R v Troy Wilkinson

When an offender meets the statutory dangerousness test, imprisonment for public protection (IPP) remains a last-resort disposal. The sentencing judge must expressly consider whether an extended determinate sentence, with any necessary additional orders, would provide appropriate public protection against the offender’s risk. A bare progression from rejecting a discretionary life sentence to imposing IPP is insufficient, particularly because the two sentences share important features. If the judge fails to follow that required approach, the Court of Appeal may revisit the sentence, subject to the interests of justice and any extension of time. The court must assess the decision by the law in force at sentencing, without allowing subsequent time in custody to determine the outcome.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Bradford to inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity, contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003. On 7 January 2010 he received an IPP sentence with a two-year minimum term, together with a Sexual Harm Prevention Order. The sentencing judge found that he was dangerous and posed a high or very high risk to young males.

After a delay of 5,592 days, the applicant sought an extension of time and permission to appeal, arguing that an extended determinate sentence should have been imposed. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge had properly considered whether such a sentence would provide adequate public protection.

The application for an extension of time was granted, leave to appeal was granted, and the appeal was allowed. The order for imprisonment for public protection was quashed and replaced by an extended determinate sentence of 12 years, comprising four years’ custody and an eight-year extended licence period. The Sexual Harm Prevention Order remained part of the protective package.

1. The applicant plainly satisfied the dangerousness test. The issue was the appropriate disposal under the statutory regime in force on 7 January 2010. The 2008 amendments to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 made four options available in a qualifying case: discretionary life imprisonment, IPP, an extended determinate sentence, or a simple determinate sentence.
2. Attorney-General’s Reference (No 55 of 2008) [2008] EWCA Crim 2790 required the sentencing court to consider all alternative and cumulative methods of protecting the public. IPP was, apart from discretionary life imprisonment, a last resort. The judge had to consider specifically and expressly whether an extended determinate sentence would achieve appropriate protection against the offender’s risk.
3. The sentencing remarks referred to the rejection of a discretionary life sentence and then stated, without explaining the intervening analysis, that IPP was necessary. They contained no reference to an extended determinate sentence. Given the substantial common features of IPP and life imprisonment, an explanation was required. The Court inferred that there had been no real consideration of the extended determinate option.
4. The failure to follow the statutory provisions as interpreted by the Court of Appeal justified revisiting the sentence under the principle stated in R v Roberts [2016] EWCA Crim 71. The court assessed the original sentencing decision under the law then in force and without regard to the time actually served. In view of the seriousness of the offending, the persistent pattern of sexual offending, the applicant’s continuing risk, the planning and grooming, and the additional protection of the order, IPP was not an available conclusion to which the judge was entitled. The appropriate sentence was 12 years’ extended determinate imprisonment.
5. The substantive merits and the explanation for delay made it in the interests of justice to grant the very substantial extension of time.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): [2025] EWCA Crim 1573 — extension of time granted, leave to appeal granted, and appeal allowed by quashing the IPP and substituting a 12-year extended determinate sentence.
• Crown Court at Bradford: on 7 January 2010, the applicant was sentenced to IPP with a two-year minimum term and made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order.