Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns three separate appeals involving sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection ("IPP") under section 225(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The central question raised is whether IPP sentences can run consecutively to each other or to other sentences, and how courts may order defendants to serve remaining periods of previous imprisonment under section 116 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, particularly given that section 116 has been repealed except for offences committed before 4 April 2005. The cases also consider the application of these principles to life sentences and detention for public protection under the same Act.
One appellant, referred to as Appellant A, appealed his sentence by certificate of the sentencing judge, while the other applications for leave to appeal were referred to the Full Court and granted. The appeals involve detailed factual backgrounds, including offences of robbery and assault, assessments of risk to the public, and sentencing remarks from various Crown Courts. The court also addresses the interaction of IPP sentences with previous custodial periods and statutory provisions concerning early release and parole eligibility.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) under section 225(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 can be ordered to run consecutively to another sentence of IPP.
- If a court wishes to order a defendant to serve the remaining period of a previous sentence of imprisonment pursuant to section 116 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 and is also sentencing the defendant to a sentence of IPP, how may that be achieved?
- Whether the sentencing judge correctly assessed the risk posed by the appellants to the public to justify imposing IPP sentences.
- How to properly calculate the minimum term (specified period) for IPP sentences, particularly when consecutive sentences or previous custodial periods are involved.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Jones [1962] Cr.App.R.129 |
Confirmed that consecutive indeterminate sentences or consecutive indeterminate and determinate sentences are permissible but undesirable. |
The court upheld the principle that consecutive IPP sentences are legally permissible but discouraged their use due to practical difficulties. |
| Lang and others [2005] EWCA 2864 |
Addressed the appropriateness of imposing consecutive extended sentences and risk assessments for serious harm. |
Used to support the conclusion that consecutive extended or IPP sentences are usually inappropriate and to assess risk factors for imposing IPP sentences. |
| Haywood [2000] 2 Cr App R (S) 418 |
Established that when imposing life sentences following earlier sentences, the notional determinate term should be increased to reflect previous custodial periods rather than imposing consecutive sentences. |
Applied to instruct that the notional determinate term in IPP sentences should be increased to incorporate any outstanding custodial periods under section 116, rather than ordering consecutive sentences. |
| Szczerba [2002] EWCA Crim 440; [2002] 2 Cr App R(S) 387 |
Clarified the calculation of minimum terms for indeterminate sentences and the use of notional determinate terms. |
Supported the approach of halving the notional determinate term to calculate the minimum term and adjusting for remand time. |
| Jackson [1995] 1 Cr App R (S) 259 |
Considered appropriate sentencing levels for robbery offences involving threats and violence. |
Used as a comparative benchmark for determining the notional determinate sentence in one appellant's case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by examining the statutory framework governing IPP sentences, particularly sections 224 and 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and section 116 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. It acknowledged that no statutory provision prohibits imposing consecutive indeterminate sentences or consecutive indeterminate and determinate sentences, but emphasized that such practice is undesirable due to practical difficulties in administration and parole eligibility.
The court analyzed the factual backgrounds and risk assessments for each appellant, noting that IPP sentences were appropriate in some cases where significant risks of serious harm to the public were established, while in others, such risk was not sufficiently demonstrated, warranting substitution of determinate sentences.
Regarding the calculation of minimum terms, the court adopted the approach of setting a notional determinate term reflecting the totality of offending and any outstanding custodial periods, then halving this term to arrive at the minimum term. This method aligns with the principles in Haywood and Szczerba, ensuring that the minimum term properly accounts for previous sentences and statutory requirements.
The court quashed orders imposing consecutive IPP sentences, holding that it is preferable to impose concurrent IPP sentences with adjusted minimum terms reflecting the total offending and custodial periods. It also clarified that periods under section 116 should be added to the notional determinate term rather than served consecutively before the IPP sentence.
In sum, the court balanced statutory interpretation, precedent, and practical sentencing considerations to provide guidance on the imposition and calculation of IPP sentences, emphasizing clarity, fairness, and administrative feasibility.
Holding and Implications
The court held that while it is legally permissible to impose consecutive IPP sentences or to order IPP sentences consecutive to other custodial periods, such practice is undesirable and should be avoided.
The court quashed the order that two IPP sentences be served consecutively in one appellant's case and substituted concurrent IPP sentences with adjusted minimum terms reflecting the total offending. In another case, the court quashed the IPP sentence and substituted a determinate custodial sentence where the risk of serious harm was not established. The court also clarified that outstanding custodial periods under section 116 should be incorporated into the notional determinate term rather than served consecutively before the IPP sentence.
The implications of this decision are primarily practical and procedural, providing sentencing judges with a clear framework for handling IPP sentences in relation to previous custodial periods and multiple offences. The decision does not establish new precedent on risk assessment but reinforces existing principles and statutory interpretation concerning IPP and life sentences.