These two appeals raised issues as to the evidence or other information which a sentencing court and this court should receive and take into account when the issue of dangerousness is being considered for the purposes of imprisonment for public protection under the 2003 Act.
Held: The exception allowing such evidence is strictly limited. It will include updated pre-sentence and prison reports on conduct in prison after sentence, but not fresh psychiatric or psychological evidence in support of an argument that a finding of dangerousness ought not to have been made or a hospital order should have been made.
Judges:
Thomas LJ, King J, Wide QC HHJ
Citations:
[2011] EWCA Crim 1021, [2012] 1 Cr App R (S) 15, [2011] Crim LR 668, [2012] 1 Cr App Rep (S) 15
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Rogers, Regina v CACD 1-Jul-2016
The court was asked as to as to the circumstances in which s.23 of the 1968 Act applies to fresh evidence or other information which an appellant may seek to adduce before this court on an appeal against sentence.
Held: The rules applicable to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing, Criminal Evidence
Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.432820