Willcox, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 1 Jul 2009

The prisoner had been convicted in Thailand of drugs offences where certain assumptions were made which would not have been made here. He was transferred to the UK to finish his sentence, and sought to argue that his continued detention in accordance with the original sentence infringed his rights.
Held: The original jurisdiction retained control over the conviction.

[2009] EWHC 1483 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.347308

West, Regina (on the Application Of) v Parole Board: Admn 26 Apr 2002

Mr Justice Turner
[2002] EWHC 769 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromWest, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board CA 13-Nov-2002
The prisoner had been released on licence, but then recalled and re-arrested it being alleged that he was in breach of his conditions. His solicitors sought to represent him at the hearing of the parole board which considered whether to recommend . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.172205

Regina v Thompson: CACD 28 Sep 2021

Application by Her Majesty’s Attorney General pursuant to s.36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for leave to refer the sentences imposed upon the offender for review by this court as she regards the same as unduly lenient.

[2021] EWCA Crim 1513
Bailii
England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.669229

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 appealed saying that the consent had been given following inaccurate legal advice.
Held: The appeals were allowed. The fact that the orders had been made by consent did not necessarily preclude an appeal based on a mistake of law after wrong legal advice.
‘Playing an active part in the handling of goods so as to assist in their commercial realisation does not alone establish that a person has benefited from his criminal activity. In order to obtain the goods for the purposes of section 156 of POCA 2002 or article 8 of the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, it must be established by the evidence or reasonable inferences drawn therefrom that such a person has actually obtained a benefit.’

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
[2014] UKSC 5, [2014] 1 AC 678, [2014] 2 Cr App R (S) 33, [2014] NI 292, [2014] 2 All ER 170, [2014] 2 WLR 267, [2014] Lloyd’s Rep FC 253, [2014] WLR(D) 40, UKSC 2012/0045, UKSC 2012/0044, UKSC 2012/0043, UKSC 2012/0041
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
Customs & Excise Management Act 1979, Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979, Tobacco Products Regulations 2001
Northern Ireland
Citing:
Appeal fromMackle and Others, Regina v CANI 16-Oct-2007
The defendants appealed against confiscation orders made on sentencing for conspiracy to import cigarettes so as to evade customs duty.
Held: Girvan LJ identified the two principal issues as (i) whether the appellants had consented to the . .
CitedRegina v Czyzewski; Regina v Bryan; Regina v Mitchell; Regina v Diafi; Regina v Ward CACD 16-Jul-2003
The court set down detailed guidelines for sentencing for smuggling, but stated they were not to be treated as a straitjacket.
Held: The principle factors will be the level of duty evaded, the sophistication of methods used, the defendant’s . .
CitedRooney 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. . .
CitedBailey, Regina v CACD 15-Nov-2007
The defendant appealed against a confiscation order. . .
CitedHirani, Regina v CACD 11-Jun-2008
. .
CitedChambers, Regina v CACD 17-Oct-2008
The court found that a customs prosecution for evasion of duty by excess tobacco imports was incorrectly founded, after failing to acknowledge a change in the 1992 Regulations brought in in 2001. Also, a day labourer who had merely assisted in . .
CitedMay, Regina v HL 14-May-2008
The defendant had been convicted of involvement in a substantial VAT fraud, and made subject to a confiscation order. He was made subject to a confiscation order in respect of the amounts lost to the fraud where he was involved, but argued that the . .
CitedCrown Prosecution Service v Jennings HL 14-May-2008
The appellant appealed against the refusal to discharge a restraint order under the 1988 Act. The sum found to have been obtained in the later trial vastly exceeded the sum the defendant said had ever come within his control or benefit.
Held: . .
CitedWhite and Others v Regina CACD 5-May-2010
The defendants appealed against confiscation orders made after a finding that they had been involved (separately) in the smuggling of tobacco, suggesting a conflict between the 1992 Regulations and the Directive.
Held: The appeals variously . .
CitedBajwa and Others, Regina v CACD 6-May-2011
The defendants appealed against confiscation orders . .
CitedRegina v Emmett and Another HL 16-Oct-1997
The defendants had been arrested as they unloaded four tons of cannabis from a boat.
Held: Their appeal against a confiscation order was allowed despite the acceptance of a statement when the acceptance had been based on a mistake of law or . .
CitedRegina v J CACD 4-Jul-2000
It does not necessarily follow from the mere possession of drugs that a person is not a mere minder or custodian . .
CitedJohannes, Regina v CACD 5-Dec-2001
. .
CitedRegina v Green HL 14-May-2008
The appellant had been found to have received criminal proceeds along with another. He appealed against an order making him liable for the full amount.
Held: The appeal failed. The defendant’s argument did not face the finding that he had been . .
CitedSivaraman, Regina v CACD 24-Jul-2008
The manager of a service station had accepted deliveries of ‘off road’ diesel on behalf of his employer, who had then sold it on without payment of duty. The judge had felt constrained (‘contrary to his commonsense view of the true benefit’) to . .
CitedAllpress and others v Regina CACD 20-Jan-2009
The court considered the phrase requiring a payment having the quality of a reward received in connection with commission of the relevant offence. Toulson LJ stressed the need to have regard to the whole phrase and its effect as a matter of . .
CitedRevenue and Customs Prosecutions Office v Mitchell CACD 21-Jan-2009
Sentencing judges should be astute to ensure that they are satisfied that agreements on the amount to be recovered by way of confiscation orders are soundly based. . .
CitedKhan and Others, Regina v CACD 12-Mar-2009
The court discussed constricting of the classes of individual liable for duty on tobacco products which the 2001 Regulations introduced. . .
CitedBell and Others v Regina CACD 18-Jan-2011
Appeals against confiscation orders which had been made in respect of evaded duty on tobacco products smuggled into the United Kingdom for resale. The prosecution had wrongly claimed benefit in the sum of the evaded duty as a pecuniary advantage . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Customs and Excise

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521155

Howe, Regina v: CACD 10 Feb 2014

This matter is concerned with the appropriate level of sentencing for the offence of encouraging or assisting suicide pursuant to Section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961. It is a crime which is relatively rarely prosecuted.

[2014] EWCA Crim 114, [2014] WLR(D) 77
Bailii, WLRD
Suicide Act 1961 2(1)
England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521113

Secretary of State for Justice v MM: SC 28 Nov 2018

The respondent had been detained after conviction for arson, under the 1983 Act, and was liable to indefinite detention in hospital for medical treatment and dischargeable only by the Appellant or the First Tier Tribunal, possibly only as a conditional release. He said that that was discriminatory.
Held: (Lord Hughes dissenting) The appeal failed. The MHA does not permit either the FtT or the Secretary of State to order a conditional discharge of a restricted patient subject to conditions which amount to detention or a deprivation of liberty. The Secretary of State has complete control over the conditions imposed on restricted patients and whether the patient should be recalled to hospital.

Lady Hale, President, Lord Kerr, Lord Hughes, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones
[2018] UKSC 60
Bailii, Bailii Summary
Mental Health Act 1983, European Convention on Human Rights 5
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedThe Secretary of State for Justice v RB and Another CA 20-Dec-2011
The court considered and rejected the possibility of the First Tier Tribunal making orders under the 2005 Act which would have the effect of depriving a patient of his liberty. The respondent, now aged 73, suffered a persistent delusional condition . .
CitedP (By His Litigation Friend The Official Solicitor) v Cheshire West and Chester Council and Another and similar SC 19-Mar-2014
Deprivation of Liberty
P and Q were two adolescent sisters without capacity. They complained that the arrangements made for their care amounted to an unjustified deprivation of liberty, and now appealed against rejection of their cases. In the second case, P, an adult . .
At UTMM v WL Clinic and Another UTAA 23-Nov-2015
Mental Health : All – whether for the purposes of Article 5 a restricted patient who has the capacity to do so can give a valid consent to the terms of a conditional discharge that, when it is implemented, will on an objective assessment create a . .
Appeal fromThe Secretary of State for Justice v MM CA 29-Mar-2017
Power of FTT to deprivie patient of liberty
Two patients who had been confined to a secure hospital, appealed against orders which would continue to restrict their liberty upon being conditionally released. The parties now disputed the jurisdiction of the FTT to make such an order.
CitedWinterwerp v The Netherlands ECHR 24-Oct-1979
A Dutch national detained in hospital complained that his detention had divested him of his capacity to administer his property, and thus there had been determination of his civil rights and obligations without the guarantee of a judicial procedure. . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v Mental Health Review Tribunal for Mersey Regional Health Authority Admn 1986
the interpretation of section 73(2) (and section 42(2)) may depend, in part at least, on what is meant by ‘discharge’.
Held: Mann J said that it meant ‘discharge from hospital’, so that a condition could not be imposed that the patient reside . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal Admn 20-May-2002
The Court considered the meaning of ‘discharge’ from a mental health hospital. Elias J held that it meant ‘discharge from detention in hospital’, so that there could be a discharge on condition of residence in another hospital: but he also held that . .
CitedAshingdane v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-1985
The right of access to the courts is not absolute but may be subject to limitations. These are permitted by implication since the right of access ‘by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and place . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
CitedStanev v Bulgaria ECHR 17-Jan-2012
. .
CitedStorck v Germany ECHR 16-Jun-2005
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Preliminary objection rejected ( res iudicata ); Violation of Art. 5-1 (placement in private clinic from 1977 to 1979); No separate issue under Arts. 5-4 and 5-5; No . .
CitedSecretary of State for Justice v RB UTAA 20-Dec-2010
‘The premise for exercise of the tribunal’s powers is that the patient has previously been lawfully detained (so that article 5 has been complied with); but that he does not now need to be detained in a hospital and that some other form of . .
CitedRobertson v The Balmain New Ferry Company Ltd PC 10-Dec-1909
High Court of Australia – The Plaintiff paid a penny on entering the wharf to stay there till the boat should start and then be taken by the boat to the other side. The Defendants were admittedly always ready and willing to carry out their part of . .
CitedHerd v Weardale Steel Coal and Coke Co Ltd HL 30-Jun-1914
The claimant, a miner, said that his work was dangerous, and threw down his tools. He now sought damages saying that his employer had falsely imprisoned him by failing to bring him to the surface until the end of his shift.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Health, Human Rights

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.630739

The Secretary of State for Justice v RB and Another: CA 20 Dec 2011

The court considered and rejected the possibility of the First Tier Tribunal making orders under the 2005 Act which would have the effect of depriving a patient of his liberty. The respondent, now aged 73, suffered a persistent delusional condition and was a ‘restricted patient’.

Maurice Kay LJ VP, Arden, Moses LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 1608, (2012) 124 BMLR 13, [2012] 1 WLR 2043, [2012] AACR 31, [2012] MHLR 131, [2011] WLR (D) 379, (2012) 124 BMLR 13
Bailii, WLRD
Mental Health Act 1983
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedSecretary of State for Justice v MM SC 28-Nov-2018
The respondent had been detained after conviction for arson, under the 1983 Act, and was liable to indefinite detention in hospital for medical treatment and dischargeable only by the Appellant or the First Tier Tribunal, possibly only as a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.450118

Fort, Regina v: CACD 13 Dec 2013

The defendant had been found guilty of manslaughter by virtue of diminished responsibility. He had been 17, and a technically incorrect sentence of life imprisonment had been passed. There had been conflicting diagnoses of his condition between dissociative and schizoid personality disorders.
Held: The sentencing judge had to ask whether he was required to impose on the appellant a sentence of imprisonment for life, and: ‘in a case such as the present . . the sentencing judge has to evaluate whether, given the history of the offender up to the time that the relevant offence was committed, the risk of committing further offences is one that would be triggered by virtue a relapse in the mental condition of the offender or by virtue of a relapse into a criminal lifestyle. . . if, in the opinion of the court, the offender poses a significant risk of serious harm to members of the public occasioned by the commission of serious offences, even if his mental disorder were to be cured or substantially alleviated, then the sentence to be imposed must recognise and focus on that residual risk.’

Aikens LJ, Simon J, Morris QC J
[2013] EWCA Crim 2332
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 225(2), Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 82A
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedWood, Regina v (No 2) CACD 2-Apr-2009
The defendant appealed against his sentence to life imprisonment after conviction for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
Held: The court faced two questions. Did the case require a sentence of life imprisonment, and also . .
CitedRegina v Kehoe CACD 8-Apr-2008
The defendant appealed against the imposition of a life sentence with a minimum of four and a half years imprisonment through section 225.
Held: A finding under section 225 would lead to adequate protection against the defendant, and the . .
CitedWelsh v Regina CACD 1-Feb-2011
The defendant was convicted of manslaughter with diminished responsibility. The court was now asked whether it was correct to order a discretionary life sentence or to impose a hospital order pursuant to section 37 of the 1983 Act, with a . .
CitedRegina v Drew HL 8-May-2003
The defendant was mentally ill. He had been convicted of a second serious offence, and now appealed the life sentence imposed. Psychiatrists had recommended a hospital order, but such an order could not now be made by virtue of the 2000 Act save in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.518989

Mckeown and Others, Regina v: CANI 12 Nov 2013

Three references by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in which it is submitted that unduly lenient sentences were imposed on the respondents following convictions for riotous assembly contrary to common law.

Morgan LCJ, Coghlin LJ and Horner J
[2013] NICA 63
Bailii
Northern Ireland

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.521282

Padda v Regina: CACD 12 Dec 2013

The defendant had been convicted of supplying drugs, had had a confiscation made and had paid out under it. The prosecution sought a restraint order pending re-assessment. A further confiscation order was made. The defendant appealed, saying that this was not a case of assets having been concealed and that he should be allowed to rehabilitate himself.
Held: Peacock established that the court had power to make the order, but did not create guidelines as to use of that power: ‘the obligation of a court under section 22(4)(a), bearing well in mind the policy underlining POCA, is in the exercise of its discretion to make a ‘just’ order. It is in the very highest degree unlikely that any order which is ‘just’ will be found to be disproportionate, so as to infringe A1 P1 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
In that context, it is entirely appropriate for a court to consider such matters as the amount outstanding, the additional amount which might now be available for a further payment, the length of time since the original confiscation order was made, the impact on the Defendant of any further payment contemplated and indeed any other consideration which might properly be thought to affect the justice of the case.’ The court having correctly applied these considerations, the appeal was dismissed.

Rafferty LJ, Irwin J, Carey J Rec
[2013] EWCA Crim 2330
Bailii
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedPeacock, Re SC 22-Feb-2012
The defendant had been convicted of drugs offences, and sentenced under the 1994 Act. The gains he had made exceeded his then assets. Later he acquired further property honestly, and the Court now considered whether those assets could be taken to . .
CitedWaya, Regina v SC 14-Nov-2012
The defendant appealed against confiscation orders made under the 2002 Act. He had bought a flat with a substantial deposit from his own resources, and the balance from a lender. That lender was repaid after he took a replacement loan. He was later . .
CitedAssociated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation CA 10-Nov-1947
Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably
The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518941

Khan and Others v Regina: CACD 4 Dec 2013

Defendants appealed agaist sentence after conviction under section 5 of the 2006 Act.

McCombe LJ, Wyn Williams, Patterson JJ
[2013] EWCA Crim 2230
Bailii
Terrorism Act 2006 5
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedDart and Others v Regina CACD 31-Oct-2014
The defendants had been convicted on guilty pleas of offences under the 2006 Act. Dart had been sentenced to a six year term and a five year extended sentence. Other received shorter and longer sentences as appropriate. They now applied for leave to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518717

Kelly v Regina: CACD 16 Jun 2011

Questions about the determination of the minimum term to be served following conviction for murder committed with a knife. In short, therefore, the court was required to examine the ambit and impact of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Mandatory Life Sentence: Determination of Minimum Term) (Order) 2010

The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
[2011] EWCA Crim 1462, [2012] 1 Cr App R (S) 56, [2012] 1 WLR 55, [2011] Crim LR 806, [2011] 4 All ER 687
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Mandatory Life Sentence: Determination of Minimum Term) (Order) 2010
England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 23 November 2021; Ref: scu.440855

Regina v Yorkshire Water Services Ltd: CACD 16 Nov 2001

The defendant company was sentenced for supplying water which was below standard. The fine imposed was calculated according to the number of consumers affected.
Held: When considering the level of fine, the court should look to, the degree of culpability; damage caused; the previous record; the need for balance between censure and any counter-productive effect, in the light of efforts to remedy the situation; and the acts of the water authority after the events in question. The number of complainants should not be used as a multiplier.

Lord Justice Mance and Mr Justice Rougier
Times 12-Dec-2001
Water Industry Act 1991 70(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v F Howe and Son (Engineers) Limited CACD 6-Nov-1998
The general run of fines imposed for Health and Safety breaches is too low. Penalties should be increased where the standards were compromised for cost cutting, for the degree of lapse, and where a fatality resulted. The same standards apply for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 23 November 2021; Ref: scu.167015

Director of Public Prosecutions v Scarlett: CACD 7 Feb 2000

A defendant subject to a confiscation order in criminal proceedings for drugs related offences could be ordered to repatriate assets from banks accounts held abroad. The absence of an explicit power in this behalf did not prevent the order because of the wide power to make such ancillary orders to ensure compliance with an order as appeared necessary. An additional punishment for contempt for failing to obey was not punishing him twice, and he could purge the contempt if he chose.

Times 07-Feb-2000
England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Banking, Contempt of Court

Updated: 23 November 2021; Ref: scu.80043

Bailey, Regina v: CACD 4 Oct 2013

The defendants, brothers, appealed against their sentences for burglary, saying that the judge had wrongly increased their sentences to reflect their past offences and the likelihood of re-offending. The sentences were in excess of the guideline sentences for the circumstances.
Held: The 2003 Act allowed such sentences imposing a duty to pass a sentences treating previous offences as an aggravating factor, and also for deterrence.

Hallett LJ DBE, Saunders J, Zeidman QC J
[2013] EWCA Crim 1779
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 143(2)
England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517488

Roberts and Others v Regina: CACD 6 Dec 2018

Sentencing of Political Protesters

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 successful, and suspended sentences imposed. The defendants had expressed remorse for their actions and good intent for the future, and in those circumstances, the Court of Appeal accepted that the custody threshold was not crossed and a community sentence with a punitive element would have met the justice of the case: ‘The Strasbourg jurisprudence does not support the proposition that detention is necessarily disproportionate for the conduct with which these appeals are concerned. On the contrary, the Strasbourg Court has accepted as proportionate both immediate sentences of imprisonment and suspended sentences in cases where the conduct in question caused less harm and was less culpable. In this way, the ECHR marches with the common law. The underlying circumstances of peaceful protest are at the heart of the sentencing exercise. There are no bright lines, but particular caution attaches to immediate custodial sentences.’
The conscientious motives of protestors will be taken into account when they are sentenced for their offences but that there is in essence a bargain or mutual understanding operating in such cases. A sense of proportion on the part of the offenders in avoiding excessive damage or inconvenience is matched by a relatively benign approach to sentencing. When sentencing an offender, the value of the right to freedom of expression finds its voice in the approach to sentencing. However there was no unspoken rule of law against imposing a sentence of imprisonment
The court considered a suggestion of bias by the trial judge, and having considered the full circumstances alleged, finding the allegations to be overstated.

Burnett of Maldon LCJ, Phillips, Cutts JJ
[2018] EWCA Crim 2739, [2019] 1 Cr App R (S) 48, [2019] 1 WLR 2577, [2018] WLR(D) 745, [2019] Env LR 17
Bailii, Judiciary, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedBonnard v Perryman CA 2-Jan-1891
Although the courts possessed a jurisdiction, ‘in all but exceptional cases’, they should not issue an interlocutory injunction to restrain the publication of a libel which the defence sought to justify except where it was clear that that defence . .
CitedHubbard v Pitt CA 1976
Protesters handed out leaflets and carried posters outside the plaintiff’s estate agency. He claimed in trespass over the public footpath outside his premises. The defendants appealed the grant of an interlocutory injunction to prevent their . .
CitedLocabail (UK) Ltd, Regina v Bayfield Properties Ltd CA 17-Nov-1999
Adverse Comments by Judge Need not be Show of Bias
In five cases, leave to appeal was sought on the basis that a party had been refused disqualification of judges on grounds of bias. The court considered the circumstances under which a fear of bias in a court may prove to be well founded: ‘The mere . .
CitedMcCartan Turkington Breen (A Firm) v Times Newspapers Limited HL 2-Nov-2000
(Northern Ireland) The defendant reported a press conference at which the claims denying the criminal responsibility of an army private were made. The report was severely critical of the claimants, who then sued in defamation. The defendants claimed . .
CitedRegina v Shayler HL 21-Mar-2002
The defendant had been a member of the security services. On becoming employed, and upon leaving, he had agreed to keep secret those matters disclosed to him. He had broken those agreements and was being prosecuted. He sought a decision that the . .
CitedRedmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Jul-1999
The police had arrested three peaceful but vociferous preachers when some members of a crowd gathered round them threatened hostility.
Held: Freedom of speech means nothing unless it includes the freedom to be irritating, contentious, . .
CitedRegina v Rimmington; Regina v Goldstein HL 21-Jul-2005
Common Law – Public Nuisance – Extent
The House considered the elements of the common law offence of public nuisance. One defendant faced accusations of having sent racially offensive materials to individuals. The second was accused of sending an envelope including salt to a friend as a . .
CitedRegina v Jones (Margaret), Regina v Milling and others HL 29-Mar-2006
Domestic Offence requires Domestic Defence
Each defendant sought to raise by way of defence of their otherwise criminal actions, the fact that they were attempting to prevent the commission by the government of the crime of waging an aggressive war in Iraq, and that their acts were . .
CitedJones and Others, Regina v CACD 20-Sep-2006
Several defendants appealed their sentences after conviction for offences in connection with a political demonstration, and: ‘These cases therefore raise the issue of the propriety of a significant punishment and also of an anti-social behaviour . .
CitedHall and Others v Mayor of London (on Behalf of The Greater London Authority) CA 16-Jul-2010
The appellants sought leave to appeal against an order for possession of Parliament Square on which the claimants had been conducting a demonstration (‘the Democracy Village’).
Held: Leave was refused save for two appellants whose cases were . .
CitedThe Mayor Commonalty and Citizens of London v Samede (St Paul’s Churchyard Camp Representative) and Others CA 22-Feb-2012
The defendants sought to appeal against an order for them to vacate land outside St Paul’s Cathedral in London which they occupied as a protest.
Held: The application for leave to appeal failed. The only possible ground for appeal was on the . .
CitedTaranenko v Russia ECHR 15-May-2014
The Court considered the question of the proportionality of a sentence imposed for crime committed in the course of peaceful protest. . .
CitedDrieman and others v Norway ECHR 4-May-2000
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. . .
CitedSteel and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Sep-1998
The several applicants had been arrested in different circumstances and each charged with breach of the peace contrary to common law. Under the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, the court can bind over a Defendant to keep the peace, if the Defendant . .
CitedOsmani v The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ECHR 11-Oct-2001
The applicant, a mayor, organised an armed vigil to protect the Albanian flag in defiance of an order of the Constitutional Court. He made a speech fomenting interethnic violence. Weapons were found in the town hall and there was a riot involving . .
CitedLucas v The United Kingdom ECHR 18-Mar-2003
Detention for a few hours following arrest for wilful obstruction of the highway and then a fine was proportionate: ‘An analysis of the Court’s case-law . . reveals that the Contracting States’ discretion in punishing illegal conduct intertwined . .
CitedBarraco v France ECHR 5-Mar-2009
A suspended sentence of imprisonment, together with a fine, was a proportionate sanction for a protest which resulted in the severe slowing-down of traffic on a motorway. . .

Cited by:
CitedJones and Others v The Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis Admn 6-Nov-2019
Distributed Demonstration not within 1986 Act
The claimants, seeking to demonstrate support for the extinction rebellion movement by demonstrating in London, now challenged an order made under the 1986 Act restricting their right to demonstrate.
Held: The XRAU was not a public assembly at . .
CitedNational Highways Ltd v Heyatawin and Others QBD 17-Nov-2021
The court considered allegations of contempt of court by protesters disobeying court injunctions.
Held: The allegations were variously proved, and indeed were largely uncontested. Sentences of imprisonment were imposed ranging up to 6 months: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.630985

Longhurst Homes Ltd v Killen: CA 11 Mar 2008

Appeal against sentence of nine months for contempt of court. Hughes LJ considered the ‘protective’ effect of continuing to keep the contemnor in prison and thus into whether an order for early discharge would be likely to lead to further breaches of the injunction and thus to compromise the safety of those for whose protection it was devised.
There is no tariff for sanctions for contempt of court, because every case depends on its own facts.

Hughes LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 402
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCJ v Flintshire Borough Council CA 15-Apr-2010
The applicant appealed against a refusal to allow his early release from prison having been sentenced to 21 months for contempts of court.
Held: The appeal failed. The court set out eight questions which might be asked before allowing such a . .
CitedNational Highways Ltd v Heyatawin and Others QBD 17-Nov-2021
The court considered allegations of contempt of court by protesters disobeying court injunctions.
Held: The allegations were variously proved, and indeed were largely uncontested. Sentences of imprisonment were imposed ranging up to 6 months: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.267227

Dewdney, Regina v: CACD 30 Jul 2014

renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence – offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving – 32 months’ imprisonment for the dangerous driving offence, with four months concurrent for the excess alcohol.

[2014] EWCA Crim 1722, [2015] 1 Cr App R (S) 5
Bailii
England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.536526

The Scottish Ministers v Stirton and Another: SCS 11 Oct 2013

[2013] ScotCS CSIH – 81
Bailii
Scotland
Citing:
See AlsoScottish Ministers v Stirton and Another SCS 5-Feb-2008
Application for an interim administration order in terms of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and for warrant for inhibition and arrestment . .
See AlsoScottish Ministers v Stirton and Another SCS 30-Apr-2009
. .
See AlsoThe Scottish Ministers v Stirton SCS 24-Jan-2012
. .
See AlsoScottish Ministers, Re Stirton and Another SCS 17-Oct-2012
. .

Cited by:
CitedThe Scottish Ministers v Stirton and Another SCS 7-Nov-2014
These proceedings concern the civil recovery of the proceeds of unlawful conduct, notably money laundering, extortion and mortgage fraud, in terms of section 266 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The reclaimer contended that the crown had not had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.516443

Hall, Regina v (Arrorney General’s Reference No 38 of 2013): CACD 26 Jul 2013

The defendant, a prominent TV journalist had been found guilty of a series of historical assaults against young girls he met during his work. The AG now appealed against the sentence it being, he said, unduly lenient. The defendant had persisted in his virulent denials through until conviction.
Held: Public denunciations of allegations can amount to a seriously aggravating feature.

Lord Judge LCJ, Rafferty DBE, Macur DBE JJ
[2013] EWCA Crim 1450, [2014] 1 Cr App R (S) 61
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1988 36
England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.516010

Ruddick v Regina: CACD 16 Apr 2003

A judge was required to take into account a confiscation order before making an order for costs, but that need not invalidate the orders. Was a financial order made before the forfeiture process was complete void or merely a ground for appeal? The words of the statute were mandatory, but it should not be supposed that a failure to follow the order created a nullity. It allowed the defendant instead to appeal and argue that the order might be different. ‘It seems to us that the structure and purpose of the statutory provisions is essentially to ensure that the defendant is not exposed to double jeopardy; that is, he should not be sentenced and then find that he is being punished yet again with a . . confiscation order. . . Two sentencing processes for one offence is unfair; but two or more orders made during one sentencing process is not unfair, even where the orders are not made during just one court appearance. The second and important requirement, as a matter of fairness, is that the one sentencing process should not be protracted over an unduly long period.’
The court considered the time limit of six months: ‘Will a failure to hold a [confiscation] hearing within six months make any [confiscation] order a nullity? If without exceptional circumstances the defendant had not had a [confiscation] order made against him within six months of the date of postponement, then in our view no such order could lawfully be made. The time limit is there to protect the defendant from unfairness through justice being unduly delayed. Like other limitation periods, Parliament has intended a cut-off date which, subject only to exceptional circumstances, entitles a defendant to be free from the risk of further punishment. The fact that the court is given a limited discretion to extend the time beyond that date [‘exceptional circumstances’] supports this view.’
The court then considered the need to set a date when consideration of a confiscation order was postponed: ‘Must the court specify a new date for the resumed hearing? The period of postponement (‘for such period as [the court] may specify’) does not mean that a fixed date must be specified. Parliament cannot have intended that result, since it is obvious that in many cases it is simply not possible or practical to determine a new date then and there. Again, it is the fact that the defendant knows that the sentencing process is not yet over and that there may be more to come that is the essence of the requirement; he is not so concerned to know when, precisely, the matter will come back. Thus, the inability or failure to specify the ‘return’ date does not make the postponement a nullity or render null any order made thereafter.’

Mr Justice Leveson Lord Justice Rose Mr Justice Morison
[2003] EWCA Crim 1061, Times 06-May-2003, [2004] 1 Cr App R (S) 52
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1988 72A(9)
England and Wales
Citing:
AppliedRegina v Threapleton CACD 19-Dec-2001
The defendant was made subject to a confiscation order. He appealed on the basis that the court had left two alternatives versions to the jury, and that it should therefore, when making such an order, take the version most favourable to the . .
AppliedSekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002
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 by:
CitedRegina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005
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 . .
CitedRegina v Knights and Another HL 21-Jul-2005
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.181389

Regina v R (Sentencing: Extended licences): CACD 25 Jul 2003

The imposition of an extended period of licence in respect of offences committed before 1992 did not infringe the defendant’s human rights. The defendant had been convicted of offences from 1976 and 1982. The commencement date for the 1991 Act was 1 October 1992.
Held: The true nature of the provision was preventive, to ensure that some control was retained over a sex offender released early on licence, rather than punitive. The JT case had been decided without full reference to reported cases and was given per incuriam.

Kennedy LJ, Pitchers J
Times 04-Aug-2003
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 86, European Convention on Human Rights A-7, Criminal Justice Act 1991 44
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedWelch v United Kingdom ECHR 15-Feb-1995
The applicant was convicted in 1988 of drug offences committed in 1986. The judge passed a sentence of imprisonment but imposed a confiscation order pursuant to an Act that came into force in l987.
Held: The concept of penalty in Article 7 was . .
CitedRegina v Field (Brian John); Regina v Young (Alfred) CACD 12-Dec-2002
Each applicant having been convicted of indecent assaults involving children, now appealed an order banning them from working with children.
Held: The orders were not penalties within article 7. The order was available in the absence of a . .
per incuriamRegina v JT CACD 2003
The provisions of section 68 were punitive, and therefore could not be read to have retrospective effect. . .
CitedHogben v United Kingdom ECHR 3-Mar-1986
. .
CitedRegina v Hodgson CACD 27-Jun-1996
Court to make use of control over sex offenders in appropriate cases by the use of extended licences. . .
CitedRegina (Uttley) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 8-Apr-2003
The court had to consider consider whether the application of statutory provisions requiring a prisoner to be released on licence, that were not applicable at the date of the offence, violated Article 7. The claimant had been sentenced to 12 years’ . .
CitedMcFetrich, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 30-Jun-2003
The defendant had been convicted of murder in Scotland. He requested a transfer to an English prison. The trial judge recommended a tariff of eight years which was eventually set at 12 years by the respondent. That figure also exceeded the maximum . .
CitedSimpson v Regina CACD 23-May-2003
The appellant challenged a confiscation order made on his conviction of VAT fraud. 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 . .
CitedIbbotson v United Kingdom ECHR 1998
While the applicant was serving a sentence for possession of obscene material, the 1997 Act came into force, requiring him to register with the police. It was argued that the passing of the Act and its impact on the offender involved a ‘penalty’ . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.185761

Regina v Nazari: CACD 1980

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 making full enquiry into all the circumstances’, and gave guidance, according to the seriousness of the offence and the criminal record. The courts should not be concerned with the political systems which operate in other countries, having no knowledge of them, and should not express views about external regimes. It is for the Home Secretary to decide whether an offender’s return to his country of origin would have consequences which would make his compulsory return unduly harsh. The Home Secretary can inform himself where the courts can not. ‘First, the Court must consider, as was said by Sachs LJ in Caird’s case, whether the accused’s continued presence in the United Kingdom is to its detriment. This country has no use for criminals of other nationalities, particularly if they have committed serious crimes or have long criminal records. That is self-evident. The more serious the crime and the longer the record the more obvious it is that there should be an order recommending deportation . . Secondly, the Courts are not concerned with the political systems which operate in other countries . . The next matter to which we invite attention by way of guidelines is that the effect that an order recommending deportation will have upon others who are not before the Court and who are innocent persons.’
Lawton LJ said: ‘A person who is likely to be the subject of an order must be given 7 clear days notice of what may happen to him. The object of that is to enable him to prepare his answer to a suggestion that he should be recommended for deportation.’

Lawton LJ
(1980) 2 Cr App R (S) 84, (1980) 71 Cr App R 87, [1980] 1 WLR 1366
Immigration Act 1971 6(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Caird CACD 1970
When considering the sentencing of rioters, it was not sufficient to consider the individual acts of the offenders. It is the act of taking part in such riotous activities that constitutes the seriousness of the offence.
Sachs LJ said: ‘When . .
CitedRegina v Pierre Bouchereau ECJ 27-Oct-1977
ECJ The different language versions of a community text must be given a uniform interpretation and hence in the case of divergence between the versions the provision in question must be interpreted by reference . .

Cited by:
CitedM v the Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 19-Feb-2003
The applicant had been given indefinite leave to remain in England, but was later convicted of indecent assault, and recommended for deportation. On appeal the court said that the order for deportation was disproportionate. After serving his . .
CitedRegina v Kayar CACD 2-Mar-1998
A sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment imposed following trial was reduced to one of 16 years in respect of an offender who had organised the importation of a 10.3 kilo consignment of heroin. . .
CitedRegina v Ukoh CACD 28-Dec-2004
The defendant appealed his sentence for a drugs offence, saying that following his deportation on release, he would be liable to a further term of imprisonment at home for the same offence.
Held: That issue was not relevant to an English court . .
CitedRegina v Escauriaza CACD 2-Jan-1988
For all practical purposes the tests for deportation of an EU national after completion of a sentence of imprisonment are the same in Nazari and Bouchereau: ‘Thus under EEC Law a valid recommendation for deportation can only be made if at least two . .
CitedRegina v Spura 3-Jan-1988
The court considered the test for ordering deportation of an EU National after completion of his sentence of imprisonment, applying Bouchereau and Nazari: ‘. . in the case of Escauriaza . . the Court . . concluded, accepting a submission from an . .
CitedBenabbas, Regina v CACD 12-Aug-2005
The Court considered a recommendation for the deportation of an Algerian national after the completion of his sentence.
Held: Rix LJ referred to both the Nazari and the Bouchereau tests, and said: ‘The Appellant is not of course an EU . .
CitedRegina v Kluxen CACD 14-May-2010
The court considered the occasions on which a court should recommend deportation after completion of a prison sentence and how this might differ between EU and non-EU nationals.
Held: Since the 2007 it is not appropriate to recommend . .
CitedAbdi, 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, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Immigration

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.179719

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Pierson: HL 21 May 1997

The Home Secretary may not later extend the tariff for a lifer after it had been set by an earlier Home Secretary merely to satisfy needs of retribution and deterrence: ‘A power conferred by Parliament in general terms is not to be taken to authorise the doing of acts by the donee of the power which adversely affect the legal rights of the citizen or the basic principles on which the law of the United Kingdom is based unless the statute conferring the power makes it clear that such was the intention of Parliament.’ Parliament legislates against the background of the principle of legality. There is a presumption that Parliament does not intend to interfere with the exercise of fundamental rights. It will be understood to do so only if it does so expressly: ‘Where wide powers of decision-making are conferred by statute, it is presumed that Parliament implicitly requires the decision to be made in accordance with the rules of natural justice: Bennion on Statutory Interpretation, p 737. However widely the power is expressed in the statute, it does not authorise that power to be exercised otherwise than in accordance with fair procedures.’
Lord Steyn spoke of the principle of finality in sentencing: ‘That brings me to the question whether any legal consequences flow from the characterisation of the Home Secretary’s function as involving a decision on punishment. It is a general principle of the common law that a lawful sentence pronounced by a judge may not retrospectively be increased.’
Lord Hope of Craighead: ‘The minimum standard of fairness does not permit a person to be punished twice for the same offence. Nor does it permit a person, once he has been told what his punishment is to be, to be given in substitution for it a more severe punishment.’
Lord Browne-Wilkinson said: ‘A power enacted by Parliament in general terms is not to be taken to authorise the doing of acts by the donee of the power which adversely affect the legal rights of the citizen or the basic principles on which the law of the United Kingdom is based unless the statute conferring the power makes it clear that such was the intention of Parliament.’

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Steyn
Times 28-Jul-1997, Gazette 01-Oct-1997, [1997] UKHL 37, [1998] AC 539, [1997] 3 All ER 577, [1997] 3 WLR 492
House of Lords, Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1967 6(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Secretary of State Home Department, ex parte Leech (No 2) CA 20-May-1993
Prison rules were ultra vires in so far as they provided for reading letters between prisoners and their legal advisers. Every citizen has a right of unimpeded access to the court. A prisoner’s unimpeded access to a solicitor for the purpose of . .
Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Pierson CA 8-Dec-1995
The courts’ control over the exercise by the Home Secretary of his discretion on lifers was limited to procedural fairness. It was not irrational to refuse any reduction of a lifer’s minimum sentence after aggravation involving the prisoner. . .
At First InstanceRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Pierson QBD 14-Nov-1995
The Home Secretary does not have the power to increase a mandatory lifer’s base sentence for retribution purposes. His powers to revise minimum life sentence are not absolute; and must be used fairly. . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-May-2001
A prison policy requiring prisoners not to be present when their property was searched and their mail was examined was unlawful. The policy had been introduced after failures in search procedures where officers had been intimidated by the presence . .
CitedRegina (X) v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police QBD 23-Jan-2004
The claimant, a social worker, had been accused of two offences of indecency with children, but the complainants had failed to identify him. The respondent later disclosed those allegations when called upon to provide an enhanced criminal record . .
CitedFlynn, Meek, Nicol and McMurray v Her Majesty’s Advocate PC 18-Mar-2004
PC (High Court of Justiciary) The applicants had each been convicted of murder, and complained that the transitional provisions for determining how long should be served under the life sentences infringed their . .
CitedB (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 23-Feb-2000
Prosecution to prove absence of genuine belief
To convict a defendant under the 1960 Act, the prosecution had the burden of proving the absence of a genuine belief in the defendant’s mind that the victim was 14 or over. The Act itself said nothing about any mental element, so the assumption must . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Hindley HL 30-Mar-2000
The prisoner, sentenced to life imprisonment with a whole life tariff for the murders of children, now appealed against the imposition of the whole life tarriff.
Held: The appeal failed. It was possible for a Home Secretary to set a whole life . .
CitedRoberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
CitedJackson and others v Attorney General HL 13-Oct-2005
The applicant sought to challenge the 2004 Hunting Act, saying that it had been passed under the provisions of the 1949 Parliament Act which was itself an unlawful extension of the powers given by the 1911 Parliament Act to allow the House of . .
CitedHolme v Liverpool City Justices and Another Admn 6-Dec-2004
The defendant had been convicted of dangerous driving. The victim’s mother complained of the leniency of the sentence, and the magistrates purported to re-open the sentencing under section 142, saying they had been unaware of the very serious nature . .
CitedReclaiming Motion In Petition of Scott Davidson for Judicial Review of A Decision To Continue To Detain the Prisoner In Inhuman and Degrading Prison C SCS 18-Dec-2001
A prisoner sought an order for his removal from a prison found to have a regime which breached his human rights. The Crown replied that an order could not be made under s21 of the 1947 Act.
Held: The prisoner had followed through his rights to . .
CitedWatkins v Home Office and others HL 29-Mar-2006
The claimant complained of misfeasance in public office by the prisons for having opened and read protected correspondence whilst he was in prison. The respondent argued that he had suffered no loss. The judge had found that bad faith was . .
CitedA, K, M, Q and G v HM Treasury Admn 24-Apr-2008
The applicants were suspected of terrorist associations. Their bank accounts and similar had been frozen. They challenged the Order in Council under which the orders had been made without an opportunity for parliamentary challenge or approval.
CitedMisick, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Admn 1-May-2009
The former premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands sought to challenge the constitutionality of the 2009 order which was to allow suspension of parts of the Constitution and imposing a direct administration, on a final report on alleged corruption. . .
CitedHM Treasury v Ahmed and Others SC 27-Jan-2010
The claimants objected to orders made freezing their assets under the 2006 Order, after being included in the Consolidated List of suspected members of terrorist organisations.
Held: The orders could not stand. Such orders were made by the . .
CitedZagorski and Baze, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Others Admn 29-Nov-2010
The claimants, in the US awaiting execution for murders, challenged the permitting by the defendant for export of the chemical Sodium Thipental which would be used for their execution. The respondent said that its use in general anaesthesia practice . .
CitedForsyth, Regina v, Regina v Mabey SC 23-Feb-2011
The defendants were to face trial on charges of making funds available to Iraq in breach of the 2000 Order. They said that the 2000 Order was ultra vires and ineffective, not having been made ‘forthwith’ after the UN resolution it was based upon, . .
CitedBank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 1) SC 19-Jun-2013
Closed Material before Supreme Court
Under the 2009 order, the appellant Bank had been effectively shut down as to its operations within the UK. It sought to use the appeal procedure, and now objected to the use of closed material procedure. The Supreme Court asked itself whether it . .
CitedModaresi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health SC 24-Jul-2013
The Court was asked: ‘As: (i) a public body with obligations in public law and (ii) a public authority under the Human Rights Act 1998 can the Secretary of State for Health ‘the S/S’ lawfully refuse to refer a patient’s case to the First-tier Mental . .
CitedEvans and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Attorney General SC 26-Mar-2015
The Attorney General appealed against a decision for the release under the Act and Regulations of letters from HRH The Prince of Wales to various ministers and government departments.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority). The A-G had not been . .
CitedMiller and Dos Santos v The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and Others QBD 13-Nov-2016
Article 50 Notice Requires Parliament’s Authority
The applicant challenged a decision by the respondent that he could use Crown prerogative powers to issue a notice under section 50 TUE to initiate the United Kingdom leaving the EU following the referendum under the 2015 Act.
Held: Once the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Leading Case

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.135028

Vinter And Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 9 Jul 2013

(Grand Chamber) The appellants had each been convicted of more than one murder and had been sentenced to to whole life terms. They complained that the absence of a possibility of review or remission
The applicants had each been convicted of multiple murders and sentenced to to whole life terms of imprisonment. They had appealed saying that the term was effectively fixed and that the absence of any hope of remission, infringed their human rights.
Held: The appeal succeeded. There had been a violation of Article 3 in relation to the whole life orders imposed on the basis that they were not reducible.
Legal Summary: Article 3
Degrading treatment
Inhuman treatment
Imprisonment for life with release possible only in the event of terminal illness or serious incapacitation: violation
Facts – In England and Wales murder carries a mandatory life sentence. Prior to the entry into force of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 the Secretary of State was empowered to set tariff periods for mandatory life-sentence prisoners indicating the minimum term they must serve before they became eligible for early release on licence. Since the entry into force of the Act, that power is now exercised by the trial judge. Prisoners whose tariff was set by the Secretary of State under the previous practice may apply to the High Court for a review.
All three applicants were given ‘whole life orders’ following convictions for murder. Such an order means that their offences are considered so serious that they must remain in prison for life unless the Secretary of State exercises his discretion to order their release on compassionate grounds if satisfied that exceptional circumstances – in practice, terminal illness or serious incapacitation – exist. The whole life order in the case of the first applicant, Mr Vinter, was made by the trial judge under the 2003 Act and upheld by the Court of Appeal on the grounds that Mr Vinter already had a previous conviction for murder. The whole life orders in the cases of the second and third applicants had been made by the Secretary of State under the previous practice, but were confirmed on a review by the High Court under the 2003 Act in decisions that were subsequently upheld on appeal. In the case of the second applicant, Mr Bamber, it was noted that the murders had been premeditated and involved multiple victims; these factors, coupled with sexual gratification, had also been present in the case of the third applicant, Mr Moore.
In their applications to the European Court, the applicants complained that the imposition of whole life orders meant their sentences were, in effect, irreducible, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
In a judgment of 17 January 2012 (see Information Note 148), a Chamber of the Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention as the applicants’ sentences did not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. In particular, the applicants had failed to demonstrate that their continued detention served no legitimate penological purpose. The Chamber also laid emphasis on the fact that the applicants’ whole life orders had either been recently imposed by a trial judge (in the case of Mr Vinter) or recently reviewed by the High Court (in the cases of Mr Bamber and Mr Moore).
Law – Article 3: The Grand Chamber agreed with and endorsed the Chamber’s finding that a grossly disproportionate sentence would violate Article 3 of the Convention, although that test would be met only on rare and unique occasions. In the instant case, the applicants had not sought to argue that their whole life orders were grossly disproportionate; instead, they submitted that the absence of an in-built procedural requirement for a review constituted ill-treatment, not only, as the Chamber had found, when there ceased to be legitimate penological grounds to justify continued detention, but from the moment the order was made.
The Court reiterated that Contracting States must be allowed a margin of appreciation in deciding on the appropriate length of prison sentences for particular crimes and must remain free to impose life sentences on adult offenders for especially serious crimes. However, the imposition of an irreducible life sentence on an adult could raise an issue under Article 3. In determining whether a life sentence in a given case could be regarded as irreducible, the Court would seek to ascertain whether the prisoner could be said to have any prospect of release. Where national law afforded the possibility of review of a life sentence with a view to its commutation, remission, termination or the conditional release of the prisoner, that would be sufficient to satisfy Article 3.
There were a number of reasons why, for a life sentence to remain compatible with Article 3, there had to be both a prospect of release and a possibility of review. Firstly, it was axiomatic that a prisoner could not be detained unless there were legitimate penological grounds for that detention. The balance between the justifications for detention was not necessarily static and could shift in the course of the sentence. It was only by carrying out a review at an appropriate point in the sentence that these factors or shifts could be properly evaluated. Secondly, incarceration without any prospect of release or review carried the risk that the prisoner would never be able to atone for his offence, whatever he did in prison and however exceptional his progress towards rehabilitation. Thirdly, it would be incompatible with human dignity for the State forcefully to deprive a person of his freedom without at least providing him with the chance to someday regain that freedom. Moreover, there was now clear support in European and international law for the principle that all prisoners, including those serving life sentences, should be offered the possibility of rehabilitation and the prospect of release if rehabilitation was achieved.
Accordingly, Article 3 had to be interpreted as requiring reducibility of life sentences, in the sense of a review allowing the domestic authorities to consider whether any changes in the life prisoner are so significant, and such progress towards rehabilitation has been made in the course of the sentence, as to mean that continued detention can no longer be justified on legitimate penological grounds. While it was not the Court’s task to prescribe the form (executive or judicial) which that review should take or to determine when it should take place, the comparative and international law materials before it showed clear support for the institution of a dedicated mechanism guaranteeing a review no later than twenty-five years after the imposition of a life sentence, with further periodic reviews thereafter. A whole life sentence would not measure up to the standards of Article 3 where the domestic law did not provide for the possibility of such a review. Lastly, although the requisite review was a prospective event necessarily subsequent to the passing of the sentence, a whole life prisoner should not be obliged to wait and serve an indeterminate number of years of his sentence before he could raise the complaint that the legal conditions attaching to his sentence failed to comply with the requirements of Article 3. Whole life prisoners were entitled to know, at the outset of their sentence, what they must do to be considered for release and under what conditions, including when a review of their sentence will take place or may be sought. Consequently, where domestic law did not provide any mechanism or possibility for review of a whole life sentence, the incompatibility with Article 3 on this ground already arose when the whole life sentence was imposed and not at a later stage of incarceration.
The Government had argued before the Court that the aim of the 2003 Act was to remove the executive from the decision-making process concerning life sentences, and this was the reason for abolishing the 25-year review by the Home Secretary which had existed beforehand. However, the Court considered that it would have been more consistent with the legislative aim to provide that the 25-year review would be conducted within a judicial framework, rather than completely eliminated.
The Court also found that the current law concerning the prospect of release of life prisoners in England and Wales was unclear. Although section 30 of the 1997 Act gave the Justice Secretary the power to release any prisoner, including one serving a whole life order, the relevant Prison Service Order provided that release would only be ordered if a prisoner was terminally ill or physically incapacitated. These were highly restrictive conditions and in the Court’s view, compassionate release of this kind would not be what was meant by a ‘prospect of release’ in Kafkaris.
In light, therefore, of this contrast between the broad wording of section 30 and the exhaustive conditions announced in the Prison Service Order, as well as the absence of any dedicated review mechanism for whole life orders, the Court was not persuaded that, at the present time, the applicants’ life sentences could be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3. The requirements of that provision had not, therefore, been met in relation to any of the three applicants.
The Court emphasised, however, that the finding of a violation in the applicants’ cases should not be understood as giving them any prospect of imminent release. Whether or not they should be released would depend, for example, on whether there were still legitimate penological grounds for their continued detention and whether they should continue to be detained on grounds of dangerousness. These questions were not in issue in this case and were not the subject of argument before the Court.
Conclusion: violation (sixteen votes to one).
Article 41: Finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the first applicant. No claim made by the other applicants.
(See also Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, 12 February 2008, Information Note 105; Iorgov v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 36295/02, 2 September 2010, Information Note 133; Schuchter v. Italy (dec.), no. 68476/10, 11 October 2011, Information Note 145; and Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom, nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07, 17 January 2012, Information Note 148)

66069/09 130/10 3896/10 – Legal Summary, [2013] ECHR 786
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 3
Citing:
CitedBieber (Aka Coleman) v Regina CACD 23-Jul-2008
The Court considered whether a whole life sentence under section 269(4) of the 2003 Act was compatible with Article 3. The defendant had been convicted of murdering a policeman and of attempted murder of two others.
Held: The whole life . .
See AlsoVinter, Regina v CACD 25-Jun-2009
The appellant challenged the imposition of a whole life term after his conviction for a serious, second, murder. . .
CitedOakes and Others v Regina CACD 21-Nov-2012
A specially constituted CACD heard sentencing appeals for defendants serving life terms for very grave crimes, and in particular, the judicial assessment of the minimum term to be served by the appellants for the purposes of punishment and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.515142

Regina v S, Regina v Burt, Regina v Parsons, Regina v Carr, Regina v Hargreaves, Regina v Denton, Regina v Taylor, Regina v Coyne, Regina v H: CACD 19 Dec 2005

The court considered appeals from defendants sentenced to extended terms comprising a custodial term with an extension period and a licence thereafter extended for the protection of the public, and when such extended licence began.
Held: The Home Office had a practice, but had not disclosed its practice. The understanding reflected in the textbooks appeared to need correction where they stated that the extended licence period began on release. The court was of the view that it began to run earlier, at the point where the ordinary sentence period expired and the extended sentence began. That was the natural meaning of the words.

[2006] Crim LR 459, [2005] EWCA Crim 3616, (2006) 170 JP 145, (2006) 170 JPN 234, [2006] 2 Cr App Rep (S) 35
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 8227 228
England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.237469

Adams, Regina v: CACD 25 Oct 2021

Application for leave to appeal against the imposition, pursuant to section 19 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, of a Serious Crime Prevention Order.

The Honourable Mr Justice Sweeney
[2021] EWCA Crim 1525
Bailii
England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.669231

Bestel and Others v Regina: CACD 19 Jul 2013

The three defendants sought an extension of time to appeal against confiscation orders made in connection with convictions for mortgage fraud. They said that the amounts whch should have been awarded should reflect the later Supreme Court decision in Waya.

Pitchford LJ, Mitting, Openshaw JJ
[2013] EWCA Crim 1305
Bailii
England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.513522

JO (Uganda) and JT (Ivory Coast) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 22 Jan 2010

When considering an order for the deportation of a non-EU national on completion of a term of imprisonment, the actual weight to be placed on the criminal offending must depend on the seriousness of the offence(s) and the other circumstances of the case.

Richards, Mummery, Toulson LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 10, (2010) 107(6) LSG 18, [2010] WLR (D) 8, [2010] 1 WLR 1607
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedSecretary of State for The Home Department v HK (Turkey) CA 27-May-2010
The SS appealed against the successful appeal by the respondent against a deportation order. He had come to England in 1994, been granted indefinite leave to stay, and made a family here. In 2007 he was convicted of grievous bodily harm.
Held: . .
CitedMJ (Angola) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 20-May-2010
The applicant had been ordered to be deported and returned to Angola, but at the same time he was a detained mental patient. He argued that a return would breach his Article 8 rights.
Held: The respondent was entitled to decide to deport the . .
CitedBatista v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 29-Jul-2010
The claimant appealed against a deportation order requiring his return to Portugal. He said that when considering the effect of the order on his family, the AIT had applied the wrong test.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The test to be applied was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.393377

BN, Regina v: CACD 29 Jul 2021

BN was convicted of four offences of sexual assault of a child aged under 13, contrary to section 7 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2003. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of 12 months’ imprisonment on each count. Her Majesty’s Solicitor General believes the total sentence of 12 months to be unduly lenient. Application is accordingly made, pursuant to section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, for leave to refer the case to this Court so that the sentencing may be reviewed.

[2021] EWCA Crim 1250
Bailii
England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.668288

Gaves, Regina v: CACD 4 Dec 2020

Application on behalf of the Attorney General, seeking leave to refer a sentence on the ground that it is unduly lenient. Prison officer – possession of drugs with intent to supply to prisoners – 3 years

[2020] EWCA Crim 1728
Bailii
England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 16 November 2021; Ref: scu.657274

Harvey, Regina v: CACD 3 Jul 2013

The defendant had been convicted of handling and receiving stolen goods. He now appealed from a confiscation order made under the 2002 Act. The defendant having admitted to benefiting from a criminal lifestyle, the court had to decide to what extent, if any, he had benefited over the relevant period from his ‘general criminal conduct’, as defined by subsections (1) and (2) of section 76 of POCA. By no means all the items of machinery hired out by the Company were stolen, and the Crown accepted that the Company would have been viable if it had limited itself to legitimate activities. The total sum was calculated to include VAT. The defendant argues that since he had paid the VAT, this amounted to double counting.
Held: Save as to a default sentence, his appeal was dismissed.
As to the application of VAT: ‘[t]he court ha[s] to focus on the property coming to the offenders, not what happened to it subsequently’

Jackson LJ, Wyn Williams J,Russell QC HHJ
[2013] EWCA Crim 1104, [2013] WLR(D) 268, [2014] 1 Cr App Rep (S) 46, [2014] 1 WLR 124, [2013] Lloyd’s Rep FC 439
Bailii
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 6 7 (10
England and Wales
Citing:
AppliedBasso and Another v Regina CACD 19-May-2010
The defendants had been convicted of offences of failing to comply with planning enforcement notices (and fined andpound;10.00), and subsequently made subject to criminal confiscation orders. The orders had been made in respect of the gross income . .

Cited by:
At CACDHarvey, Regina v SC 16-Dec-2015
Police had discovered quantities of stolen goods at the appellant’s business premises. He was convicted of receiving stolen goods, and confiscation order made. He now appealed from the inclusion in that order of sums of VAT which had already been . .
CitedAhmad, Regina v SC 18-Jun-2014
The court considered the proper approach for the court to adopt, and the proper orders for the court to make, in confiscation proceedings where a number of criminals (some of whom may not be before the court) had between them acquired property or . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 15 November 2021; Ref: scu.512128

Murray v Robinson: CA 12 Jul 2005

M appealed from findings that he had been in contempt of court for three breaches of non-molestation injunctions.
Held: In this area, as in other areas, imprisonment needs to be reserved for those cases where imprisonment is necessary. It must be appreciated that there are other ways of dealing with problems of the sort that occur in the breakdown of a family relationship where imprisonment will not provide a long-term solution.

The Lord Woolf of Barnes LCJ
[2005] EWCA Civ 935
Bailii
Constitutional Reform Act 2005
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedHead v Orrow CA 16-Dec-2004
A court asked to sentence for contempt of court is not sentencing for the criminal equivalent of what the contemnor has done, and ‘Great care must be taken, if there are concurrent criminal or civil proceedings, to ensure that sentences in two or . .
CitedLomas v Parle CA 18-Dec-2003
The respondent had been sentenced to two months imprisonment for breaches of orders under the Act. The wife appealed, seeking to increase the sentence. The maximum sentence was two years.
Held: The court had to consider such cases in the light . .
CitedRegina v Liddle and Hayes CACD 24-May-1999
When sentencing for harassment, the court must look to previous failures to obey court orders, the defendant’s mental health, and his readiness to undergo treatment, as well as the seriousness of the conduct constituting the harassment. ‘For a . .
CitedLomas v Parle CA 18-Dec-2003
The respondent had been sentenced to two months imprisonment for breaches of orders under the Act. The wife appealed, seeking to increase the sentence. The maximum sentence was two years.
Held: The court had to consider such cases in the light . .
ApprovedHale v Tanner CA 20-Jul-2000
Hale LJ identified the general considerations that should be applied when sentencing for contempt. She also identified the purpose of sentencing. She identified the special considerations that are relevant in the context of family cases: ‘Family . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.408808

Modjiri, Regina v: CACD 22 Apr 2010

The court was asked whether, where the convicted person is one of a number of registered owners of land, each of whom has a beneficial tenancy in common in the land, and the land cannot be sold, mortgaged or leased without the consent of all the proprietors, the convicted person’s beneficial interest has any value for the purposes of a confiscation order if all the co-owners do not agree to any sale.
Held: The prosecutor’s appeal succeeded. The convicted person’s beneficial interest had a value because the property could be ordered to be sold pursuant to an application to the Court by the convicted person under section 14 of the 1996 Act.

Stanley Burnton LJ, Davis J and HH Judge Roberts QC
[2010] EWCA Crim 829, [2010] WLR (D) 99, [2010] 1 WLR 2096, [2010] 4 All ER 837, [2010] 6 Costs LR 877, [2011] 1 Cr App R (S) 20
Bailii
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 14
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedLarkfield Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office and Others CA 12-May-2010
The defendant in criminal proceedings (M) had been found to be beneficial owner of property. The company, its registered proprietor appealed against an order declaring the property to be a realisable asset of M. The respondent had said the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.408578

Hills, Regina v: CACD 17 Jul 2008

The defendants appealed against sentences for life imprisonment to be followed by a consecutive determinate sentence.
Held: In appropriate circumstances such sentences could be justified.

Lord Justice Latham, Mr Justice Grigson and Mr Justice Macduff
[2008] EWCA Crim 1871, Times 07-Aug-2008, [2010] 1 Prison LR 122, [2009] Crim LR 116, [2012] 1 WLR 2121, [2009] 1 Cr App R (S) 75
Bailii
Powers of Criminal Court Sentencing Act 2000 154
England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.273123

D v Regina: CACD 16 Dec 2005

The issue raised by this appeal is the relationship between a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (‘SOPO’) under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the powers of a court exercising family jurisdiction under the Children Act 1989 where, as in this case, the order relates to a child of the defendant.

[2005] EWCA Crim 3660, [2006] 2 All ER 726, [2006] Fam Law 273, [2006] 2 Cr App Rep (S) 32, [2006] 1 WLR 1088
Bailii
England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.249359

Brereton, Regina v: CACD 3 Feb 2012

The defendant appealed against his sentence of four years imprisonment for possession of a disguised firearm, namely a stun gun disguised as a mobile phone, locked in a hidden safe in his home. The minimum sentence prescribed by section 51A was five years.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Though the prosecutor had vacillated between different lesser charges and the eventual one, the judge had made proper allowance already.

Hallett LJ, Eady, Irwin JJ
[2012] EWCA Crim 85
Bailii
Firearms Act 1968 5(1) 51A(2)
England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.450558

Hall v Regina: CACD 8 Feb 2013

The defendant had been convicted of the importation of large volumes of cocaine. He was however at the time of sentencing, ‘a man who suffers from an extremely grave combination of rare long term medical conditions which interfere with virtually all his bodily functions and require 24 hour monitoring and a very high level of constant assistance in most of the ordinary incidents of life.’ He appealed against a sentence of three years, saying that in his condition any incarceration would result in inhuman and degrading punishment.
Held: The judge had approached the issue in a diligent manner. However, it was sufficient to make an order under the 2007 Act and to amend the sentence to 18 months.

Hughes LJ, Wyn Williams, Hickinbottom JJ
[2013] EWCA Crim 82
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 3, Serious Crime Act 2007
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Bernard CACD 2-Jul-1996
The court considered the general effect of serious medical condition on sentencing, and how it should allow for such a condition.
Held: A sentencing court is fully entitled to take account of a medical condition by way of mitigation as a . .
CitedRegina v Qazi and Another CACD 4-Nov-2010
The defendant appealed against sentence, saying that given his serious medical condition, any imprisonment would threaten his human rights.
Held: The court set out the law. A court imposing a sentence should not concern itself with the . .
CitedRegina v Hetherington CACD 2009
The defendant had spina bifida from birth and hydrocephalus from shortly after birth with consequent severe disabilities and medical problems. The sentencing court had before it, in support of a contention by the defendant that his imprisonment . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.470855

Rollings, Regina v: CACD 3 Feb 2012

The solicitor general appealed against a sentence of five years imposed for possession of a prohibited weapon, a handgun with bullets designed to explode on impact.
Held: The sentence was increased to 10 years: ‘This was a case of possession of a loaded firearm with intent. The gun was loaded with particularly dangerous ammunition. The consequences of the offender’s actions, as we have endeavoured to explain, were potentially lethal.’

Hallett LJ, Irwin, Nicol JJ
[2012] EWCA Crim 86
Bailii
Firearms Act 1968 5(1)(aba)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Avis, T and others CACD 16-Dec-1997
The court set out the sentencing considerations for firearms offences in the light of an increase of the use of guns.
Held: The level of sentencing had not sufficiently reflected the gravity of such offences. After the 1994 Act, earlier . .
CitedAttorney General’s References (Nos 58-66 of 2002) (Regina v Warren, Coudjoe and others) CACD 2003
In the light of the further increase in firearms use, particularly in the case of drug-related crime, this court considered the case of nine offenders, members of a notorious drug-dealing gang in South-East Manchester called the Pitt Bull Crew who . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.450560

B v Leeds Crown Court and Another: Admn 24 Feb 2016

Appeal by way of case stated from the Leeds Crown Court raises a question about the implications for the sentencing of youths of restrictions on the powers of a magistrates’ court to sentence adult offenders.

Simon LJ, Leggatt J
[2016] EWHC 1230 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Magistrates, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.564801

Noone, Regina (on The Application of) v Governor of HMP Drake Hall and Another: SC 30 Jun 2010

The prisoner had been sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment, one for less, and one for more than 12 months. She disputed the date on which she should be released to home detention under curfew under the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State explaining how the release date should be calculated where longest sentence as subject to the 2003 Act, and the shorter sentences subject to the 1991 Act. The CA had ruled the policy lawful.
Held: The appeal succeeded and the policy was declared unlawful. The 2003 Act brought in provisions which had not been implemented, and the Transitional Order applied. However the 2005 Order allowed the possibility of capricious results, and the result was not that intended by Parliament. Paragraph 14 of the 2005 Order was intended to apply only where all the sentences were less than twelve months, but this left a gap for the situation where one or more was not. It was intended that sections 262(3) and 264(2) and (3) should apply. The guidance incorrectly inferred that an order that two sentences are to be consecutive directs that the second should start when the custodial part of the first ends has no basis in law and converts a sentence that is directed to be consecutive into a sentence which is in part concurrent.

Lord Phillips, President, Lord Saville, Lord Brown, Lord Mance, Lord Judge
[2010] UKSC 30, [2010] WLR (D) 164, [2010] 1 WLR 1743, [2010] 4 All ER 463, [2010] 1 WLR 1743
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
Criminal Justice Act 1991, Criminal Justice Act 2003 181 244, Crime and Disorder Act 1998 101, Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No 8 and Transitional and Savings Provisions) Order 2005 14
England and Wales
Citing:
At First InstanceNoone, Regina (on the Application of) v HMP Drake Hall and Another Admn 31-Jan-2008
The court considered the complications created when the schemes for providing early release of short term prisoners had not been implemented, but the new Act impacted in the previous arrangements anyway as regards those sentenced to consecutive . .
Appeal fromNoone, Regina (on the Application of) v HMP Drake Hall and Another CA 17-Oct-2008
The prisoner disputed the calculation of the date when she would become entitled to consideration for early release under a Home Detention Curfew. The Secretary of State appealed against a decision that his policy guidance was unlawful.
Held: . .
CitedHighton, Regina (on the Application of) v Her Majesty’s Youth Offender Institute Lancaster Farms and Another Admn 17-Apr-2007
Challenge to calculation of servable sentence term. . .
CitedRound and Dunn v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2009
Non-consolidation of sentence to debar home curfew
Each defendant had been sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment under the 1991 and 2003 Acts. One was above and one below twelve months. They complained that the result of trying to reconcile the statutory provisions was that they had . .
CitedInco Europe Ltd and Others v First Choice Distributors (A Firm) and Others HL 10-Mar-2000
Although the plain words of the Act would not allow an appeal to the Court of Appeal under the circumstances presently applying, it was clear that the parliamentary draftsman had failed to achieve what he had wanted to, that the omission was in . .
CitedAttorney General’s Reference (No 5 of 2002) HL 14-Oct-2004
The Attorney General sought the correct interpretation of section 17 where a court was asked as to whether evidence obtained from a telephone tapping had been taken from a public or private network. A chief constable suspected that the defendants, . .
CitedStellato, Regina (on the Application of)v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 28-Feb-2007
The prisoner had served part of his ten year sentence, been released on licence and then recalled. He complained that the new parole system under which he had then to apply was invalid, having been made Parliament by negative resolution.
Held: . .
CitedBuddington v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 27-Mar-2006
The court considered the validity of of the claimant’s recall to prison. The words ‘falls to be released’ in paragraph 23 mean ‘is entitled to be released’ or ‘is released’. The author of the Order may have been suffering from ‘Homeric exhaustion’. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Prisons

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.420018

Regina v Sinfield: CACD 1981

The appellant had admitted ten robbery offences and asked for 53 offences to be taken into consideration. A total of almost andpound;500,000 had been stolen. He had given a great deal of information to the police about a large number of serious crimes as a result of which a large number of offences were cleared up. He was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment.
Held: His sentencing appeal succeeded. He would normally have deserved between 15 and 18 years’ imprisonment, but it was better to stimulate others to behave as the appellant had done in the hope that less crime would be committed and more people would be caught and punished for the crimes which were committed. The sentence imposed did not allow a sufficient discount for what the appellant did, although each case would vary according to the facts, the degree of criminality, and the degree of assistance given. A proper sentence was one of five years’ imprisonment.

[1981] 3 CAR (s) 258
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedP, Regina v; Regina v Blackburn CACD 22-Oct-2007
Whilst awaiting trial, P had offered evidence against others on other serious crimes. On conviction, the judge was supplied with a statement explaining his assistance. He now appealed sentence of 17 years imprisonment for assorted serious drugs . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.272800

Attorney-General’s Reference No 6 of 2004: CACD 29 Apr 2004

The Attorney-General appealed the sentences as unduly lenient. The defendant had brought to England several young girls and held them as captive prostitutes.
Held: In view of the commercial and organised nature of the crimes, the sentence of 10 years in total was too light. Recognising the different factual backgrounds, the court ordered the sentences involving importation to be served consecutively to the sentences for offences against the girls after arrival, creating a sentence of 23 years.

Latham LJ, Cox J, Beaumont QC
Times 06-May-2004, [2005] 1 Cr App R (S) 19, [2004] EWCA Crim 1275
Bailii
England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.196676

McMorris and Others, Regina v: CACD 2 Jul 2009

Three defendants were convicted of an horrendous rape. They were sentenced in accordance with the guidelines, but the Attorney-General appealed saying that the sentences were unduly lenient.
Held: The judge had correctly applied the sentencing guidelines, but guidelines could not cover every circumstance. The case was horrifying, and a sentence of fourteen years (increased from 9) was imposed on the principle defendant. A judge must have regard to the sentencing guidelines, but had a greater duty to do justice in the particular case: ‘Provided that the judge had had regard to a definitive guideline, he was entitled, if he had reason to do so and was prepared to articulate his reasons, to disregard it if, by following it, an injustice would result.’

Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Simon and Mr Justice Blair
[2009] EWCA Crim 1490, Times 04-Aug-2009
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1988 36
England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.371872