SENTENCING STATEMENTS

On sentencing, Lord Beckett said:

"This court is used to hearing about some of the worst examples of human behaviour but such depravity as you displayed against young children is beyond my experience. As was said in the aftermath of the trial, this is not typical behaviour. Such extreme abuse of children seems to be rare.

In contrast to your awful abuse, the trial also heard evidence demonstrating the best of human qualities. Children showed extraordinary fortitude, strength and stamina undergoing months and years of interviews as investigators struggled to discover and comprehend the full extent of what you had done to them.

The oldest two children showed further resilience in the pre-recording of their evidence and, in the case of one of them, at the end of the trial directly to the court by a live TV link. Their exceptional courage and perseverance - in the face of threats made by you Iain Owens - has allowed justice to be done.

The children were facilitated by the care and stability provided following their removal in June 2019.  However difficult it must have been for all concerned, a married couple accepted the invitation of the social work department to offer respite for the four children who feature in this case. Care then continued. The new carers’ actions were as kind, caring, generous and selfless as it is possible to imagine that anyone’s could be. From the desperate darkness of their earlier life, their new carers brought sunlight into blighted young lives, offering hope, a home, structure and nurture over a period of years. They continue to care for some of the children.

In passing sentence, I am reflecting precisely your criminal responsibility as set out in the charges where the jury convicted. In my remarks, I will not spell out much detail of the particular forms of sexual abuse that featured beyond observing now that they are about as serious as they could possibly be. In both Scotland and England there are sentencing guidelines but it is recognised that there can be exceptional cases in which the interests of justice may require departure from a suggested range or from other examples of sentencing. There was such a case last year, which your lawyers will know as Miller v HM Advocate 2024 JC 253. Although the circumstances of your case are different, I consider them to constitute another exception. 

I will refer to the children as child A for the oldest, then child B, child C for the youngest of those assaulted and child D for the youngest of all who was neglected as set out in charge 1. I take account of everything said in mitigation by each of your lawyers and the content of your respective reports. I take account of information about your respective states of physical and mental health. I take account of the extent of the criminal records of those of you who have them. None of you has served a prison sentence before. None of you has previously been convicted of a sexual offence. I sentence you only on the charges of which you were convicted.

In light of the evidence I heard, and the content of social work reports I made a risk assessment order in each of your cases. In each case, I have a detailed risk assessment report. In the case of Mr Owens and Mr Forbes, I have alternative views on the risk you present and heard evidence from the respective reporting psychologists. I have carefully considered all of this material, and the submissions made on the evidence and in mitigation.

Your lawyers have invited me to refrain from making orders for lifelong restriction, in most cases proposing that the public would be sufficiently protected if I impose lengthy extended sentences. Each of the reports focuses on the risk you present and social work reports refer to the possibility of imposing an extended sentence.

In light of the risk assessments before me, the law requires that in each of your cases I consider if it is likely that the risk criteria identified by Parliament are met. In practice, this means that I must determine if it is probable that the nature of, or the circumstances of the commission of, the offence, or offences, of which you were convicted, either in themselves or as part of a pattern of behaviour, are such as to demonstrate that you, if at liberty, will seriously endanger the lives, or physical or psychological well-being, of members of the public at large. I have to make that assessment by considering the position now but also looking to the future to consider what the position would be on your release from prison and at the conclusion of your being subject to licence conditions which, in this case, would otherwise be the end of the extension period of an extended sentence.

An order for lifelong restriction cannot be imposed on the drug dealing charges and in this case it is not appropriate to include the charge of neglect but Parliament allows me to take account of such charges.

Parliament set out a method for fixing the punishment part, the time that must pass before you can apply for parole. I must ignore any part of such a sentence necessary for the protection of the public and work out what period of imprisonment would satisfy sentencing requirements of punishment and deterrence. So I would have to strip out any element of imprisonment imposed for public protection. 

In this case, in order to protect the public from serious harm, an extended sentence with a long extension period would be a prominent consideration. In any such case the custodial term would be selected primarily on the basis of punishment and seeking to discourage you and others from committing such dreadfully grave sexual crimes as these.  Nevertheless, it would be appropriate to make some reduction of any notional sentence. 

Parliament also requires, normally, the reduction by half of the remaining period to take account of any possibility of early release being lost if a punishment part is imposed as part of an order for lifelong restriction. 

Each of you faces at least one charge of extreme gravity. You are not all in the same position but each of you has committed at least one charge involving very serious and repeated sexual offending against a very young child. All of you bear criminal responsibility on charge 24, originally charge 30, which includes your inducing a young child to seriously sexually abuse the complainer.  All seven of you will be subject to notification requirements indefinitely.

In each of the following respects, to the extent they apply in your individual cases, there is no suitable alternative to a sentence of imprisonment for the gravity of your crimes; dreadfully depraved sexual abuse revealed in the evidence, drug dealing around children, serious neglect of them and life endangering and, in some cases, murderous assaults.

In the case of each of you, it is necessary to protect the public from you, and to seek to deter you and others from abusing children in all of the ways featuring in this case. Such exceptionally grave conduct must attract severe punishment in order to mark adequately the gravity of your crimes, expressing the abhorrence of the community for such atrocious abuse of vulnerable children in the circumstances of this case.

I take account of the terrible suffering of the children and the consequences they carry with them which are likely to continue. The impact of your conduct on the children is extremely serious and can be expected to be enduring. At the very least, you have inflicted extreme damage on their relationships.

I must take account of the information provided in impact statements from and about the children.

A carer provided a statement on behalf of the two younger children, C and D. The impact of their neglect persisted for years after June 2019 and the effects on child C continue to have a significant effect on her and her situation.

Child B has written with great honesty of both the past and ongoing effects of all that was done to him, and was not done for him.

Child A has written with agonising articulacy. She is able to recognise, and explain, the many consequences for her of what happened. She shows remarkable insight into the impact on the other children. In stark contrast to what was inflicted on her, and its impact, an impression of innate humanity shines through her words.

Before referring to the charges you were convicted of, I must make it clear that drug taking offers no mitigation whatsoever for the sexual abuse, violence and mistreatment inflicted on these young children. If anything, it is aggravating.

In making the following remarks, I use the numbering of the charges as they stood in the final indictment before the jury. The Clerk of Court can supply a table showing how these relate to the original, record indictment.

Sentencing is a complex process in a case like this involving one accused. It is all the more so where there are seven of you. It may help you follow if I explain that broadly speaking, in evaluating risk, I will treat charges 1, 31 and 32 somewhat differently as the law requires. Where any of you stands convicted of sexually abusing a child in more than one charge, I will group the charges committed by that accused against that child and contemplate one sentence for all charges committed by that accused against that child.

Iain Owens

You were convicted of charges 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 (19), 17(21), 18 (22), 19 (23), 21 (26), 24 (30), 31 (39) and 32 (40).

I recognise that you have never served a prison sentence and have only minor previous convictions none of which involved sexual offences. Nevertheless, they are not without significance where, albeit more than 20 years ago, you were convicted of driving whilst disqualified and then breaching the community service order imposed; you have a conviction for attempting to pervert the course of justice in 2003; and in 2018 you breached a community payback order.

When you committed the crimes on this indictment you were in a position of trust. Yours is the worst example in this case of extreme child abuse in gross breach of trust. You caused two children to ingest Class A drugs, with potential to endanger their lives. You dished out routine violence to three young children. Your conduct included repeated acts the jury properly characterised as the attempted murder of child C.  From a very young age, you assaulted her by enclosing her in kitchen appliances when her need for care and attention got in the way of your drug taking. Over a period of years, you prioritised only your drug taking and drug dealing, allowing four young children to suffer extreme neglect. Outside agencies and individuals made considerable efforts to help and support the children. The evidence showed how you impeded and substantially thwarted their efforts. You involved child B in dealing heroin and cocaine, using him to courier these class A drugs around your customers. 

You were found guilty of charge 1 as libelled over a period of three and a half years. On charge 2, assaulting child A to the danger of her life, you were found guilty under a deletion of one of the life-endangering forms of assault specified. You were found guilty of assaulting child B to danger of life on charge 3. On charge 4 you were found guilty of repeated instances of attempted murder of child C up to the age of three and a half.

Over and above these serious crimes, you also committed the most humiliating, degrading and exploitative sexual crimes against young and exceptionally vulnerable children. You began regularly to sexually abuse child A from the age of about 6 as reflected in charge 9 which continued until she was 12. You involved your friend and customer Barry Watson in joining you in sexually abusing her as specified in charge 10, over a number of years before including Paul Brannan and John Clark in this continuing abuse, in addition to Mr Watson. You, Mr Brannan, Mr Watson and Mr Clark repeatedly sexually abused her, until she was 12, as specified in charge 11.  Charge 16 involved you Mr Owens causing child B, then only 8, to sexually abuse child A in one form when she was 10, 11 and 12. On charge 18, you induced child B, then 8 and 9, to sexually abuse child A in another form when she was 11 and 12.

I turn to charge 14. From late 2018 and into 2019, when she was 11 and 12, you induced child A to dance in a sexualised manner and allowed a group of men, including Mr Brannan and Mr Clark, to sexually touch her before they followed your example by perpetrating serious sexual abuse in the most degrading and humiliating of circumstances. Ms Lannery and Ms Williams facilitated, encouraged and applauded your abuse, also encouraged by others, including some who have died. On these regularly repeated occasions, Ms Lannery took payment from those who participated.

Charge 19 discloses that you repeatedly sexually abused child B aged 8 and 9, on one of those occasions with the assistance of Ms Lannery. You and Mr Brannan sexually abused him in a different way, when he was 8, as specified in charge 21. You repeatedly caused him, when he was 6, 7 and 8, to sexually abuse child C, then aged about 1 to 3, as set out in charge 12, encouraged and assisted by Ms Lannery.

On charge 13, you began to grievously sexually abuse child C over two and a half years, aged about 1 to 3. Charge 17 demonstrates that you then carried out further atrocious sexual abuse on child C when she was aged between 2 and 4 along with Ms Lannery, also inducing child A and child B to join in with what you did.

Worst of all, on charge 24, on a number of occasions you sexually abused child C when she was 3, allowing and encouraging Mr Brannan, Mr Forbes, Mr Watson and Mr Clark also to do so in return for payment. You allowed Mr Forbes to film this appalling cruelty, degradation and humiliation physically assisted and facilitated by Ms Lannery and Ms Williams and encouraged by them and others, some of whom who have died.

Given the extreme gravity of what you did and what it reveals about the danger that you present to young children, I am not satisfied that normal licence arrangements would protect the public from you causing serious harm on release from prison.

Whilst there is a basis on which Dr Pratt considers that you present medium risk, that is not a complete answer in your favour. The law permits a court to impose an order for lifelong restriction whether there is an assessment of high risk or medium risk on the Risk Management Authority’s scale. Whilst the court must consider the important risk assessments carried out, and the underlying reasoning behind them, ultimately it is for the court to determine the risk that you present. If satisfied that it is likely, meaning probable, that the risk criteria are met, I must make an order for lifelong restriction.

I have considered all the points made in his reports and in evidence by Dr Pratt alongside Mr Allan’s submissions. Whilst some merit careful consideration, they must be weighed against all of the other information before me. Not least the evidence I heard in the trial and its implications.

Dr Pratt expresses optimism that you can be managed by licence conditions in the future but at no point in his assessments has he taken account of the level of support offered and the oversight to which you and your  household were subject for years by agencies including social work, health visitors, teachers and church volunteers. When it suited your purposes, you were adept at restricting the access of those charged with ensuring the children were cared for and fed. You ensured the children could never speak to them unless you or Ms Lannery was present to ensure they did not disclose your crimes. Your duplicitous success in avoiding detection under such close scrutiny bodes ill for effective monitoring and supervision in the future.

In light of the nature and circumstances of the crimes you committed over a considerable period, the risk assessments before the court and the evidence I heard in the trial illustrating your ability to shield your activities from social work and other officials supporting and monitoring your household I am satisfied that the risk criteria are probably met. In other words, I consider that it is more likely than not that in the absence of lifelong restriction, when released from prison you will seriously endanger the lives, or physical or psychological well-being, of members of the public at large. In your case, any young children or other vulnerable people you are able to access.

If I were not imposing an order for lifelong restriction I would have imposed the following sentences

• on charges 2 and 3 -  a combined sentence of imprisonment for 4 years;

• on charge 4 - 8 years;

• on charges 9, 10, 11, 14 and 18 sexual offences against child A - 22 years;

• on charges 12, 13, 15, 17 and 24 sexual offences against child C -26 years;

• on charges 19 and 21 sexual offences against child B - 11 years

A sentence of 71 years would be disproportionate and I would have reduced the prison term to 43 years. Removing the element of public protection reduces it to a prison term of 36 years. Halving that period as indicated by Parliament gives a notional punishment part of 18 years.

I consider that I should also take account of the offending in charges 1, 31 and 32 in fixing the final punishment part.

On charge 1, I impose a concurrent sentence of imprisonment for 2 years backdated to 14 November 2023.  On charges 31 and 32, I impose, consecutively to the sentence on charge 1 but concurrently with the order for lifelong restriction, a single term of imprisonment for 3 years. To take account of these offences, the punishment part becomes 20 years.

Accordingly, I impose an order for lifelong restriction with a punishment part of 20 years, backdated to 14 November 2023 when you were remanded at the end of the trial. 

Elaine Lannery

You were convicted of charges 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 14, 17(21), 19 (23), 23 (28) 24 (30), 31 (39) and 32 (40).

I recognise that your previous convictions have limited significance now and you have never served a prison sentence.

You have been convicted of serious neglect and dealing in two class A drugs over a significant period. You have been convicted of the attempted murder of child C and assaulting two others to the danger of their lives. On charge 2, involving child A, the jury convicted you of serious conduct involving suffocation which they deleted in convicting Mr Owens.

Over and above those grave crimes, you have been convicted of serious sexual offences against all three of the young children A, B and C on charges 12, 14, 17, 19, 23 and 24. Much of what I said about the offending of Mr Owens applies to you.

I recognise that you have been convicted of fewer charges. As a woman, your role in certain of the charges was often to arrange, facilitate and sometimes to assist sexual penetration by several men, including by holding a very young child down.  You encouraged and applauded what was happening. Whilst on charge 19 there was only one instance of your involvement, much of your other conduct was repeated.

You had direct involvement as a perpetrator in charges 17 and 23. On charge 17, both you and Mr Owens caused children to take part in the dreadful abuse of a very young girl as well as doing so yourself. On charge 23 your purpose was to corrupt a very young girl with a view to facilitating her being sexually abused by others on other occasions.

You sought and accepted payment for some of the sexual abuse which went on. Yours was a gross breach of trust.

Having regard to the crimes you committed, the period over which you committed them and the terms of the risk assessment report, I am satisfied that the risk criteria are probably met.

If I were not imposing an order for lifelong restriction I would have imposed the following sentences:

• on charges 2 and 3 -a  combined sentence of imprisonment for 5 years;

• on charge 4 - 8 years;

• on charges 12, 17, 23 and 24 sexual offences against child C - 22 years;

• on charge 14 repeated sexual offending against child A - 17 years;

• on charge 19 a serious sexual offence against child B - 7 years.

A sentence of 59 years would be disproportionate and I would have reduced the prison term to 36 years. Removing the element of public protection reduces it to 30 years. Halving that period as indicated by Parliament gives a notional punishment part of 15 years.

I consider that I should also take account of the offending in charges 1, 31 and 32 in fixing the final punishment part.

On charge 1, I impose a concurrent sentence of imprisonment for 2 years backdated to 14 November 2023.  On charges 31 and 32, I impose, consecutively to the sentence on charge 1 but concurrently with the order for lifelong restriction, a single term of imprisonment for 3 years. To take account of these offences, the punishment part becomes 17 years.

Accordingly, I impose an order for lifelong restriction with a punishment part of 17 years, backdated to 14 November 2023. 

Lesley Williams

You were convicted of charges 4, 14, 24 (30), 31 (39) and 32 (40).

I note that, albeit they date back to 2004 and 2005, you have three convictions for assault. One is aggravated by robbery and two are aggravated by causing injury. Seven of your convictions were committed when you were on bail. You have previous convictions for being concerned in supplying class A drugs, heroin, in 2015 and 2016 and the evidence in the trial disclosed substantial involvement in supplying both heroin and cocaine over a significant period. Part of this was done in proximity to vulnerable children.

This would itself attract significant punishment, not least  because a third conviction for trafficking class A drugs attracts a minimum, sentence of 7 years but, in this case, it is overshadowed by your serious physical and sexual abuse of young children. This includes the attempted murder of a very young child and appalling sexual abuse of two young children, child A and child C, on repeated occasions, and inducing the involvement of a third, child B, on charge 24. You physically assisted several men as you and others encouraged and applauded what was happening on charge 24.

Whilst it has been suggested that in light of a risk assessment at medium level, I should impose no more than an extended sentence on you, as I have already explained the law does not set an assessment of high risk as a necessary criterion for finding the risk criteria to be met and making an order for lifelong restriction. I am unconvinced by the argument that it was only your association with Paul Brannan leading you to commit such offences and that you would not do so if he could no longer exert such influence in practice.

I note from the social work report that you did not engage with child protection plans and support for your own children. Records suggest that you had unsupervised contact with your own children in breach of bail conditions in these proceedings. You have frequently offended when on bail. In light of your previous convictions, the risk assessment report and the nature of the crimes you committed, and your integral and influential role in their commission, I am satisfied that the risk criteria are probably met.

If I were not imposing an order for lifelong restriction I would have imposed the following sentences:

• on charge 4, whilst you were not in breach of trust as certain others were, you have significant previous convictions for crimes of violence and the appropriate sentence would also be imprisonment for 8 years;

• on charge 14 - 15 years;

• on charge 24 - 17 years.

A sentence of 40 years would be disproportionate and I would have reduced the prison term to 27 years. Removing the element of public protection would reduce it to 22 years. Halving that period as indicated by Parliament gives a notional punishment part of 11 years.

I consider that I should also take account of the offending in charges 31 and 32 in fixing the final punishment part.

On charges 31 and 32, I impose, concurrently with the order for lifelong restriction, a single term of imprisonment for 7 years, backdated to 14 November 2023.

To take account of these offences, the punishment part becomes 14 years.

Accordingly, I impose an order for lifelong restriction with a punishment part of 14 years, backdated to 14 November 2023. 

Paul Brannan

You have no previous convictions but have been convicted of charges 4, 11, 14, 21 (26), 24 (30), 31 (39) and 32 (40). I have already described the nature of the conduct featuring on these charges and will not repeat the detail.

In light of the nature of these crimes and your integral role in them, the information in the social work and risk assessment reports in which you are deemed to present a high risk I am unpersuaded by the argument that I should impose an extended sentence. I am satisfied that the risk criteria are probably met.

If I were not imposing an order for lifelong restriction I would have imposed the following sentences:

• on charge 4, you were convicted of attempted murder of a very young child and an appropriate sentence would be imprisonment for 7 years;

• on charges 11 and 14, serious and repeated sexual offending against child A -18 years;

• on charge 21, serious sexual offending against child B - 8 years;

• on charge 24 -19 years.

A sentence of 52 years would be disproportionate and I would have reduced the prison term to 33 years. Removing the element of public protection would reduce it to 27 years. Halving that period as indicated by Parliament gives a notional punishment part of 13 years and 6 months.

I consider that I should also take account of the offending in charges 31 and 32 in fixing the final punishment part.

On charges 31 and 32, I impose, concurrently with the order for lifelong restriction, a single term of imprisonment for 3 years, backdated to 14 November 2023.

To take account of these offences, the punishment part becomes 15 years.

Accordingly, I impose an order for lifelong restriction with a punishment part of 15 years, backdated to 14 November 2023. 

Scott Forbes

You were convicted only of charge 24 (30) but you filmed what went on and yourself inflicted exceptionally serious sexual abuse on a child of 3 on repeated occasions in the dreadful circumstances disclosed in the evidence. You have a very limited criminal record but it is not without significance that a previous offence was committed when you were on bail.

I have considered the different level or risk you are assessed as presenting in the two risk assessment reports before the court. In light of the evidence I heard in the trial, I am not persuaded by the argument that you were somehow swept along by others to do things you would not have done by yourself. You were entrusted with specific and significant roles in the repeated commission of these crimes. I have already mentioned filming. Sometimes you operated a timer and would go last in the knowledge of what had gone before and the condition of the child. You also bear criminal responsibility for inducing child B to engage in what was happening. In evaluating the competing views on your level of risk, I consider the evidence of your interactions with child A and child B beyond the scope of any of the charges on the indictment and the group activities of which you stand convicted on charge 24 to be significant.

In light of the nature of your repeated criminal conduct committed as a mature adult in mid-life and your integral role on the occasions described, the information in the social work and risk assessment reports in one of which you are deemed to present a high risk I am unpersuaded by the argument that I should impose an extended sentence. I am satisfied that the risk criteria are probably met.

Had I not been imposing an order for lifelong restriction I would have imposed a prison term of 19 years.

Removing the element of public protection would reduce it to 16 years. Halving that period as indicated by Parliament gives a punishment part of 8 years.

Accordingly, I impose an order for lifelong restriction with a punishment part of 8 years, backdated to 14 November 2023. 

Barry Watson

You were convicted of serious and repeated sexual offending on charges 10, 11 against child A and 24 (30) against child C. Your criminal conduct extended over a number of years against two young children. On charges 10 and 11 you performed your depraved activities with others, first with Mr Owens and later with Mr Clark and Mr Brannan. I will not repeat what I have said about the circumstances of charge 24.

Whilst you have two convictions for assault they date back to 2000 and are of little significance now.

You have been assessed as presenting a high risk. Given the nature of the crimes you committed, the period over which you committed them and the risk assessments presented, I am satisfied that the risk criteria are probably met

If I were not imposing an order for lifelong restriction I would have imposed the following sentences:

• on charges 10 and 11 - imprisonment for 16 years;

• on charge 24 - 19 years.

A sentence of 35 years would be disproportionate and I would have reduced the prison term to 23 years. Removing the element of public protection would reduce it to 19 years. Halving that period as indicated by Parliament gives a punishment part of 9 years and 6 months backdated to 14 November 2023.

Accordingly, I impose an order for lifelong restriction with a punishment part of 9 years and 6 months, backdated to 14 November 2023. 

John Clark

You were convicted of charges 11, 14 and 24 (30).

Whilst you have no previous convictions for offending comparable to these crimes, I note a record of offending from 2005 onwards including possession of an offensive weapon that year and assault to injury in 2015. You also have drugs convictions including a serious conviction as recently as 2021. It is of some significance that you have offended when on bail and were in breach of a community payback order

Whilst it has been suggested that in light of a risk assessment at medium level, I should impose no more than an extended sentence on you, as I have already explained the law does not set an assessment of high risk as a necessary criterion for finding the risk criteria to be met and making an order for lifelong restriction. I am unconvinced by the argument that you were somehow swept along by others to behave in a manner you would otherwise not. That suggestion from the risk assessor proceeded on the idea that you were somehow trapped by the need to access drugs from Mr Owens and this somehow led you into committing the appalling crimes which you did, unable to resist peer pressure.

The evidence in the trial was that you were at least at times a drug dealer which you confirmed in your own evidence. It is clear that the material time you associated with, and sometimes lived with, the drug-dealing Ms Williams and Mr Brannan. Accordingly, I reject that premise. So the analysis leading to an assessment of medium risk gets off to a bad start. It then involves speculative hypothesising that despite your entrenched denial you might benefit from psychological treatment. As the risk assessor put it:

“It therefore might be possible at some point in the future for Mr Clark to engage in such treatment whilst in custody. If he can work on some of the underlying factors that are hypothesised to have influenced his offending (eg the vulnerability to social influence) then theoretically this could have a positive impact on his future risk.”

This series of hypotheses contributes to her conclusion that measures short of life-long restriction are arguably sufficient to manage risk.

In light of the nature of your repeated criminal conduct in the charges of which you were convicted, committed as a mature adult in mid-life, the information in the social work and risk assessment reports I am unpersuaded by the argument that I should impose an extended sentence.

Given the nature of the crimes you committed, the period over which you committed them and the risk assessment material, I am satisfied that the risk criteria are probably met

If I were not imposing an order for lifelong restriction I would have imposed the following sentences:

• on charges 11 and 14  - imprisonment for 18 years;

• on charge 24 - 19 years.

A sentence of 37 years would be disproportionate and I would have reduced the prison term to 24 years. Removing the element of public protection would reduce it to 20 years. Halving that period as indicated by Parliament gives a punishment part of 10 years backdated to 14 November 2023.

Accordingly, I impose an order for lifelong restriction with a punishment part of 10 years, backdated to 14 November 2023. 

The orders for lifelong restriction I have imposed on each of you are not sentences of imprisonment for the length of the punishment part. They are sentences of imprisonment for an indeterminate period, sharing some characteristics with a life sentence. You cannot apply for parole until the punishment part is completed.

It does not follow that you will then be released. You will only be released from prison if the Parole Board considers that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that you remain in prison. What you, and the community, should understand is that you may never be released.