The court considered the justification for extended sentences of imprisonment for public protection: ‘Its justification is the protection of the public. It is indeterminate. Release depends on the judgment of the Parole Board as to the risk which the prisoner presents. The court must fix a minimum term before which release cannot be considered, calculated by reference to the hypothetical determinate term which would have been called for if the indeterminate sentence were not being passed. All those features it shares with a discretionary life sentence’.
Hamadi sought from the court a certificate that a point of law of general public importance was involved in its decision, namely whether the significant risk test was compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. But this point had not been argued in any manner in the appeal in this court, and: ‘There exists a very limited power in this court to re-hear an apparently concluded appeal. It is a power to re-list where by administrative error or otherwise the appellant has been deprived of a proper hearing, so that the apparently concluded appeal can properly be described as a nullity, including cases where the court failed to follow the rules or well established procedure see R v Pinfold; R v Grantham; R v Berry and R v Rowan. An example of the second situation is R v Daniel where the court dealt with a renewed application without being aware that counsel was instructed to appear and thus without hearing him.’
Judges:
Hughes LJ, King J, Barker QC HHJ Common Serjeant
Citations:
[2010] 1 Cr App R (S) 24, [2009] EWCA Crim 840, [2009] Crim LR 669, [2009] 1 WLR 2517
Links:
Statutes:
Cited by:
Cited – Wilkinson and Others, Regina v, Attorney-General’s Reference No 43 of 2009 CACD 6-Oct-2009
The court examined the provisions distinguishing between sentences of imprisonment for life and imprisonment for public protection (IPP) in cases involving very serious gun and drugs crimes.
Held: The Avis case guidelines remained valuable, . .
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 – 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 – Yasain, Regina v CACD 16-Jul-2015
The Court was asked as to the powers of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division to re-open an appeal to correct an error which is said to have caused real injustice in that the error led to the quashing of a sentence lawfully imposed in the Crown . .
Cited – Yasain, Regina v CACD 16-Jul-2015
The Court was asked as to the powers of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division to re-open an appeal to correct an error which is said to have caused real injustice in that the error led to the quashing of a sentence lawfully imposed in the Crown . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Criminal Practice
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.343902