assault with a minimum tariff of two years. He was 15 or 16 at the time of the offences.
- Stuart O’Neill: Sentenced in 2009 to a minimum term of three years and six months for rape. He was 20 at the time of sentencing.
- Jay Davis: Convicted in 2006 of possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear or violence, with a minimum term of nine months. He was 19 at the time of the offence.
- Luke Ings: Convicted in 2006 of two counts of robbery and two counts of battery, with a minimum term of one year nine months minus 81 days on remand. He was 17 at the time of the offence.
- James Ward: Convicted in 2006 of arson and criminal damage, with a sentence of one year minus 63 days on remand. He was 20 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.
Ongoing Challenges and CCRC Response
Dame Vera Baird highlighted that the CCRC is currently receiving an average of 16 IPP/DPP cases per month, with 110 cases on its books for review. In response, specialist teams have been established to investigate these matters thoroughly. She urged others in similar situations, who have exhausted their appeal rights, to contact the commission.
It is important to note that even when released, IPP/DPP offenders remain on indefinite licence, meaning they can be recalled to prison at any time, often for behaviour that does not constitute a criminal offence. This aspect continues to draw criticism and underscores the profound impact of these sentencing regimes on individuals' lives.
