header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
13 March 2008 / Ruth Brander , Phillippa Kaufmann
Issue: 7312 / Categories: Features , Legal services , Procedure & practice , Community care
printer mail-detail

Public Law Update

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

IPP prisoners, Parole Board, Injunctions

IPP PRISONERS

In Secretary of State for Justice v Walker and James [2008] EWCA Civ 30, [2008] All ER (D) 15 (Feb) the Court of Appeal considered the lawfulness of the failure of the secretary of state to provide offending behaviour courses for prisoners serving sentences of indeterminate detention for public protection (IPP) and whether or not that failure rendered the detention unlawful.

The challenge

The respondent prisoners were both serving IPP sentences under s 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003). These sentences comprise two components:

 

  • a minimum term to be served to meet the requirements of retribution and deterrence; and

  • thereafter a preventative component when continued detention will be justified so long as the prisoner continues to pose an unacceptable risk to the public.

 

Such sentences engage Art 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) when the preventative phase is entered and at regular intervals thereafter, and

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll