The Court considered authorities in relation to prosecution appeals against a sentence imposed by the judge where that judge had given an indication of the likely sentence: ‘. . we consider that where an indication is given by a trial judge as to the level of sentencing and that indication is one which prosecuting counsel considers to be inappropriate, or would have considered to be inappropriate if he or she had applied his mind to it, prosecuting counsel should register dissent and should invite the attention of the Court to any relevant authorities as indicated by the Lord Chief Justice in the case of Thompson and Rogers, otherwise if the offender does act to his detriment on the indication which has been given this Court may well find it difficult to intervene in response to a reference made by the Attorney-General.’ Where an indication is given by a trial judge as to the level of sentencing and that indication is one which prosecuting counsel considers to be inappropriate, or would have considered to be inappropriate if he had applied his mind to it, he should invite the attention of the Court to any relevant authorities.
Citations:
[2001] 1 Cr App R (S) 141
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (Nos 8, 9 and 10 of 2002) (Mohammed and others) CACD 2003
The problem of an Attorney General’s Reference against the background of a judicial indication that there might be some non-custodial disposal is one which has troubled this Court on a number of occasions in the past. . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (Number 8 of 2004) (Dawson and Others) CANI 15-Apr-2005
Defendants had been convicted of offences involving supply of cannabis and cocaine, including the evasion of import controls and conspiracy. The sentences were appealed as too lenient.
Held: Where a prosecutor was aware that a plea of guilty . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.224222