Could killers serve longer?
Why were they told they would serve two-thirds in the first place?
Why has the chief constable of Thames Valley Police been talking about challenging the decision to release two of PC Andrew Harper’s killers on licence after they have served half their sentences in prison? Isn’t it normal for prisoners to be released half-way through their sentences — or even earlier?
The statutory duty to release some offenders at the half-way point of a fixed term is to be found in section 244 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. But in January 2020 the then justice secretary Robert Buckland announced that offenders sentenced to seven years or more for manslaughter and other specified offences would serve two-thirds of their sentences in custody. The change was to take effect from April 2020.
Harper, a Thames Valley traffic officer, had been killed in August 2019 and it’s a fundamental principle that sentences are not increased retrospectively. But Buckland was not increasing the sentence for manslaughter, which had always been a maximum of life imprisonment.1 He was merely increasing the proportion that some offenders would serve in prison. So the changes he introduced2 could apply to offences committed earlier — in this case, by offenders sentenced after March 2020 who were 18 or over at the time of sentence.
Mr Justice Edis, as he then was, referred to this when he sentenced Harper’s killers in July 2020. He said:
In all cases I consider that principle requires me to ignore the recently introduced early-release provisions. I must pronounce the appropriate sentence and the new rules mean that Long, Bowers and Cole will not be eligible for release until they have served two-thirds of the period of it.
Calculating the sentences
Henry Long, who drove the car that killed Harper, was 18 at the time of the offence and 19 when he was sentenced. As an adult, he would have received 24 years for manslaughter (and perhaps a whole life order for murder if the jury had been persuaded that he intended to kill Harper). His sentence was reduced to 16 years because of his age and his guilty plea.
The judge told Albert Bowers and Jessie Cole that they were both somewhat younger — 17 at the time of the offence, 18 when sentenced for manslaughter — and not ringleaders. “You also suffer from learning difficulties,” he added, “which make you more likely to follow the lead of someone who is more capable than you are.”
From a starting point of 20 years, their sentences were reduced to 13 years because of their age and immaturity. All three offenders were told they would serve two-thirds of this period in custody and the remainder on licence.
These sentences were subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal. The then attorney general Suella Braverman, who appeared in person, was humiliated by the court for her “unusual submission” that the sentences were unduly lenient because Edis had followed Sentencing Council guidelines.
Life imprisonment
Under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, a court must now impose a sentence of imprisonment for life on an adult offender convicted of unlawful act manslaughter3 against an emergency worker acting as such — unless the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which relate to the offence or the offender and justify not doing so. Euphemistically, person aged 18, 19 or 20 receives a sentence of custody for life under the same conditions and a person aged 16 or 17 receives a sentence of detention for life.
This legislation was introduced in 2022 as a response to Harper’s case. Because it increased the sentence that would be passed on those covered by the change, it could not be made retrospective.
A life sentence is not the same as a whole-life order. As with murder, an offender would be given a minimum term — the tariff — which must be served before the offender can be released on licence.
Comment
If Bowers and Cole had been sentenced four months earlier — or before they turned 18 — they would have been told that to expect release at the halfway point of their sentences, as will happen now.
Some prisoners who were expecting to be released at the halfway point will now serve only a third of their sentences in custody. But I don’t think that would have applied to Bowers or Cole in these circumstances.4
Edis was clearly right to ignore Buckland’s recent reform. If he had reduced the sentences because the offenders were expected to serve longer in custody, that period would now be too short.
And what of the proposed challenges by the chief constable and others? It is very hard to see how the courts could find it unlawful for ministers to bring into effect primary legislation amending the proportion of a sentence that a defined group of offenders must serve in custody.
I shall be writing about the political impact of this case tomorrow.
“Whosoever shall be convicted of manslaughter shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be kept in penal servitude for life.”
The Release of Prisoners (Alteration of Relevant Proportion of Sentence) Order 2020 was revoked on 28 June 2022 by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and replaced with a new section 244ZA of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which does pretty much the same thing. Section 244ZA has now been amended by the Sentencing Act 2026 to reduce “two-thirds” to “one half”. Under regulations made by the former justice minister Lord Timpson in June, this amendment takes effect on 2 September. We now expect ministers to make new regulations deferring the change until October.
So not gross negligence manslaughter or manslaughter as a partial defence to murder.
See section 244ZA(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as amended by section 23(4) of the Sentencing Act 2026.