A discretionary life sentence intended to protect the public could now only be imposed after establishing compliance with the Act in that the sentence was so serious as to deserve a very long sentence, and for an unforeseeable time into the future, he would remain a serious danger to the public.Lord Bingham CJ said: ‘In … Continue reading Regina v Chapman: CACD 22 Jul 1999
Guidelines were given for the imposition of enhanced sentences for violent/sexual offences. Citations: Times 18-Jul-1996 Statutes: Criminal Justice Act 1991 2(2)(b) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Criminal Sentencing Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86286
Appeal against sentence for threats to kill and false imprisonment (six years) – Dismissed Citations:  EWCA Crim 1448,  EWCA Crim 1447 Statutes: Criminal Justice Act 1991 2(2)(b) Criminal Sentencing Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.149112
Sentences extended under the section should not be imposed consecutively with other sentences imposed at the same time, though this might be possible where the other sentence had been previously imposed. Although the authorities were difficult to reconcile, there was no illogicality in imposing extended sentences consecutive to other sentences, where for example, the sentencing … Continue reading Regina v Everleigh: CACD 16 May 2001
A prisoner serving an extended sentence for a sex crime had no right to an oral Parole hearing. Citations: Times 21-Mar-1996 Statutes: Criminal Justice Act 1991 2(2)(b) Criminal Sentencing, Prisons Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.87527
There can be no guidelines for protective sentences for violent and or sexual offences, Each case must be decided upon its on own facts, and the offender. When the court considers what should be the appropriate period to add under the section, the judge has a balancing act. The defendant may need to be prevented … Continue reading Regina v Mansell: CACD 23 Feb 1994
The court faced an appeal against a sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment on pleas of guilty to 6 indecent assaults. The judge imposed 2 years’ imprisonment consecutive on each Count totalling 12 years.
Held: The judge was purporting to exercise . .
A good record was not sufficient to prevent the Judge from imposing an extended sentence of imprisonment for serious violence. . .
The court was right to look beyond the facts of the instant case, and at the defendant’s background history, when assessing whether it was necessary to impose an additional sentence for the protection of the public from a violent offender. . .
A court could not, under its powers to extend a sentence, impose a sentence beyond the normal maximum, but where appropriate it could add extensions to individual sentences and if appropriate make them consecutive to achieve the same result. . .
The defendant appealed sentences of ten years for indecency offences against young boys. He had a long history of such offending. The sentence was the maximum, and was declared by the judge to be an extended sentence. But for that, the appropriate . .
The defendants appealed sentences for serious, violent robberies taking place in burglaries of domestic properties, with long lasting effects on the victims.
Held: The section had been correctly applied. The court reviewed authorities on . .
A Judge need not say what sentence would have been passed but for extended sentence. . .
A sentence extended to protect public must still be proportionate to the offence. . .
Counsel are to be given an opportunity to address the court if an extended sentence was to be considered. . .
The prisoner had been sentenced to a punitive term, and an additional protective term under the Act. After the parole board had decided that he could be released from the punitive part of the sentence, he obtained declaration that the board should . .
It can be wrong in principle to apply section 2(2)(b) in the most serious cases. The section is intended to protect the public where a sentence according with the offence might not be sufficient. In the most serious cases, there is a risk that a . .
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made. Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards of evidence therefore applied, and hearsay evidence was admissible. Nevertheless, the test as to whether it was … Continue reading Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others: HL 17 Oct 2002