We represented our client in a successful appeal following a referral by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which resulted in an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) being quashed and replaced with a Hospital Order under sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
Background
Our client was sentenced on 8 July 2009 at Southwark Crown Court after pleading guilty to robbery. He received an IPP sentence with a minimum term of two years, less time spent on remand.
At the time of sentence, the Judge accepted that our client suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and a dissocial personality disorder. The court relied on psychiatric evidence suggesting that although he was mentally disordered, his condition was not of a nature or degree that warranted detention in hospital. It was said that appropriate treatment could be provided within the prison environment.
The sentencing judge also assessed our client as posing a significant risk of serious harm and concluded that an IPP was the appropriate disposal.
An appeal against the length of term was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in 2010. In June 2017, an application was made to the CCRC seeking a review of the IPP sentence. At that stage, there was no fresh psychiatric evidence available. The CCRC concluded that there was no real possibility that the Court of Appeal would overturn the sentence and declined to refer the case.
Fresh psychiatric evidence
We obtained fresh psychiatric evidence from consultant forensic psychiatrists, which demonstrated that our client suffered from a chronic, relapsing psychotic illness. The evidence showed that his condition had been present at the time of sentence and that it was of a nature that warranted treatment in hospital rather than custody.
A further application was made to the CCRC in July 2020. On this occasion, the CCRC concluded that there was a real possibility the Court of Appeal would receive the fresh psychiatric evidence and find that the IPP sentence was wrong in principle. The case was referred back to the Court of Appeal.
Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal accepted the fresh psychiatric evidence and found that our client’s paranoid schizophrenia was of a nature that made hospital treatment appropriate.
The Court found that the IPP sentence was inappropriate and that the correct disposal at the time of sentence would have been a Hospital Order under section 37, together with a Restriction Order under section 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The IPP was quashed and substituted accordingly.
Subsequent sentences successfully appealed
The appeal was further complicated by the fact that our client had been sentenced on three separate occasions after 2009 to terms of imprisonment, each ordered to run consecutively to the IPP.
Following the substitution of the IPP with a Hospital Order, we successfully appealed those consecutive sentences. The Court accepted that the time our client had already spent detained far exceeded the length of those terms and removed the consecutive orders, bringing those sentences to an end.
Outcome
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the IPP sentence, and substituted it with a Hospital Order under sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The Court also allowed the appeals in respect of the subsequent consecutive sentences.
Our client was represented by Julie Ann Boyle, Supervising Solicitor at GT Stewart Solicitors who instructed Paramjit Ahluwalia from 1 Pump Court.
Judgement: Jenkins v R. [2025] EWCA Crim 1657
