Indeterminate sentence meaning

In this issue: Public Law case law quarterly—Q3 2025 Equality and Human rights Constitutional and administrative law Brexit SIs Post-Brexit transition guidance Judicial review Public procurement Public sector contracts State security and intelligence Information law Other Public law news LexTalk®Public Law: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Public Law case law quarterly—Q3 2025 The quarterly Public Law case law round-up presents and evaluates significant judgments brought together by the Lexis+® UK Public Law team each quarter. Marking 25 years since the Human Rights Act 1998 took effect, this edition begins with insight into recent human rights jurisprudence. See News Analysis: Public Law case law quarterly—Q3 2025. Equality and Human rights ECtHR rejects prisoner voting claim—Hora v UK In Hora v United Kingdom (Application no 1048/20), the European Court of Human Rights...

Hora v United Kingdom (Application no 1048/20) Background In 2007, Michael Hora was found guilty of two rapes and a sexual assault; he had earlier, in 2000, received a rape conviction. The court imposed an indeterminate sentence for public protection, setting a minimum tariff of four years. Although that tariff ended in 2011, he remains in custody, the Parole Board having declined to order his release (para 5 of the judgment). At the general election on 12 December 2019, section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 prevented him from voting; that provision excludes convicted prisoners serving custodial terms from the franchise (paras 6, 27). He brought a complaint in Strasbourg, asserting that this breached his right to free elections under Article 3 of Protocol No 1, relying on Hirst v UK (No 2) and subsequent authorities. The government argued that the restriction was proportionate, highlighting the gravity of his offences, his reoffending, and his ongoing detention for public protection (para 107)...

Original news R v Docherty [2016] UKSC 62, [2016] All ER (D) 72 (Dec). The Supreme Court rejected the appellant’s challenge to an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP). The IPP had been imposed pursuant to transitional provisions capturing offenders convicted before the sentence was abolished, even though they were sentenced afterwards. The court concluded that this arrangement did not breach ECHR, art 7. What is the significance of this case for practitioners? Before this ruling, appellate engagement with ECHR, art 7 in this country was sparse. This is the only domestic authority to examine the lex mitior principle (the rule that, if after an offender has committed an offence, the law introduces a lighter penalty, the offender should receive that more lenient punishment). Its importance was marked by the secretary of state being allowed to intervene. The judgment offers guidance, articulates key principles, and surveys the law on the commencement of criminal sentencing legislation and on the application of lex mitior in this jurisdiction....

This Practice Note considers the custodial options available for adult defendants. It outlines the framework for imposing life sentences under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) where an offence attracts a maximum of life imprisonment. It also reviews the determinate custodial sentences available for adult offenders. Determinate sentences of imprisonment A standard determinate sentence is a fixed term of custody, in contrast to an indeterminate sentence, eg life imprisonment. Offenders serving indeterminate terms must complete a minimum period before the Parole Board can consider release. Section 237 of the CJA 2003 sets out how a court fixes a determinate custodial term for adult offenders. This is commonly known as a fixed-term sentence and is the most frequently imposed form of imprisonment. The duration of any such term is determined by reference to the statutory maximum available for the particular offence. Almost all imprisonable offences have maximum terms prescribed by statute. In practice, these upper limits are rarely applied in full; for example, the statutory maximum for domestic...