The Court of Appeal has quashed the indefinite sentences of six men who were young when they received them. Each was serving Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) or Detention for Public Protection (DPP).
All six were under 21 at sentencing. All have remained in prison ever since. Their lawyers argued that the sentences punished them too harshly, given their age and maturity when convicted.
The court ruled on 23 April. Five of the men then left prison. The sixth awaits a further decision from the court on how long his replacement sentence should be.
DPP is the version of the sentence given to people aged under 18 when sentenced. Abolition of both sentences came in 2012. The change did not help the more than 8,000 people who received them after their creation in 2005, however. They stayed bound by their original terms.
How the cases reached court
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) referred three of the cases to the appeal court. They involved Benjamin Hibbert, Stuart O’Neill and Jay Davis. The referrals formed part of the Commission’s continuing review of IPP and DPP sentences given to young people. It is currently examining more than 150 such cases.
The other three men brought their appeals through their own legal teams, independently of the CCRC. They are Jerry Tolbert, Jordan Webster and Dawayne McLaren.
The court substituted new sentences for the quashed terms. Mr Davis received 18 months, and Mr Tolbert five years. Mr O’Neill received an extended sentence with a custodial element of eight years and an eight-year licence. Mr Webster’s extended sentence has a five-year custodial element and an eight-year licence. Mr McLaren received an extended sentence made up of seven years in custody and five years on licence.
Hope for others
Dame Vera Baird, Chair of the CCRC, welcomed the decision in all six cases. She said the Commission had referred three of the sentences only after careful and detailed reviews.
“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. In her view, the judgments showed why courts must properly weigh age and maturity when passing such sentences.
Dame Vera said the Commission would keep examining other IPP and DPP cases. She urged people to apply if they believed their sentence was affected and had exhausted their appeal rights. She hoped the decision would give hope to the many families whose relatives remain in prison long past their tariff.
UNGRIPP, the family campaign against IPP sentences, also welcomed the ruling. A spokesperson said the case “proves that many original IPP sentences were not only disproportionate but also illegal”. The group called for an immediate review of every IPP sentence. It said people whose earlier appeals had failed could apply again. They could contact the CCRC directly or ask UNGRIPP for appeal forms.
