header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
27 September 2007 / Ruth Brander , Alison Gerry
Issue: 7290 / Categories: Features , Public
printer mail-detail

Public Law Update

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

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