Six Indefinite Sentences for Public Protection (IPP/ DPPs) Quashed

• Three were referred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) who welcomed the Court of Appeal decision
• CCRC is considering another 150 IPP/ DPP cases

Dame Vera Baird KC, Chair of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), today [Thursday 23 April] welcomed the Court of Appeal’s decision to quash the indeterminate sentences of six IPP/DPP prisoners, three of them following CCRC referrals.

Those three – Benjamin Hibbert, Stuart O’Neill and Jay Davis – 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.

The sentences of Mr O’Neill and Mr Davis were quashed today, with the court adjourning Mr Hibbert’s case for further reports relating to the appropriate sentence to be substituted.

The Court of Appeal also quashed the sentences of Jerry Tolbert, Jordan Webster and Dawayne McLaren.

CCRC Chair Dame Vera Baird said: “I welcome the Court of Appeal’s decision in all these cases. The decision to refer three of these men’s sentences followed careful and detailed reviews by the Commission.

“All the men were very young at the time they were sentenced and have spent many years beyond their original tariffs in custody. The Court’s judgments reflect the importance of properly considering age and maturity when imposing sentences of this nature.

“We will continue to examine other IPP and DPP cases, and I encourage anyone who believes their sentence may have been affected—and who has exhausted their appeal rights—to apply to the Commission.

“I hope today’s decision gives hope to the many families with loved ones who remain in prison way beyond their original tariff.”

The CCRC is currently looking at more than 150 IPP/ DPP cases.

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 the 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.

New sentences were substituted for the quashed IPP/ DPP sentences. Davis received a sentence of 18 months imprisonment, O’Neill an extended sentence with a custodial element of eight years and licence of eight years, Webster an extended sentence with a custodial element of five years and licence of eight, McLaren an extended sentence with a custodial element of seven years a licence of five years, and Tolbert a sentence of five years.

All three men whose sentences were sent back to the court by the CCRC – Benjamin Hibbert, Stuart O’Neill and Jay Davis – had their cases referred as part of the CCRC’s ongoing review of IPP/DPP sentences imposed on young people.

The CCRC’s reviews in these cases found a real possibility that the Court would find that sentencing judges had failed to attach the necessary weight to the age and maturity of the offender before imposing an indeterminate sentence. 

The referrals arose from work carried out by the CCRC to examine the implications for other IPP/DPP cases arising from the Court’s decision in the cases of Leighton Williams [2024], Darren Hilling [2024], and Steven Sillitto [2025] who were young adults when they were sentenced.

Notes to editors

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 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 evidence or argument, there is a real possibility that the conviction would not be upheld were a reference to be made. New evidence or argument is argument or evidence which has not been raised during the trial or on appeal.  Applicants should usually have appealed first. A case can be referred in the absence of new evidence or argument or an earlier appeal only if there are “exceptional circumstances”.       
5. If a conviction is referred to the Crown Court it is for the Court to decide whether to uphold the conviction.
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.