Michael Hillman asks whether the regime for imprisoning dangerous offenders for public protection is being correctly interpreted
Section 225(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003), provides the circumstances in which a sentencer must impose imprisonment for life as opposed to “imprisonment for public protection” (IPP) in respect of those offenders found to be “dangerous” pursuant to the provisions of Ch 5.
There is to date conflicting authority as to how the test in s 225(2) is to be interpreted, and recent cases suggest considerable emphasis is being placed on risk factors, rather than the seriousness of the offence to be sentenced. Two such conflicting examples are R v Walsh [2008] 1 Cr App R (S) 178(33) and R v Kehoe [2008] EWCA Crim 819. In Walsh the court placed considerable weight, in justifying a life sentence, on probation and psychiatric assessment that the offender was “very dangerous” (para 10).
In quashing a life sentence and substituting an IPP in Kehoe, Mr Justice Openshaw said:
“When, as here, an offender meets the criteria
