IPP sentence quashed  

The appellant was sentenced in 2006 to imprisonment for public protection (IPP) with a tariff of nine months (less time spent on remand) for sexual offences. He appealed against sentence with leave of the Single Judge.

In the leading case of Lang [2006] 2 Cr App R (S) 3 the Court of Appeal emphasised that before an IPP sentence could be imposed sentencers had to be satisfied that there was a significant risk of the offender committing further specified offences and that he/she would cause serious harm as a result. ‘Serious harm’ is defined as ‘death or serious personal injury, whether physical or psychological’.

It was argued on the appellant’s behalf that there was no evidence that the victims were caused serious harm as a result of the index offences. Neither was there any evidence that the appellant had caused serious harm through previous offending. Whilst the absence of serious harm at the time of sentence was not determinative it was a highly relevant factor for the judge to consider in determining whether there was a significant risk of serious harm in the future. In all the circumstances it was submitted that the sentencing judge had failed to conduct a proper assessment of the appellant’s risk of causing serious harm through the commission of further specified offences and that it had been wrong in principle to impose a sentence of IPP.

The Court of Appeal agreed and quashed the sentence of IPP, substituting a determinate sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment. The Court also varied the terms of a sexual offences prevention order to ensure that the terms were no wider than was necessary for the protection of the public and were drafted sufficiently precisely that the appellant and anyone charged with enforcing the SOPO would know what he must and must not do in order to comply

Comment

The appellant was sentenced under the dangerous offender regime as originally enacted, and therefore if the judge concluded that the appellant was ‘dangerous’ he was required to impose a sentence of IPP. The regime was amended with effect from 14th July 2008 by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

As will be obvious from the above this appeal was lodged over 2 years out of time, the grounds having come to light when the appellant’s case was reviewed in preparation for the parole process. His success shows that prison law practitioners should be alert to the possibility of bringing out of time appeals in appropriate cases.

The case also illustrates the importance of ensuring that prohibitions in a sexual offences prevention order are drafted with care and precision to ensure that they are readily understood and go no further than is necessary in order to protect the public from sexual harm.

Mr S was represented by GCN's Kate Stone and Mark Newby and Rachel Baldwin both of Jordans Solicitors LLP