O'Brien & Ors v R [2006] EWCA Crim 1741 (14 July 2006)

O'Brien & Ors v R [2006] EWCA Crim 1741 (14 July 2006)

Consecutive indeterminate sentences (IPP or life) are not unlawful but are undesirable; the correct approach is to reflect any unserved period (such as under section 116) by increasing the notional determinate term before calculating the minimum term. Sentences of IPP require a proper finding of significant risk of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Crim 1741
Parties
Appellant: Karl O'Brien; Appellant: Christopher Harris; Appellant: Edgar Moss; Appellant: Gareth Llewellyn; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed in part; sentences varied.
Legal Topics
Imprisonment for Public Protection (ipp), Consecutive and Concurrent Sentences, Dangerous Offenders, Minimum Terms, Section 225 Criminal Justice Act 2003, Section 116 Powers of Criminal Courts (sentencing) Act 2000
Criminal Law Sentencing Imprisonment for Public Protection (ipp) Consecutive and Concurrent Sentences Dangerous Offenders Minimum Terms Section 225 Criminal Justice Act 2003 Section 116 Powers of Criminal Courts (sentencing) Act 2000

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karl O'Brien

Appellant

Christopher Harris

Appellant

Edgar Moss

Appellant

Gareth Llewellyn

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sentences of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) can lawfully be ordered to run consecutively to another IPP sentence or to a period under section 116 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000
  2. 2 How courts should structure sentences where an offender is subject to both an IPP and an unserved period of imprisonment under section 116
  3. 3 Whether the appellants posed a significant risk of serious harm justifying IPP sentences

Ratio Decidendi

Consecutive indeterminate sentences (IPP or life) are not unlawful but are undesirable; the correct approach is to reflect any unserved period (such as under section 116) by increasing the notional determinate term before calculating the minimum term. Sentences of IPP require a proper finding of significant risk of serious harm, supported by evidence. Where such risk is not established, IPP is inappropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in part; sentences varied.

Orders

  • For O'Brien: Two IPP sentences to run concurrently, with minimum terms of 6 months and 21 months (minus 128 days remand), respectively.
  • For Harris: IPP sentence quashed; substituted with 3 years' imprisonment, 128 days remand to count as time served.