Teen trapped for 20 years on indefinite jail term should have served 18 months, judges rule

A teenager stuck in prison on an indefinite sentence for almost two decades should only receive an 18-month sentence, judges ruled.

Jay Davis is among six prisoners imprisoned as teenagers and young men whose indefinite sentences were overturned by the Court of Appeal in a major victory for those fighting the injustice of prison sentences for public protection (IPP).

He was 19 when he was sentenced to IPP in October 2006 for possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear or violence. He was only given a minimum tariff of nine months, but spent almost 20 years in prison without release due to the controversial sentence.

But appeal judges last week replaced his indeterminate sentence with a fixed sentence of 18 months, with him due to be released 18 years earlier.

IPP prison sentences were abolished in 2012, but not retroactively; It caused thousands of inmates like Davis to languish indefinitely until the Parole Board approved their release. Others found themselves trapped in a vicious cycle of prison recall, often for breaches of strict license conditions.

Approximately 2,400 people are still sentenced to prison sentences that the United Nations defines as “psychological torture”. This includes many people who were children at the time of their crime and were given a type of IPP sentence called detention for public protection (DPP) for those under 18.

Approximately 100 people took their own lives after losing hope of getting out of prison; but successive governments have resisted calls to remand all remaining IPP prisoners.

In recent months, appellate courts have begun overturning sentences in cases where the sentencing judge did not take into account the offender’s age or immaturity.

Other sentences overturned last week include Benjamin Hibbert, who was committed to the DPP on a two-year minimum tariff in 2009 for three sexual assaults committed when he was 15 or 16. His sentence was overturned, but his case was postponed until the reports to decide on the replacement sentence.

The sentence of Stuart O’Neill, who was sentenced to at least three and a half years of IPP for rape at the age of 20 in 2009, was overturned. Instead, an extended prison sentence of eight years’ imprisonment and eight years’ probation was introduced.

Three cases were flagged for miscarriages by justice watchdog the Criminal Cases Review Commission as part of a comprehensive review of IPP and DPP sentences given to young people.

Commission chair Dame Vera Baird said investigators were examining more than 150 other cases.

“The men were all very young at the time of their conviction and spent many years in custody beyond their original timetable,” he said.

“The court’s decisions reflect the importance of taking proper account of age and maturity when imposing sentences of this nature.

“We will continue to review other IPP and DPP cases and I would encourage anyone who believes their sentence may have been affected and who has exhausted their appeal rights to contact the commission.

“I hope today’s verdict gives hope to the many families who remain in prison with their loved ones well beyond their original timetable.”

The Court of Appeal also overturned the sentences of Jerry Tolbert, Jordan Webster and Dawayne McLaren.

The CCRC has also announced it will appeal to judges for review the case of Liam Bennett, who spent more than half his life in prison after being given an IPP for starting a fire in the attic of a vacant building aged 17.

He said he begged for his freedom in 2024 Independent: “I’ve changed so much in 18 years, I’ve learned so much, that I’m sure I’ll take my chance at free agency and run with it.”

The CCRC launched its review in January after a series of indeterminate sentences were overturned by appeal courts; Eight of the 12 cases resulted in sentences being annulled, 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 served almost 16 years in prison, most of it in custody, before that sentence was overturned two years ago and replaced with a definitive five-year 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.

A spokesperson for the IPP Reform Group (Ungripp) welcomed the latest decisions, adding: “While we celebrate the freedom of these individuals, some of whom were sentenced as young adults and lived in limbo for decades, this decision highlights the systemic failure of sentencing that remains a stain on the British justice system.

“These cases prove that many of the original IPP provisions were not only disproportionate but also legally flawed.

“Despite being abolished in 2012, more than 2,700 people remain subject to IPP sentences. This latest success at the Court of Appeal should act as a catalyst for the government to take decisive action. We call for an immediate review of all IPP cases involving those sentenced as young adults and a commitment to ending the trauma of indefinite detention altogether.”

A spokesperson from the Ministry of Justice said: “It is correct to abolish IPP penalties. The decision to annul individual penalties is the job of the courts.

“While the protection of the public is our number one priority, we are working with organizations and campaign groups to support those still serving these sentences, including access to mental health support and rehabilitation programmes.”