Background
In March 2006, Niki Dean Haycock pleaded guilty at Hull Crown Court to controlling prostitution for gain and two assaults occasioning actual bodily harm against his partner. The Recorder imposed an imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentence on the controlling-prostitution count, with a 30-month minimum term, and concurrent three-year sentences for the assaults.
The offending was grave. Haycock controlled his heroin-addicted and vulnerable partner through drug rationing, intimidation and violence, including two vicious assaults during her pregnancy. He also had a substantial record of previous convictions. However, the controlling-prostitution offence carried a maximum of seven years’ imprisonment, and the assault offences a maximum of five years. None was a “serious offence” for the statutory IPP regime then in force.
The Court’s Holding
The Court granted Haycock leave to appeal and an extension of time of 7,291 days. It held that the IPP sentence was unlawful because none of the offences of conviction met the statutory definition of a serious offence eligible for an IPP sentence. The Crown accepted that the appeal was unanswerable.
The Court quashed the IPP sentence and substituted an extended sentence of seven years on the controlling-prostitution count: five years’ custody and a two-year extension period. On the material available, the Recorder had been entitled to find that Haycock posed a significant risk of serious harm, so an extended sentence was required at the time. The concurrent assault sentences were left undisturbed. Because Haycock had already served far more than the substituted sentence, he was released from the sentence and from licence.
Key Takeaways
- An IPP sentence could not lawfully be imposed for an offence that was not a statutory “serious offence,” regardless of the seriousness of the underlying conduct.
- Where the statutory risk test was met, the lawful alternative in 2006 was an extended sentence, subject to the maximum sentence for the relevant offence.
- The Court urged an urgent system to identify IPP and DPP prisoners who never appealed and to ensure they can obtain advice, while stressing that not every such sentence will be unlawful.
Why It Matters
The judgment illustrates the continuing consequences of sentencing errors in the former IPP regime. Haycock remained incarcerated for almost two decades, apart from a short period on licence, despite the maximum lawful determinate sentence for the relevant offence being seven years.
It also exposes a gap in post-conviction review: cases never brought to the Court of Appeal may not be visible to the appellate system, and may fall outside the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s usual remit.