Liam Bennett [2019] EWCA Crim 629
The appellant was sentenced in 2007 to an IPP with a minimum term of 2 years and 82 days for arson, there were also other periods of detention for less serious offending. He was 17 years old when the arson was committed but 18 at the time of conviction, he is now 30 and remains in custody. He was granted an extension of time and sought to appeal against sentence.
No issue was taken on appeal as to the finding of dangerousness of the length of the minimum term.
The main ground of appeal concerned the proper interpretation of s225 and 226 of the CJA 2003, and in particular whether it is the person’s age at the date of the commission of an offence, or the person’s age at the date of their conviction for the offence which is determinative of whether they are to be dealt with under s225 or 226. It was argued the appellant should have been dealt with under s226 as he was 17 when he committed the offence.
Under s226 it was necessary for the judge to consider whether an extended sentence would be adequate to protect the public from serious harm by the commission by the appellant of further specified offences. In his sentencing remarks the judge did not refer to an extended sentence prior to the imposition of an IPP and he did not specify under which section the sentence was imposed (the court sheet said s226). Therefore, it was argued he imposed the indeterminate sentence under s225 and that this was an error of law.
The respondent argued that the judge imposed the sentence under s225, and this was the only appropriate section as the appellant was 18 at the date of conviction as s226 would only apply where the offender is under 18 when convicted.
Held: it is clear from the judge’s sentencing remarks that he was dealing with the appellant under s225. This was correct based on the appellant’s age at the date of conviction. In those circumstances and having determined the appellant was a dangerous offender, not only was the judge entitled to impose an IPP he was obliged under the terms of s225 to do so. The Court of Appeal was unable to revisit the sentence and the appeal had to be dismissed.
Postscript: it is of concern that the appellant remains in secure conditions 12 years later despite his tariff expiring many years ago, particularly with the risk of institutionalism in this case. “It may be that he needs to be given the chance to prove that he can behave in conditions of reduced security and so be encouraged to progress to ultimate release. We recognise, however, that this is not for us to decide.”