CCRC launches new project to investigate IPP/DPP sentences

When we visit prisons, we are often asked about IPP and DPP sentences. We are also aware that there is a gap in knowledge around what investigations we can carry out on behalf of the appeal courts under section 15 of the Criminal Appeal Act. 

By way of an update, we are currently re-examining historic applications to review DPPs or IPPs imposed on children and young adults. Sentences of Imprisonment for Public protection (IPP) are indeterminate sentences, intended for serious offenders who were considered “dangerous” to the public, but whose crimes did not merit a life sentence. Detention for Public Protection (DPP) sentences are also indeterminate and were previously used for individuals under 18 years old. 

IPP and DPP sentences were abolished in 2012, but current prisoners must still obtain Parole Board approval to be released, and significant number of offenders who received an IPP sentence are still in prison today. This is because they were lawful sentences at the time they were handed down.

Last year the Court of Appeal quashed the IPP sentences of Leighton Williams [2024] and Darren Hilling [2024]. Both men were young adults when they were sentenced. In both outcomes, the Court determined that the sentencing judge had failed to attach the necessary importance to the age and maturity of the offender before giving the sentence.  

We have therefore launched a review of historic applications to ensure that any other cases which may benefit from these decisions can be looked at again. A specialist progress group, led by a CCRC commissioner, is working on current applications to see whether any of those cases can potentially be referred to the courts. 

The CCRC cannot refer the sentence to the appeal court just because it has subsequently been abolished, but if you have applied to us before, we may already be re-looking at your application. In some cases, we may decide to re-open applications for a full review. If so, we will write to you and let you know. 

In the meantime, if you have new information relating to your IPP case, please write to us with your full name, prison number, and if applicable your CCRC reference number – and mark it ‘IPP Trawl’. 

Write to the CCRC, 23 Stephenson Street, Birmingham B2 4BH.

Our freephone number 0800 538 5724 

Understanding Section 15 

‘Section 15’ relates to the Court of Appeal’s power to direct the CCRC to carry out investigatory work on its behalf during criminal appeals. 

Most of our work relates to reviewing criminal cases which have already been considered and turned down by the appeal courts and whether any of those cases should be sent back to the court for reconsideration.

Under section 15 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, the Court of Appeal has the power to direct us to investigate an issue on the Court’s behalf.

This means that we can be asked to carry out investigations on cases during their first-time appeals at the Court of Appeal or during applications for leave to appeal.

We then have the discretion to progress investigations so the Court can resolve that case. We deal with Section 15 requests quickly as the Court of Appeal needs an answer from us before it can re-convene to consider that appeal.  

Investigating Police Misconduct 

Section 15 investigations can be extensive and complex. This case involved five men convicted of the shooting and murder of a man in 2002. All the defendants, including the witness, were involved in a regional gang and drug dealing and had received life imprisonment with minimum terms ranging from 25 to 28 years.  

At trial, the prosecution’s case had largely depended on witness testimony.  However post-trial concerns surfaced over how the prosecution and/or police had handled the disclosure of evidence. Serious complaints were made about how one particular police force had handled the witness evidence and its consequent credibility. 

All five defendants later appealed their convictions. At the appeal in July 2009, the Court directed the CCRC to investigate issues of witness credibility, disclosure and police misconduct.  

We used our powers to appoint investigating officers to carry out inquiries on our behalf.  Our wide-ranging investigation uncovered multiple internal police reports that identified major failings in how the investigation was handled. The internal police reports documented complaints of corruption, record falsification and misconduct. Whilst senior officers had been warned about problems in the investigation nobody ensured this information reached prosecutors. 

The Court of Appeal decided that the non-disclosure was so extensive and so serious that the convictions could not be seen as safe and quashed the convictions.  The Crown Prosecution Service did not oppose the appeal or seek a retrial. 

Our service is free, and we will look at any type of criminal conviction. There is no time limit to apply.