A teenager who spent nearly two decades in prison on an indefinite jail term should have received only an 18-month sentence, judges have ruled. Jay Davis, now in his 30s, was 19 when he was handed an imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentence for possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear or violence in October 2006. His minimum tariff was just nine months, but he served almost 20 years without release under the controversial sentence.
Appeal judges last week replaced his indefinite sentence with an 18-month fixed term, which would have seen him freed some 18 years ago. IPP jail terms were abolished in 2012, but not retrospectively, leaving thousands of prisoners like Davis languishing indefinitely until the Parole Board approved their release. Many have been recalled to prison for breaching strict licence conditions.
Almost 2,400 people remain trapped on IPP sentences, including many who were children at the time of their offence and handed a detention for public protection (DPP) jail term. Nearly 100 have taken their own lives in prison after losing hope of getting out. Successive governments have resisted calls to resentence all remaining IPP prisoners.
In recent months, appeal courts have begun to overturn sentences where the judge failed to consider the offender's age or immaturity. Other cases overturned last week include Benjamin Hibbert, who received a DPP with a two-year minimum tariff in 2009 for sexual assaults committed when he was 15 or 16, and Stuart O’Neill, who was given an IPP sentence aged 20 in 2009 for rape. O'Neill's sentence was replaced with an extended sentence of eight years in prison and eight years on licence.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) flagged the cases as part of a major review of IPP and DPP sentences handed to young people. CCRC chair Dame Vera Baird said investigators are looking at more than 150 other cases. “All the men were very young at the time they were sentenced and have spent many years beyond their original tariffs in custody,” she said. “The court’s judgments reflect the importance of properly considering age and maturity when imposing sentences of this nature.”
