Regina v Delucca: CACD 31 Mar 2010

The court was asked as to as to the powers of the court in relation to the minimum term that can be imposed when sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) are passed under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003). The issues that have in the result arisen for decision arise out of the difficulties facing a judge when he concludes that a sentence of IPP is necessary on one of the offences before him, but there are other offences in respect of which, if he had not imposed a sentence of IPP, it would have been necessary to impose a determinate term consecutive to the term he would have imposed on the specified offence.


Thomas LJ, Saunders, Stadlen JJ


[2010] EWCA Crim 710, [2011] 1 WLR 1148, [2010] Crim LR 584, [2011] 1 Cr App R (S) 7, [2010] 4 All ER 290




Criminal Justice Act 2003 225(3)


England and Wales


CitedO’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 by:

CitedRegina v Smith (Nicholas) SC 20-Jul-2011
The defendant committed a series of armed robberies whilst released on licence from a term of life imprisonment. He appealed against an additional sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP), saying it was wrong to have two indeterminate . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.406627