The controversial Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) scheme, once described by a former Supreme Court justice as "the greatest single stain on our criminal justice system", is back under intense scrutiny. In a significant development, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has referred the indefinite sentences of five men for appeal, citing recent court rulings that highlight failures to properly consider youth and maturity at sentencing.
Landmark Ruling Sparks Wave of Appeals
This decision follows the Court of Appeal's move to quash three prisoners' indeterminate sentences earlier this year. The court found that their young age and level of maturity had not been adequately taken into account when they were originally sentenced. This principle has now opened the door for other individuals still languishing under IPP or its equivalent for children, Detention for Public Protection (DPP).
Dame Vera Baird KC, chair of the CCRC, stated that the judgments provide "an important opportunity to try to help other young people" in similar circumstances. She emphasised that anyone who has exhausted their appeal rights and fits this profile is encouraged to contact the commission.
A Flawed System with Lasting Consequences
IPP sentences were introduced in 2005 with the aim of indefinitely detaining serious offenders deemed a risk to the public. DPP sentences served as the equivalent for individuals under 18. Despite both regimes being scrapped in 2012, the change was not applied retrospectively, leaving thousands in legal limbo.
The scheme has faced widespread condemnation from figures across the political and legal spectrum. Former Labour Home Secretary David Blunkett, who oversaw its introduction, has since criticised it, alongside a UN torture expert, for trapping people in prison often for minor offences and causing profound psychological harm.
The Five Cases Now Under Review
The five men whose sentences have been referred were all relatively young at the time of their sentencing, over fifteen years ago. None had a minimum tariff exceeding three and a half years, yet all remain incarcerated. Their cases are as follows:
- Benjamin Hibbert: Convicted of three counts of sexual assault in 2009 with a minimum tariff of two years. He was aged 15 or 16 at the time of the offences.
- Stuart O’Neill: Sentenced to a minimum of three years and six months for rape in 2009. He was 20 years old at sentencing.
- Jay Davis: Convicted in 2006 of possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear or violence, receiving a nine-month minimum tariff. He was 19 at the time of the offence.
- Luke Ings: Convicted of two counts of robbery and two counts of battery in 2006, with a minimum term of one year nine months. He was 17 at the time.
- James Ward: Convicted of arson and criminal damage in 2006, sentenced to one year. He was 20 at the time of the offence.
The cases of Hibbert, O’Neill, and Davis are being referred to the Court of Appeal, while Ings' and Ward's cases are going to the Crown Court.
An Ongoing Crisis in the Justice System
The CCRC reports receiving an average of 16 IPP/DPP cases each month, with 110 currently on its books for review. Specialist teams have been established to handle these complex and urgent matters. Even for those who are released, the ordeal is not over; IPP/DPP offenders remain on an indefinite licence, meaning they can be recalled to prison at any time, often for non-criminal behaviour.
This latest development underscores the deep and enduring flaws of the IPP system, raising critical questions about justice, rehabilitation, and the treatment of young offenders within the UK's legal framework.
