Miscarriage of justice watchdog refers five men held on IPP indefinite jail terms for appeal
In a new hope for those suffering from abolished indefinite prison sentences, the agency that oversees the country’s injustices referred five such cases to appeals courts.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has announced it will send cases, all involving teenagers and young men, for reconsideration by judges after launching a comprehensive review of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences.
Open-ended punishments were abolished in 2012 and described as “psychological torture” by the UN. The 2012 ruling did not apply to those already serving sentences, leaving thousands of people in prison up to 22 times longer than their original rate.
This includes many people who were children at the time of their crime and have been given a type of IPP sentence called Detention for Public Protection (DPP) imprisonment for those under 18.
The CCRC launched its review after a number of such sentences were overturned by the Court of Appeal; Eight of the 12 cases resulted in sentences being overturned, reduced or modified in previous appeals.
This includes father-of-three Leighton Williams, who was wrongly given a 30-month duty IPP sentence for a drunken fight when he was 19.
He spent almost 16 years in prison, mostly in remand, before that sentence was overturned in the Court of Appeal two years ago and replaced with a five-year definitive sentence. If he had spent half of this time in custody, he would have been released from prison by the age of 22.
Three appellate judges freed him, then 36, on May 9, 2024, after finding that the original sentencing judge had mistakenly counted against him an earlier crime committed when he was 17.
After his release he said: Independent The prison sentence had stripped him of 16 years and he added: “I missed out on growing up with my friends, going out, doing business, being able to work, just living a normal life.
“I deserved to go to prison. I understand that. There’s no doubt about that. But I don’t think you can justify that for a long time.”
In a similar decision in October, Darren Hilling’s IPP sentence was quashed and varied because the sentencing judge did not give due consideration to his age and maturity when he committed the offense at the age of 21.
The decisions set a precedent that could affect other IPP and DPP prisoners sentenced to prison as teenagers or young men.
The last five cases include:
- Benjamin Hibbert, who was convicted of three counts of sexual assault at Preston Crown Court in December 2009, was sentenced to DPP with a minimum of two years’ duty. He was 15 or 16 years old at the time of the crime.
- Stuart O’Neill, who was convicted of rape at Manchester Crown Court in October 2009, was sentenced to IPP for a minimum of three years and six months. He applied for permission to appeal his sentence but this application was rejected by the Court of Appeal in March 2010. He was 20 years old when he was sentenced.
- Jay Davis was convicted at Portsmouth Crown Court in October 2006 of possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear or violence. Sentenced to IPP for a minimum of nine months. He was 19 years old at the time of the crime.
- Luke Ings was convicted of two counts of robbery and two counts of assault at the East Berkshire Youth Court in March 2006 following a fight in McDonald’s. He was sentenced at the Crown Court to DPP for a minimum of one year and nine months, excluding 81 days in custody. He was 17 years old at the time of the crime.
- James Ward, who was found guilty of arson and criminal damage at Leicester Magistrates’ Court in June 2006, was sentenced to prison at Leicester Crown Court. He was sentenced to one year minus 63 days of detention. He was 20 years old at the time of the crime.
The cases of Hibbert, O’Neill and Davis are sent to the Court of Appeal, while the cases of Ings and Ward are sent to the Crown Court.
Dame Vera Baird KC, chair of the CCRC, said: “The CCRC set up a special projects group following the Hilling, Williams and Sillitto judgments because the principle set out here is likely to apply to other people who are still in IPPs or DPPs.
“For many years there has been no such possibility for such people. That is why we have established a focused team of case investigation managers and a specialist standing committee of Commissioners to provide specialist experience and expertise in both the investigation and decision-making processes of these cases.
“We are currently receiving an average of 16 IPP/DPP cases per month and approximately 110 cases are in stock for review. We have also started investigating previous IPP/DPP cases that came to us but were not referred to the courts to see if the new cases will affect them too.”
“I am happy that we can already refer to the sentences of these five people.
“The recent decisions of the Supreme Court provide an important opportunity to try to help other young people who were in similar situations and received such sentences at the time of their conviction.
“Anyone who is in a similar situation and, importantly, who has exhausted their appeal rights is free to contact us.”
