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 a convenient shorthand for those cases where ‘The court is of the opinion that there is a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission . . of further specified offences’. , Sir Igor Judge P said that ‘It does not automatically follow from the absence of actual harm caused by the offender to date [i.e. to the date of sentencing], that the risk that he will cause serious harm in the future is negligible’. The court set out six main issues to be considered.
Judges:
Sir Igor Judge, President, Mr Justice Goldring and Mr Justice Owen
Citations:
Times 02-Nov-2006, [2006] EWCA Crim 2486, [2007] 1 Cr App Rep (S) 112, (2007) 171 JP 172, [2007] 1 WLR 585, [2007] 1 CAR (S) 112, [2007] 1 All ER 1237, [2007] Crim LR 177, [2007] 1 Cr App R (S) 112
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Justice Act 2003 224 229
Citing:
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 by:
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference No 87 of 2006, Regina v Daniel Peter Geddes CACD 24-Oct-2006
The Crown was given leave to appeal what it saw to be an unduly lenient sentence of the defendant following his becoming liable to be sentenced as a repeat offender iunder the 2003 Act. The main offence was that he had threatened his partner’s life . .
Cited – Reynolds 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 . .
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 – 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245411