IPP sentence on 18 year old quashed by Court of Appeal over 4 years after it was imposed

Mon, 31 Jan 2011

On 28 January 2011 the Court of Appeal quashed an IPP sentence over 4 years after it had been imposed. The minimum term for an offence of robbery had been set by the sentencing court at 6 and half years. Although he had initially received positive advice on appeal, the single judge had refused leave to appeal on 14 February 2007. At that time no application to renew had been made. His tariff expired on 23 August 2009. 
After he had instructed new solicitors (Tyndallwoods, Birmingham) in relation to his parole who in turn instructed James Dixon, an application to renew his appeal was made. The appeal was renewed on the basis that the presumption of dangerousness had been wrongly applied (the appellant being only 18 years old at the time of the offence, as well as on arguments that the ‘significant risk of serious harm’ was not met). 
The Court (Pitchford LJ, Sweeney J and the Recorder of Croydon) quashed the IPP sentence and substituted it with a fixed-term of 6 and half years in YOI detention which would have entitled him to have been released on 23 August 2009 (the time spent of remand having been certified as counting against the sentence). 
This is another illustration of the need to consider whether there is a challenge to an IPP sentence even where it was imposed a long time ago. It also illustrates that one need not be necessarily put off by the refusal of leave by the single judge. 
Mr Quinn was represented by James Dixon, instructed by Nicole Steers of Tyndallwoods Solicitors, Birmingham. 

Related articles

In her article published today in the New Law Journal, “Duty of care: Inadequate safety nets?"...

Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019
Top barristers and eminent speakers in the field of immigration are due to address legal experts in Birmingham and London...

Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019
Visitors to an award-winning Birmingham museum can discover more about the attraction’s artefacts...

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019