Niki Dean Haycock v R

An imprisonment for public protection sentence was unlawful where the offence was specified but did not satisfy the statutory definition of a serious offence. The offence also had to be punishable by life imprisonment or by a determinate term of at least ten years. Where the offender posed the relevant significant risk, an extended sentence was required, subject to the statutory maximum. The court could quash the unlawful sentence and substitute the lawful sentence. The judgment also identified an urgent need to find unappealed IPP and DPP cases, while stressing that not every such sentence was unlawful or would necessarily result in a successful appeal.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Kingston upon Hull to controlling prostitution for gain and two offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. On 27 April 2006, Recorder Ekins imposed an imprisonment for public protection sentence on the first count, with a minimum term of 30 months, and concurrent three-year custodial sentences on the other counts.

In 2026, while preparing for a Parole Board review, the appellant's legal representatives identified that the offences did not meet the statutory definition of serious offences required for an IPP sentence. The appellant applied for leave to appeal and an extension of 7,291 days. The Crown did not resist. The central issues were whether the sentence was unlawful and what sentence should replace it.

Appeal allowed. The court granted leave to appeal and the extension of time. It quashed the IPP sentence on count one and substituted a lawful extended sentence.

1. Under sections 225(1) and 224(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, an IPP sentence could be imposed only for a serious offence. The offence had to be both specified and punishable by life imprisonment or by a determinate term of at least ten years. Count one was a specified sexual offence, but carried a maximum of seven years. The offences on counts four and five were specified violent offences, but carried maximum sentences of five years. None was a serious offence, so the IPP sentence was unlawful.
2. On the information available, the Recorder was entitled to conclude that the appellant posed a significant risk of serious harm to members of the public from further specified offences. Section 227(2) therefore required an extended sentence. The appropriate custodial term was five years. The appropriate extension period was two years, producing a seven-year term, which was also the statutory maximum for count one under section 227(5).
3. The sentences on counts four and five were left undisturbed. They were not the subject of the appeal, the sentence on count one had taken account of all the offending, and altering the concurrent sentences would not have affected the total sentence.
4. The substituted sentence comprised five years' custody and a two-year extension period. In light of time already served, the appellant was released from the sentence and was no longer subject to the licence.

In obiter observations, the court identified a clear and urgent need to identify people still subject to unappealed IPP or DPP sentences and to make them aware of available advice. It referred to R v Davis and other cases [2026] EWCA Crim 743 as showing that referrals were occurring. The court also cautioned that some historic IPP or DPP sentences were lawful and that a discretionary life sentence might have been imposed in some cases.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave to appeal and a 7,291-day extension of time were granted. The appeal was allowed. The IPP sentence on count one was quashed and replaced by a seven-year extended sentence comprising five years' custody and a two-year extension period.
2. Crown Court at Kingston upon Hull: On 27 April 2006, Recorder Ekins imposed an IPP sentence with a 30-month minimum term on count one and concurrent three-year custodial sentences on counts four and five.