In September 2011, the Appellant, Baker, was convicted of robbery and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence for public protection (IPP). He was subsequently released by the Parole Board in August 2016. As a result of the IPP, he remained on licence for a minimum of 10 years. In November 2016, he committed a further offence of robbery and was sentenced, having pleaded guilty, in May 2017 to an extended sentence (EDS; pursuant to Criminal Justice Act 2003, s 226A) totalling 10 years 4 months comprising a custodial period of 5 years 4 months with an extended licence period of 5 years. At the time of sentence, the Appellant had already been recalled to prison. In November 2002, the Appellant, Richards, was convicted of murder and sentenced to a mandatory life sentence. He was subsequently released by the Parole Board in June 2017. He remained on licence for the rest of his life. In September 2018, he committed robbery and was sentenced, having pleaded guilty, in December 2018 to an EDS (again, pursuant to s 226A) totalling 11 years comprising a custodial period of 8 years and an extended licence period of 3 years. Again, at the time of sentence, the Appellant had already been recalled to prison. Richards was granted permission to appeal by the single judge and Baker’s application was referred to the Full Court to consider permission, which was granted. The Appellants’ central contention was that it was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive to impose an EDS when they had already been recalled to prison and that as the future assessment of risk that would be undertaken by the Parole Board was sufficient to protect the public (at [7 & 18]). The Appellants also contended that the total of the EDS was excessive. As far as is relevant, section 226A provides that an EDS may be imposed where there is a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission by the offender of further specified offences (s 226A(1)(b)).

中文翻译：

---

延长刑期有“实际好处”吗？R v Baker & Richards [2020] EWCA Crim 176

2011 年 9 月，上诉人贝克被判犯有抢劫罪，并被判处无期徒刑以保护公众 (IPP)。随后，他于 2016 年 8 月被假释委员会释放。 由于 IPP，他持有执照至少 10 年。2016 年 11 月，他又犯了抢劫罪，并于 2017 年 5 月被判处延长刑期（EDS；根据 2003 年刑事司法法第 226A 条），共 10 年 4 个月，其中包括 5 年的监禁期年 4 个月，延长许可期限为 5 年。在宣判时，上诉人已被召回监狱。2002 年 11 月，上诉人理查兹被判犯有谋杀罪并被判处终身监禁。他随后于 2017 年 6 月被假释委员会释放。他的余生都持有执照。2018 年 9 月，他犯有抢劫罪，并于 2018 年 12 月被判处 EDS（再次根据第 226A 条）共 11 年，其中包括 8 年的拘留期和 3 年的延长执照期。同样，在宣判时，上诉人已经被召回监狱。理查兹获得了独任法官的上诉许可，贝克的申请被提交给合议庭考虑许可，并获得批准。上诉人的核心论点是，在他们已经被召回监狱时强加 EDS 原则上是错误的或明显过度，并且假释委员会未来将进行的风险评估足以保护公众（在 [7 & 18]）。上诉人还辩称 EDS 的总数过多。就相关而言，第 226A 条规定，如果犯罪者犯下进一步指明的罪行而对公众造成严重伤害的重大风险，则可施加 EDS（第 226A(1)(b) 条） .