Category: Criminal Sentencing

Regina v Dougall: CACD 13 May 2010

The defendant had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to corrupt in having provided inducements for the award of medical supplies contracts to Greece. He appealed against a sentence of twelve months imprisonment, saying that it should have been suspended to accord with an agreement with the Serious Fraud office under the Act, and under which he had assisted the prosecutor.
Held: The scale of the corruption was substantial, leading to real inflation of prices in Greece.
In this jurisdiction a plea agreement or bargain between the prosecution and the defence in which they agree what the sentence should be, or present what is in effect an agreed package for the court’s acquiescence is contrary to principle. Responsibility for the sentencing decision in cases of fraud or corruption is vested exclusively in the sentencing court . . There are no circumstances in which it may be displaced.
The court should be careful not to allow the Attorney General’s Guidelines on Plea Discussions to suggest that white collar crimes are rather more respectable than other forms of crime. White collar crime or commercial crime taking the form of fraud and corruption in particular is crime. And it is not victimless: sometimes identified individuals are victims, and at others, unnamed, unknown individuals in the entire community are victims . . The Guidelines did not envisage a sentencing agreement but a statement allowing the judge to decide the sentence. The 2005 Act did either not suggest any such bargain. The defendant has earned an appropriate reward in the form of a reduced or lesser sentence from that which would otherwise be appropriate.
Are suspended sentences appropriate for such cases? The defendant (and the SFO) suggested that a pragmatic approach was required to secure co-operation from defendants. That was rejected as an attempt to tell the judge how to sentence. ‘In our jurisdiction there is no principle of any legitimate expectation to be enjoyed by the first person to co-operate with an investigating authority, that he (or she) will be the beneficiary of the most favourable sentencing outcome. Such conduct will, of course, normally provide substantial mitigation.’
Nevertheless the points deserved acknowledgement, and ‘where the appropriate sentence for a defendant whose level of criminality, and features of mitigation, combined with a guilty plea, and full co-operation with the authorities investigating a major crime involving fraud or corruption, with all the consequent burdens of complying with his part of the SOCPA agreement, would be 12 months’ imprisonment or less, the argument that the sentence should be suspended is very powerful. This result will normally follow.’ Such was applied here.

Judge LCJ, David Clarke J, Lloyd jones J
[2010] EWCA Crim 1048, [2010] Lloyd’s Rep FC 472, [2010] Crim LR 661
Bailii
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 73, Criminal Law Act 1977, Prevention of Corruption Act 1906
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Regina v Innospec Limited 26-Mar-2010
(Southwark Crown Court) Thomas LJ said: ‘It is clear, therefore that the SFO cannot enter into agreement under the laws of England and Wales with an offender as to the penalty in respect of the offence charged . . although the sentencing submission . .
Cited – Practice Direction (Criminal Proceedings: Consolidation) CACD 8-Jul-2002
. .
Cited – P, 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 . .
Cited – Goodyear, Karl, Regina v CACD 19-Apr-2005
The defendant complained that he had pleaded guilty to a charge of corruption on the basis of an indication from the judge that he would not receive a custodial sentence. Having pleaded guilty he had then been sentenced to a six months prison . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Constitutional

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.414957

Brook, Regina v: CACD 14 Feb 2012

The defendant appealed against a sentence of imprisonment for public protection with a minimum of six years imposed after his convition for manslaughter. He had kiiled a neighbour.
Held: The jury found provocation, and the defendant had no convictions for violence, but the judge had based his sentence on the evidence and the sentencing report. However the remarks clearly showed that the reporter and the judge had gone behind the jury’s verdict. The appeal was allowed, and a sentence of 12 years imposed.

Laws LJ, Owen, Hadden-Cave JJ
[2012] EWCA Crim 136
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 225
England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.451213

In re Peters: CA 1988

After the defendant was arrested for drugs offences a restraint order was made to prevent dissipation of his assets. Orders were made to vary the restraint to allow payment of his sons school fees, and in family proceedings for a payment to his wife. The Commissioners of Customs and Excise appealed the latter order.
Held: The purpose of a restraint order was to preserve assets so that any confiscation order could be satisfied. Some payments might be allowed but not so as to prejudice the purpose of the restraint. Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR: ‘The Act itself is terminologically complex, but the legislative intention and the broad scheme whereby that intention is to be achieved are reasonably clear. The intention is that no one convicted of drug trafficking offences shall be allowed to retain any part of the proceeds of his crime. The broad scheme involves the making of confiscation orders at the time of sentencing and of prior protective orders. The latter are designed to prevent an accused rendering a confiscation order inappropriate or nugatory by disposing of his assets between the time when an information is about to be laid against him and the making of a confiscation order in the event of conviction.’
Lord Justice Mann said: ‘There is, in the light of section 13(2) no room for the intrusion of sympathy.’

Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR, Mann LJ
[1988] 1 QB 871, [1988] 3 WLR 182, [1988] 3 All ER 46
Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 8(1)(5) 13(2)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – In re X (Restraint Order: Payment out) QBD 22-Apr-2004
A restraint order had been made in respect of the defendant’s assets pending trial. Application was made to release a sum to pay the defendant’s company debts.
Held: A payment could be made only where the the realisable value of the property . .
Cited – Regina v Stannard CACD 1-Nov-2005
The defendant had been convicted of offences in which he had operated to purchase companies and use false debentures to evade corporation tax. Compensation had been sought under the 1988 Act. It was argued that the confiscation order should be . .
Cited – Stodgell v Stodgell FD FD 18-Jul-2008
The parties were involved in ancillary relief proceedings. At the same time the husband was in prison after having hidden earnings from his business, and was subject to an unsatisfied confiscation order. The guardian had had doubts about the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Criminal Sentencing

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.199327

O’Leary International Ltd v North Wales Police: Admn 31 May 2012

The company employed drivers to cross the UK. They were stopped and did not have the requisite drivers records. Instead they produced certificates as to having had rest days. These proved false, and the drivers said that the had been produced for them by the employer. The drivers were convicted and the lorries impounded. The company appealed saying that the penalties were disproportionate, and sought their return under the 1897 Act.
Held: The lorries were to be returned. ‘s.144 would have provided for a situation where goods might not be returned, even if the owner were merely negligent. In the light of the decisions in Air Canada and Lindsay, we do not see how it would be proportionate for a court to have no power to consider the value of the property, the degree of culpability of the owner and the financial effect on the owner of the deprivation of his goods. If, as is clear from s.143(5), in considering whether an order for deprivation should be made against an offender, a court is entitled to take into account the value of the goods and the financial effect on the offender it would, on the assumption we have made, not have been logical where the owner was not the offender, that the court could not take those matters into account but could do so if he was the owner. In our judgment, on the assumption that we have made in relation to this issue, unless s.144 were read down in the manner suggested, the rights of the owner of the goods would be violated.’

Thomas P, Beatson J
[2012] EWHC 1516 (Admin)
Bailii
Police (Property) Act 1897, Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Raymond Lyons and Co Ltd v Metropolitan Police Commissioner QBD 1975
A suspected thief had left a valuable ring with the claimant jewellers for valuation. They reported the matter to the police and handed the ring to them. The suspected thief never reappeared, and no-one claiming to be the true owner emerged. The . .
See Also – Merseyside Police v Owens Admn 31-May-2012
The police had refused to returns items seized from Mr Owens on the basis that to do so would indirectly encourage and assist him in suspected criminal activity. CCTV footage had been removed from him to attempt identify an arsonist of a house.The . .
Cited – Regina v Chester Justices ex parte Kenneth Smith QBD 1978
The wife of an offender applied for an order of mandamus requiring Magistrates to determine an application under s.1 of the 1897 Act for delivery to her of a car which the Crown Court had held was used in an offence and then had made an order under . .
Cited – Regina v Troth CACD 1979
The offender, a partner in a business, used a lorry which was partnership property to steal coal. The other partner was unaware of that use. An order had been made in the Crown Court to deprive the offender of his rights in the lorry.
Held: . .
Cited – Tinsley v Milligan HL 28-Jun-1993
Two women parties used funds generated by a joint business venture to buy a house in which they lived together. It was vested in the sole name of the plaintiff but on the understanding that they were joint beneficial owners. The purpose of the . .
Cited – Laker Airways Inc v FLS Aerospace Ltd ComC 20-Apr-1999
The court was asked: ‘whether a barrister who has been appointed an arbitrator by one party to the arbitration should be removed by the court on the ground that another barrister from the same chambers has been instructed in the arbitration by the . .
Cited – Webb v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police CA 26-Nov-1999
The Police had confiscated money suspected to be the proceeds of drug trafficking, but no offence was proved. The magistrates had refused to return the money under the 1897 Act. The claimants now sought to reciver it under civil proceedings.
Cited – Regina v Kearney CACD 11-Mar-2011
The defendant had been convicted of stealing petrol to use in his hire-purchase car. The court ordered cessation of his interest in the car as part of its sentence. He appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. After the order had been made, the . .
Cited – Gough and Another v The Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police CA 2-Mar-2004
The claimants sought return of vehicle parts from the police. The police replied that the goods had been tampered with in such a way as to suggest they may have been stolen, and that they were therefore kept, even after the finish of the court . .
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Newbury Admn 3-Mar-2003
The commissioner appealed a finding that a car and other goods they had forfeited should be returned. The owner said that matters had been imported for personal use under the directive.
Held: The directive had direct effect and precedence over . .
Cited – Regina v Brookes CACD 2003
The offender had used, a friend’s car to commit a drugs offence. A further, third person claimed to be the hirer under a hire purchase agreement. The judge made an order under section 143 refusing to hear evidence about the hiring of the car.
Cited by:
Cited – Merseyside Police v Owens Admn 31-May-2012
The police had refused to returns items seized from Mr Owens on the basis that to do so would indirectly encourage and assist him in suspected criminal activity. CCTV footage had been removed from him to attempt identify an arsonist of a house.The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.459878

Berr, Regina (on the Prosecution of) v Lowe: CACD 17 Feb 2009

The defendant appealed against a confiscation order, alleging abuse of process by the prosecution. He had transferred land from the company just before it went into liquidation, and admitted the offence under the 1986 Act. He complained that the liquidator having recovered the land the further confiscation action was an abuse.
Held: The transfer had not been to the defendant, and therefore section 6 could not bite.

[2009] EWCA Crim 194, [2009] Lloyd’s Rep FC 314, [2009] Crim LR 452, [2009] 2 Cr App Rep (S) 81
Bailii
Insolvency Act 1986 202(1)(b), Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 6(6) 7(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Mahmood and Another, Regina v CACD 26-Aug-2005
. .
Cited – Morgan v Regina; Bygrave v Regina CACD 20-Jun-2008
The court considered the circumstances under which it might exercise its jurisdiction to prevent an abuse of process in confiscation proceedings. The circumstances where a confiscation might be oppressive are: ‘where demonstrably (i) the defendant’s . .
Cited – Regina v Hockey CACD 2007
The court may restrain confiscation proceedings as an abuse of process in circumstances where the Crown had acted contrary to an understanding that, if repayment was made, it would not seek a confiscation order. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.291783

Secretary of State for Justice v James: HL 6 May 2009

The applicant had been sentenced to an indefinite term for public protection, but the determinate part of his sentence had passed with no consideration as to whether his continued detention was required.
Held: The post tariff detention was not unlawful and therefore no action for damages lay. The clear failures of the respondent to implement an appropriate system to provide a review did not undermine the lawfulness of the detention itself. The absence of material to enable the Parole Board to form a view as to the safety of the appellants’ release did not make their detention unlawful.
Lord Carswell described the powers taken under the 2003 Act as Draconian, and chaos was caused ‘when for some unfathomable reason it was decided that the new scheme would be resource-neutral and so sufficient facilities necessary for IPP prisoners to demonstrate their fitness for release were not made available’.

Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Mance, Lord Judge
[2009] UKHL 22, Times 08-May-2009, [2009] HRLR 23, [2009] 2 WLR 1149, [2010] 1 AC 553
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 5(1) 5(4), Criminal Justice Act 2003 225
England and Wales
Citing:
At Divisional Court – Wells v The Parole Board and Another; Regina (Walker) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 31-Jul-2007
The prisoners challenged their continued detention. They had been sentenced and had served their tariff terms but had been continued to be detained for public protection, but with no current or effective assessment of what risk was posed.
Cited – Regina v Oldham Justices ex parte Crawley (orse Cawley) 1996
The court set out the duties of magistrates when making a warrant for committal. Simon Brown LJ said that where there has been a criminal conviction the courts have firmly excluded collateral attack by habeas corpus, holding that the only proper . .
Appeal from – Secretary of State for Justice v Walker; Same v James CA 1-Feb-2008
The claimant had been sentenced to a short period of imprisonment but with an indeterminate term until he demonstrated that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public. He complained that the term having expired, no opportunity had . .

Cited by:
Cited – Gill, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 26-Feb-2010
Failure to provide programme discriminated
The claimant prisoner who had a learning disability said that he had been unable to complete the offending behaviour programmes because of his disability, that he had been kept in prison for much longer than he should have been as a consequence, and . .
Cited – Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another SC 1-May-2013
The applicants had each been given a life sentence, but having served the minimum term had been due to have the continued detention reviewed to establish whether or not continued detention was necessary for the protection of the pblic. It had not . .
Cited – Sturnham, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board of England and Wales and Another (No 2) SC 3-Jul-2013
From 4 April 2005 until 3 December 2012, English law provided for the imposition of sentences of imprisonment for public protection (‘IPP’). The Court addressed the practical and legal issues resulting from the new system.
Held: The decision . .
Cited – Raissi v Secretary of State for Justice CA 31-Mar-2010
The claimant had been arrested and held on suspicion of terrorist offences. An application for his extradition to the US was refused, and the charges were dropped after the Court said that no evidence at all had been produced, and ‘there is a . .
At HL (wrongly decided) – James, Wells and Lee v The United Kingdom ECHR 18-Sep-2012
ECHR Article 5-1
Deprivation of liberty
Failure to provide the rehabilitative courses to prisoners which were necessary for their release: violation
Facts – By virtue of section 225 of the . .
Cited – Martin Corey, Re for Judicial Review SC 4-Dec-2013
The appellant challenged his recall to prison from licence. He had been convicted in 1973 of the murder of two police officers. He had remained at liberty for 18 years, befire his licence was revoked on the basis of confidential iintelligence . .
Applied – Robinson, Regina (on The Application of) v HMP Whatton and Another Admn 4-Dec-2013
Two prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection sought judicial review of arrangements meaning that they had not been given a timely opportunity to demonstrate to the Parole Board that they are safe to be released. Their . .
Cited – Haney and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice SC 10-Dec-2014
The four claimants, each serving indeterminate prison sentences, said that as they approached the times when thy might apply for parol, they had been given insufficient support and training to meet the requirements for release. The courts below had . .
Cited – Kaiyam, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice CA 9-Dec-2013
The court was asked as to claims arising from the continued detention of the appellants following the expiry of the ‘minimum terms’ or ‘tariff periods’ of their indeterminate terms of imprisonment. The appellant prisoners said that the respondent’s . .
Cited – Docherty, Regina v SC 14-Dec-2016
After conviction on his own admission for wounding with intent, and with a finding that he posed a threat to the public, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for public protection. Such sentences were abolished with effect from the day after . .
Cited – Brown v The Parole Board for Scotland, The Scottish Ministers and Another SC 1-Nov-2017
The court was asked whether the duty under article 5 to provide prisoners with a real opportunity for rehabilitation applied to prisoners serving extended sentences. The prisoner was subject to an extended sentence, but had been released on licence . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing, Prisons

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.341817

T, Regina v: CACD 14 Oct 2021

Sentencing of informant – The appellant submitted he did not receive sufficient credit for his mitigation which warranted a greater reduction in the sentence passed because he had provided valuable information and intelligence to the authorities over a significant period. His efforts and the information supplied were expressly held in high regard by his handlers. The text provided in confidence describes the benefit to the authorities of the information received as being valuable.
Held: ‘This material was of significant utility to the prosecuting authorities, as it led to seizures and assisted in the identification of perpetrators, including corrupt customs officials. We consider that a greater allowance should have been made for the notable assistance he provided, and that the payments made to the applicant should not have had a significant impact on the credit afforded to him in the sentence passed. This is not a strict mathematical exercise. We substitute a shorter sentence of imprisonment.’
Lord Justice Fulford VP, 2 anonymised Justices
[2021] EWCA Crim 1474
Bailii, Judiciary
England and Wales

Updated: 30 October 2021; Ref: scu.668588

Serious Fraud Office and Another v Litigation Capital Ltd and Others: ComC 24 Feb 2020

Mr Justice Foxton
[2020] EWHC 788 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – The Serious Fraud Office and Another v Litigation Capital Ltd ComC 20-May-2020
Hearing of the latest case management conference in a case involving competing claims to interests in a variety of assets. . .
See Also – The Serious Fraud Office and Another v Litigation Capital Ltd ComC 21-Dec-2020
. .
See Also – The Serious Fraud Office and Another v Litigation Capital Ltd and Others ComC 18-May-2021
. .
See Also – Serious Fraud Office and Others v Litigation Capital Ltd and Others (Costs and Consequentials) ComC 21-Oct-2021
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 October 2021; Ref: scu.651144

Docherty, Regina v: SC 14 Dec 2016

After conviction on his own admission for wounding with intent, and with a finding that he posed a threat to the public, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for public protection. Such sentences were abolished with effect from the day after his conviction. He said that the court had failed to apply the principle of lex mitior.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘English practice recognises lex mitior in its ordinary form, namely the principle that an offender should be sentenced according to the law and practice prevailing at the time of his sentence, subject to not exceeding the limits (ie in England normally the maximum) provided for at the time the offence was committed.’
The lex mitior represents a norm of a different order from the principle of no punishment without law. Whilst the lex gravior principle is a fundamental and essential condition of freedom, lex mitior: ‘expresses a choice that reflects the development of a social process in the context of criminal law. It circumscribes the scope of criminal law by preserving benefits accruing to defendants as a result of substantive laws subsequent to the commission of the offence and applicable while the case was pending.’ Whereas lex gravior prohibits applying to a case a rule which was not the law when the acts under judgment were committed, lex mitior, when it operates, actually requires such a rule to be applied.
‘There is a very clear difference between (1) a principle which prevents a court from imposing a penalty above and outside the range currently provided for by the State as appropriate to the crime and (2) a principle which requires the court to seek out and apply the most favourable rule which has existed at any intervening time since the offence was committed, even if it has since been abandoned. The first would fall within the rationale of confining the court to a range currently considered appropriate for the offence; the latter would not. The difference between the two is not adverted to, still less explored, in the judgment in Scoppola. It is, accordingly, by no means clear that the court intended to expand its incorporation of lex mitior into article 7 by including the latter proposition.’
‘Sentencing legislation and practice may well go up and down as public policy is held by legislators to change, or current responsible views on particular offending are perceived by courts to develop. But there is no injustice to a defendant to be sentenced according either to the law as it existed at the time of his offence or, if more lenient, according to the law as it exists when he is convicted and sentenced. To insist that a defendant should not be sentenced on a basis now authoritatively regarded as excessive is one thing. It is quite another to say that he should be sentenced according to a practice which did not obtain when he committed the offence and does not obtain now, merely because for some time in the interim, however short, a different practice was adopted which has now been abandoned as wrong.’
and ‘the new regime was not in force for his case. It was the subject of legitimate phased introduction. . lex mitior does not entitle Docherty to anticipate the statutory commencement of LASPO. The case made on his behalf was . . that he ought to have been sentenced to EPP. That exposes the flaw in the argument, for it would seek to insist on the benefit of (accelerated) removal of one part of the old regime (IPP) whilst at the same time claiming the preservation of another part of it (EPP).’
Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes
[2016] UKSC 62, UKSC 2014/0207, [2017] 1 Cr App R (S) 31, [2017] 1 WLR 181, [2017] 4 All ER 263, [2016] WLR(D) 667
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, WLRD
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, European Convention on Human Rights 791)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – James, Wells and Lee v The United Kingdom ECHR 18-Sep-2012
ECHR Article 5-1
Deprivation of liberty
Failure to provide the rehabilitative courses to prisoners which were necessary for their release: violation
Facts – By virtue of section 225 of the . .
Cited – Berlusconi (Law Relating To Undertakings) 2 ECJ 3-May-2005
Company law – Article 5 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 5 of the EC Treaty, in turn Article 10 EC) and Article 54(3)(g) of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 54(3)(g) of the EC Treaty, in turn, after amendment, Article 44(2)(g) EC) – First . .
Cited – Lang and Others, Regina v CACD 3-Nov-2005
In each case the defendant had commited violent or sexual offences and were caught by the new mandatory sentencing provisions, and been made subject to life imprisonment, or detention for public protection, or an extended sentence.
Held: The . .
Cited – Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent of its property . .
Cited – Uttley, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 30-Jul-2004
In 1995 the defendant was sentenced to twelve years for rapes committed in 1983. He complained that the consequences of the later sentence were adverse because of the 1991 Act. He would now serve three quarters of the sentence rather than two . .
Cited – Uttley v United Kingdom ECHR 29-Nov-2005
. .
Cited – Secretary of State for Justice v James HL 6-May-2009
The applicant had been sentenced to an indefinite term for public protection, but the determinate part of his sentence had passed with no consideration as to whether his continued detention was required.
Held: The post tariff detention was not . .
Cited – Scoppola v Italy (No 2) ECHR 17-Sep-2009
(Grand Chamber) The applicant murdered his wife on 2 September 1999; the offence was punishable by life imprisonment. On 18 February 2000, he agreed to be tried under a summary procedure. It lacked some of the safeguards of a full trial but carried . .
Cited – Regina v DP CACD 2013
The court considered an offence committed before 3 April 2005 when the CJA 2003 came into effect, and was sentenced before 3 December 2012 when new sentencing rules came into effect changing the 2003 rules.
Held: The Court upheld a sentence of . .
Cited – Saunders and Others v Regina CACD 28-Jun-2013
Appeals against sentence a non mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.
Held: There may be cases where a discretionary life sentence is justified for an offence outside Schedule 15 if its gravity and the danger presented by the defendant are . .
Cited – Burinskas, Regina v, (Attorney General’s Reference (No 27 of 2013)) CACD 4-Mar-2014
Effect upon sentencing of amendments to dangerous offender provisions . .
At CACD – Docherty, Regina v CACD 18-Jun-2014
The defendant appealed against his sentence to a term of imprisonment for public protection on his admission of wounding with intent. The sentencing system applied was replaced on the day following sentencing, and he said that the court should have . .
Cited – Haney and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice SC 10-Dec-2014
The four claimants, each serving indeterminate prison sentences, said that as they approached the times when thy might apply for parol, they had been given insufficient support and training to meet the requirements for release. The courts below had . .
Cited – Boakye and Others, Regina v CACD 3-Apr-2012
The defendants appealed their sentences for importation of class A drugs. They had acted as drugs mules. New guidelines were due to take effect which be expected to have led to shorter sentences. The court was asked whether such new standards could . .
Cited – Zaprianov v Bulgaria ECHR 6-Mar-2003
ECHR ‘Article 7 does not guarantee the right to have a subsequent and favourable change in the law applicable to an earlier offence.’ . .
Cited – Le Petit v United Kingdom ECHR 5-Dec-2000
(Admissibility) . .
Cited – Coeme and others v Belgium ECHR 22-Jun-2000
The mischief that Article 7 is designed to prevent is the imposition by the State of (i) criminal liability for an act which did not attract such liability at the time it was committed or (ii) a penalty greater than the maximum permitted when the . .
Cited – Maktouf and Damjanovic v Bosnia And Herzegovina ECHR 18-Jul-2013
(Grand Chamber) The effect of the change was to alter the range for the defendant Maktouf (an accomplice) from 1-15 to 5-20 years. For the defendant Damjanovich (a principal) the range was altered from 5-15 to 10-20. Maktouf was expressly sentenced . .

Cited by:
Cited – Stott, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 28-Nov-2018
The prisoner was subject to an extended determinate sentence (21 years plus 4) for 10 offences of rape. He complained that as such he would only be eligible for parole after serving two thirds of his sentence rather than one third, and said that . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 October 2021; Ref: scu.572396

The Serious Fraud Office and Another v Litigation Capital Ltd: ComC 20 May 2020

Hearing of the latest case management conference in a case involving competing claims to interests in a variety of assets.
Foxton J
[2020] EWHC 1280 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Serious Fraud Office and Another v Litigation Capital Ltd and Others ComC 24-Feb-2020
. .

Cited by:
See Also – The Serious Fraud Office and Another v Litigation Capital Ltd ComC 21-Dec-2020
. .
See Also – The Serious Fraud Office and Another v Litigation Capital Ltd and Others ComC 18-May-2021
. .
See Also – Serious Fraud Office and Others v Litigation Capital Ltd and Others (Costs and Consequentials) ComC 21-Oct-2021
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 October 2021; Ref: scu.651179

Petherick, Regina v: CACD 3 Oct 2012

Appeal against a sentence of four years and nine months which was imposed for the offences of causing death by dangerous driving and driving with excess alcohol in a case in which she had entered prompt pleas of guilty.
Held: Responsibility for young children is a factor which may be relevant on sentencing.
Hughes VP LJ, Wilkie, Popplewell JJ
[2012] EWCA Crim 2214, [2013] 1 Cr App R (S) 116, (2013) 177 JP 94, [2013] 1 WLR 1102, [2013] Crim LR 80, [2013] 1 Cr App R (S) 116
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – AXN v The Queen CACD 27-May-2016
The defendant argued that greater note should have been taken on his sentencing to allow for the assistance he had given to the police after his arrest.
Held: The current accepted practice is that the text of the letter from the police to the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 October 2021; Ref: scu.503509

Lunnon v Regina: CACD 5 May 2004

The Crown had conceded that the appellant had had no prior involvement in drug-trafficking before the conspiracy in question which led to the confiscation proceedings.
Held: Such a concession should not be ignored unless and until it was withdrawn.
Eady J
[2004] EWCA Crim 1125, [2005] 1 Cr App Reports (S) 111, [2005] 1 Cr App Rep (S) 24, [2004] Crim LR 678, [2005] 1 Cr App R(S) 111
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Knaggs v Regina CACD 13-Jul-2009
The defendant appealed against a confiscation order, made on the basis of evidence secured from a probe installed in his car. He had made clear that he disputed the recordings. A second judge had inherited the proceedings, and ruled that he could . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 October 2021; Ref: scu.346281

Regina v Thacker: 1994

The question arose as to whether drugs which had been seized by Customs could be described as property held by the defendant.
Held: Lord Bingham CJ said: ‘It appears that seizure by the Customs and Excise under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 has the effect of forfeiting the drugs so that they are no longer the property of the former owner: see [1995] Crim LR 89 at 90-91. But even if the drugs had still been held by the defendant within the meaning of section 62(5)(a) of the 1994 Act — and this could well be the position where it was the police and not the Customs and Excise who seized the drugs — so that the property would on its face be realisable property within the meaning of section 6(2)(a) of the 1994 Act, the drugs would still be without value as realisable property. That is because, by virtue of section 7(1) of the 1994 Act to which we have already made reference, the value of the property is to be taken as its market value and the market value must be the market value if the property is sold lawfully. In the case of drugs, it is obvious that the drugs cannot be sold lawfully and therefore they have no market value.’
Lord Bingham CJ
(1994) 16 Cr App R (S) 461
England and Wales
Cited by:
Approved – Regina v Dore CACD 19-Dec-1996
A confiscation order was to be made. The judge included the purchase price of the drugs forfeited.
Held: As the drugs had been forfeited they were no longer the property of the former owner. So he was in no position to realise that property as . .
Cited – Islam, Regina v HL 10-Jun-2009
The defendant appealed against a confiscation order saying that it should not have been set at values which reflected the black market value of the drugs he had imported.
Held: The appeal failed. The court could take account of the illegal . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 October 2021; Ref: scu.374253

Pitchfork, Regina v: CACD 14 May 2009

The defendant had been convicted of two rapes and murders in 1988. He was found to have a psychopathic disorder. His minimum term was first set at 25 years, then altered on review to 30 years. He now sought review of the period.
Held: Judge LCJ said: ‘As we have emphasised, the legislation does not, as it could, simply invite the Judge or require him to endorse the recommendation of the trial Judge or that of the Lord Chief Justice, or where they differ, find a mean between them. The reviewing Judge is expressly required to address the general principles in Schedule 21. Neither the original judicial recommendation nor the Schedule enjoys some kind of hidden, unspecified primacy. The assessment by the reviewing Judge is not fixed exclusively by reference to the general principle set in Schedule 21, any more than it is fixed by the judicial recommendations. The Judge is conducting a fresh review, taking account of both the judicial recommendations and Schedule 21.’
Judge LCJ
[2009] EWCA Crim 963
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 269
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Bamber, Regina v CACD 14-May-2009
The defendant had been convicted in 1986 of the murder of five members of his adoptive family. The judge had initially recommended a minimum term of 25 years. A later judge had suggested a whole life term. The convictions had been upheld in 2002. . .
Cited – Regina v Coonan (Formerly Sutcliffe) QBD 16-Jul-2010
The respondent had been convicted of thirteen murders and eight attempted murders. He had claimed to have been acting in response to a divine voice heard when he worked in a graveyard. He was diagnosed a paranoid schizophrenic. The murders had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.343903

Regina v Davies: CACD 30 Dec 1994

A sentencing judge should explicitly allow for all time spent on remand when sentencing, though time spent in custody before probation order was not to be set off as time served after re-sentencing procedure on breach of probation.
Ind Summary 13-Feb-1995, Times 30-Dec-1994
Criminal Justice Act 1967 67
England and Wales

Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.86513

Stott, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 15 Feb 2017

The claimant committed ten rapes. He was sentenced to 21 years with four years extended sentence. He claimed it was discriminatory since he would lose a right to early release.
Held: The High Court dismissed his claim, but granted a certificate permitting Mr Stott to appeal directly to the Supreme Court.
Sir Brian Leveson P QBD, William Davis J
[2017] EWHC 214 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Stott, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 28-Nov-2018
The prisoner was subject to an extended determinate sentence (21 years plus 4) for 10 offences of rape. He complained that as such he would only be eligible for parole after serving two thirds of his sentence rather than one third, and said that . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 October 2021; Ref: scu.575300

Hale 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 cases, it has long been recognised, raise different considerations from those elsewhere in the civil law. The two most obvious are the heightened emotional tensions that arise between family members and often the need for those family members to continue to be in contact with one another because they have children together or the like . . Having said that, first, these cases have to come before the court on an application to commit. That is the only procedure which is available. Not surprisingly, therefore, the court is directing its mind to whether or not committal to prison is the appropriate order. But it does not follow from that that imprisonment is to be regarded as the automatic consequence of the breaches of an order.’
Hale LJ
[2000] EWCA Civ 5570, [2000] 2 FLR 879, [2000] 1 WLR 2377
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Approved – 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 October 2021; Ref: scu.632183

Lomas 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 of any parallel criminal or civil proceedings under the 1997 Act. ‘This was a case with an appalling history of intimidation and abuse. At every turn the husband had flouted the orders of the court and seized any leniency as little more than an opportunity to resume his campaign against the wife. The two breaches in respect of which he was sentenced were both individually extremely sinister in their presentation and implication. We are of the opinion that a sentence of less than ten months’ imprisonment would have been unduly lenient. We only fixed a lesser sentence to reflect the element of double jeopardy. Accordingly the sentence which we passed on 30 October was a sentence of eight months’ imprisonment concurrent on each of the admitted breaches.’ and ‘the first court to sentence must not anticipate or allow for a likely future sentence. It is for the second court to sentence to reflect the prior sentence in its judgment in order to ensure that the defendant is not twice punished for the same act. It is essential that the second court should be fully informed of the factors and circumstances reflected in the first sentence.’
and: ‘so far as possible sentences passed under section 42 should not be manifestly discrepant with sentences for harassment charged under the 1997 Act.’
The President Of The Family Division Lord Justice Thorpe and Lord Justice Mance
[2003] EWCA Civ 1804, Times 13-Jan-2004, [2004] 1 All ER 1173, [2004] 1 FLR 812, [2004] 1 WLR 1642
Bailii
Family Law Act 1996 42, Contempt of Court Act 1981 14, Protection from Harrassment Act 1997
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Linnett v Coles QBD 1986
The defendant had repeatedly failed to obey orders for the production of documents made in the course of civil litigation proceedings. He was ordered to be committed to prison ‘until further order’ He appealed.
Held: With regard to section 14, . .
Cited – Wilson v Webster CA 26-Feb-1998
There is no reason in law to disallow someone applying for a contemnor to be committed, from appealing against the sentence imposed, but it would rare to allow interference. Brown P: ‘It is believed that it may be that criminal proceedings will . .
Cited – Neil v Ryan CA 23-Jul-1998
The court considered the power to increase a sentence of committal for contempt of court: ‘Before considering any increase in sentence or changing the impact of any sentence adversely to the defendant we have to remind ourselves that this is a power . .
Cited – Hale v Tanner CA 22-Aug-2000
When attaching a power of arrest on a non-molestation order the court should consider attaching it only to that element which restricts violence or proximity rather than to any part relating to harassment. When considering sentence for a breach, the . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .

Cited by:
Cited – Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals v General Medical Council and Dr Solanke Admn 30-Apr-2004
The council appealed against what it said was a lenient sentence imposed on a doctor for malpractice.
Held: It was relevant to take account of the way criminal courts dealt with appeals against lenient sentences. The test in relation to an . .
Cited – Dr Giuseppe Ruscill, Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals v The General Medical Council and Another, The Council for the Regulation of Health Care Profesionals, The Nursing and Midwifery Council, Truscott CA 20-Oct-2004
The Council sought to refer to the High Court decisions to acquit the doctors of professional misconduct. The doctors argued that the power only existed for lenient sentences.
Held: The power to refer for undue leniency included the situation . .
Applied with comments – Slade v Slade CA 17-Jul-2009
Contempt sentence to reflect existing punishment
The wife appealed against a sentence of imprisonment imposed for a second contempt of court. She said that the behaviour complained of had already been dealt with in criminal proceedings.
Held: The sentence was reduced. The second court should . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.189053

Regina 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 second offence longer sentences of about 15 months on a plea of guilty would, in our view, be an appropriate starting point, and from then on it is possible to see from the maximum of 5 years fixed by the statute for this offence where each case fits into the statutory framework, working from the figure of 15 months, which may be appropriate on a plea of guilty.’
and ‘In our judgment, the level of sentences in cases which preceded the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (and perhaps in some later cases) does not fully reflect contemporary requirements and opinion. We think that Parliament and society generally now regard domestic and other violence associated with harassment and molestation as demanding rather more condign deterrent punishment than formerly. In a somewhat different context, contemporary judicial opinion may be seen in the decision of this court in four appeals ….’
and: ‘In our judgment, sentences in committal proceedings for breaches of injunction under section 42 of the 1996 Act should, so far as possible, reflect this range of opinion. The qualifications to this to which Thorpe LJ referred in Lomas v Parle of course remain. In particular, there must be proportionate regard to the statutory maximum sentence in section 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Great care must be taken, if there are concurrent criminal or civil proceedings, to ensure that sentences in two or more courts do not punish twice for the same thing.’
Curtis J
Times 26-May-1999, Gazette 09-Jun-1999, [1999] EWCA Crim 1493, [2000] 1 CR App R(S), [1999] 3 All ER 816
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Lomas 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 . .

Cited by:
Cited – Lomas 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.157893

Khan, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Justice Department: Admn 30 Jul 2020

Whether law restricting early release for prisoners convicted of terrorist offences was discriminatory.
Fulford LJ, Garnham J
[2020] EWHC 2084 (Admin), [2020] WLR(D) 450
Bailii, WLRD
Criminal Justice Act 2003, Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020
England and Wales

Updated: 10 October 2021; Ref: scu.652946

Modhej, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 26 Aug 2011

The claimants had been convicted of a violent rape. They appealed against an order under the 2003 Act sentencing them to detention for public protection with a minimum term of four years less time on remand.
Thomas LJ, Davis, Treacy JJ
[2011] EWHC 2267 (Admin)
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 224-229
England and Wales

Updated: 30 September 2021; Ref: scu.443311

McInerney, Keating v Regina: CACD 18 Dec 2002

The defendants appealed against their sentences for domestic burglary. The court took the opportunity to provide new guideline sentences for standard domestic burglaries.
Held: The sentencing advisory panel had issued new guidance, supported by scientific survey. Public opinion was one, but only one of several factors. The court should also look at the costs of a sentence, and its effectiveness. A domestic burglar, who might previously have received a sentence of eighteen months or less, should receive a non-custodial sentence involving effective punishment, and an attempt to address any underlying cause of the behaviour including addiction. The court gave lists describing what would be considered a standard burglary, and of aggravating and other features.
Mr Justice Silber The Lord Chief Justice Of England &Amp; Wales Mr Justice Grigson
Times 20-Dec-2002, [2002] EWCA Crim 3003, [2003] 1 Cr App R 627
Bailii
Theft Act 1968 9(1)(a)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Revisited in – Brewster, Regina v CACD 27-Jun-1997
The court reviewed sentencing levels for domestic burglary. Such cases must always be very serious, but individual cases varied almost infinitely. After a trial an adult defendant could expect a sentence of three years’ imprisonment for burglary of . .
Cited – Saw and Others, Regina v CACD 16-Jan-2009
The defendants appealed against sentences imposed for domestic burglaries.
Held: The court should properly allow for the effect of the burglary on the particular victim. Fuller guidance was awaited from the Sentencing Guidelines Council, but . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.178525

Saw and Others, Regina v: CACD 16 Jan 2009

The defendants appealed against sentences imposed for domestic burglaries.
Held: The court should properly allow for the effect of the burglary on the particular victim. Fuller guidance was awaited from the Sentencing Guidelines Council, but the court identified a non-exhaustive list of twelve factors which should be seen as aggravating if present. In each case their true importance derived either from the increased impact of the offence on the occupier of the burgled home, or from greater culpability on the part of the defendant when committing it, or from a combination of the two.
Lord Judge, Lord Chief Judge, Lord Justice Latham, Vice-President, and Lord Justice Hughes
[2009] EWCA Crim 1, Times 26-Jan-2009, [2009] 2 All ER 1138, [2009] 2 Cr App Rep (S) 54, [2009] Crim LR 295
Bailii
Theft Act 1968 9(1)(a)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – McInerney, Keating v Regina CACD 18-Dec-2002
The defendants appealed against their sentences for domestic burglary. The court took the opportunity to provide new guideline sentences for standard domestic burglaries.
Held: The sentencing advisory panel had issued new guidance, supported . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.280017

Attorney General v CCE, NJK and TAG; Attorney General’s References (Nos 91, 119, 120 of 2002): CACD 21 Jan 2003

The Attorney General referred sentences of the defendants for sexual assaults short of rape.
Held: The sentencing considerations outlined in the Millberry guidelines for sentencing in rape cases should be applied also for sexual offences of a lesser degree. Deterrence was an appropriate consideration in all such offences. The long time passed since an offence was committed need not be a reason for reducing sentences. The sentences were increased in each case.
Lord Justice Mantell Mr Justice Bell Mr Justice Andrew Smith
Times 07-Feb-2003, [2003] EWCA Crim 5, [2003] 2 Cr App R (S) 55
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Millberry, Morganian, Lackenby v Regina CACD 9-Dec-2002
The Court gave detailed guidelines on sentencing for offences of rape, following a report from the sentencing advisory panel.
Held: The court outlined the base sentences for single and multiple offences of rape, listing aggravating and . .

Cited by:
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference v Nos. 31, 45, 43, 42, 50 and 51 of 2003; Regina v McInerney; Regina v McLean CACD 16-Jul-2004
The court considered appeals by the Attorney-General against sentences considered to be too lenient, and in particular where a community penalty had been imposed rather than a sentence of immediate imprisonment.
Held: The Court emphasised the . .
Cited – Regina v Wisniewski CACD 9-Dec-2004
The defendant appealed sentences for battery with iintent to commit sexual assault.
Held: In general the existing authorities on sentencing of sex offenders should apply to the new offences, with an allowance made for the lower maximum . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 September 2021; Ref: scu.178805

London Borough of Haringey, Regina (on The Application of) v Roth: CACD 24 Jul 2020

The appellant appealed against a sentence in the form of a fine of pounds 20,000 for failure to comply with the requirements of an Enforcement Notice served pursuant to the provisions of the Town and County Planning Act 1990. In addition he also appealed , against a confiscation order made in the Crown Court in the sum of pounds 527,887.55.
[2020] EWCA Crim 967
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 25 September 2021; Ref: scu.652830

Taiwo, Regina v: CACD 7 Jul 2020

AG’s reference of sentence as too lenient. The offender seeks to challenge the same sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive – four years ten months’ imprisonment following a guilty plea to the lesser offence of manslaughter on an indictment containing a count of murder. The plea was accepted by the Crown. The death in question had resulted from a single punch administered by the offender.
[2020] EWCA Crim 902
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 September 2021; Ref: scu.652832

JG v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (BB): UTAA 28 Jul 2021

The Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales erred in law in finding that it lacked jurisdiction to determine a restricted patient’s application once he had become a different type of restricted patient. The tribunal retained jurisdiction and was required to determine the patient’s application. The individual became a different type of restricted patient as a result of the Court of Appeal quashing a sentence of imprisonment for public protection.
[2021] UKUT 194
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 17 September 2021; Ref: scu.667697

Olden v Serious Organised Crime Agency: CA 26 Feb 2010

The applicant appealed against a recovery order made under the act against his assets. His conviction had been set aside as unsafe.
Rix, Wilson LJJ, Sir Scott Baker
[2010] EWCA Civ 143, [2010] CP Rep 29, [2010] Lloyd’s Rep FC 432
Bailii
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Assets Recovery Agency, Regina (on the Application Of) v He and Another Admn 7-Dec-2004
Application was made for an interim receiving order pending resolution of criminal proceedings. Collins J said: ‘the approach of the Director must be to let criminal proceedings take precedence, as it were, and only act if such proceedings are . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 September 2021; Ref: scu.401842

Botten v Norway: ECHR 19 Feb 1996

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1 (fair hearing); Costs and expenses – claim withdrawn
The lower court had had taken evidence in public from the applicant and other witnesses. The appellate court had held a public oral hearing at which the applicant was represented but at which he gave no evidence.
Held: That did not infringe Article 6. ‘ . . .it is necessary to examine whether in the light of the Supreme Court’s role and the nature of the issues to be decided by that court there has been a violation in the particular circumstances of the case. In carrying out this examination, the Court will confine itself to consider whether the proceedings in the present case were fair . . .’
[2001] 32 EHRR 3, 16206/90, [1996] ECHR 4
Worldlii, Bailii
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Dudson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Lord Chief Justice Admn 21-Nov-2003
The applicant had been sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. He sought a judicial review of the Lord Chief Justice’s recommendation to the Home Secretary for the minimum term he was to serve.
Held: In exercising this function, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 September 2021; Ref: scu.165403

Flowers v The Queen: PC 30 Oct 2000

(Jamaica) Where a defendant claimed that his constitutional right to a trial within a reasonable time had been infringed, it was correct for the appellate courts to take account of the fact that it remained clear that the defendant was guilty of a very serious offence. In this case it was appropriate to substitute a conviction of. non-capital murder for capital murder because of errors in the summing up and discrepancies in the prosecution evidence. The duty rests on the court system to ensure that on a retrial counsel for the defence is provided with the transcript of the first trial, or relevant part of it.
Lord Hutton distinguished Darmalingum, saying that the more appropriate approach was to take account of all factors which had been discussed before their Lordships and notwithstanding the lengthy and very regrettable delay in that case, he came to the conclusion that a conviction should not be quashed by reason of delay.
Times 01-Dec-2000, [2000] 1 WLR 2396, Appeal No 54 of 1999, [2000] UKPC 41
Bailii, PC, PC
England and Wales
Cited by:
Distinguished – Mills v HM Advocate and Another PC 22-Jul-2002
(The High Court of Justiciary) The defendant appealed on the basis that the delay in the sentencing process had resulted in an infringement of his human rights.
Held: The appeal itself had been without merit. The delay had been to such an . .
Cited – Boodram v The State PC 10-Apr-2001
(Trinidad and Tobago) On a retrial, the defendant’s counsel only became aware that there had been an earlier trial late in the proceedings, and, when he became aware of it, he did not try to obtain the transcript of the first trial in order to . .
Cited – J, Regina v CACD 2-Jul-2001
Orse Attorney General’s Reference No 2 of 2001
The AG sought to appeal from the decision that an indictment against the seven defendants should be stayed on the ground that there had been a breach of Article 6(1). They were accused of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 September 2021; Ref: scu.159431

Regina v NcNaghten: CACD 19 Nov 2003

The defendant appealed his sentence for five separate assaults. The sentences had been consecutive, but the victoim had been the same on each occasion.
Held: The fact that the victim was the same was not a reason in principle why consecutive sentences should be imposed, nor that the offences took place within a domestic environment. Given the bond of trust which existed, it may be an aggravating feature. The sentence must still abide by principles applying to the totality of a sentence. The appeal was dismissed.
Judge LJ, Silber, Cox JJ
Times 15-Jan-2004
England and Wales

Updated: 29 August 2021; Ref: scu.193442

Bateman, Regina v: CACD 8 Oct 2020

Appeal against sentence – distinction between ‘possession’ and ‘production’ in the Sentencing Council Definitive Guidelines on Sexual Assault (possession of indecent photographs of a child). It also concerned the application of the totality principle where there is included amongst the images in issue a small number which involve production.
Lord Justice Green
[2020] EWCA Crim 1333
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 28 August 2021; Ref: scu.654972

James v The Royal Society for The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals (RSPCA): Admn 19 May 2010

The defendant had pleaded guilty to three charges of causing unnecessary cruelty to animals. She appealed against an order for unpaid community work and the costs of pounds 38,644. The horses had been removed by the Society after a veterinary surgeon said it was necessary under the 2006 Act. The defendant said that the removal was unlawful since the section required the opinion to be certified, but it had been given orally. The issue is one of construction as to whether the word ‘certifies’ means certifies in writing.
Held: Keith J said: The word ‘certifies’ has to be construed, of course, in accordance with its ordinary meaning, subject to the context of the statutory provisions in which it appears. The word connotes a degree of formality, and the proposition that the degree of formality which is necessary is that the certification be in writing is, in my view, supported by section 18(10) of the Act, which provides, so far as is material: ‘A veterinary surgeon may examine and take samples from an animal for the purpose of determining whether to issue a certificate under subsection . . (5) with respect to the animal.’ However: ‘it would, I think, be very surprising if section 18(5) were to be construed in a way which permits a police officer to act so as to put an animal out of its distress before the veterinary surgeon arrives, but does not permit the animal to be relieved of its suffering after the veterinary surgeon arrives, even though the veterinary surgeon thinks that the animal is suffering, but for one reason or another does not put that into writing.’ and ‘ I have concluded that section 18(5) does not require the certification to be in writing, and that the seizure and detention of Mrs James’s horses was not unlawful.’
Keith J
[2011] EWHC 1642 (Admin), (2011) 175 JP 485
Bailii
Animal Welfare Act 2006
England and Wales

Updated: 25 August 2021; Ref: scu.441397

Regina v Balfour Beatty Rail Infrastructure Services Ltd: CACD 5 Jul 2006

The defendant appealed against a fine of 10 million pounds for its failings in maintaining track which led to the train crash at Hatfield.
Held: The company’s contract was substantial. Positive steps were to be taken by all concerned in a company to ensure compliance with Health and Safety duties. Management would be encouraged to satisfy its duties if the fine was of sufficient size to affect shareholders. Where an individual employee was at fault, and the danger did not arise from a fault in the management system, a deterrent sentence was not appropriate, but here there had been a serious systemic failure in management. The fine was out of proportion to that imposed on the co-defendant, Railtrack plc, to reduce it to a proportionate level would remove the deterrent effect, and the fine was reduced therefore to 7.5 million pounds.
Lord Phillips CJ, Nelson, Silber JJ
[2006] EWCA Crim 1586, Times 18-Jul-2006, [2007] Bus LR 77, [2007] ICR 354
Bailii
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1)
England and Wales

Updated: 22 August 2021; Ref: scu.243065

Joyce, Re Attorney General’s Reference: CACD 14 Feb 2003

AG’s appeal from total of 8 years imprisonment for 10 robberies as unduly lenient.
Held: ‘The judge was concerned with a persistent offender who, in the light of his escalating record, merited a longer than commensurate sentence. In our view, an appropriate longer than commensurate sentence would have been one of 12 years’ imprisonment. However, in the light of the aspect of ‘double jeopardy’ and the necessity for the sentence to run consecutively from the balance of the licence period to be served, we quash the sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment imposed upon ten of the eleven counts of robbery and substitute a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment on each, to be served consecutively to the outstanding licence period remaining.’
[2003] EWCA Crim 237
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 11 August 2021; Ref: scu.179515

Jackson v Regina: CACD 14 Jun 2021

Whether the judge below was wrong to extend, by a further 10 years, a restraining order imposed following the Appellant’s conviction in 2010, in circumstances where no breach of the order had occurred during the intervening period.
Mr Justice Henshaw
[2021] EWCA Crim 901, [2021] 4 WLR 93
Bailii
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 5(2), Criminal Appeal Act 1968 9(1) 50(1)
England and Wales

Updated: 06 August 2021; Ref: scu.663413