header-logo header-logo

27 September 2007 / Ruth Brander , Alison Gerry
Issue: 7290 / Categories: Features , Public
printer mail-detail

Public Law Update

IMPRISONMENT FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION >>
LEGAL AID REFORMS >>
REPORTING RESTRICTIONS AT CORONER’S INQUEST >>

Scheme of imprisonment for public protection irrational

In R (on the application of Wells) v Parole Board; R (on the application of Walker) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWHC 1835, [2007] All ER (D) 479 (Jul) the court was asked to consider the rationality of the government’s actions in introducing a new sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) while failing to anticipate its effect on the prison population and to provide for the increase in the number of lifer prisoners. There are currently 2,547 prisoners serving IPP sentences, with the median tariff being just 30 months. But the number of funded first stage and second stage prison places, required in order that an IPP (and lifer) prisoner can progress through the system towards release, has not risen since April 2005 when the new sentences were introduced. This is despite the introduction of the new sentences having increased the lifer population by 31% in

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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll