Indeterminate ethics of sentences  

12/05/2008

Recent reports of prison overcrowding and challenges to the lawfulness of sentences of imprisonment for public protection (IPPs) have thrust indeterminate sentences into the limelight. Farrhat Arshad and Kate Stone provide a view on why they are so widely imposed and how they can be avoided in this months' Independent Lawyer (May 2008).

The article covers:

  • The regime
  • The assessment
  • The sentence
  • The scope
  • Measures practitioners can take to protect their clients
  • An assessment of caselaw relating to The Court of Appeal's response to IPP sentence challenges (including for robbery and sexual offences)

Farrhat and Kate conclude:

"The assessment of dangerousness for the purposes of this sentencing regime is a fact-specific exercise and it seems that the Court of Appeal may be reluctant to interfere unless the sentencing judge has departed from the approach set out in Lang or his/her conclusion is unsupported by the information before the court.

Unless the government wishes to continue to see prisons straining at the seams and are unable to offer proper rehabilitative measures to prisoners, radical changes must be made so that indeterminate sentences are reserved for those who can properly be described as dangerous"

For more details about this article please contact Helen Ray on 0161 236 1840.