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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll