Press Release: Court of Appeal quashes unlawful IPP sentence and criticises “flaw in the system” of IPP sentence appeals

The Court of Appeal today quashed an unlawful sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) imposed almost 20 years ago.

In the case of Haycock, the Court of Appeal granted an extension of time of 7,291 days and allowed the appeal against sentence.

The case arose in an unusual way. Baxter Jephcott of SL5 Legal had been instructed to represent Mr Haycock for a Parole Board review. This was his 12th parole review since he was sentenced in 2006.

While preparing for that review, Mr Jephcott identified that the IPP sentence had been unlawfully imposed. He instructed counsel, Stephen Knight, to represent Mr Haycock in the Court of Appeal.

The offence for which the IPP was imposed carried a maximum sentence of seven years' imprisonment. Under the legislation in force at the time, it did not meet the statutory definition of a "serious offence" for which an IPP could lawfully be imposed. This basic legal error was described as “extraordinary” in the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the IPP sentence was unlawful and described the appeal as "unanswerable". It quashed the IPP and substituted an extended sentence of seven years, comprising a five-year custodial term and a two-year extension period.

As a result of the time Mr Haycock has already served, that sentence has long since expired. The Court noted that he had been imprisoned for almost three times the maximum determinate sentence that could have been imposed for the relevant offence. His detention had continued for almost 18 years beyond the point at which he would first have been eligible for release under the sentence which the Court of Appeal has now substituted.

In the Court’s judgment, the Vice President of the Court of Appeal said:

“We commend all members of the Appellant’s current legal team for the commitment and speed with which they have worked to identify and curtail an enduring serious injustice. Without their endeavours, it would not have been possible for this court to prevent the continuation of that injustice - indeed, it would never have come to light.”

After the judgment was delivered, Mr Haycock said:

“When I was sentenced in 2006, my barrister told me that I had no grounds to appeal. I accepted that advice and, for the last 20 years, believed there was nothing I could do about my sentence. I was shocked when Baxter Jephcott told me that the IPP had been imposed unlawfully. I deeply regret what I did and the harm I caused. I have never sought to excuse my offending. But I did not deserve to spend 20 years of my life behind bars, and I am glad the Court of Appeal has recognised this today in this important judgment.

I am absolutely elated that the IPP is over and that, after all these years, I am finally free. I can now look forward to spending time with my family. I am celebrating with family today. We're going go-karting.”

After the judgment was delivered, Mr Haycock’s solicitor, Baxter Jephcott, commented:

"What is particularly troubling in this case is that this was not a sentencing error on an evaluative question, it was a basic legal error. The Crown Court which imposed the sentence did not have the legal power to impose an IPP at all. Yet the sentence had remained in place for almost 20 years. It is troubling that at no point during Mr Haycock’s sentence, either the Ministry of Justice or Parole Board noted this basic error. Mr Haycock’s case was reviewed a dozen times, at times by senior judges of the Parole Board, and none of them noticed this problem.

"I am extremely grateful to Stephen Knight for the speed with which he advised on and prepared the appeal. I am delighted for Mr Haycock who can now get on with his life.

This case also raises a much wider concern. Mr Haycock's sentence came to light almost by accident, because his papers happened to be examined afresh for a Parole Board review. There may be other people still serving IPP or DPP sentences whose cases have never been appealed and whose sentences have therefore never been scrutinised in this way. The Court of Appeal has pointed out the “flaw in the system” that means unappealed sentences never come to the attention of the court.”

The Court of Appeal concluded that there is a "clear and urgent need" for a system to identify people who remain subject to such sentences, have never appealed, and may need legal advice.

The Court was careful to stress that this does not mean that every historic IPP or DPP sentence is unlawful. Many were lawfully imposed. The concern identified by the Court is that, without a systematic review mechanism, there is currently no way of knowing whether other cases like Mr Haycock's remain unidentified.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham has described the IPP sentence as “a long running injustice” and has promised to review the situation of IPP prisoners. No details of how and when this review will be undertaken have been published.

The UN has described the sentence as “psychological torture”.