The court considered the circumstances required for the imposition of a sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection, and said that a life sentence would only be appropriate if the case was one of the very limited number in which a discretionary life sentence would have been imposed before the enactment of the 2003 Act. The most convenient expression of the pre-2003 Act test was to be found in R v Chapman. R v Kehoe made clear that where the offender was ‘dangerous’ there was no longer any need to protect the public by imposing life imprisonment, because an IPP fulfilled that function and the discretionary life sentence should be preserved for those cases where the culpability of the offender was particularly high or where the consequent offence was particularly grave.
Citations:
[2007] EWCA Crim 3021
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, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.375748
