The defendant, after convictions for violence, now appealed against a sentence of detention for public protection for a period of two-and-a-half years.
Held: The court summarised the principles applicable: ‘(i) whilst it is not unlawful to impose consecutive indeterminate sentences, or an indeterminate sentence consecutive to another period of imprisonment, such a practice is undesirable. Common sense suggests that life imprisonment or IPP should start immediately it is imposed;
(ii) where a judge intends to order that a period before which the defendant becomes eligible for parole, should be served consecutively to an existing sentence, or should follow the period of return to prison under section 116 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, then in order to ensure that the sentence imposed includes the balance of the existing sentence, or the period under section 116, he should increase the notional determinate term to reflect that balance or that period (see R v Hayward [2000] 2 Cr App R(S) 418.
(iii) where a judge imposes concurrent and indeterminate sentences for two or more offences with concurrent minimum terms and absent those indeterminate sentences he would have passed consecutive determinate sentences, he may reflect in the notional determinate term the totality of the offending by either choosing the same notional determinate term for all the offences or setting an increased notional determinate term for the most serious offence.’
Sir Igor Judge P QBD, Forbes, Treacy JJ
[2006] EWCA Crim 3148
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.537360