CCRC refers another IPP prisoner’s indeterminate sentence to the Crown Court  

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has referred another man’s IPP sentence to the Crown Court after the Court of Appeal recently quashed indeterminate sentences that had been imposed on other men at a similarly young age.

Liam Bennett was found guilty in a magistrates’ court of arson in August 2006 and pleaded guilty to two offences of criminal damage, two offences of burglary and two offences of attempted burglary. He was 17 at the time of the offences but 18 at the time of conviction.

Mr Bennett was sentenced in the Crown Court in May 2007 to an indeterminate sentence of Detention for Public Protection (DPP) in a Young Offender Institution under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. He was given a minimum term of two years and 82 days’ imprisonment.

Two years later Mr Bennett unsuccessfully appealed his sentence to the Court of Appeal. The Court stated that the record should be amended to reflect that Mr Bennett was in fact sentenced to Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) as he was aged 18 at the date of conviction.

Mr Bennett remains subject to that sentence and remains in custody, 19 years later.

He applied to the CCRC for a review of his sentence in December 2024. Following a review it has been decided that there is a real possibility that the Crown Court, properly applying the statutory test and the guidance as developed in recent caselaw, would not sentence him to IPP and would amend his sentence.

The referral arises from work done by the CCRC to examine the possible implications for other IPP/DPP cases arising from the Court of Appeal decisions in the cases of Leighton Williams [2024], Darren Hilling [2024], and Steven Sillitto [2025] who were young adults when they were sentenced.

In quashing those men’s sentences, the Court concluded that the sentencing judges had failed to attach the necessary weight to the age and maturity of the offender before imposing an indeterminate sentence. In particular, maturity should reference emotional and developmental age rather than simply biological age.

Whilst the Court of Appeal has previously considered and upheld the IPP sentence imposed on Mr Bennett, that decision was reached without the benefit of the significant judicial guidance that has followed in the intervening years.

IPP (Imprisonment for Public Protection) sentences were indeterminate sentences intended for serious offenders who were considered dangerous to the public.

DPP (Detention for Public Protection) sentences were similar indeterminate sentences imposed on people aged under 18 who were considered dangerous.

Both types of sentences were abolished in 2012, but current IPP and DPP prisoners have not been freed from the terms imposed on them before abolition.

On 23 April, the Court of Appeal quashed the indeterminate sentences of six IPP/DPP prisoners, three of them following CCRC referrals. Those three were all convicted as young men more than 15 years ago and have remained in custody since then, despite none having been given a tariff of more than three and a half years.

CCRC Chair Dame Vera Baird KC said: “This is another referral from our special project group looking at IPP and DPP sentences and follows our referral of another five similar cases in January.

“The principles around the sentencing of young people point to the need for a cautious, detailed and reflective process which aims to avoid imposing sentences that are inappropriately severe and to ensure that proper consideration is given to the prospect that the young person will change and develop as they mature.

“The judgments that have been made recently by the Court of Appeal provide an important opportunity to try to help other young people who were in similar circumstances at the time of their conviction and who received sentences of this kind.

“Anyone in a similar situation should appeal to the Court of Appeal too. Save in the most exceptional circumstances, no-one can get the help of the CCRC before they have appealed to the Court of Appeal and lost their appeal. In that way the CCRC is the place of last resort. However, if you have exhausted your appeal rights, it is free to get in touch with us for help.”

[ENDS]

Notes to Editor:   

1. The CCRC is an independent body set up under the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. It is responsible for independently reviewing suspected and alleged miscarriages of criminal justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is based in Birmingham and is funded by the Ministry of Justice.      

2. There are currently 16 Commissioners who bring to the CCRC considerable experience from a wide variety of backgrounds. Commissioners are appointed by the monarch on the recommendation of the Prime Minister in accordance with the Office for the Commissioner for Public Appointments’ Code of Practice.   

3. The CCRC usually receives around 1,600 applications for reviews (convictions and/or sentences) each year. Since starting work in 1997, the CCRC has referred around 3% of applications to the appeal courts.      

4. The CCRC considers whether, as a result of new information or a new argument on a point of law, there is a real possibility that the sentence would not be upheld were a reference to be made. New information or argument on a point of law is argument or information which has not been raised during the original sentence hearing or on appeal.  Applicants should usually have appealed first. A sentence can be referred in the absence of an earlier appeal only if there are “exceptional circumstances”.     

5. If a case is referred, it is then for the appeal court to decide whether the sentence should be changed.        

6. More details about the role and work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission can be found at www.ccrc.gov.uk. The CCRC can be found on X, Facebook, Instagram (@the_ccrc) and Linkedin.