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: 1970 To: 1979
This page lists 21 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.
Regina v Caird [1970] 54 Cr App R 499
1970
CACD
Sachs LJ
Criminal Sentencing
When considering the sentencing of rioters, it was not sufficient to consider the individual acts of the offenders. It is the act of taking part in such riotous activities that constitutes the seriousness of the offence.
Sachs LJ said: "When there is wanton and vicious violence of gross degree the court is not concerned with whether it originates from gang rivalry or from political motives. It is the degree of mob violence that matters and the extent to which the public peace is broken . .
Any participation whatever, irrespective of its precise form, in an unlawful or riotous assembly of this type derives its gravity from becoming one of those who by weight of numbers pursued a common and unlawful purpose. The law of this country has always leant heavily against those who, to attain such a purpose, use the threat that lies in the power of numbers . .
. In the view of this court, it is a wholly wrong approach to take the acts of any individual participator in isolation. They were not committed in isolation and, as already indicated, it is that very fact that constitutes the gravity of the offence."
. . And: '
Any suggestion that a section of the community strongly holding one set of views is justified in banding together to disrupt the lawful activities of a section that does not hold the same views so strongly or which holds different views cannot be tolerated and must unhesitatingly be rejected by the courts.'
1 Citers
Practice Note (Crime: Applications for leave to appeal) [1970] 1 WLR 663
1970
Criminal Sentencing
Directions were given for loss of time orders.
1 Citers
Regina v Newsome and Browne [1970] 2 QB 711
1970
CACD
Widgery LJ
Criminal Sentencing
The test of whether a sentence claimed to be too severe on appeal is whether it is 'wrong in principle or manifestly excessive'.
1 Citers
Regina v Kastercum [1972] 56 CAR 298
1972
CACD
Lord Widgery CJ
Criminal Sentencing
The court considered when it might be appropriate to impose concurrent sentences: "where several offences are tried together and arise out of the same transaction, it is a good working rule that the sentences imposed for those offences should be made concurrent. The reason for this is if a man is charged with several serious offences arising out of the same situation and consecutive sentences are imposed, the total very often proves to be much too great for the incident in question. That is only an ordinary working rule; it is perfectly open to a trial judge in a case such as the present to approach this in one of two ways."
1 Citers
Regina v Mallett [1972] Crim LR 260
1972
CACD
Criminal Sentencing
The court considered sentencing for manslaughter where the death was in effect accidental.
1 Citers
Regina v Akan [1973] QB 491; [1972] 3 All ER 285
1972
Criminal Sentencing
A recommendation for deportation was not a disqualification or disability within the meaning of section 12(2) of the 1948 Act.
Criminal Justice Act 1948 12(2)
1 Citers
Byrne v Low [1972] 1 WLR 1282
1972
Lord Widgery CJ
Criminal Sentencing
The court was asked as to the amount of the monetary penalty for a contravention of the prohibition on the importation of indecent goods. The 1952 Act provided for calculation by reference to the price which the goods might reasonably be expected to have fetched if they had been sold in the open market. The court accepted the evidence of an invoice that showed the price that the actual seller required from the actual buyer for the goods as landed, there being no open market in this country in the sense of a market free and above board, not conducted in an underground fashion, in which the goods of that kind could be sold. Lord Widgery CJ said: "It is contended before us today, and I think clearly the contention is correct, that in deciding what is the open market value of goods of this kind, one is not restricted by the distinction between the so-called black market and white market. What is being sought is the price which a willing seller would accept from a willing buyer for these goods as landed at the port or airport at which they were originally landed. If we can ascertain what is the price which would be paid by a willing buyer to a willing seller at the port of landing, then that is the open market value of the goods for present purposes, and the penalty accordingly can be up to a maximum of three times that value."
Customs and Excise Act 1952 305(2)
1 Citers
Regina v Huchison (1972) 56 Cr App R 307; [1972] WLR 398
1972
CACD
Criminal Sentencing
For the judge to form his own judgment of the evidence he has heard on the extent of the offending conduct beyond the instances specified in individual counts is to "deprive the appellant of his right to trial by jury in respect of the other alleged offences". Unless such other offences are admitted, such deprivation cannot in our view be consistent with principle."
1 Citers
Regina v King (1973) 57 Cr App R 696
1973
CACD
Lawton LJ
Criminal Sentencing
Two men carried out offences, including going equipped for stealing, burglary, possessing an imitation pistol, and carrying offensive weapons, which included an unloaded revolver for which they had no ammunition. They pleaded guilty to the charges against them. Their counsel read out a statement by them expressing anarchical views which included the passage: "The police uphold the laws, which in turn ensure the safety of the capitalist exploiters and their system. Therefore the police, police stations and courts are legitimate targets for acts of violence which are necessary to bring about badly needed changes in the structure of our society. Other legitimate targets are government ministers, officials and buildings, prisons and prison staff and troops." Held: The judge was clearly influenced very considerably by this statement and it led him to impose the maximum sentence on each count to which the defendants had pleaded. The offences for which the judge had passed these sentences were clearly not the worst of their kind and that therefore the maximum sentences should not have been imposed.
Lawton LJ said: "The learned judge increased the sentences because of the statement read to the court, and because of his view, for which there was ample evidence, that these young men were enemies of society. But the court has to bear in mind that in our system of jurisprudence there is no offence known as being an enemy of society. The court is concerned with the offences charged in the indictment. It may well be that at a trial the evidence establishes that those who have committed the offences charged are dangerous men. When the evidence establishes that the court has no reason for mitigating the penalties in any way. If the evidence does establish that the accused are dangerous men, then it is no good their saying that they have no previous convictions, or that they are still young men. The evidence cancels out such mitigation as there is. But the fact remains that the correct principle for sentencing is to sentence for the offences charged and on the facts proved or admitted. In those circumstances the court adjudges that these sentences will have to be altered."
1 Citers
Regina v Sargeant (1974) 60 Cr App R 74
1974
CACD
Lawton LJ
Criminal Sentencing
The judge had imposed a longer sentence for a crime of violence in order to protect the public against the violent propensities of the accused. Held: Lawton LJ said: "What ought the proper penalty to be? We have thought it necessary not only to analyse the facts, but to apply to those facts the classical principles of sentencing. Those classical principles are summed up in four words: retribution, deterrence, prevention and rehabilitation. Any judge who comes to sentence ought always to have those four classical principles in mind and to apply them to the facts of the case to see which of them has the greatest importance in the case with which he is dealing . . We come now to the element of prevention. Unfortunately it is one of the facts of life that there are some offenders for whom neither deterrence nor rehabilitation works. They will go on committing crimes as long as they are able to do so. In those cases the only protection which the public has is that such persons should be locked up for a long period."
1 Citers
Regina v Willis [1975] 1 WLR 292
1975
CACD
Lawton LJ
Criminal Sentencing
The court considered the range of sentencing for buggery of and indecent assault on a male child. Lawton LJ said: "The sentencing bracket for offences which have neither aggravating nor mitigating factors is from 3 to 5 years, and the place in the bracket will depend on age, intelligence and education. Few offences, however, have neither aggravating nor mitigating factors. Many have both. When this happens, the judge has to weigh what aggravates against what mitigates."
1 Citers
Attorney-General's Reference (No 1 of 1975); 1975 - [1975] 2 All ER 884
Regina v Turner [1975] 61 CAR 67
1975
CACD
Criminal Sentencing
The starting point for sentencing for a serious armed robbery or the "hold up" of a security or Post Office vehicle is in the region of 15 years, if firearms were carried and no serious injury inflicted and that the absence of a criminal record should not be considered a strong mitigating factor. The court considered the dangers of admitting evidence from suspects in the absence of a full immunity from prosecution.
1 Citers
Regina v Eaton; CACD 1976 - [1976] Crim LR 390
Regina v Anderson; Anderson v Director of Public Prosecutions [1978] AC 964; (1978) 67 Cr App R 185
1978
HL
Criminal Sentencing
A defendant may be sentenced only for an offence proved against him (by admission or verdict) or which he has admitted and asked the court to take into consideration when passing sentence.
1 Citers
Walton v The Queen [1978] AC 788; (1978) 66 Cr App R 25
1978
PC
Lord Keith of Kinkel
Criminal Sentencing
The defendant shot someone in a car. His defence was diminished responsibility, but the jury found him guilty of murder. He was sentenced to death. The Barbadian statute used precisely the same wording as the English Act of 1957. There had been uncontradicted medical evidence that the defendant suffered from an abnormality of mind which substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts. It was said that this meant that the jury was bound to accept that the defence had been established and that the trial judge should so have directed the jury. Held: Lord Keith of Kinkel referred to the case law and said: "These cases make it clear that upon an issue of diminished responsibility the jury are entitled and indeed bound to consider not only the medical evidence but the evidence upon the whole facts and circumstances of the case. These include the nature of the killing, the conduct of the defendant before, at the time and after it and any history of mental abnormality. It being recognised that the jury on occasion may properly refuse to accept medical evidence, it follows that they must be entitled to consider the quality and weight of that evidence". The jury were entitled to regard the medical evidence as "not entirely convincing". Furthermore, it had before it the evidence of the defendant's conduct before, during and after the killing. He concluded that the jury was entitled to find that the defence of diminished responsibility had not been established, on a balance of probabilities.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Regina v Hunt [1978] Crim LR 697
1978
Criminal Sentencing
It was wrong in law to couple an order for conditional discharge with an order of deprivation.
1 Citers
Regina v Pither (1979) 1 Cr App R(S) 209
1979
CACD
Lawton LJ
Criminal Sentencing
A life sentence for an offence other than homicide should not be imposed unless there are exceptional circumstances.
1 Citers
Regina v Oakley (1979) 1 Cr App R (S)
1979
CACD
Criminal Sentencing
Sentencing for shoplifters.
1 Citers
Rajendra Prasad v State of Uttar Pradesh [1979] 3 SCR 78
1979
Krishna Iyer J
Criminal Sentencing
The court noted the substantial differences in culpability in different murders.
1 Citers
Abbott v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago and Others [1979] UKPC 15
12 Jun 1979
PC
Criminal Sentencing, Prisons
Trinidad and Tobago
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]