Crees, Regina v: CACD 24 Oct 2007

The defendant had been convicted of several offences involing serious assaults. He now appealed against a sentence to imprisonment for public protection.


Latham L, Burton, Teare JJ


[2007] EWCA Crim 2650, [2007] All ER (D) 376




Criminal Justice Act 2003 225


CitedO’Brien, Harris, Moss, Llewellyn and others v Regina CACD 14-Jul-2006
In each case the court was asked whether a sentence imposed under section 225(2) of the 2003 CJA for the protection of the public could be made to run consecutively to the principle sentence for the offence, and how did this link in with the courts . .
CitedLang 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 . .
CitedJohnson, Regina v; Regina vHamilton; Attorney General’s Reference (No 64 of 2006) CACD 20-Oct-2006
The court provided explanation of the nature of sentences passed for public protection under the 2003 Act, and in particular whether it was correct to base the assessment on previous convictions.
Held: ‘dangerousness’ is intended to represent . .
CitedRegina v O’Halloran CACD 14-Nov-2006
The defendant, after convictions for violence, now appealed against a sentence of detention for public protection for a period of two-and-a-half years.
Held: The court summarised the principles applicable: ‘(i) whilst it is not unlawful to . .
CitedReynolds and Others, Regina v CACD 8-Mar-2007
The court considered how it could marry the law against the increase of penaties on appeal with the possible need to correct a judge’s error in sentencing. It summarised the provisions for sentencing for specified offences: ‘[The] regime requires . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278917