Holme 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 of the injuries caused.
Held: The extent to which a victim’s views could be allowed for in sentencing remains unclear. The magistrates had the means available of obtaining such evidence as they wished of the injuries, and there was no error to allow a re-opening the sentence under the section. If the power was to be exercised, it was necessary that it be done expeditiously. The principle of finality in sentencing should also operate. The order setting aside the decision was quashed.

Collins J, Newman J
[2004] EWHC 3131 (Admin)
Bailii
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 14
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Croydon Youth Court ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 8-May-1997
The defendant, a 12 year old boy , had been charged, with others, with offences of violence. He denied the charges. He objected to his interview with admissions being used. On being admitted he then pleaded guilty. Later cases against co-defendants . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Pierson HL 24-Jul-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 . .
CitedRegina v Stokes 1998
The consequences of bad driving are to be taken into account when sentencing for the driving. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.226926