The case of Baker & Ors v. R ([2020] EWCA Crim 176) addresses a pivotal issue in the realm of criminal sentencing within the English and Welsh legal systems. This case involved two appellants, Robert Baker and Michael Richards, both of whom had previously been serving indeterminate sentences—Baker under an Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) and Richards under a life sentence. Both men were subsequently convicted of new offences of robbery and were sentenced to extended periods of imprisonment under Section 226A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003). The central question revolved around the legality and appropriateness of imposing extended sentences on individuals already serving indeterminate sentences, particularly when they had been recalled to prison on licence.

The England and Wales Court of Appeal upheld the extended sentences imposed on both Robert Baker and Michael Richards. The court affirmed that it is neither unlawful nor incorrect in principle to impose extended sentences on individuals already serving indeterminate sentences, provided the statutory criteria are met. The appellants contended that such extensions were unnecessary and that the Parole Board's future assessments sufficiently safeguarded public protection. However, the court disagreed, emphasizing that extended sentences serve a distinct purpose by adding an additional period during which the offender remains subject to licence conditions, thereby enhancing public safety beyond the existing indeterminate sentence framework.

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced key precedents to establish the legal framework governing extended sentences for individuals serving indeterminate sentences:

• R v Smith [2011] UKSC 37:

This Supreme Court decision clarified that the decision to impose an Indeterminate Prison Sentence (IPP) must be made based on a risk assessment that assumes the defendant is at large, regardless of their current custody status. The court held that the presence of an existing sentence does not negate the need for an additional assessment of risk for future offences.

• R (Jorgensen) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] EWHC 977 Admin:

This case reinforced the principle that the Parole Board's decision to release or recall an offender does not influence the sentencing judge's obligation to assess the offender's risk to the public independently.

• R v Ceolin [2014] EWCA Crim 526 and R v C [2019] EWCA Crim 643:

These cases supported the imposition of extended sentences even when the defendant was serving an earlier indeterminate sentence, highlighting the necessity to emphasize the ongoing risk posed by the offender.

• R v Turner and Stevenson [2019] EWCA Crim 1529:

Contrarily, this case concluded that imposing an extended sentence on an IPP prisoner was unnecessary, arguing that it served no additional purpose in protecting the public. However, the Court of Appeal in Baker & Ors v. R ultimately found Smith and J(M) to be binding precedents over Turner and Stevenson.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning hinged on several critical points:

• Statutory Criteria for Extended Sentences: Section 226A of the CJA 2003 outlines the conditions under which extended sentences may be imposed. Both appellants met these criteria, including the establishment of a significant risk to the public and the absence of statutory requirements necessitating a life sentence.
• Assessment of Dangerousness: The sentencing judges concluded that both Baker and Richards posed significant risks of causing serious harm to the public based on their criminal histories and the nature of their offences. This aligns with Section 229 of the CJA 2003, which mandates consideration of dangerousness during sentencing.
• Independence from Parole Board Decisions: Drawing from precedents like Smith and J(M), the court emphasized that sentencing decisions must be based on the offender's potential risk if they were at large, independent of their current custody status or parole decisions.
• Purpose of Extended Sentences: Extended sentences provide an additional layer of public protection by extending the licence period beyond the standard determinate sentence, ensuring that high-risk offenders remain under supervision for an extended duration.

Impact

The judgment has significant implications for the sentencing of offenders already serving indeterminate sentences:

• Affirmation of Judicial Discretion: The court reinforced the judiciary's authority to impose extended sentences based on independent risk assessments, even when offenders are already under indeterminate sentences.
• Clarification of Legal Principles: By upholding established precedents, the judgment provides clear guidance on the application of Section 226A, ensuring consistency in how extended sentences are approached in similar cases.
• Enhanced Public Protection: The decision underscores the legal system's commitment to maximizing public safety by utilizing all available sentencing tools to manage high-risk offenders effectively.

Extended Sentence

An extended sentence is a form of imprisonment where, in addition to serving a fixed term, the offender is subject to a longer period of supervision on licence after release. This is intended for offenders deemed to pose a significant ongoing risk to the public.

Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP)

The IPP is a type of indeterminate sentence imposed on offenders who are considered dangerous. It allows for the parole board to release the offender on licence only after a certain period, during which their continued risk to the public can be assessed.

Licence Period

The licence period is the time during which an offender must adhere to certain conditions set by the court while living in the community. Violating these conditions can result in recall to prison.

Dangerousness

In this context, dangerousness refers to the likelihood that an offender will cause serious harm or reoffend in the future. It's a key factor in determining the necessity of extended sentences.

The Court of Appeal's judgment in Baker & Ors v. R serves as a reaffirmation of the judiciary's capacity to impose extended sentences on individuals serving indeterminate sentences when statutory criteria are met. By meticulously analyzing legislative provisions and adhering to established precedents, the court underscored the precedence of public protection over procedural concerns regarding multiple sentencing frameworks. This decision not only clarifies the application of Section 226A CJA 2003 but also ensures that the legal system retains robust mechanisms to manage and mitigate risks posed by high-risk offenders. As such, this judgment plays a crucial role in shaping future sentencing practices, ensuring that public safety remains a paramount consideration in the administration of justice.