In each case the defendant had commited violent or sexual offences and were caught by the new mandatory sentencing provisions, and been made subject to life imprisonment, or detention for public protection, or an extended sentence.
Held: The court set out to summarise, not restate the provisions. ‘[T]he offender must be convicted of a ‘specified offence’, that is one of the 153 categories of violent or sexual offences listed A serious specified offence is punishable, if 18 or over, with 10 years or more. If serious, it may attract life imprisonment or imprisonment for public protection for an adult or detention for life or detention for public protection for those under 18 at conviction, if there is a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm by the commission of further specified offences. ‘Significant risk must be shown in relation to two matters: first, the commission of further specified, but not necessarily serious, offences; and, secondly, the causing thereby of serious harm to members of the public.’
The risk identified must be serious. If a foreseen offence is serious there may be a risk of significant harm. The risk to be seen is to members of the public, which was widely expressed. Individual defendant’s sentences were considered as appropriate.
Rose LJ said: ‘It is not clear whether Parliament, when referring in sections 225(2)(b) and 226(2)(b) . . to the seriousness of an offence or offences being ‘such as to justify’ imprisonment or detention for life, thereby making such a sentence mandatory, was intending to adopt this court’s criteria for the imposition of a discretionary life sentence; see R v Chapman  1 Cr App R(S) 377, or was seeking to introduce a new, more restrictive, criterion for seriousness relating it solely to the offence rather than, also, to the dangerousness of the offender. On the basis that Parliament is presumed to know the law, we incline to the former view.’
Rose LJ, VP, Nelson J, Swift J
Times 10-Nov-2005,  1 WLR 2509,  EWCA Crim 2864,  2 Cr App R(S) 3,  2 All ER 410,  Crim LR 174
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Collard CACD 20-May-2004
The defendant had been convicted of seven offences of making indecent images of children, having downloaded pictures from the Internet. He appealed an indeterminate order banning him from using any computer capable of connection to the Internet.
Cited – Regina (Crown Prosecution Service) v South East Surrey Youth Court QBD 8-Dec-2005
The prosecutor appealed a decision of a Youth Court to try an allegation of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Held: There was a clear policy that youths under 18 shuld be tried in youth courts. New divisions of cases were to be . .
Cited – Norman and Others, Regina v CACD 20-Jul-2006
The defendant said that the judge in setting his sentence had failed correctly to identify the time he had spent in custody awaiting trial, and which would act as time served.
Held: The defendants were entitled to a direction. If the time for . .
Cited – O’Brien, Harris, Moss, Llewellyn and others v Regina CACD 14-Jul-2006
In each case the court was asked whether a sentence imposed under section 225(2) of the 2003 CJA for the protection of the public could be made to run consecutively to the principle sentence for the offence, and how did this link in with the courts . .
Cited – Johnson, Regina v; Regina vHamilton; Attorney General’s Reference (No 64 of 2006) CACD 20-Oct-2006
The court provided explanation of the nature of sentences passed for public protection under the 2003 Act, and in particular whether it was correct to base the assessment on previous convictions.
Held: ‘dangerousness’ is intended to represent . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference No 87 of 2006, Regina v Daniel Peter Geddes CACD 24-Oct-2006
The Crown was given leave to appeal what it saw to be an unduly lenient sentence of the defendant following his becoming liable to be sentenced as a repeat offender iunder the 2003 Act. The main offence was that he had threatened his partner’s life . .
Cited – Reynolds and Others, Regina v CACD 8-Mar-2007
The court considered how it could marry the law against the increase of penaties on appeal with the possible need to correct a judge’s error in sentencing. It summarised the provisions for sentencing for specified offences: ‘[The] regime requires . .
Cited – Terrell, Regina v CACD 21-Dec-2007
The defendant appealed his sentence for making indecent images of children. Additional sentences had been imposed for public protection. He had a previous conviction for a similar offence.
Held: The additional sentence should not have been . .
Cited – Xhelollari, Regina v CACD 12-Jul-2007
Standing alone, a refusal by a convicted first-time sex offender to admit his guilt could warrant a finding of dangerousness. . .
Cited – Penfold v Regina CACD 1-Jun-2012
The defendant having been convicted of sex and other offences, had been sentenced to six years imprisonment for public protection. Working as an aerial and satellite dish installer, whilst working at an elderly lady’s house, he had first drugged her . .
Cited – Sturnham, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board of England and Wales and Another (No 2) SC 3-Jul-2013
From 4 April 2005 until 3 December 2012, English law provided for the imposition of sentences of imprisonment for public protection (‘IPP’). The Court addressed the practical and legal issues resulting from the new system.
Held: The decision . .
Cited – Crees, Regina v CACD 24-Oct-2007
The defendant had been convicted of several offences involing serious assaults. He now appealed against a sentence to imprisonment for public protection. . .
Cited – Monica, Regina (on The Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 14-Dec-2018
Deception as to identity did not undermine consent
The claimant had been an environmental campaigner. She had had a sexual relationship with a man who was unknown to her an undercover police officer. She now challenged the decision not to prosecute him for rape.
Held: Her claim failed. Case . .
Cited – Docherty, Regina v SC 14-Dec-2016
After conviction on his own admission for wounding with intent, and with a finding that he posed a threat to the public, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for public protection. Such sentences were abolished with effect from the day after . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.235021