A man has walked free from prison after the Court of Appeal struck down his indeterminate sentence. Judges ruled that his Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) term was unlawful. The court found he had been held unlawfully for almost 18 years.
Niki Haycock received the IPP sentence in 2006. He had pleaded guilty to controlling prostitution for gain and to two counts of assault.
IPP sentences were indeterminate terms meant for people judged dangerous whose offences did not warrant a life sentence. The Court of Appeal has now quashed Mr Haycock’s sentence.
How the sentence was passed
Mr Haycock received the IPP term in April 2006 for controlling prostitution for gain. It carried a minimum term of two years and six months. For two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, he got a concurrent three-year sentence.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 created IPP, and it came into force in England and Wales in 2005. Courts could impose it only on adults “convicted of a serious offence”.
Under the Act, a serious offence had to meet two tests. It had to be a “specified offence”. It also had to carry a possible life term or a fixed term of 10 years or more.
IPP sentences carried a minimum term, but release did not follow automatically. Instead, prisoners had to satisfy the Parole Board that they no longer posed a threat to the public. Abolition of IPP followed in 2012.
The Recorder who sentenced Mr Haycock said he regarded controlling prostitution for gain as a “serious, specified offence”. He also said he believed Mr Haycock posed “a significant risk of serious harm”.
Why the appeal succeeded
The Court of Appeal disagreed. Controlling prostitution for gain carried a maximum of seven years. It therefore did not count as a serious offence under the 2003 Act. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm carried a maximum of five years, so it did not qualify either.
“The IPP sentence was unlawful, the appeal is unanswerable, and we therefore allow it,” the judgment stated.
The court added that Mr Haycock’s offending was without doubt “extremely serious and aggravated by his antecedent convictions”. It said a long prison term had been inevitable.
In its view, the right sentence for controlling prostitution for gain would have been five years. That term would have run alongside the three-year sentence for the assaults.
On that basis, Mr Haycock should have served no more than five years. He would have become eligible for release after two and a half years. Instead, he has spent 20 years in prison, nearly 18 more than he should have.
Because of the time he has already served, the court’s order means he is now released from the sentence.
Lord Justice Andrew Edis warned of a wider problem. The court cannot identify or review IPP sentences that have never come before it on an application for leave to appeal. He said: “There is a clear and urgent need for a system to be put in place by which … those who remain subject to an IPP sentence and who have not appealed should be identified and made aware of the availability of advice.”
