In fresh hope for those languishing on abolished indefinite jail terms, the nation’s miscarriage of justice watchdog has referred five cases to the appeal courts.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission announced it was sending the cases to be reconsidered by judges after launching a major review of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) jail terms.
The open-ended sentences, which were scrapped in 2012 and have been described as “psychological torture” by the UN, have left thousands trapped in jail for up to 22 times longer than their original tariff.
This includes many who were children at the time of their offence and handed a type of IPP sentence for under-18s called a Detention for Public Protection (DPP) jail term.
The CCRC launched their review after a string of such sentences were overturned by the Court of Appeal, with eight of 12 cases previous appeals resulting in the sentences being quashed, reduced or substituted.
This includes father-of-three Leighton Williams, who was wrongly handed an IPP sentence with a 30-month tariff for a drunken fight aged 19.
He served almost 16 years under the sentence – mostly in custody – before it was quashed and replaced with a five-year determinate sentence in the Court of Appeal last year. If he had served half of that time in custody, he would have been out of prison by the time he was 22.
Three appeal judges finally set him free on 9 May 2024, aged 36, after finding the original sentencing judge had wrongly counted a previous offence, committed when he was 17, against him.
After he was released, he told The Independent the jail term had robbed him of 16 years, adding: “I have missed out on growing up with my friends. Going out. Getting a trade, being able to work. Just living a normal life.
“I deserved to go to jail – I understand that. There is no doubt about that. But for the length of time – I don’t think you can justify that.”
In a similar ruling in October, Darren Hilling’s IPP sentence was quashed and substituted because the sentencing judge had failed to attach the necessary importance to his age and maturity when he committed his crime aged 21.
The rulings have set a precedent which could impact other IPP and DPP prisoners who were handed the jail terms as teenagers or young men.
The five latest cases include:
- Benjamin Hibbert, who was convicted of three counts of sexual assault at Preston Crown Court in December 2009. He was sentenced to DPP with a minimum tariff of two years. He was aged 15 or 16 at the time of the offences.
- Stuart O’Neill was convicted of rape at Manchester Crown Court in October 2009. He was sentenced to IPP with a minimum term of three years and six months. He applied for leave to appeal his sentence, but it was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in March 2010. He was aged 20 when he was sentenced.
- Jay Davis was convicted of possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear or violence in Portsmouth Crown Court in October 2006. He was sentenced to IPP with a minimum term of nine-months. He was 19 at the time of the offence.
- Luke Ings was convicted of two counts of robbery and two counts of battery at East Berkshire Youth Court in March 2006. He was sentenced at the Crown Court to DPP with a minimum term of one year nine months minus 81 days on remand. He was 17 at the time of the offence.
- James Ward was convicted of arson and criminal damage in June 2006 at Leicester Magistrates’ Court and was sentenced at Leicester Crown Court. He was sentenced to one year minus 63 days on remand. He was 20 at the time of the offence.
The cases of Mr Hibbert, Mr O’Neill and Mr Davis are being referred to the Court of Appeal, and Mr Ings’ and Mr Ward’s cases are being referred to the Crown Court.
CCRC chair Dame Vera Baird KC said: “The CCRC has set up a special project group, following the Hilling, Williams and Sillitto decisions because the principle set out there seems likely to be applicable to other people still on IPPs or DPPs.
“For many years there has not been such a possibility for such people. So, we have set up a focussed team of case review managers and a specialist standing committee of Commissioners to ensure specialist experience and expertise in both investigation and decision-making for these cases.
“We are currently receiving an average of 16 IPP/DPP cases a month and about 110 cases are on our stocks for review. We have also begun a search of earlier IPP/DPP cases which came to us but were not referred to the courts to see if the new cases might have an impact also on them.“I am pleased we have already been able to refer the sentences of these five people.
“The judgments that have been made recently by the Court of Appeal provide an important opportunity to try to help other young people who were in similar circumstances at the time of their conviction and who received sentences of this kind.
“Anyone else in a similar situation and who – importantly – has exhausted their appeal rights is free to get in touch with us.”
