Category: Criminal Sentencing

Riley, Regina v: CACD 17 May 2021

SG reference of sentence as unduly lenient – 11 years 8 months imprisonment for the attempted murder of AS with a concurrent term of 4 years 8 months for fraud by abuse of his position as holder of a power of attorney relating to AS.
Lord Justice Bean
[2021] EWCA Crim 727
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 19 June 2021; Ref: scu.662502

S, Regina v: CACD 25 Feb 2002

Appeal against sentence for rape, as the result of a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Life sentence imposed because of historic serious violence. The court was asked what were ‘exceptional circumstances’ so as to allow a non-life sentence.
Held: One begins by assuming that someone in the appellant’s position does present a significant risk to the public, but that assumption can be rebutted by the evidence about his particular case.
There had been no violence in his record since the offence in 1989. The evidence did not suggest that there was a significant risk to the public of violent offences in future.
Exceptional circumstances did here exist. The judge’s assessment that six years for the instant offence was correct.
[2002] EWCA Crim 542, [2002] 2 Cr App Rep (S) 104, [2002] Crim LR 592
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Kelly; R v Sandford CACD 29-Dec-1998
The words of the Act imposing mandatory sentences save in exceptional cases are clear, and the word ‘exceptional’ has accepted meanings which are not to be extended by reference to the Convention on Human Rights. Mandatory life sentences were . .
Cited – Offen and Others, Regina v CACD 9-Nov-2000
The court heard appeals against automatic life sentences imposed under the 1997 Act. It was contended that either the interpretation of section 2 of the 1997 Act was affected by section 3 of the 1998, or that section 2 is incompatible with a . .
Cited – Regina v Newman; Regina v Buckland CACD 18-Jan-2000
The fact that a defendant had, at the time of committing an offence, been suffering from an acute mental illness, was not sufficient reason to count as an exceptional reason allowing a judge not to pass a life sentence for a second serious offence. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 June 2021; Ref: scu.269992

Regina v Newman; Regina v Buckland: CACD 18 Jan 2000

The fact that a defendant had, at the time of committing an offence, been suffering from an acute mental illness, was not sufficient reason to count as an exceptional reason allowing a judge not to pass a life sentence for a second serious offence. The case should be looked at in the light of section 2, and the purpose of the Act. Attempted robbery was not a serious offence within the Act but a firearms offence involving an imitation firearm was.
Times 03-Feb-2000, [2000] 1 WLR 1262, [2000] EWCA Crim 1, [2000] 1 All ER 907, [2000] 2 Cr App Rep (S) 217, [2000] Crim LR 307, [2000] 1 Cr App Rep 471
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – S, Regina v CACD 25-Feb-2002
Appeal against sentence for rape, as the result of a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Life sentence imposed because of historic serious violence. The court was asked what were ‘exceptional circumstances’ so as to allow a non-life . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 June 2021; Ref: scu.158651

Regina v G (Sex Offence: Registration): CACD 26 Jan 2000

Where a court came to sentence a defendant for an offence which would make him liable for registration on the Sex Offenders Register, the judge should avoid confusion, by dealing explicitly with the issue, including the need to register, and the period of registration.
Times 26-Jan-2000
Sex Offenders Act 1997
England and Wales

Updated: 17 June 2021; Ref: scu.85264

Regina v Kelly; R v Sandford: CACD 29 Dec 1998

The words of the Act imposing mandatory sentences save in exceptional cases are clear, and the word ‘exceptional’ has accepted meanings which are not to be extended by reference to the Convention on Human Rights. Mandatory life sentences were confirmed.
‘We must construe ‘exceptional’ as an ordinary, familiar English adjective, and not as a term of art. It describes a circumstance which is out of the ordinary course, or unusual, or special, or uncommon. To be exceptional a circumstance need not be unique, or unprecedented, or very rare; but it cannot be one that is regularly, or routinely, or normally encountered.’
Times 29-Dec-1998, [1999] 2 Cr App R(S) 178
Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 2
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – S, Regina v CACD 25-Feb-2002
Appeal against sentence for rape, as the result of a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Life sentence imposed because of historic serious violence. The court was asked what were ‘exceptional circumstances’ so as to allow a non-life . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 June 2021; Ref: scu.85339

Saffa, Regina v: CACD 16 Apr 2021

Appeal from a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment on a plead of guilty to one offence of producing a controlled drug of Class B (cannabis) contrary to s.4(2)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
Held: Allowed – 6 months substituted.
[2021] EWCA Crim 661
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 17 June 2021; Ref: scu.662495

Dixon, Regina v: CACD 26 May 2021

Solicitor General’s application for leave to refer the sentence in this case to the court pursuant to section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 on the grounds that it is unduly lenient.
Lady Justice Thirlwall, DBE
[2021] EWCA Crim 797
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 15 June 2021; Ref: scu.662799

Rooney and Others, Re Attorney General’s Reference (Number 1 of 2005): CANI 11 Nov 2005

The defendants had been convicted or armed robbery. The Attorney General appealed against the sentences saying they were too lenient. Rooney argued that his plea of guilty had been after an indication by the judge and the reference was misguided.
Held: ‘a commercial robbery carried out as a well planned venture, where firearms or imitation firearms are used and where the perpetrators use or are prepared to use violence, the starting point for sentence after a contest should be fifteen years. On a plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity the appropriate starting point is ten years’ imprisonment.’
The court gave detailed guidance as to the practice to be followed in cases where an indication was sought on sentencing, setting out a practice of holding a preliminary hearing to obtain from the trial judge an indication of the possible sentence in the event that a plea of guilty is entered.
Kerr LCJ, Nicholson LJ and Campbell LJ
[2006] NI 218, [2005] NICA 44
Bailii
Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 8(1)
Northern Ireland
Citing:
Cited – Regina v O’Neill CANI 1984
The court gave sentencing guidelines for offences of robbery. Gibson LJ said: ‘In circumstances such as obtain nowadays in Northern Ireland where firearms are frequently used to rob banks and post offices this Court would re-affirm that a sentence . .
Cited – Regina v Colhoun CANI 1988
The Court affirmed a sentence of 10 years imprisonment for the armed robbery of andpound;50 from a small shop: ‘Since the judgment of this court in R -v- O’Neill there has been no diminution in the number of armed robberies. They are very serious . .
Cited – Regina v Turner CACD 1975
The starting point for sentencing for a serious armed robbery or the ‘hold up’ of a security or Post Office vehicle is in the region of 15 years, if firearms were carried and no serious injury inflicted and that the absence of a criminal record . .
Cited – Pearson, Re, Attorney General’s Reference No 1 of 2004 CANI 20-Feb-2004
The Sentencing Advisory Panel consultation paper published in April 2003 should be regarded as providing authoritative guidance as to levels of sentencing in robbery cases. R -v- Turner [1975] 61 CAR 67 remained the touchstone for sentencing ranges. . .
Cited – Regina v McKeown CANI 1999
The Court dismissed appeals against sentences of 12 years imprisonment for conspiracy to rob (following guilty pleas) in circumstances where the offenders, who had no criminal records, burst into the family home of the manageress of a sub post . .
Cited – Regina v Coates CANI 1998
The Court dismissed an appeal against a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment imposed for armed robbery of almost andpound;9,000 from a bank: ‘Armed robbery at banks is a growing form of criminal activity and the efforts of the courts to deter do not . .
Cited – Regina v Kastercum CACD 1972
The court considered when it might be appropriate to impose concurrent sentences: ‘where several offences are tried together and arise out of the same transaction, it is a good working rule that the sentences imposed for those offences should be . .
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 . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 2003) (Rogan) CANI 2001
The court discussed the need to take notes of meetings in chambers between the judge and counsel. The court set out four principles to be applied: ‘1. There should be freedom of access for counsel to judges, but that does not mean freedom to discuss . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference No. 1 of 1991 CANI 1991
The court discussed the use of concurrent sentences: ‘we do not consider that there is a principle that a trial judge necessarily errs if he imposes concurrent and not consecutive sentences. Moreover, we consider that in Northern Ireland concurrent . .
Cited – Regina v McNeill CANI 1993
It is a basic principle that justice must be done in public, for all to see and hear, and all communications between counsel and judge should wherever possible be made in open court. . .
Cited – Regina v Turner CACD 1970
The court considered an appeal where the defendant had entered a plea of guilty but had felt himself under undue pressure from the judge.
Held: The court urged caution in the practice of counsel seeing the judge in his chambers, though . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd HL 1-Feb-1979
The appellants were magazines and journalists who published, after committal proceedings, the name of a witness, a member of the security services, who had been referred to as Colonel B during the hearing. An order had been made for his name not to . .
Cited – Goodyear, Karl, Regina v CACD 19-Apr-2005
The defendant complained that he had pleaded guilty to a charge of corruption on the basis of an indication from the judge that he would not receive a custodial sentence. Having pleaded guilty he had then been sentenced to a six months prison . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 19 of 2004) (Charlton) CACD 2004
The sentencing judge had indicated in chambers to defence counsel, that he was minded not to impose a custodial sentence if a plea was entered to a mooted charge. Prosecuting counsel was present but did not contribute to the discussion although he . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 1996 (Robinson) CACD 1997
When a judge has given an indication as to sentence, that does not preclude the Attorney General from bringing the matter before the Court of Appeal for it to consider whether or not the sentence was unduly lenient. However the indication given by . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 2003) (Rogan) CANI 2001
The court discussed the need to take notes of meetings in chambers between the judge and counsel. The court set out four principles to be applied: ‘1. There should be freedom of access for counsel to judges, but that does not mean freedom to discuss . .

Cited by:
Cited – Mackle, Regina v SC 29-Jan-2014
Several defendants appealed against confiscation orders made against them on convictions for avoiding customs and excise duty by re-importing cigarettes originally intended for export. They had accepted the orders being made by consent, but now . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 June 2021; Ref: scu.234845

Noble, Regina v: CACD 24 Jun 2002

The defendant had been convicted of dangerous driving and causing six deaths by dangerous driving, all from one incident. He appealed against consecutive sentences totalling fifteen years.
Held: Consecutive terms should not normally be imposed for offences which arise out of the same incident. The consecutive sentences for causing several deaths by dangerous driving were quashed. Notwithstanding the numerous deaths there was a single act of dangerous driving.
[2002] EWCA Crim 1713, [2002] Crim LR 676, [2003] RTR 6, [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 65
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.242370

Greenland, Regina v: CACD 28 Jun 2002

The court considered the significance of a guilty plea when sentencing: ‘ . . he is not entitled to the full credit that he would have had had the evidence against him not been so overwhelming and had he not been caught red-handed.’
[2002] EWCA Crim 1748
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Oosthuizen CACD 11-Jul-2005
The defendant appealed his sentence of two years for robbery, saying that it had been wrong to impose a deterrent sentence because of an apparently high number of robberies in the area.
Held: The judge must sentence the defendant before him. . .
Cited – French and Webster, Regina v (Attorney General’s Reference No 14 and No 15 of 2006) CACD 8-Jun-2006
The defendant had been convicted of repeatedly raping a 12 week old girl, and other sexual offences against young girls. After pleading guilty, the judge had passed a life sentence setting the minimum term at six years which was lower because of the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.242369

Regina v Mason: CACD 1995

The defendant’s sentence of four years’ imprisonment following a plea of guilty to an offence of violence in a domestic context was upheld.
[1995] 16 Cr App R(S) 804
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference No 87 of 2006, Regina v Daniel Peter Geddes CACD 24-Oct-2006
The Crown was given leave to appeal what it saw to be an unduly lenient sentence of the defendant following his becoming liable to be sentenced as a repeat offender iunder the 2003 Act. The main offence was that he had threatened his partner’s life . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.247631

Regina v Harrison: CACD 1996

The court considered how to sentence for an assault when the effect was disproportionate to the violence used: ‘A blow sufficient to fracture an egg-shell skull is very much less culpable than one which fractures a normal skull. An unlucky punch in the course of a spontaneous fight is very different from a wholly unprovoked blow to an innocent bystander’.
[1996] 2 Cr App R (S) 250
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Appleby, Regina v (Attorney-General’s Reference (No 60 of 2009) CACD 18-Dec-2009
applebyCACD2009
Each defendant had been convicted of an assault resulting in a death, but where no weapon had been used and where but for the death the charge would have been assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Held: The decision in Furby, while still . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.384382

Palmer, Regina v: CACD 11 Oct 2002

The defendant appealed against a very substantial confiscation order. The prosecution had served notices under sections 71 and 72(1), but the section 72(1) notice was invalid. The judge allowed a second notice to be served, and the case to be adjourned for a later full hearing, at which the order was made.
Held: The service of a valid notice is a necessary condition for the making of such an order, and the court could not correct a mistake of its own motion. Nor did the judge have the power to postpone proceedings, nor to proceed directly to sentencing anticipating service of a notice. The confiscation order of more than pounds 30 million was quashed because of a defect in a prosecutor’s notice.
References: Times 05-Nov-2002, [2002] EWCA Crim 2202, [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 112
Links: Bailii
Judges: Rix LJ, Sir Ian Kennedy
Statutes: Criminal Justice Act 1988 71 72(1)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Disapproved in – Sekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002 (Times 27-Dec-02, [2003] 1 Cr App R 575, [2003] 1 WLR 1655, , [2002] EWCA Crim 2954)
    The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements.
    Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, . .

This case is cited by:

  • Disappoved – Sekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002 (Times 27-Dec-02, [2003] 1 Cr App R 575, [2003] 1 WLR 1655, , [2002] EWCA Crim 2954)
    The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements.
    Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, . .
  • Disapproved – Simpson v Regina CACD 23-May-2003 ([2003] EWCA Crim 1499, Times 26-May-03, Gazette 10-Jul-03, [2004] QB 118, [2003] 3 WLR 337, [2003] Cr App R 36, , [2004] 1 Cr App R (S) 24, [2003] 2 Cr App R 36, [2003] 3 All ER 531)
    The appellant challenged a confiscation order. It was argued that one could not be made unless a proper notice had been given, and none of the offences occurred before 1995. On the assumption that section 1 of the 1995 Act was not in force, did the . .
  • Cited – Regina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005 (, [2005] UKHL 49, , Times 22-Jul-05, [2005] 3 WLR 303, [2006] 1 AC 340, [2006] 1 Cr App R(S) 79, [2006] Crim LR 167, [2005] 4 All ER 321, [2006] 2 Cr App R 20)
    The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . .
  • Wrongly decided – Regina v Knights and Another HL 21-Jul-2005 (, [2005] UKHL 50, , Times 21-Jul-05, [2006] 1 AC 368, [2005] 4 All ER 347, [2005] 3 WLR 330)
    The defendants had been convicted of offences involving dealing with goods on which customs duty had not been paid. After conviction a timetable was set for sentencing and for confiscation proceedings. The House considered the making of the . .
  • Cited – Rowe v Regina CACD 15-Mar-2007 (, [2007] EWCA Crim 635, Times 26-Mar-07)
    The defendant had been convicted of possessing articles for terrorist purposes, namely a notebook with notes setting out how to construct a mortar bomb in his handwriting. There was also a coded list of potential targets.
    Held: The decision in . .
  • Cited – Guraj, Regina v SC 14-Dec-2016 (, [2016] UKSC 65, [2016] WLR(D) 673, [2017] Lloyd’s Rep FC 117, [2017] 1 WLR 22, [2017] 1 Cr App R (S) 32, [2017] Crim LR 320, , , UKSC 2015/0152, , )
    The defendant had pleaded to charges of possession of drugs with intent to supply. He was sentenced, but then the prosecutor was 14 months’ late serving its notice with regard to the confiscation order under section 16. The crown now appealed . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.177738

Wilson, Regina v: CACD 28 Apr 2009

Appeal from whole life sentence on conviction of attempted rape, wounding with intent, and causing a person to engage in sexual activity without her consent. He had been deported from Australia after release from prison for murder and very serious sex assaults. It was conceded that he satisfied the dangerousness criteria.
Held: Taken on their own, these offences would not justify a whole life term. However, these crimes were not isolated. They were committed, shortly after his return to the community, by a man with a lengthy criminal record which included offences of the rape of, and the murder of, elderly females. The punitive element was set at 20 years with a minimum of ten years to be served.
References: [2010] 1 Cr App Rep (S) 11, [2009] Crim LR 665
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Judge LCJ
Statutes: Criminal Justice Act 2003 225
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.347689

Regina v Pisciotto: CACD 27 Jun 2002

The defendant was subject to a confiscation order. The judge had postponed the determination of the amount, but without specifying when it would take place.
Held: The requirement in the Act was mandatory. When deciding to postpone an assessment beyond the six month limitation period, the court must specify the date on which it would be determined. Appeal allowed.
References: Times 19-Jul-2002, Gazette 12-Sep-2002, [2003] 1 Cr App R 68, [2002] EWCA Crim 1592
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Justice Keene, Mr Justice Davis and Judge John Griffith Williams, QC
Statutes: Drug Trafficking Act 1994 3(1)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Regina v Davies CACD 22-May-2001 ([2002] 1 WLR 1806, [2001] EWCA Crim 2902, (2002) Crim LR 224, [2001] All ER (D) 268, [2001] 2 Lloyds Rep 348)
    The judge when sentencing the offender set a timetable for the purpose of determinations under the 1994 Act, requiring disclosure of assets and expenditure by the defendant within 28 days and a prosecutor’s statement within 28 days thereafter.
  • Cited – Regina v Ross CACD 3-Apr-2001 (Times 03-Apr-01, (2001) 2 Cr App R (S))
    . .
  • Doubted – Regina v Copeland CACD 2002 ([2002] EWCA Crim 736, [2002] 2 Cr App R(S) 512)
    The court considered the necessary of any postponment of a dermination of a confiscation order.
    Held: The court rejected the contention that the postponement order must specify the period of postponement. It was pointed out that the word used . .
  • Disapproved in – Sekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002 (Times 27-Dec-02, [2003] 1 Cr App R 575, [2003] 1 WLR 1655, , [2002] EWCA Crim 2954)
    The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements.
    Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, . .
  • Cited – Regina v Davies CACD 22-May-2001 ([2002] 1 WLR 1806, [2001] EWCA Crim 2902, (2002) Crim LR 224, [2001] All ER (D) 268, [2001] 2 Lloyds Rep 348)
    The judge when sentencing the offender set a timetable for the purpose of determinations under the 1994 Act, requiring disclosure of assets and expenditure by the defendant within 28 days and a prosecutor’s statement within 28 days thereafter.

This case is cited by:

  • Disappoved – Sekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002 (Times 27-Dec-02, [2003] 1 Cr App R 575, [2003] 1 WLR 1655, , [2002] EWCA Crim 2954)
    The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements.
    Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, . .
  • Cited – Regina v Knights and Another HL 21-Jul-2005 (, [2005] UKHL 50, , Times 21-Jul-05, [2006] 1 AC 368, [2005] 4 All ER 347, [2005] 3 WLR 330)
    The defendants had been convicted of offences involving dealing with goods on which customs duty had not been paid. After conviction a timetable was set for sentencing and for confiscation proceedings. The House considered the making of the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.174113

Abdi, Regina v: CACD 31 Jul 2007

The appellant had been convicted of a sexual assault on a boy, and recommended for deportation on completion of his sentence. He had not however been served with notice of the possibility of such an order, as required by section 6 of the 1971 Act, and now appealed.
Held: The section clearly required the notice, and the court was now asked whether that was fatal to the order made. Applying Soneji, ‘we do not believe that the court should impute to Parliament an intention that non-compliance with s 6(2) should necessarily render a recommendation for deportation invalid. Unless that were the proper construction of the Act, the ground of appeal based on lack of notice must in this case fail.’ That would not leave the appellant without the ability to challenge the order, and the court considered whether it was appropriate. It was.
References: [2007] EWCA Crim 1913
Links: Bailii
Statutes: Immigration Act 1971 3(5) 3(6) 6
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Regina v Nazari CACD 1980 ((1980) 2 Cr App R (S) 84, (1980) 71 Cr App R 87, [1980] 1 WLR 1366)
    The CACD heard several appeals together, giving guidance as to the general principles to be applied in deciding on recommendations for deportation under the Act. Lawton LJ said that ‘no court should make an order recommending deportation without . .
  • Cited – Regina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005 (, [2005] UKHL 49, , Times 22-Jul-05, [2005] 3 WLR 303, [2006] 1 AC 340, [2006] 1 Cr App R(S) 79, [2006] Crim LR 167, [2005] 4 All ER 321, [2006] 2 Cr App R 20)
    The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . .
  • Cited – Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority 28-Apr-1998 ((1998) 194 CLR 355, [1998] HCA 28, , (1998) 153 ALR 490, (1998) 72 ALJR 841, (1998) 8 Legal Rep 41)
    (High Court of Australia) ‘In our opinion, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales was correct in Tasker v Fullwood in criticising the continued use of the ‘elusive distinction between directory and mandatory requirements’ and the division of . .
  • Cited – Wang v Commissioner of Inland Revenue PC 19-Oct-1994 (Gazette 19-Oct-94, [1994] 1 WLR 1286, [1995] 1 All ER 367)
    (Hong Kong) At first instance the judge found that the deputy commissioner lacked jurisdiction to make two determinations since he had not done so within a reasonable time required by the imperative language of the statute. The Court of Appeal . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.258481

Drieman and others v Norway: ECHR 4 May 0200

References: 33678/96
Ratio: A challenge to the conviction and sentencing of the claimants for disrupting a lawful whaling expedition was held inadmissible. A fine was considered to be proportionate for such direct action.
Jurisdiction: Human Rights
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Roberts and Others v Regina CACD (Bailii, [2018] EWCA Crim 2739, Judiciary)
    The defendants appealed against sentences for causing a public nuisance. They had been protesting against fracking by climbing aboard a lorry and blocking a main road for several days.
    Held: The appeals from immediate custodial sentences were . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 10 December 2018
Ref: 630987

Regina v Pilgrim: CACD 1993

References: [1993] 14 Cr App R(S) 432
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Regina v Biddle, IR CACD (Bailii, [1996] EWCA Crim 1198)
    The defendant appealed sentences of five years for indecent assaults on strangers in public places at night. One was on a girl of 16, and the offences. Were committed within a short time of each other. He had denied the offences despite clear . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 13 July 2017
Ref: 182319

Regina v Rock (Sentencing Remarks); 2 Jun 2016

Links: JUSTICIARY
Coram: HHJ McCreath
Ratio:Southwark Crown Court – The defendant was convicted on five counts of downloading indecent images of children. The images whilst serious were not of the worst kind. The defendant had already attended courses as to his behaviour.
Held: He was made subject to an order restricting his use of the internet other than with a machine which would record his activity.

Last Update: 21-Jun-16
Ref: 565710

Regina v Piggott; 2 Dec 1994

References: Unreported transcript 2 November 1994
Ratio The offender had pleaded guilty to two offences of robbery. He sought to rely on information he had provided to the police in mitigaion. At a hearing before the sentencing judge on 4 November 1993, the police provided the court with a text. At a further hearing on 24 November 1993, defence counsel indicated that there was further relevant material not set out in the text. Prosecuting counsel said he did not know if there was any more information. The judge adjourned sentence for 14 days to enable the defence to put matters before the prosecution. When the case was listed for sentence, there was no new material and the judge proceeded to sentence. The offender appealed and was granted leave on the basis that he had provided material to the court which, if confirmed by the police, would be relevant to sentence. The court directed that the prosecution attend on the appeal and that it should put itself in a position where it could confirm or not confirm the material put forward by the offender. When the appeal was brought on for hearing, no more information had been provided; after argument, the court directed that any relevant information be provided. When the court next sat for the hearing of the appeal, information was provided that broadly confirmed the matters that the offender had sought to have confirmed before the trial judge.
Held: The court was critical of the position taken by the police. It observed: ‘More important the sentencing judge was not made aware of matters of potential relevance to his sentencing decision when the interests of justice required that he should have been given the information now available to this court.
The position facing police officers in the present context is never straight forward and requires careful judgment. However, we reject any suggestion that the decision whether to provide a text or not is simply a matter for the discretion of the police. In principle, if a defendant seeks to put material before the court by way of mitigation, which the court will not begin to consider unless confirmed in writing by the prosecution authority, then accurate information in the appropriate form confirming or refuting, in whole or in part, the assertions made by or on behalf of the defendant should be made available to the sentencing court by the prosecution.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – AXN -v- The Queen CACD (Bailii, [2016] EWCA Crim 590)
    The defendant argued that geater note should have been taken on his sentencing to allow for the assistance he had given to the police after his arrest.
    Held: the current accepted practice is that the tesxt of the letter from the police to the . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 28-May-16
Ref: 564848

The Queen v Johns (TS); 7 Feb 1980

References: (1980) 143 CLR 108, [1980] HCA 3
Links: Austlii
Coram: Mason, Murphy and Wilson JJ
High Court of Australia – Criminal Law (N.S.W.) – Accessory before the fact – Liability – Possible consequences of venture planned with principal in first degree – Sentence of accessory – Whether judge may impose sentence of less duration than life – Crimes Act, 1900 (N.S.W.), ss. 19, 346, 442 (1).
The appellant had been convicted of murder and assault with intent to rob. His role was to drive the principal offender, W, to a rendezvous with a third man, D. The appellant was to wait at the rendezvous while the other two men robbed a known receiver of stolen jewellery. Afterwards the appellant was to take possession of the proceeds and hide them in return for a share. The appellant knew that W was carrying a pistol, and W told him that he would not stand for any nonsense if he met any obstacle during the robbery. In the event the victim resisted and W shot him dead.
The judge had directed the jury that the appellant and D would be guilty if the act constituting the offence committed was within the contemplation of the parties as an act done in the course of the venture on which they had embarked. It was argued on the appellant’s behalf that while this was an appropriate direction in the case of D, who was present and therefore a principal in the second degree, it was a misdirection in the case of the appellant, who was an accessory before the fact. It was submitted that in his case it was necessary for the jury to conclude that it was a likely or probable consequence of the way in which the crime was to be committed that the gun would be discharged so as to kill the deceased.
Held: The High Court unanimously rejected the argument that any distinction was to be drawn between the liability of a principal in the second degree and an accessory before the fact. There was no reason as a matter of legal principle why such a distinction should be drawn. They also said: ‘The narrow test of criminality proposed by the applicant is plainly unacceptable for the reason that it stakes everything on the probability or improbability of the act, admittedly contemplated, occurring. Suppose a plan made by A, the principal offender, and B, the accessory before the fact, to rob premises, according to which A is to carry out the robbery. It is agreed that A is to carry a revolver and use it to overcome resistance in the unlikely event that the premises are attended, previous surveillance having established that the premises are invariably unattended at the time when the robbery is to be carried out. As it happens, a security officer is in attendance when A enters the premises and is shot by A. It would make nonsense to say that B is not guilty merely because it was an unlikely or improbable contingency that the premises would be attended at the time of the robbery, when we know that B assented to the shooting in the event that occurred.
In the present case there was ample evidence from which the jury could infer that the applicant gave his assent to a criminal enterprise which involved the use, that is the discharge, of a loaded gun, in the event that [the victim] resisted or sought to summon assistance. We need not recapitulate the evidence to which we have already referred. The jury could therefore conclude that the common purpose involved resorting to violence of this kind, should the occasion arise, and that the violence contemplated amounted to grievous bodily harm or homicide.’
Last Update: 29-Feb-16 Ref: 560305

Judgment of Death As Pronounced On Earl Ferrers By The Lord High Steward (Lord Henley); 18 Apr 1670

References: [1670] EngR 33, (1670) 2 Eden 384, (1670) 28 ER 947
Links: Commonlii
Laurence, Lord Ferrers, His Majesty, from his royal and equal regard to justice, and his steady attention to our constitution (which hath endeared him in a wonderful manner to the universal duty and affection of his subjects) hath commanded this inquiry to be made, upon the blood of a very ordinary subject, against your Lordship a peer of this realm. Your Lordship hath been arraigned; hath pleaded and put yourself on your peers, and they (whose judicature is founded and subsists in wisdom, honor and justice) have unanimously found your Lordship guilty of the felony and murder charged in the indictment.
It is usual, my Lord, for courts of justice before they pronounce the dreadful sentence ordained by the law, to open to the prisoner the nature of the crime of which he is convicted ; not in order to aggravate or afflict, but to awaken the mind to a due attention to, and consideration of the unhappy situation into which he hath brought himself.
My Lord, the crime of which your Lordship is found guilty, murder, is incapable of aggravation; and it is impossible but that during your Lordship’s long confinement, you must have reflected upon it, represented to your mind in its deepest shades, and with all its train of dismal and detestable consequences.
As your Lordship hath received no benefit, so you can derive no consolation from that refuge you seemed almost ashamed to take under a pretended insanity ; since it hath appeared to us all, from your cross examination of the King’s witnesses, that you recollected the minutest circumstances of facts and conversations to which you and the witnesses only could be privy, with the exactness of a memory more than ordinarily sound : it is therefore as unnecessary as it would be painful to me, to dwell longer on a subject so black and dreadful.
It is with much more satisfaction that I can remind your Lordship, that though
from the present tribunal before which you now stand, you can receive nothing but strict and equal justice ; yet, you are soon to appear before an Almighty Judge, whose unfathomable wisdom is able, by means incomprehensible to our narrow capacities, to reconcile justice with mercy.

Regina v Patel; 7 Nov 2014

Links: Judiciary
Coram: Singh J
Crown Court at Southwark. Remarks of Singh J on the sentencing of the defendant for acquiring a biological toxin, namely Abrin. A first package had been obained via a website, but was discarded. He sought a second package, but by then the seller had been arrested and US police conducted negotiations and he in turn was arrested.
Held: This was the first time an offence under the section of the Act had come for sentencing. 3 years was imposed.
Statutes: Biological Weapons Act 1974 1

Richard Thompson v Regina: CACD 26 Mar 2004

References: [2004] EWCA Crim 669, Times 16-Apr-2004
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lord Justice Thomas
The defendant had been convicted of offences of possessing a large number of indecent images of children.
Held: In such cases, the prosecution should frame the charges following the classification in R v Oliver, with a small number of representative charges out of each category with a comprehensive charge for the balance. The defence should be given adequate time and facilities to check the classifications. It should be clear whether it was alleged that any image was a true or a pseudo image. In this case, and allowing for the mitigation available, the sentence was too long.
Statutes: Criminal Justice Act 1988 160(1) 160(2A)
This case cites:

  • Cited – Regina -v- Oliver etc CACD (Times 06-Dec-02, [2002] EWCA Crim 2766, [2003] 2 Cr App R (S) 15, Bailii)
    The defendants appealed their sentences for possession and distribution of indecent images of children. The court gave detailed sentencing guidelines for the offences. Distinctions were made for the gradations of pornography, from erotic posing . .