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. Â
Criminal Sentencing - From: 1990 To: 1990
This page lists 11 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.
Â
 Regina v Parole Board, Ex parte Bradley; QBD 1990 - [1991] 1 WLR 134; [1990] COD 375; [1990] 3 All ER 828
Â
Regina v Palmer (1990) 12 Cr App R(S) 585
1990
CACD
Mann LJ
Criminal Sentencing
The appellant had been convicted of manslaughter on an indictment for murder. In the course of an argument with his wife he fetched a knife from the kitchen to frighten her; the argument turned into a fight in the course of which his wife received a fatal stab wound. The appellant claimed that the wound was inflicted accidentally, without any intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. The jury rejected the defence of accident, but found that the defendant was guilty of manslaughter rather than murder because his intention did not extend to an intent to cause death or really serious bodily harm. The defendant was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. Held: The sentences was reduced to five years' imprisonment. Mann LJ noted the lack of intent as being a central feature of the jury's verdict and although such a killing had to be marked by a prison sentence, the court considered that seven years was manifestly excessive.
1 Citers
Â
Regina v Cravioto (1990) 12 Cr App R (S) 71
1990
Criminal Sentencing
1 Cites
Â
Regina v Young (1990-1991) 12 Cr App R (S) 262
1990
Criminal Sentencing
Certain punitive orders may not be made in conjunction with a conditional discharge because if punishment is inexpedient, it is inappropriate to couple it with a punitive order.
1 Citers
Â
Young v McGlennan 1990 SCCR 373
1990
Lord Justice-Clerk (Ross)
Criminal Sentencing
The court reviewed the authourities on the use of consecutive sentences at common law.
1 Citers
Â
Regina v Porter [1990] 1 WLR 1260
1990
CACD
Criminal Sentencing
The defendant and a co-defendant admitted drugs offences. They were found to have jointly benefited in accordance with section 1(2) of the 1986 Act, that the extent of that benefit was £9,600 and that they should jointly and severally be ordered to pay that sum. The Court was asked whether the confiscation order could properly be joint and several, or whether it should be several, with each of them being required to pay £4,800. Held: The Act did not contemplate joint penalties. The court must, as between co-defendants, determine their respective shares of any joint benefit that they might have received as a result of their drug trafficking, and that in the absence of any evidence the court was entitled to assume that they were sharing equally. The orders were quashed and several orders for £4,800 substituted in each case.
1 Citers
Â
 Attorney-General's Reference (No 5 of 1989); Regina v Hill-Trevor; CACD 1990 - (1990) 90 Cr App R 358
Â
 Attorney-General's Reference (No 4 of 1989); CACD 1990 - (1990) 90 Cr App Rep 266; [1990] 1 WLR 41
Â
Regina v Emery-Barker [1990] 12 Cr App R(S) 78
1990
Criminal Sentencing
1 Citers
Â
Regina v Rees Unreported, 19 July 1990
19 Jul 1990
Auld J
Criminal Sentencing
The defendant had pleaded guilty to offences of obtaining property by deception, The judge discussed the issue of the obtaining of benefit saying: "The fact that he may not have personally received all or some of the money in relation to any of those offences is immaterial for the initial purpose of determining the total benefit.". Under section 71(4) of the 1988 Act it was necessary that the defendant himself should have obtained property as a result of his offending, even if jointly or through a third party at his behest, and his benefit is the value of the property so obtained. The defendant was responsible for all the proceeds of the offence, a responsibility he could not shed only because his accomplices had got away with their respective shares.
Theft Act 1968 15 - Criminal Justice Act 1988 71(4)
1 Citers
Â
Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v The United Kingdom 11787/85; 11978/86; (1990) 13 EHRR 666; 12009/86; [1990] ECHR 29; (1991) 13 EHRR 666
25 Oct 1990
ECHR
Mr R Ryssdal, P
Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing
The applicants, discretionary life prisoners, complained of a violation on the ground that they were not able to have the continued lawfulness of their detention decided by a court at reasonable intervals throughout their imprisonment. Held: A discretionary life sentence in English law was composed of a punitive element followed by a security element giving the Secretary of State the responsibility for determining when the public interest permits the prisoner's release. In these cases the punitive period had expired and the applicants were entitled to judicial control as guaranteed by Article 5(4). The detention of the applicants after the expiry of the punitive periods of their sentences was compared to the VAN DROOGENBROECK and WEEKS cases: the factors of mental instability and dangerousness are susceptible to change over the passage of time and new issues of lawfulness may arise in the course of detention. It follows that at this phase in the execution of their sentences, the applicants are entitled under Article 5(4) to take proceedings to have the lawfulness of their continued detention decided by a court at reasonable intervals and to have the lawfulness of any re-detention determined by a court.
European Convention on Human Rights 5(4)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ]
Â