Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

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: 2000 To: 2000

This page lists 89 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.

 
Regina v Patel [2000] 2 Cr App R(S) 10
2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
The defendent pleaded guilty to conspiring to obtain property by deception. He admitted receiving a total of £51,920. Held: This amount represented his benefit from his relevant criminal conduct for the purpose of the Act. That he had later given some of the money to his fellow conspirator was irrelevant. The court considered Rees and Gokal, and noted that Buxton J's decision as to the meaning of benefit had understandably not been the subject of criticism on behalf of Gokal in the Court of Appeal. The court had to consider a challenge to the quantum of benefit and, in coming to a decision on that, gave no indication that it disagreed with the judge's view as to the meaning of benefit. The court in Patel shared Buxton J's view that section 15(2) of the Theft Act 1968 cannot assist in the construction of the 1988 Act where the offender is not charged with obtaining property by deception under section 15 or conspiracy to do so. In Rees, the defendant had pleaded guilty to three counts of obtaining money by deception, the money in each case being mortgage funds from a building society. He received three loans. The argument on his behalf to restrict the benefit to one of these loans only relied on the fact that the building society did not suffer a loss from the other two loans because there was adequate security for repayment of them under the mortgage. The decision was that, irrespective of any net loss to the building society, Rees had with others actually obtained the total amount of the three loans.
1 Citers


 
Attorney-General's Reference No 43 of 1999 (Glyn GM) [2000] 1 Cr App R (S) 398
2000


Criminal Sentencing
In this case involving serious sexual offences by a father upon his daughter, it was stated that, upon conviction on a plea of not guilty, the appropriate sentence would have been one of between 15 and 18 months’ imprisonment.
1 Citers


 
Attorney-General's Reference No 72 of 1999 (MG) [2000] 2 Cr App R (S) 79
2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing

1 Citers



 
 Regina v Haywood; CACD 2000 - [2000] 2 Cr App R (S) 418
 
Attorney General's Reference No 73 of 1999 (R v Mark Charles) [2000] 2 Cr App R(S) 209
2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing

1 Citers


 
Regina v Newman; Regina v Buckland Times, 03 February 2000; [2000] 1 WLR 1262; [2000] EWCA Crim 1
18 Jan 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing, Health
The fact that a defendant had, at the time of committing an offence, been suffering from an acute mental illness, was not sufficient reason to count as an exceptional reason allowing a judge not to pass a life sentence for a subsequent serious offence. The case should be looked at in the light of section 2, and the purpose of the Act. Attempted robbery was not a serious offence within the Act but a firearms offence involving an imitation firearm was.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Newman [2000] EWCA Crim 2; [2000] 2 Cr App R (S) 227
18 Jan 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v G (Sex Offence: Registration) Times, 26 January 2000
26 Jan 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
Where a court came to sentence a defendant for an offence which would make him liable for registration on the Sex Offenders Register, the judge should avoid confusion, by dealing explicitly with the issue, including the need to register, and the period of registration.
Sex Offenders Act 1997


 
 Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte A; HL 27-Jan-2000 - Times, 28 January 2000; Gazette, 10 February 2000; [2000] UKHL 4; [2000] 2 AC 276; [2000] 1 All ER 651; [2000] 2 WLR 293; [2000] Crim LR 321
 
Clifford R Norris, Re; In the Matter of an Application By Teresa W Norris Gazette, 10 February 2000; Times, 25 February 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 14; [2000] 1 WLR 1094
27 Jan 2000
CA
Tuckey LJ
Criminal Sentencing
After a drugs trial, the commissioners sought a confiscation order against the defendant's assets. The defendant's wife argued that the house was in reality hers. The trial judge found against her. In later proceedings enforce the order, the wife again sought to assert an interest. It was held that the provisions allowing such a challenge only applied where no prior opportunity to present a claimants case had been available. Here it would be wrong to allow her to try to re-litigate the issues.
Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Director of Public Prosecutions v Scarlett; CACD 7-Feb-2000 - Times, 07 February 2000
 
Regina v Ahmed Unreported, 8 February 2000; 9905818X4
8 Feb 2000
CACD
Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Goldring and Sir Charles McCullough
Criminal Sentencing
There were three offences. Count 3 within a period wholly after 1st November 1995, when the cut off date for the section applied. The other two, Counts 1 and 2, were in relation to periods partly before and partly after that date. In each of those instances there were overt acts committed in pursuance of the existence of the relevant conspiracy both before and after that date, 1st November 1995. Counsel’s submission was that as the conspiracies in Counts 1 and 2 ran from 1st January 1995, the offences in Counts 1 and 2 were being committed both before and after 1st November 1995. That being so in these proceedings the appellant was "convicted … of an offence which was committed before [1st November 1995]". It follows that the judge had the discretion to make an order in the full agreed sum of £40,000 or a lesser sum or none at all."
Criminal Justice Act 1988 71
1 Citers


 
R v Newman Gazette, 13 February 2000
13 Feb 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing, Health
The fact that a defendant had, at the time of committing an offence, been suffering from an acute mental illness, was not sufficient reason to count as an exceptional reason allowing a judge not to pass a life sentence for a subsequent serious offence. The case should be looked at in the light of section 2, and the purpose of the Act.
Crime (Sentences) Act 1997

 
Regina v Buckland Times, 13 February 2000
13 Feb 2000
CA

Criminal Sentencing
Attempted robbery was not necessarily a serious offence within the Act, but a firearms offence involving an imitation firearm was. Nevertheless the court should look to the overriding purpose of the Act, and where the purpose was served, a lesser sentence than life for a second qualifying offence might be appropriate where such exceptional circumstances applied.
Crime (Sentences) Act 1997


 
 Regina v Miranda; CACD 15-Feb-2000 - Gazette, 02 March 2000; Times, 08 March 2000; [2000] EWCA Crim 11; [2000] 2 Cr App R (S) 347
 
Regina v Gaskin [2000] NIECA 3
25 Feb 2000
CANI
Nicholson LJ
Northern Ireland, Criminal Sentencing
Application for leave to appeal against sentence
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Lodde (David), R v Lodde (Ann) Times, 08 March 2000
8 Mar 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
Where an offender had spent time in custody abroad, even after fleeing his prosecution here, it was proper to make some allowance for that period in custody against a sentence to be imposed here. This situation was outside the one provided for by statute. Although some allowance should be made it was not the full time spent in custody. The allowance should be reduced because the defendants had brought this upon themselves, they had committed a bail offence, and the time spent in custody had been lengthened by their own resistance.

 
Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another, Ex Parte Willis Times, 22 March 2000; Gazette, 09 March 2000
9 Mar 2000
QBD

Criminal Sentencing, Prisons
A prisoner having been sentenced to serve less than four years applied for consideration for early release under an electronic tagging home detention scheme. He was refused because he would have to register on release with the Police as a sex offender, and such individuals were subject to special rules set by the Home Secretary. The applicant had not been allowed to see the materials upon which the decision had been made. He should be allowed to see the material upon which the decision was based only if it went against the prisoner's assertion of such exceptional circumstances. Such prisoners posed a special risk, and the requirement for exceptional circumstances was not unlawful or irrational.
Criminal Justice Act 1991 34A 37A - Sex Offenders Act 1997

 
Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Shaw Times, 16 March 2000
16 Mar 2000
QBD

Criminal Sentencing, Judicial Review
A prisoner was subject to a discretionary life imprisonment order. To try to accelerate his release he applied to take part in a program for the rehabilitation of sex offenders. Before that decision was made, he was reclassified as a psychopath, and then refused entry to the program. He sought to review that decision, because he had not been given opportunity to make representations about it. The decision was part of a continuing review of the prisoner, and the effect on his potential early release, whilst real, remained a secondary consequence.

 
Attorney General's Reference No 60 of 1999 [2000] EWCA Crim 23
23 Mar 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing

[ Bailii ]

 
 Curley v United Kingdom; ECHR 28-Mar-2000 - Times, 05 April 2000; 32340/96; [2000] ECHR 122; [2000] ECHR 122; (2001) 31 EHRR 14; [2000] Prison LR 65; (2000) 31 EHRR 401

 
 Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Hindley; HL 30-Mar-2000 - Times, 31 March 2000; Gazette, 14 April 2000; [2000] UKHL 21; [2000] 2 All ER 385; [2000] 2 WLR 730; [2000] Prison LR 71; [2001] 1 AC 410
 
Regina v Turner (Ian) Times, 04 April 2000
4 Apr 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
There are clearly circumstances under the new regime for the passing of mandatory sentences for repeat offenders which were offensive to a judge's sense of justice. It was possible that such laws would lead to applications under the Human Rights legislation. Nevertheless, the court must interpret the term 'exceptional circumstances' restrictively. Provocation or the passage of time were not capable of constituting exceptional circumstances.
Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 2

 
W, Regina v [2000] EWCA Crim 3545; [2001] 1 Cr App R (S) 8; [2000] 1 WLR 1687; [2000] 3 All ER 561; [2000] Crim LR 599
10 Apr 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
Mandatory Life sentence
Crime (Sentences) Act 1997
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Stenhouse Times, 11 April 2000
11 Apr 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
A defendant was convicted of a repeat offence of dealing in Class A drugs. The minimum term to be applied was seven years. However, in this case the defendant's previous conviction had been dealt with by way of a probation order, and that alone was a sufficient 'particular circumstance' which would operate to allow a judge to assess whether the minimum sentence would be an injustice. In this case it would be an injustice, and sentences of three years were substituted.
Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 - Crime and Disorder Act 1998

 
Regina v O'Brien; Regina v Enkel Times, 19 April 2000
19 Apr 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing, Environment
A sentence of imprisonment was unnecessarily severe for a first offence of dumping tyres. The case did not involve any hazardous substances, and the offences were at the lower end of the scale, despite the results being unsightly, the risk (at worst) of rats and fire, the absence of any long term effect, the absence of danger, the expectation of being able to redistribute the tyres properly, no previous similar convictions, their (late) guilty pleas, and the fact that they were only part of the operation.
Environmental Protection Act 1990 33(1)(a)

 
Regina v Wood (Stephen Robert) Gazette, 25 May 2000; Times, 21 April 2000
21 Apr 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
A defendant had been previously convicted of a non-consensual buggery. On conviction for a later offence, the question arose of whether this was a serious sexual offence requiring the application of a mandatory life sentence. Buggery had not been on the list of serious offences, but non-consensual buggery had later been defined as equivalent to rape which was listed. The absence of consent was not an essential averment in the charge, and it was not to be considered as such a serious sexual offence.
Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 2(5) - Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 142


 
 Regina v Cooper (Toby); CACD 28-Apr-2000 - Times, 05 April 2000; Gazette, 28 April 2000
 
Drieman and others v Norway 33678/96
4 May 2000
ECHR

Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing
A challenge to the conviction and sentencing of the claimants for disrupting a lawful whaling expedition was held inadmissible. A fine was considered to be proportionate for such direct action.
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Perks; CACD 5-May-2000 - Times, 05 May 2000; [2000] EWCA Crim 34
 
Regina v Inner London Crown Court, Ex P I Times, 12 May 2000
12 May 2000
QBD

Criminal Sentencing
The obligation on a court when sentencing a young offender to take account of the period of time spent in custody, did not amount to an obligation to reduce a sentence to take account of such time. There was no one-to-one equation, and a time in custody of one day might well not affect the sentence passed.
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 73

 
Cardiff City Transport Services, Regina v [2000] EWCA Crim 97
22 May 2000
CACD
Rose LJ VP, Jowittm Hallett JJ
Criminal Sentencing, Health and Safety

Health and Safety at Work Act 1984
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Goldsmith, Attorney-General's Reference (No 6 of 2000) Times, 24 May 2000
24 May 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
Where a life sentence accompanied by a specified period before which parole should be considered was referred on the grounds that the effect was too lenient, the court should recognise the element of double jeopardy created by such a reference, but the effect was not as great as applied where the sentence was a determinate sentence.


 
 Regina v Malik; CACD 30-May-2000 - Times, 30 May 2000
 
Regina v Haringey Youth Court, Ex Parte A Times, 30 May 2000
30 May 2000
QBD

Magistrates, Criminal Sentencing
Where a youth court was considering the imposition of a detention and training order on a young offender under the Act, the court should always, before retiring state this possibility in open court so that the parties can ascertain the length of time if any spent already spent in custody so that proper allowance could be made when fixing the sentence.
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 73

 
R v Inner London Crown Court, Ex P I Gazette, 31 May 2000
31 May 2000
QBD

Criminal Sentencing
The obligation on a court when sentencing a young offender to take account of the period of time spent in custody, did not amount to an obligation to reduce a sentence to take account of such time. There was no one-to-one equation, and a time in custody of one day might well not affect the sentence passed.
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 73

 
Regina v Ganley Times, 07 June 2000
7 Jun 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
When a youth was to be sentenced to a detention training order, time spent in custody on remand could not be automatically deducted. It was therefore necessary for the sentencing judge if appropriate to adjust the sentence himself, and to make it clear that he was doing so.
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999

 
Regina v Khan (Attorney-General's Reference No 7 of 2000); Same v Saunders (AG Ref 10 of 2000); Same v Paul (AG Ref 9 of 2000); Same v Wakelin (AG Ref 8 of 2000) Times, 15 June 2000
15 Jun 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
Robbery committed on public transport, against young persons, will lead to a custodial sentence, save in wholly exceptional circumstances. There is a need to provide deterrence, for what has become a common crime. Sentences of between twelve and eighteen months were imposed.
Theft Act 1968
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Smith; CACD 16-Jun-2000 - Unreported, 16 June 2000; 2000/00449/X4

 
 Regina v Brixton Prison and Another, Ex Parte Burke; HL 16-Jun-2000 - Times, 16 June 2000; [2000] UKHL 35; 3 All ER 481; [2000] 3 WLR 33
 
Coeme and others v Belgium 32492/96; [2000] ECHR 249; 32548/96; [2000] ECHR 250; 32492/96; 32547/96
22 Jun 2000
ECHR

Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing
The mischief that Article 7 is designed to prevent is the imposition by the State of (i) criminal liability for an act which did not attract such liability at the time it was committed or (ii) a penalty greater than the maximum permitted when the offence was committed. "The court must verify that at the time when the accused prisoner performed the act which led to him being prosecuted and convicted there was in force a legal provision which made that act punishable, and that the punishment imposed did not exceed the limits fixed by that provision."
European Convention on Human Rights 7.1
1 Citers

[ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Wiggins; CACD 23-Jun-2000 - Times, 23 June 2000

 
 Regina v Bromiley; CACD 4-Jul-2000 - Times, 04 July 2000

 
 Regina v J; CACD 4-Jul-2000 - [2000] EWCA Crim 115; [2001] 1 Cr App R (S) 79

 
 Regina v Croft; CACD 6-Jul-2000 - Times, 06 July 2000
 
Hale v Tanner [2000] EWCA Civ 5570; [2000] 2 FLR 879; [2000] 1 WLR 2377
20 Jul 2000
CA

Criminal Sentencing

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Behrooz Mashaollahi; CACD 25-Jul-2000 - Times, 04 August 2000; Gazette, 28 September 2000; [2000] CA Crim 52

 
 Practice Statement (Juveniles: Murder Tariffs); CACD 27-Jul-2000 - Times, 09 August 2000; [2000] 1 WLR 1655

 
 Regina v Morris (HL); CACD 4-Aug-2000 - Times, 04 August 2000

 
 Regina v Powell (A); CACD 15-Aug-2000 - Times, 15 August 2000

 
 Regina v Bollingbroke; CACD 16-Aug-2000 - Times, 16 August 2000

 
 Regina v S; CACD 30-Aug-2000 - Gazette, 21 September 2000; Times, 30 August 2000
 
Lewis, Taylor and Mcleod, Brown, Taylor and Shaw v the Attorney General of Jamaica and Another Times, 11 October 2000; [2000] UKPC 35; [2001] 2 AC 50; [2000] 3 WLR 1785
12 Sep 2000
PC

Criminal Sentencing, Natural Justice, Commonwealth, Constitutional
(Jamaica) When the Privy Council considered a petition for mercy by a person sentenced to death, it could not revisit the decision, but could look only at the procedural fairness of the system. The system should allow properly for representations, and the necessary disclosures to be made. Such a petition should be the last step in the process, and should not be complete until other international bodies had considered applications to them. In this case also the extent of delay was sufficient to constitute unusual and inhuman treatment. The constitutional guarantee of "due process of law" and the right to "the protection of the law" are equivalent.
Dissenting, Lord Hoffmann drew attention to the evils which would follow if the power to overrule previous decisions of the Privy Council were exercised too readily.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ PC ]

 
 Regina v Docklands Estates Ltd; CACD 22-Sep-2000 - Times, 22 September 2000
 
Ong, Regina v [2000] EWCA Crim 92; [2001] 1 Cr App R (S) 117
2 Oct 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
Appeal from sentence of 4 years imprisonment to cause public nuisance by manipulation of lights at Premier League football matches to support betting cartel.
[ Bailii ]
 
Looker, Regina v [2000] EWCA Crim 103
3 Oct 2000
CACD
Rose VP LJ, Astill, Richards JJ
Criminal Sentencing
The defendant appealed against her conviction and sentence for robbery saying that she had suffered severe violence from her partner and co-defendeant. She pleaded duress on the basis of fresh medical evidence. Held: Had the judge known of the history and of its affect on her mind, it would have been taken as proper mitigation. Her sentence was reduced to a total of 7 years, allowing her immediate release.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Powell; CACD 5-Oct-2000 - Times, 05 October 2000
 
Attorney General's Reference No 48 of 2000 [2000] EWCA Crim 94
5 Oct 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v C (Young Person: Persistent Offender) Times, 11 October 2000
11 Oct 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
A Home Office circular which sought to set out a definition of what would be a 'persistent offender' for the purposes of the Act could not replace the words of the statute. In this case the judge had drawn his conclusion from the cases presented to him, and the facts admitted established sufficient persistence under the Act. The fact that they would not meet the criteria under the circular was not conclusive.
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 73(2)

 
Barwick, Regina v [2000] EWCA Crim 3551; [2001] Crim LR 52; [2001] 1 Cr App R (S) 129
13 Oct 2000
CACD
Judge LJ, Holman, Andrew Smith JJ
Criminal Sentencing
The court considered the construction and effect of the provisions for confiscation orders under the 1988 Act.
Criminal Justice Act 198
[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Cassidy; CACD 13-Oct-2000 - Times, 13 October 2000
 
Dorrian, Regina v [2001] 1 Cr App Rep (S) 135; [2000] EWCA Crim 3546; [2001] Crim LR 56
19 Oct 2000
CACD
Rose LJ VP CACD, Astill, Richards JJ
Criminal Sentencing
Appeal from confiscation order made out after application out of time.
[ Bailii ]
 
Jones v Director of Public Prosecutions Gazette, 02 November 2000; Times, 20 October 2000
20 Oct 2000
QBD

Criminal Sentencing, Road Traffic
Where magistrates considered an offence for which a driving ban was discretionary, they were entitled at that stage to take account of the driving record, even though they knew they would have to take that same record into account when considering a totting up ban. There was no double jeopardy, since the two systems considered different aspects of the offence, the speed driven on this occasion, and the repetition creating a pattern of behaviour. The two systems were not mutually exclusive, or alternatives.
Road Traffic Act 1972
1 Citers


 
Regina v Ayodeji Times, 20 October 2000
20 Oct 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing, Transport
The offence of being drunk on board an aircraft can include allegations that the behaviour was the cause of fear in other passengers, without the offence being charged as endangering the aircraft. The offence carried a heavy maximum penalty precisely because these consequences of terror and insecurity in the minds of fellow passengers naturally followed from such behaviour. The offence in this case was persistent and flagrant and the sentence of eight months imprisonment was appropriate.
Air Navigation (No 2) Order 1995 (1995 No 1970) - Civil Aviation Act 1982 60 61

 
Attorney General's Reference No 87 and 88 of 1999; Regina v Webb; Regina v Simpson Times, 08 November 2000; [2000] EWCA Crim 56
23 Oct 2000
CACD
Kennedy LJ, Forbes, Steel JJ
Criminal Sentencing
During a contested trial, the judge indicated that he would not impose a sentence of imprisonment on conviction, and he did not do so. The Attorney General sought the reference on the grounds that the sentence was unduly lenient. Held: The judge's representations did not bind the Court of Appeal. Though they would be taken into account, in this case the defendants had not relied to their disadvantage on what the judge had said, and nor had the prosecutor acquiesced in any way. Sentences of imprisonment were proper for a sophisticated, protracted and successful tax fraud where assets had been put beyond the jurisdiction. Delay in bring the reference was not necessarily a bar to such a decision.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Armsaramah Times, 25 October 2000
25 Oct 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
In a very clear case it was possible for a judge to pass a custodial sentence on a defendant who had not previously received a custodial sentence without first obtaining a pre-sentence report. In this case counsel had not asked for a pre-sentence report, and had been able to put forward all and any pints which a probation officer might have presented, and the judge had acted on the basis of making every possible assumption in favour of the defendant. Such instances were not limited to cases of very short sentences.

 
Attorney-General's Reference (No 44 of 2000); Regina v Peverett Times, 25 October 2000
25 Oct 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
Where a defendant had taken steps in a trial to his detriment which he would not otherwise have taken, in reliance upon representations made to him by the prosecutors, whether CPS or otherwise, it was not open to the crown to resile from that promise after the defendant had so acted, by, for example, pleading guilty, and an appeal court would have to honour the representation made.

 
Williams, Regina v [2000] EWCA Crim 3531; [2001] 1 Cr App Rep (S) 140; [2001] Crim LR 54
26 Oct 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
Appeal against sentence on conviction for several frauds taking advantage of elderly people.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v W (Sentencing: Age of Defendant) Times, 26 October 2000
26 Oct 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
Where a sentence meant that a defendant would not expect to be released until after his eightieth birthday, it was proper to make allowance for his age when passing sentence. The offences were serious indecent assaults in gross breach of trust against young girls, and were relatively recent, but nevertheless, the sentencing judge should have made some allowance for the fact that the defendant was 75 at the time of sentence. In this case a sentence of eight years would be substituted for one of twelve years.

 
The Home Office v Peter Maurice Burgess Times, 14 November 2000; Gazette, 07 December 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 279
26 Oct 2000
CA

Criminal Sentencing, Torts - Other, Prisons
Time spent in custody during a trial was not a 'relevant period' for the reduction of his sentence under the Act. An action for damages for false imprisonment, the claimant having been ordered to surrender to the court each day one hour before his trial, and to remain there during the days events, was bound to fail. The defendant had been released on bail with conditions about attendance during the trial. The times stated included times when the court was not sitting, and it was argued that they constituted relevant time. They did not. The order was a sensible way of maintaining good order in the trial by ensuring the defendant had no contact with witnesses.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Cawthorn Times, 27 October 2000
27 Oct 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
The powers of the court when return a prisoner to custody after recall for breach of licence under section 39 and return to custody under section 40 were clearly distinct and different. In this case because the sentence was imposed under section 39 there was no power to make it consecutive.
Criminal Justice Justice Act 1991 39 40

 
In Re Thompson and Venables (Tariff Recommendations) Times, 27 October 2000; [2001] 1 All ER 737; [2001] 1 Cr App R 401
27 Oct 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
An invitation to the parents of a deceased victim of crime to make representations was useful to help establish the effect of the crime on the victims, but it was not for the family to express views as o the proper sentence. When reconsidering the tariff to be served by youths convicted of murder as young children, should reflect the welfare of the children, and progress made since conviction.
1 Citers



 
 Flowers v The Queen; PC 30-Oct-2000 - Times, 01 December 2000; [2000] 1 WLR 2396; Appeal No 54 of 1999; [2000] UKPC 41

 
 Regina v Reynolds; CACD 1-Nov-2000 - Times, 01 November 2000

 
 Regina v Twisse; CACD 7-Nov-2000 - Times, 30 November 2000; [2001] Crim LR 151; [2001] Cr App Rep (S) 37; [2001] Cr App Rep (S) 9; [2001] Cr App R (S) 37; [2000] EWCA Crim 98

 
 Regina v Barker (Andrew); CACD 8-Nov-2000 - Times, 08 November 2000; Gazette, 16 November 2000; [2001] 1 Cr App R (S) 514
 
Offen and Others, Regina v [2000] EWCA Crim 96; [2000] Prison LR 283; [2001] 2 Cr App Rep (S) 10; [2001] 1 Cr App R 24; [2001] Crim LR 63; [2001] 1 WLR 253; [2001] 2 All ER 154
9 Nov 2000
CACD
The Lord Woolf of Barnes LCJ, Steel, Richards JJ
Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights
The court heard appeals against automatic life sentences imposed under the 1997 Act. It was contended that either the interpretation of section 2 of the 1997 Act was affected by section 3 of the 1998, or that section 2 is incompatible with a Convention right so that the appellants are entitled to a declaration of incompatibility. Held: The challenges failed. The problem had arisen because of the restrictive approach formerly adopted to the interpretation of exceptional circumstances in section 2. If exceptional circumstances are construed in a manner which accords with the policy of Parliament in passing section 2, the problem disappears: "Under section 2 it will be part of the responsibility of judges to assess the risk to the public that offenders constitute. In many cases the degree of risk that an offender constitutes will be established by his record, with or without the assistance of assessments made in reports which are available to the court. If a court needs further assistance, they can call for it. The courts have traditionally had to make a similar assessment when deciding whether a discretionary life sentence should be imposed. There should be no undue difficulty in making a similar assessment when considering whether the court is required to impose an automatic life sentence, although the task will not be straightforward, because of the lack of information as to the first serious offence which will sometimes exist because of the passage of time.
This does not mean that we are approaching the passing of an automatic life sentence as though it is no different from the imposition of a discretionary life sentence. Notwithstanding the interpretation resulting from the application of section 3(1) of the 1998 Act suggested, section 2 will still give effect to the intention of Parliament. It will do so, however, in a more just, less arbitrary and more proportionate manner. Section 2 will still mean that a judge is obliged to pass a life sentence in accordance with its terms unless, in all the circumstances, the offender poses no significant risk to the public. There is no such obligation in cases where section 2 does not apply. In addition, if the judge decides not to impose a life sentence under section 2, he will have to give reasons as required by section 2(3). Furthermore, the issue of dangerousness will have to be addressed in every case and a decision made as to whether or not to impose a life sentence."
Crime (Sentences) Act 1997
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Barwick Times, 10 November 2000; [2001] 1 Cr App R (S) 445
10 Nov 2000
CACD

Criminal Practice, Criminal Sentencing
The defendant had defrauded women of in excess of £500,000. He admitted dishonesty. The court ordered confiscation under the 1988 Act, with the benefit assessed as that figure, adjusted to £600,000 to allow for the return he should have made. No assets were traced, and the police said that he had hidden it, since he did not appear to have lived extravagantly or spent large sums of money. The appellant said he had gambled it away, but gave no evidence of this. His evidence was found evasive but the benefit figure was reduced by £150,000 as an acknowledgement that some of the money had probably been spent over the years. He appealed contending that the judge had been wrong to place the burden on the appellant to establish that his realisable assets were less than the amount of the benefit. Held: Where an application for a confiscation order was being resisted, the onus of proving the ‘benefit’ obtained is first upon the prosecution. The burden then lay on the defendant to establish to the civil standard, that he had no realisable assets and how the proceeds of the criminal activity were no longer available. The Act requires two distinct tasks. To determine the benefit, and then determine the amount that might be realised. The amount may be quite unrelated to the identifiable proceeds of the offence, eg a lottery win, inheritance, or other lawfully acquired property. The task of the court at the second stage is to determine the amount "appearing to the court" to be the amount that might be realised. But once the benefit has been proved, it is permissible and ought normally to be the approach of the court, to conclude that the benefit remains available until the defendant proves otherwise; subject to the issue of changes in the value of the money.
“it is likely that an offender may take steps to make the proceeds of crime difficult to trace. Once it is proved that he has received the benefit, it is pragmatic, and entirely fair to the defendant, to place upon him the onus of showing (to the civil standard) that he no longer has the proceeds or that their extent or value has diminished” and “We stress that the scheme of the Act requires the court to perform two distinct and discrete tasks. First, to determine the benefit. Secondly, to determine the amount that might be realised at the time the order is made, which may be very different. Further, the amount that might be realised may be quite unrelated to the identifiable proceeds of the offence, e.g. a lottery win, inheritance, or other lawfully acquired property. In the end, the task of the court at the second stage is to determine the amount ‘appearing to the court’ to be the amount that might be realised. But once the benefit has been proved, it is permissible and ought normally to be the approach of the court, to conclude that the benefit remains available until the defendant proves otherwise . .”
Criminal Justice Act 1988 71
1 Citers


 
Regina v Offen; Regina v McGuillard; Regina v McKeown; Regina v Okwuegbunam; Regina v Saunders (Stephen) Times, 15 November 2000; Gazette, 05 January 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 253
15 Nov 2000
CACD
Kennedy LJ, Hooper J
Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights
For the purposes of the Act, where a defendant faced a compulsory life sentence following two convictions for certain offences, a finding by the judge that the defendant did not pose a serious risk to society, could be an exceptional circumstance justifying not imposing the sentence. Such a finding might be based upon there being a long time between offences, or the offences being of a different nature. Nevertheless, where the defendant did pose a risk to society, such a sentence would not be a breach of the defendant's human right to a fair trial.
CS Kennedy LJ: "[T]here is nothing offensive or contrary to Convention law about Parliament reminding the courts of the risks normally attendant upon the grant of bail to those to whom section 25 applies. A reminder can properly be given by creating a statutory presumption against the grant of bail, but if judicial control is to be effective courts must be left free to examine all of the relevant circumstances and, in an appropriate case, to override the presumption." and
"[Section 25 (1)] establishes a norm. The norm is that those to whom it applies if granted bail are so likely to fail to surrender to custody, or offend, or interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice that bail should not be granted. If in fact, taking into account all the circumstances relating to a particular alleged offence and offender he does not create an unacceptable risk of that kind he is an exception to the norm, and in accordance with his individual right to liberty he should be granted bail.
. . . the fact that section 25 overrides section 4 of the Bail Act 1976 will not be a matter of any great moment, because section 25 will merely assist the court to adopt a proper approach in relation to the question of bail, and the approach will be in conformity with the requirements of article 5."
Human Rights Act 1998 - Crime (Sentences) Act 1997
1 Citers


 
Attorney General's Reference No 58 of 2000 [2000] EWCA Crim 87
16 Nov 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Toomer; Regina v Powell; Regina v Mould Times, 21 November 2000
21 Nov 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
The sentences for downloading and distributing pornographic images of children could range from the maximum to a fine. The relevant factors are whether there was a commercial or large scale operation, whether the offence was isolated, the quantity and nature of the material, the presence of any exploitation, the character of the defendant and the effect on him of the conviction, and the presence of an early guilty plea, and co-operation with the police.
Criminal Justice Act 1988 160(1) - Protection of Children Act 1978 1

 
Regina v Burgess Times, 28 November 2000
28 Nov 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
Where the court considered making a deprivation order, it may be inevitable that the effect will be different on different defendants. Although the court might want to treat defendants equally, that could only be taken so far. It must frequently arise that there are differences between defendants in financial circumstances, and the provision in this case by one defendant of a vehicle used by all defendants created an imbalance. A deprivation order would lead to an imbalance, but it remained a fair and proper decision, despite the existence of a joint venture.
Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 43

 
Regina v Sabeddu Times, 30 November 2000
30 Nov 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
The section recognised the inherent danger of supplying a drug to the public, where neither the supplier nor the recipient could know the danger of ingesting it. Ketamine, intended for horses, was not a controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and there were no sentencing guidelines available. In this case, in the light of the appellant's good character, youth and plea, and the low value of the powder, three months detention was appropriate.
Medicines Act 1968 45(1)

 
Regina v Chelmsford Justices, Ex Parte Lloyd Times, 05 December 2000
5 Dec 2000
QBD

Criminal Sentencing, Magistrates
It was proper for magistrates to commit a defendant to the Crown Court for sentence where they believed that the appropriate sentence was a fine, but the level of fine they thought appropriate would be outside their powers, and only the Crown Court would have that power. The section did not limit the power to situations involving imprisonment. It would be helpful, if the justices considered this to make their views known to the defendant and his advocate to allow representations to be made, and in due course to make the basis of committal known to the Crown Court.
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 38

 
Regina v North East Essex Justices, ex parte Lloyd Gazette, 07 December 2000
7 Dec 2000
QBD

Magistrates, Criminal Sentencing
The magistrates had full power to commit a defendant to the Crown Court for sentence where they wanted to fine him, but considered that their powers to impose a fine were too limited. When doing so, they should invite representation on the proposal, and convey their views to the Crown Court.

 
Regina v Shevki and Michael John Steele Times, 11 January 2001; [2000] EWCA Crim 70; [2001] 2 Cr App R(S) 178
14 Dec 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing, Crime
The making of a confiscation order is part of sentencing. Such an order might be delayed provided the determination was made within six months of conviction. If in the circumstances of the case of an adjournment beyond that period was necessary, whether or not the information gathering process had been completed, an extension of time could be given without invalidating the later order. The two statutory schemes for making such determinations can be reconciled. There was no need to make such a ruling on each occasion the matter was adjourned, once an initial order had been made.
Drug Trafficking Act 1994 3(1) 3(4)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Clarke (Jeremy Patrick) Times, 19 December 2000
19 Dec 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
Where a defendant was to be re-sentenced following a breach of a probation order, the court should acknowledge that time spent in custody awaiting the hearing would not be set off against the new sentence as ‘time served’. Accordingly there was a clear duty on counsel to inform the court of periods spent in custody so that the court could, if it felt appropriate, make an allowance for that period when sentencing.
Criminal Justice Act 1967


 
 Regina v Davis (Carl); CACD 20-Dec-2000 - Times, 20 December 2000
 
Regina v Jacobs Times, 28 December 2000
28 Dec 2000
CACD

Police, Discrimination, Criminal Sentencing
A police officer is as entitled as anybody else not to be racially abused. An arrested person made racist remarks against a police officer, and was convicted of the offence of threatening behaviour, racially aggravated. Even though the appellant might not be racist, her offence passed the custody threshold. Even so a short sentence of three months was substituted.
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 31(1)(b) 31(4)

 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.