R v Darren Hilling
[2024] EWCA Crim 1279
R v Paul Elvis Fellowes
5 July 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 819
Court of Appeal
A man was given a very long prison sentence (IPP) for burglary and hurting someone. The court decided that this sentence was too harsh, so they changed it to a slightly shorter sentence but still made sure he’d be supervised for many years to protect the public.
Key Facts
- •Paul Elvis Fellowes convicted on 3 March 2010 of aggravated burglary (count 1), unlawful wounding (count 2), and possessing a bladed article (count 7).
- •Sentenced on 26 November 2010 to imprisonment for public protection (IPP) with a minimum term of six years.
- •Offences involved breaking into the home of elderly couple, assaulting them with swords, and stealing their car.
- •Fellowes had a significant criminal history and a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia.
- •Application for an 11-year extension of time to appeal against sentence granted.
- •Judge considered Fellowes a dangerous offender.
Legal Principles
IPP sentences could only be imposed for serious specified offences.
Section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861
For offences with a maximum life sentence and a dangerous offender, Section 225(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 mandates a life sentence if the seriousness justifies it; otherwise, Section 225(3) allows an IPP sentence if the minimum term is at least two years.
Criminal Justice Act 2003, sections 225(2), 225(3)
Section 227 of the 2003 Act allows extended sentences if the appropriate custodial term is at least four years.
Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 227
Attorney General's Reference No 55 of 2008 emphasizes that IPP should only be used if alternative sentencing packages (like extended sentences) are insufficient to protect the public.
Attorney General's Reference No 55 of 2008 (R v C and Others)
Outcomes
Extension of time to appeal granted.
Applicant's intellectual limitations and lack of proper advice regarding the sentence's unlawfulness and minimum term calculation.
Appeal on count 2 (unlawful wounding) allowed; IPP quashed and replaced with a three-year determinate sentence.
Unlawful wounding was not considered a 'serious' offence for IPP purposes under the legislation at the time.
Appeal on count 1 (aggravated burglary) allowed; IPP quashed and replaced with a 17-year extended sentence (12 years custody, 5 years extension).
The court found that an extended sentence, providing up to 17 years of supervision, was sufficient to protect the public, rendering the IPP unnecessary. The judge's focus on eventual unsupervised release was considered insufficient justification for the IPP sentence.