The defendant appealed against the imposition of a life sentence with a minimum of four and a half years imprisonment through section 225.
Held: A finding under section 225 would lead to adequate protection against the defendant, and the addition of a life term should be reserved for truly exceptional cases. Pre-2003 cases should not now be followed.
‘When, as here, an offender meets the criteria of dangerousness, there is no longer any need to protect the public by passing a sentence of life imprisonment for the public are now properly protected by the imposition of the sentence of imprisonment for public protection. In such cases, therefore, the cases decided before the Criminal Justice Act 2003 came into effect no longer offer guidance on when a life sentence should be imposed. We think that now, when the court finds that the defendant satisfies the criteria for dangerousness, a life sentence should be reserved for those cases where the culpability of the offender is particularly high or the offence itself particularly grave. It is neither possible nor desirable to set out all those circumstances in which a life sentence might be appropriate, but we do not think that this unpremeditated killing of one drunk by another, at a time when her responsibility was diminished, and after she was provoked, can properly be said to be so grave that a life sentence is required or even justified. Accordingly, we quash the life sentence and substitute a sentence of imprisonment for public protection.’
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Wilkie and Mr Justice Openshaw
Times 28-Apr-2008,  EWCA Crim 819,  1 Cr App R(S) 9
Criminal Justice Act 2003 225
England and Wales
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 – Fort, Regina v CACD 13-Dec-2013
The defendant had been found guilty of manslaughter by virtue of diminished responsibility. He had been 17, and a technically incorrect sentence of life imprisonment had been passed. There had been conflicting diagnoses of his condition between . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.268790