swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Criminal Sentencing - From: 1960 To: 1969
This page lists 3 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.
Regina v Hodgson (1968) 52 Cr App R 113
1967
CACD
Criminal Sentencing
The court stated that the exceptional circumstances required to justify imposition of a life sentence for an offence other than murder are present if three conditions. First, the offence or offences are in themselves serious enough to require a very long sentence. Secondly, it appears from the nature of the offences or from the offender's criminal history that he is a person of mental instability who, if at liberty, would probably re-offend and present a grave danger to the public. Thirdly, the offender will remain unstable and a potential danger for a long and/or uncertain period of time.
"When the following conditions are satisfied, a sentence of life imprisonment is in our opinion justified: (1) where the offence or offences are in themselves grave enough to require a very long sentence; (2) where it appears from the nature of the offences or from the defendant's history that he is a person of unstable character likely to commit such offences in the future; and (3) where if the offences are committed the consequences to others may be specially injurious, as in the case of sexual offences or crimes of violence."
1 Citers
Director of Public Prosecutions v Ottewell [1968] CLY 837; [1968] 3 ALL ER 153; [1970] AC 642; (1968) 52 Cr App R 679
1968
HL
Lord Reid, Lord Donovan
Criminal Sentencing
The antecedent criminal history of an offender is a factor which may be taken into account in determining the sentence to be imposed, but it cannot be given such weight as to lead to the imposition of a penalty which is disproportionate to the gravity of the instant offence. The offender must be regarded as having otherwise paid the penalty for the prior offence or offences, and to do so would be to impose a fresh penalty for past offences.
If a word or expression is used in a statute creating a penal or taxation liability, and there is looseness or ambiguity attaching to it, the word should be construed strictly so as to prevent a fresh imposition of liability from being created unfairly by the use of oblique or slack language
Lord Donovan said: "Judges have always (and I think rightly) felt themselves entitled to deal with a persistent offender by increasing the sentence they would have passed if he were not. This is not to punish the offender again for his past crimes, nor is it always primarily for the protection of the public. It may simply be because of the Judge's view that sentences passed for previous offences have proved to be an insufficient deterrent and that the effect of a longer sentence must be tried, perhaps in the offender's own interest; or it may be that repetition has itself increased the gravity of the offence. Eventually, in some cases, the stage is reached where it becomes clear that progressively increasing sentences are not a deterrent and the protection of the public against a persistent offender then comes to the forefront of the considerations which the Judge must take into account."
1 Citers
Regina v Birtles [1969] EWCA Crim 1; [1969] 2 All ER 1131; [1969] 1 WLR 1047; 133 JP 573; 53 Ch App Rep 469
19 May 1969
CACD
Lord Parker LCJ, Megaw LJ, Nield J
Criminal Sentencing
The defendant had been convicted of burglary and carrying an imitation firearm with intent to commit burglary. He now appealed against a total sentence of 5 years. Held: There would normally be no reason to interfere with this particular sentence, but circimstances suggested the possibility that he had been encouraged in the offence by a police informer and his handler. The sentence was reduced to three years.
[ Bailii ]