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: 2002 To: 2002

This page lists 101 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.

 
Regina v Smith SJ [2002] 1 Cr App R (S) 61
2002
CACD
Tomlinson J
Criminal Sentencing

1 Citers


 
Regina v Harley [2003] 2 Cr App R(S) 16; [2002] EWCA Crim 2650
2002
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
Over 3 months in the summer of 2001 the appellant had made nearly 5000 calls to more than 1000 people. A sentence of 21 months' imprisonment was for special reasons reduced to nine months'.
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Davies; CACD 2002 - [2002] 1 WLR 1806

 
 Regina v Smith (David); CACD 2002 - [2002] 1 WLR 54

 
 Regina v Balasubramaniam; CACD 2002 - [2002] 2Cr App R (S) 57

 
 Regina v Woop; CACD 2002 - [2002] 2 Cr App R (S) 65
 
Regina v Browning [2002] 1 CAR (S) 377
2002
CACD
Mance LJ
Road Traffic, Criminal Sentencing
The defendant, a lorry driver veered from the road whilst sending a text message. He killed a man in a lay-by. Held: The sentence of 5 years was upheld. Mance LJ said: "The use of a mobile phone to read and compose text messages while driving is a highly perilous activity. Even the use of a hand-held mobile phone by a driver whilst moving, a much too common feature of driving today, is self-evidently risky. But the risks of reading and composing, text messages appears to us of a wholly different order and to be to use the judges words, of the most "blatant nature". Browning had pleaded guilty but there had to be a Newton hearing. Browning's evidence was not accepted so he was not entitled to full credit for his plea.

 
Regina v France [2002] EWCA Crim 1419
2002
CACD

Criminal Sentencing, Road Traffic


 
Attorney General's References Nos. 19, 20 and 21 of 2001 (Byrne and others) [2002] 1 Cr App R (S) 33
2002
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
The court considered a sentence of 7 years imprisonment for manslaughter, the death of the victim having been caused by a severe beating administered to him in the course of a street robbery in which he sustained injuries from which he died later that same day. Held: Manslaughter sentences vary greatly from one end of the scale to another, but the Court inevitably looked at the context in which the death was caused and whether it was the result of particularly reprehensible conduct and further whether violence of any kind was contemplated or intended by the offender. On the facts of the case before it the adult offenders following a trial should have received a sentence of 12 years imprisonment.
1 Citers


 
Regina v Clare [2002] 2 Cr App R (S) 97
2002
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
The defendant appealed his sentence. With one punch, he had knocked the victom to the ground, fracturing his jaw and cheek bone. Held: The court should take note of the the strength of the blow and the consequence for the victim. In this case 18 months imprisonment was appropriate.
Offences Against the Person Act 1861

 
Regina (W) v Southampton Youth Court [2002] EWHC 1640 Admin; [2003] Cr App R (S) 87
2002
Admn
Lord Woolf CJ
Criminal Sentencing
The court discussed the principles applicable when sentencing very young offenders: "The simple principle underlying the current legislation for sentencing very young offenders is that, generally speaking, first-time offenders aged 13 and 14, and all offenders aged 11 and 12, should not be detained in custody. For 13 and 14 year olds, where the youth persists in offending, the position changes. Clearly some offences or offending are so serious in themselves that the court has to contemplate the possibility of sending an under age 15 year old for a period in custody, despite the general approach of the legislation. That may be to protect the public or it may be that the long-term interests of the offender require such a drastic course, even though he is under 12 or under 15 but not a persistent offender. To cater for this possibility Parliament has left open to the courts the use of section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. The need in exceptional cases to make use of these powers cannot, however, have been intended to water down the general principle."
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Billson; CACD 2002 - [2002] 2 Cr App R (S) 521
 
Regina v McKechnie [2002] EWCA Crim 3161
2002
CACD
Hallet J
Criminal Sentencing
Four appellants conspired to defraud banks and others. The prosecution alleged a sophisticated and well organised conspiracy involving the appellants and others. Mail was redirected to addresses to which the conspirators had access. Credit cards so received would be used until the credit card limit had been reached. Fingerprint and handwriting evidence revealed the links between the conspirators. The appellant Jayne Gibbons in interview had said that she had filled out redirection applications and credit card applications. The appellants' appeals against conviction were dismissed, the court observing that the evidence against each of them was overwhelming and the verdicts of the jury were no surprise to the court. Jayne Gibbons appealed against the confiscation order made against her. She was the only appellant who had not received a sentence of imprisonment, the judge taking what the court described as a merciful course solely because she was pregnant at the time of sentence. There could be no doubt that she played her part in the conspiracy and she had admitted her involvement to a certain extent in interview. The trial judge, in assessing the benefit obtained as a result of the criminal conduct, looked first at the total amount obtained as a result of the conspiracy, which was just over £225,000. The prosecution said that it was impossible to calculate the full amount by which each individual had benefited personally. They suggested that the total should be divided between the four conspirators who had been convicted. The trial judge had rejected a submission that the starting point for individual defendants should be the personal gain to each individual conspirator. Held: The court, considered two first instance decisions. In R. v. Rees, the defendant was the only person before the court but a number of people had been involved in the criminal enterprise of obtaining mortgage funds by deception contrary to section 15 of the Theft Act 1968. Auld J, as he then was, held that the defendant's benefit was the whole amount obtained even though the defendant insisted that he personally did not receive all the money. The decision turned in part on the provisions of section 15(2) of the Theft Act 1968. In R. v. Gokal, the defendant was convicted of an offence to which section 15 of the Theft Act did not apply. It involved a deception of the auditors of BCCI in concealing a number of substantial loans made to a group of companies run by the defendant. Buxton J, as he then was, considered that Rees was confined to its own facts and to an offence under section 15 of the Theft Act. He held that the phrase "if he obtains" in section 71(4) of the 1988 Act imports an obtaining by the defendant himself.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Robinson [2002] EWCA Crim 535; [2002] 2 Cr App R(S) 95
2002
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
The court considered a defendant who appeared for a further offence within a short tme of having a Drug Treatment and Testing Order imposed: "It is well-known that a high proportion of criminal offences against people and property are committed in order to provide funds to feed the drug habit of the perpetrator. If there were fewer drug addicts, it is likely that there would be fewer criminal offences. Accordingly, in our judgment, judges should be alert to pass sentences which have a realistic prospect of reducing drug addiction whenever it is possible sensibly to do so."
1 Citers


 
Regina v Kelly [2003] 1 Cr App R(S) 89; [2002] EWCA Crim 2060
2002
CACD
Field J
Criminal Sentencing
Discussing Drug Treatment and Testing Orders, the court quoted the Home Office guidance for practitioners involved such pilots: "The primary aim of the drug treatment and testing order is therefore to prevent further offending. It is envisaged that the vast majority of suitable candidates will be convicted of acquisitive crimes, committed in order to obtain money to buy drugs. Volume of offending is likely to be a more important consideration than the seriousness of individual offences. Nevertheless, the type of offence is more likely to be an effective indicator than either and so those convicted of burglary, robbery, theft (including shoplifting), perhaps embezzlement and any other acquisitive crimes are likely most frequently to provide offenders suitable for the drug treatment and testing order. Offenders convicted of drugs supply who are themselves habitual misusers, and are otherwise suitable for a community sentence, should also be considered." In respect of the case before the court: "With respect to the learned sentencing judge, we are of the view that he gave too great importance to the appellant’s scale of offending and therefore gave too little consideration to the appropriateness of a DTTO disposal. The sad fact is that it will often be the case that a candidate for a DTTO has been guilty of acquisitive offending on a significant scale to fund his drug addiction. DTTOs provide a chance for the offender to break his addiction and therefore cease offending. Thus a sentencing judge must be careful not to give disproportionate weight to the scale of offending and thereby diminish the usefulness both to the offender and to the community of a DTTO."
1 Citers


 
Regina v Flamson [2002] 2 Cr App R(S) 208
2002
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
There is no need for an indictment to set out the facts which would need to be established to allow an offence to be treated as a serious offence for the purposes of sentencing under the Act, if those facts were clearly not at issue.
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 109
1 Citers


 
Regina v Frisby [2002] 1 Cr App R (S) 289
2002
CACD
Popplewell
Criminal Sentencing
In sentencing for murder the dismemberment of the victim after death, was an aggravating feature, but need not be so in cases of manslaughter.
1 Citers


 
Attorney General v Mirror Group Newspapers Limited (2002) EWHC 907
2002


Contempt of Court, Criminal Sentencing
Two Leeds United footballers were on trial for assaulting an Asian student. The newspaper chose to publish an interview with the victim's father. Held: The article was a deliberate contempt. a fine of £75,000 was imposed in respect of articles in the Sunday Mirror which were published in breach of the strict liability rule. The gravity of the contempt was at the top end of the range of strict liability contempts, but there were mitigating factors, in particular the company's good record and its acceptance of the fact that it had erred.
1 Citers


 
Regina v Cheema [2002] 2 Cr App R (S) 356
2002
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
Possession of false passport
1 Citers


 
Regina v Mills Times, 30 January 2002; Gazette, 06 March 2002
14 Jan 2002
CACD
Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Mitchell and Mr Justice Keith
Criminal Sentencing
Where a mother responsible for the care of young children was convicted of an offence of dishonesty, with no aggravating feature such as violence, courts should generally look to see if any alternative to prison could be appropriate, and if possible take it. Here, the mother had fallen into debt and obtained credit dishonestly, knowing she would have no chance of repaying it. It was not a professional crime, and the interests of her children must be remembered. Where an offender was of previous positive good character, the offences were out of character with her normal behaviour, and there was every reason to think she would not offend again, the court should avoid sending her to prison and use other methods of repaying the harm done to the community.

 
Kasoar, Regina v [2002] EWCA Crim 12
16 Jan 2002
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
Appeal from sentence of 12 months imprisonment for breach of restraining order. Held: "Whilst accepting that this was a severe sentence, we are of the view that it was wholly justified in the context of the history of this case and the learned judge is not to be criticised at all for his imposition of that sentence. Accordingly this appeal fails."
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 5
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Benjafield, Regina v Leal, Regina v Rezvi, Regina v Milford Gazette, 22 March 2001; Times, 28 December 2000; Times, 28 January 2002; Gazette, 06 March 2002; [2002] UKHL 2; [2002] 2 WLR 235; [2002] 1 All ER 815; [2002] 2 Cr App R (S) 71; [2002] HRLR 20; [2002] 2 Cr App R 3
24 Jan 2002
HL
Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Steyn Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Hutton
Criminal Practice, Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing
Statutory provisions which reversed the burden of proof in cases involving drug smuggling and other repeat offenders, allowing confiscation orders to be made were not necessarily in contravention of the article 6 right. However the question of whether the statutory provision infringed the right to a fair trial was for each particular case which came before the court. The confiscation process had to be looked at as against both limbs of article 6. Having reversed the burden of proof, the provision must look at both in the light of article 6 and also against and in deference to the policy which the legislature considered was in the public interest. The provisions of the Human Rights Act were not retrospective.
Human Rights Act 1998 - Proceeds of Crime Act 1995 - Drug Trafficking Act 1994 4(3) - European Convention on Human Rights 6
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Rezvi Times, 28 January 2002; Gazette, 06 March 2002; [2002] UKHL 1; [2002] 1 All ER 801; [2003] 1 AC 1099; [2002] UKHRR 374; [2002] 2 Cr App Rep (S) 70; [2002] 2 Cr App R 2; [2002] HRLR 19
24 Jan 2002
HL
Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Steyn Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Hutton
Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights
Having been convicted of theft, a confiscation order had been made against which the appellant appealed. The Court of Appeal certified a question of whether confiscation provisions under the 1988 Act were in breach of the defendant's human rights. Are applications for confiscation orders criminal proceedings under the Convention, and if so do the assumptions made infringe the right to a fair trial? Held: European decisions and Philips indicated clearly that confiscation applications are not separate criminal charges, but rather part of the sentencing process. Even if the Convention had been engaged, the provisions are proportionate and would comply. Lord Steyn said that the legislation is "a precise, fair and proportionate response to the important need to protect the public".
Lord Steyn said: "It is a notorious fact that professional and habitual criminals frequently take steps to conceal their profits from crime. Effective but fair powers of confiscating the proceeds of crime are therefore essential. The provisions of the 1988 Act are aimed at depriving such offenders of the proceeds of their criminal conduct. Its purposes are to punish convicted offenders, to deter the commission of further offences and to reduce the profits available to fund further criminal enterprises. These objectives reflect not only national but also international policy. The United Kingdom has undertaken, by signing and ratifying treaties agreed under the auspices of the United Nations and the Council of Europe, to take measures necessary to ensure that the profits of those engaged in drug trafficking or other crimes are confiscated: see the United Nations convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (19 December 1988); Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime, Strasbourg, 8 November 1990. These Conventions are in operation and have been ratified by the United Kingdom."
Criminal Justice Act 1988 Part VI 4 - Drug Trafficking Act 1994 72AA - Terrorism Act 2000 Part III - European Convention on Human Rights Art 6
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Reference By Her Majesty's Attorney General for Northern Ireland [2002] NICA 5
25 Jan 2002
CANI

Criminal Sentencing

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Lea (Attorney-General's Reference No 82 of 2000); Regina v Shatwell Times, 28 February 2002
28 Jan 2002
CACD
Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Aikens and Mr Justice Pitchford
Criminal Practice, Legal Aid, Criminal Sentencing
The defendants had been tried in cases where the prosecution had employed leading counsel. The defendants had been refused similar representation. They complained that this created an inequality of arms, and an unfair trial under Human Rights law. The question also arose as to the maximum sentence allowable after a re-trial ordered by the Court of Appeal. Held: There was no interference with the right to a fair trial. The defendant had been properly and competently represented. As to sentence, the defendant had been first convicted, and sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment. The conviction was set aside and a re-trial ordered. The Act said that no greater sentence could be imposed on a second trial than on the first, but the Crown appealed the sentence as unduly lenient. Though cumbersome, the right procedure was for the Crown to make such an appeal on the first conviction. That could be heard before the appeal against conviction. The position on any subsequent trial would then be safeguarded.
European Convention on Human Rights Art 6 - Criminal Justice Act 1988 36


 
 Regina v R (Informer: Reduction of Sentence); CACD 28-Jan-2002 - Times, 18 February 2002
 
Regina v l Lobban Sawyers and Others, Regina v Q; Attorney General's Reference Nos 4 and 7 Of 2002 [2002] EWCA Crim 127; [2002] 2 Cr App R (Sentencing) 345
29 Jan 2002
CACD
Woolf LJ, Aikens, Pitchford JJ
Criminal Sentencing
The appeals concerned sentences for robbery of mobile phones in public places. Held: Such thefts had become commonplace. The court would not set out to provide sentencing guidelines, but rather to bring together existing guidance. The courts have no alternative but to adopt a robust sentencing policy towards those who commit these offences. An important element is whether a team of thieves is involved. An element of deterrence is appropriate, and even first time offenders must expect imprisonment. The sentences were varied accordingly.
Lord Woolf CJ (as to street robberies): "Custodial sentences will be the only option available for the Courts when these offences are committed, unless there are exceptional circumstances. That will apply irrespective of the age of the offender and irrespective of whether the offender has previous convictions."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Reference By Her Majesty's Attorney General for Northern Ireland [2002] NICA 9
30 Jan 2002
CANI

Criminal Sentencing

[ Bailii ]

 
 Homer, Regina v (Attorney General's References v No 12 of 2001); CACD 4-Feb-2002 - [2002] EWCA Crim 353; [2002] 2 Cr App R (S) 84
 
N'Guessan, Re Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 [2002] EWCA Civ 215
5 Feb 2002
CA

Criminal Sentencing
Appeal from refusal of certificate of inadequacy
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Szczerba Times, 10 April 2002; [2002] 2 Cr App R (S) 387; [2002] EWCA Crim 440
6 Feb 2002
CACD
Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice Jackson and Mr Justice Owen
Criminal Sentencing
The defendant appealed against sentence following conviction for burglary and false imprisonment. He had received sentences of 8 years and life respectively, with a determinate period of 11 years, and an earliest release of 6 years. The sentences had been on the basis that the offence of false imprisonment was an offence of violence. He appealed. Held: False imprisonment was a crime of violence. That test was passed if behaviour might lead to injury. It did not need to be shown that an injury was probable, only that it was foreseeable. Nevertheless, the determinate part of the sentence was too long and a minimum of 4.5 years was set in this case.
The Vice President: "There are, however, circumstances in which more than half may well be appropriate. Dr Thomas identified two examples. In Hayward [2000] 2 Cr.App.R. (S.) 418 a life sentence was imposed on a serving prisoner for an offence committed in prison. In such a case the term specified can appropriately be fixed to end at a date after that on which the defendant would have been eligible for release on licence from his original sentence. This may involve identifying a proportion of the notional determinate term up to two-thirds. Another example is where a life sentence is imposed on a defendant for an offence committed during licensed release from an earlier sentence, who is therefore susceptible to return to custody under section 116 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. In such a case the specified period could properly be increased above one-half, to reflect the fact that a specified period cannot be ordered to run consecutively to any other sentence."
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 161(3)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Attorney General's Reference (Nos 91, 119 and 120 of 2002) Times, 07 February 2002; [2003] 2 Cr App R 151
7 Feb 2002
CACD

Criminal Sentencing

1 Citers


 
Aldis v Director of Public Prosecutions Times, 06 March 2002
11 Feb 2002
CACD
Lord Justice Keene and Mr Justice Goldring
Criminal Sentencing, Magistrates
The defendant attained the age of 18 after the offence but before his sentence. Under 18, he would have been subject to an order of detention in a young offenders institution, with a maximum of twelve months. They imposed a sentence of four concurrent detention and training orders totaling 18 months. Held: The 1963 Act, as amended, allowed the magistrates to impose this sentence. That power had been effective in assisting the magistrates' decision on where the matter should be tried. There had been no implied repeal of the section in the 1963 Act.
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 100 - Magistrates Court Act 1980 25(6) - Children and Young Persons Act 1963 29

 
Regina v Hobbs, Hobbs, Hobbs, Charge [2002] EWCA Crim 387
14 Feb 2002
CACD
Lord Justice Pill Mrs Justice Hallett Dbe And His Honour Judge Fawcus
Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights
The defendants appealed sentences of 7.5 and 3 years for conspiracy to facilitate illegal immigration. They had hired lorries with a view to bringing people in It was submitted that the sentences were outside the powers under the Act. The sentence had been increased to ten years. The conspiracy extended over the point where the sentence maximum was increased, and the applicable overt act occurred after the change. Held: Where a conspiracy continues beyond a change in the law it was appropriate to consider the two time spans separately. Under the convention a sentence must not extend beyond one provided for in law. A conspiracy is complete when the agreement is made, and the maximum sentence must be derived at that point. Appeal allowed.
Criminal Law Act 1977 1(1) - Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 29 - Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (Commencement No 2 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2000 (SI 2000 No 168) - European Convention on Human Rights 7(1)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v March [2002] EWCA Crim 551
15 Feb 2002
CACD
Lord Justice Buxton Mrs. Justice Rafferty And Mr. Justice Gross
Criminal Sentencing
The defendant appealed his sentences for several offences. He had been given the maximum sentence of 24 months detention. No discount had been given for his guilty plea, nor for time already spent in custody. The judge described the offences as disgusting. Held: Some discount must be given for the guilty plea. That was established in case law, and now enshrined in the Act (s 152). Exceptions apply where a maximum sentence is required to protect the public, where the plea was tactical or inevitable, or where the count was a specimen count. Reay also suggested an exception where the case was so serious as to require a maximum sentence in the public interest. Those exceptions did not apply in this case. Counsel are generally correct to advise defendants of the availability of discounts for guilty pleas, but that advice must be appropriate to the context. However, there is no general requirement that a specific period of credit must be given to an offender sentenced to a Detention and Training Order for time spent in custody on remand. The requirement to take account of time spent on remand is not a simple requirement to give credit for that time.
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 101 152
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Basra [2002] 2 Cr App R (S) 100; [2002] EWCA Crim 541; Times, 01 April 2002
22 Feb 2002
CACD
Mr Justice Cooke
Criminal Sentencing
The defendant appealed his sentence for a substantial money laundering offence. The antecedent offence was that of fraudulent evasion of VAT Held: The maximum sentence for the antecedent offence was seven years, and for the offence under s93A, it was 14 years. The sentence should not be set by reference to the Dosanjh case, since the money laundering provisions were intended to include an element of deterrence. In all the circumstances of this case a sentence of three and a half years would be more appropriate.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Matthews Times, 08 May 2002
25 Feb 2002
CACD
Lord Justice Latham, Mr Justice Johnson and Judge Rhys Davies, QC
Criminal Sentencing
A prisoner escaped, and on recapture was sentenced for the escape, and ordered under the section to complete the remaining part of his sentence. Held: The prisoner was not subject to the provisions regarding return of a prisoner who had been given early release under the statutory scheme. The return part of the order was a nullity, and so nor was it an order which could be a sentence under the 1968 Act.
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 116(1)(b) - Criminal Appeal Act 1968 11(3)

 
Reference By Her Majesty's Attorney General for Northern Ireland [2002] NICA 13
1 Mar 2002
CANI
Carswell LCJ
Criminal Sentencing

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Kefford Times, 07 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Crim 519
5 Mar 2002
CACD
Lord Chief Justice Of England And Wales -Lord Woolf, Lord Justice Rose, And, Lord Justice Judge
Criminal Sentencing
The prison population is becoming far too large, and the prison system should not have to operate so close to its overcrowded capacity. Those responsible for imposing sentences had to take into account the impact on the prison system. It was not intended to deter courts from sending to prison those who committed offences involving violence or intimidation or other grave crimes. There were, however, offences where a community punishment or a fine could be a more appropriate form of sentence. In the case of economic crimes prison was not necessarily the only appropriate form of punishment. For those who had no record of previous offending, the very fact of having to appear before a court could be a significant punishment.
[ Bailii ]
 
Berthill Fox v Regina (No 2) [2002] 2 AC 284; [2002] UKPC 13
11 Mar 2002
PC
Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Hutton Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Millett Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Constitutional
(Saint Christopher and Nevis) The appellant had been convicted of murder, for which the penalty was death. He claimed that the sentence was an infringement of his constitutional and human rights. The constitution declared that it prevailed over all other laws, and guaranteed certain fundamental rights and freedoms. Though it allowed for the possibility of the death sentence for murder, he claimed the sentence was inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. Held: The council had already twice held that similar constitutions did not allow for a death penalty which was mandatory. The appeal was allowed, and the case remitted for re-sentencing.
Saint Christopher and Nevis Constitution Order 1983 (SI 1983 No 881)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ PC ] - [ Berthill Fox v. The Qu' target-'_ext'>PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
 
Reyes v The Queen Times, 21 March 2002; [2002] 2 AC 235; [2002] UKPC 11; [2002] 2 WLR 1034; 12 BHRC 219; [2002] 2 Cr App R 16
11 Mar 2002
PC
Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Hutton Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Millett Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Human Rights, Constitutional, Criminal Sentencing
(Belize) The Criminal Code of Belize provided that any murder by shooting was to be treated as Class A Murder, and be subject to the mandatory death penalty. The applicant having been convicted, appealed saying this was inhuman or degrading treatment, and infringed his human rights under the constitution. Held: The crime of murder embraced a range of offences of widely varying degrees of criminal culpability. Developments in international law recognising the importance of human rights, and the development of independent legal systems against the background of constitutions guaranteeing fundamental rights. This required legislation to be interpreted. Before independence Belize had been subject to the Convention, and it could not be thought that rights had diminished. The preclusion of any judicial consideration of the degree of culpability was in inhuman treatment, and murder by shooting should be treated as a Class B murder, and the courts given discretion. "The court has no licence to read its own predilections and moral values into the constitution".
Constitution of Belize Art 7 - Criminal Code of Belize Art 102
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ PC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Hughes [2002] UKPC 12; [2002] 2 AC 259
11 Mar 2002
PC
Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Hutton Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Millett Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Constitutional, Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Commonwealth
(Saint Lucia) Having been convicted of murder, the defendant was made subject to the mandatory death penalty applied under St Lucia law. He appealed successfully on the basis that the constitution of St Lucia protected him from inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment under article 5, and the Crown appealed to the Privy Council. Held: The mandatory death penalty is indeed to be regarded as inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. The committee which exercised the prerogative of mercy was not an independent tribunal sufficient to save the procedure. The Crown's appeal was dismissed, and the case remitted for re-sentence.
Criminal Code of Saint Lucia 1992 172 - Saint Lucia Constitution Order 1978 (SI 1978 No 1901) 5
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ PC ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Fryer etc; CACD 19-Mar-2002 - Times, 10 April 2002
 
Regina v Sookoo Times, 10 April 2002; [2002] EWCA Crim 800
20 Mar 2002
CACD
Lord Justice Judge, Mr Justice Douglas Brown and Mr Justice Field
Criminal Sentencing, Crime
The defendant appealed against his sentence for attempting to pervert the course of justice and theft. He had received a sentence of six months for the theft and nine months consecutive for perverting the course of justice Held: Allowing the appeal. He had given a false name to the police on being arrested. It was proper to bring a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice only. It was only right to charge such an offence only where there were seriously aggravating features such as wasted police time and resources or where others, whose names had been given, had been detained. No such factor operated here. Three months concurrent was substituted.
Theft Act 1968 1
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v K [2002] EWCA Crim 927
12 Apr 2002
CACD
Latham LJ, Goldring J, Stokes QC J
Criminal Sentencing
The defendant appealed a sentence of 26 years for conspiracy to supply heroin.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
H M Customs and Excise and Another v MCA and Another [2002] EWHC 611
18 Apr 2002

Munby J
Family, Criminal Sentencing
The court held that they were not precluded by an application made under the 1994 Act against assets of the husband from making an order in favour of the wife under the 1973 Act. The court discharged the Receiver appointed under section 29(2) DTA 1994 and dismissed an application by HM Customs & Excise for Mr A’s interest in the property and the policies to be included in the realisable property over which the Receiver had been appointed: "The wife’s evidence is that she had no knowledge of the husband’s criminal activities, that she never saw anything to alert her to what he was doing and that it all came as an incredible shock to her when he was arrested. Very fairly and properly Customs & Excise, both before Hooper J on 4 October 2001 (see Re A [2001] EWHC Admin 773 para [10]) and again before me, accepted that no part of the equity in either the house or the policies was acquired with the proceeds of drug trafficking and that the couple had separated before the husband had started his drug trafficking activities. Indeed, says Mr Bird, the wife went so far as to assist the authorities by giving the prosecution a statement, though in the event she was not called at the trial. As Hooper J said, the wife: “is not only innocent of any involvement in drug trafficking, but she also lives in a house and enjoys the benefit of policies all untainted by drug trafficking.”"
Drug Trafficking Act 1994
1 Citers


 
West Justin, Regina (on the Application Of) v Parole Board [2002] EWHC 769 (Admin)
26 Apr 2002
Admn
Mr Justice Turner
Prisons, Criminal Sentencing

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Attorney General's References Nos 37, 38, 39, 48 and 49 of 2001 [2002] EWCA Crim 1286
9 May 2002
CACD

Criminal Sentencing

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Munir and Another Times, 03 June 2002
14 May 2002
CACD
Lord Justice Kay, Mr Justice Holland and Mr Justice Andrew Smith
Criminal Sentencing
When looking for guidelines to sentence those convicting of making fake passports on a commercial basis, it was proper to take as comparable guidelines on sentencing for making counterfeit money. Nevertheless in this case, the judge had wrongly been influenced by allegations of violence which were not sufficiently closely related. Sentences of 5 and 7 years were reduced to 4.6 and 6.5 years respectively.
1 Cites


 
Biggs, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Gazette, 27 June 2002; [2002] EWHC 1012 (Admin)
20 May 2002
Admn

Criminal Sentencing
The applicant had been sentenced to 18 months. Having already spent 14 months on remand he was immediately freed under 33(1). Because of concern at his mental health, he was immediately recalled under 39(2). Some days later, it was realised that this arrest was unlawful, and he was therefore released again. The day after his release he was arrested again. He challenged the continued detention as unreasonable. Held: The second arrest under s 39(2) was on the ground that it appeared expedient in the public interest, and was lawful. Having been recalled twice, he was no longer eligible for early release. Though the court had jurisdiction to supervise such decisions, it would be rare for a court to be able to declare such a decision Wednesbury unreasonable. The procedures for the Parole Board gave full opportunity to challenge decisions made.
Criminal Justice Act 1991 33(1)
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Fernandez Times, 26 June 2002
22 May 2002
CACD
Lord Justice Pill, Mr Justice Nelson and Mr Justice McCombe
Criminal Sentencing
The defendant had been convicted of indecent assault upon a boy aged under 16. He appealed saying that no account had been taken of the fact that he had believed the boy to be eighteen. Held: Following R v K, that the defendant had been entitled to have tested by the court that belief. It was for the prosecution to establish that he did not have that belief.
1 Cites


 
Regina v Fresha Bakeries Ltd [2002] EWCA Crim 1451; [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 44
27 May 2002
CACD

Criminal Sentencing

[ Bailii ]

 
 Stafford v The United Kingdom; ECHR 28-May-2002 - Times, 31 May 2002; 46295/99; ECHR 2--2-iv; [2002] 35 EHRR 1121; [2002] ECHR 466; [2002] ECHR 470; [2002] Crim LR 828; [2002] Po LR 181; [2002] 35 EHRR 32; 13 BHRC 260
 
Practice Statement (Crime: Life sentences) Times, 04 June 2002; [2002] 1 WLR 1789; [2002] 3 All ER 412; [2002] 2 Cr App R 18
31 May 2002
LCJ
Lord Justice Kennedy
Criminal Sentencing
The statement followed the report of the Sentencing Advisory Panel of March 15, 2002. The statement contained guidance, not firm rules. The phrase 'minimum term' should replace the term 'tariff'. Offenders are normally not released on the expiry of the minimum term. The judge should say how the minimum term had been arrived at, and also the equivalent determinate term. The normal starting point for murder is 12 years. It might be reduced or increased according to the presence of other factors as described. Where there is exceptional progress on the part of the young offender and it is clear that his welfare would be improved by release from detention that is one of the factors the Secretary of State must take into account: "The Home Secretary does not consider that this statement as to his responsibility is relevant now that the minimum term is set by the trial judge. The trial judge can only act on the information before him in taking into account the welfare of the child at the time that he announces the minimum term. It has been suggested that in these circumstances section 44(1) of the 1933 Act requires judges to fix the lowest possible minimum term so as to ensure the Parole Board will consider the case at the correct time if a child happens to make exceptional progress. It is recommended that this suggestion is not followed although it is appreciated that the Home Secretary's view means that apparently exceptional progress by a child while in detention will not influence the date his case is considered by the Parole Board."
Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 1 - Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 60 - Children and Young Persons Act 1933 33(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Dodds v Regina [2002] EWCA Crim 1328
31 May 2002
CACD
Potter LJ, Rafferty, Hedley JJ
Criminal Practice, Criminal Sentencing
The defendant had failed to co-operate when called upon to act as a juror having been refused exemption. He refused to be searched on entering the court building. He now appealed against a fine. Held: The court set out the minimum requirements for a fair hearing in a case of this kind: "1) The Juror must understand what he is said to have done wrong;
2) The court must be satisfied that the juror when (by act or omission) he did wrong, had the means of knowing that it was wrong;
3) The juror must understand what defences (if any) may be available to him;
4) The juror must have a reasonable opportunity to make any relevant representations he wishes;
5) If necessary the juror must have an opportunity to consider what representations he wishes to make once he has understood the issues involved." In this case it was not clear that the defenedant had known the defence of reasonable cause. He had intensely personal reasons, born of traumatic experience, for fearing a search which involved either a metal wand or human touch. That being so the appeal was allowed.
Juries Act 1974 20 - Administration of Justice Act 1960 13(3) - Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 155
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Pope (Criminal) Gazette, 08 August 2002; [2002] UKHL 26; [2002] 3 All ER 889; [2002] 2 Cr App Rep 34; [2002] 1 WLR 1966; [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 63
20 Jun 2002
HL
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Millett and Lord Scott of Foscote
Criminal Sentencing, Magistrates
The Magistrates committed the defendant to the Crown Court for sentence. In addition to other sentences the Crown Court imposed a confiscation order. The defendant succeeded in an appeal to the Court of Appeal, and the Crown now appealed. Held: The Crown Court had full power to make such an order. There had been no hiatus in its powers between 1995 and 1998. The power had always been available under section 42 of the 1973 Act.
Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 38 - Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 42 - Criminal Justice Act 1988 71
[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Noble, Regina v [2002] EWCA Crim 1713
24 Jun 2002
CACD

Criminal Sentencing, Road Traffic
The defendant had been convicted of dangerous driving and causing six deaths by dangerous driving, all from one incident. He appealed against consecutive sentences totalling fifteen years. Held. Consecutive terms should not normally be imposed for offences which arise out of the same incident. The consecutive sentences for causing several deaths by dangerous driving were quashed. Notwithstanding the numerous deaths there was a single act of dangerous driving.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Noble Times, 11 July 2002; Gazette, 21 August 2002
24 Jun 2002
CACD
Lord Justice Keene, Mr Justice Davis and Judge John Griffith Williams, QC
Criminal Sentencing, Road Traffic
The defendant appealed his sentence for causing death by dangerous driving. He had killed six people, and been sentenced to three concurrent terms ten years, consecutive to others of five years. Held: The element of consecutive sentencing was wrong. This was a case involving all the aggravating features, and exceptionally justified the imposition of the maximum term, but there were not separate offences to justify the consecutive element. The number of deaths caused was important, but remained only one of several considerations.
1 Cites


 
Regina v Frank Pisciotto Times, 19 July 2002; Gazette, 12 September 2002; [2003] 1 Cr App R 68
27 Jun 2002
CACD
Lord Justice Keene, Mr Justice Davis and Judge John Griffith Williams, QC
Criminal Sentencing
The defendant was subject to a confiscation order. The judge had postponed the determination of the amount, but without specifying when it would take place. Held: The requirement in the Act was mandatory. When deciding to postpone an assessment beyond the six month limitation period, the court must specify the date on which it would be determined. Appeal allowed.
Drug Trafficking Act 1994 3(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Byrne, v Regina [2002] EWCA Crim 1975; [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 68; [2002] Crim LR 754
27 Jun 2002
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
Appeal against sentence of 8 years for manslaughter.
[ Bailii ]
 
Cooke v Smart [2002] EWCA Civ 1050
28 Jun 2002
CA

Contempt of Court, Criminal Sentencing

[ Bailii ]
 
Greenland, Regina v [2002] EWCA Crim 1748
28 Jun 2002
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
The court considered the significance of a guilty plea when sentencing: "…he is not entitled to the full credit that he would have had had the evidence against him not been so overwhelming and had he not been caught red-handed."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
I, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] INLR 196; [2002] EWCA Civ 888
28 Jun 2002
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Mummery And Lord Justice Dyson
Criminal Sentencing, Immigration, Human Rights
The appellant obtained asylum but was convicted of offences after entering, and ordered to be deported. Whilst serving his sentence the deportation order was served, but he was not released on licence at the time he would normally have been released. The respondent argued that it was seeking to make arrangements for his deportation. He argued that it was clear that he would not be deported within any reasonable time, and that his continued detention breached his rights. Held: The appellant could have secured his own release by agreeing to a voluntary repatriation. The phrase 'reasonable time' in the Tan Te Lam case must include time already spent awaiting deportation. The possibility of his re-offending was part of the circumstances and to be taken into account. The appellant's renewed application for asylum was critical. Even so, the reasonable time had already been exhausted by the time the judge's decision was made, and the appellant was to be released. (Mummery dissenting)
Simon-Brown LJ said: "The likelihood or otherwise of the detainee absconding and/or re-offending seems to me to be an obviously relevant circumstance. If, say, one could predict with a high degree of certainty that, upon release, the detainee would commit murder or mayhem, that to my mind would justify allowing the Secretary of State a substantially longer period of time within which to arrange the detainee's removal abroad."
However: "Given . . that the appellant had by then been in administrative detention for nearly 16 months and that the Secretary of State could establish no more than a hope of being able to remove him forcibly by the summer, substantially more in the way of a risk of re-offending (and not merely a risk of absconding) than exists here would in my judgment be necessary to have justified continuing his detention for an indeterminate further period. .) In short, I came to the clear conclusion that . . it was simply not justifiable to detain the appellant a day longer; the legal limits of the power had by then been exhausted."
Dyson LJ summarised the law: "There is no dispute as to the principles that fall to be applied in the present case. They were stated by Woolf J in Re Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704, 706D . . This statement was approved by Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Tan Te Lam v Tai A Chau Detention Centre [1997] AC 97, 111A-D … In my judgment, [counsel] correctly submitted that the following four principles emerge:
(i) The Secretary of State must intend to deport the person and can only use the power to detain for that purpose;
(ii) The deportee may only be detained for a period that is reasonable in all the circumstances;
(iii) If, before the expiry of the reasonable period, it becomes apparent that the Secretary of State will not be able to effect deportation within that reasonable period, he should not seek to exercise the power of detention;
(iv) The Secretary of State should act with the reasonable diligence and expedition to effect removal.
Principles (ii) and (iii) are conceptually distinct. Principle (ii) is that the Secretary of State may not lawfully detain a person "pending removal" for longer than a reasonable period. Once a reasonable period has expired, the detained person must be released. But there may be circumstances where, although a reasonable period has not yet expired, it becomes clear that the Secretary of State will not be able to deport the detained person within a reasonable period. In that event, principle (iii) applies. Thus, once it becomes apparent that the Secretary of State will not be able to effect the deportation within a reasonable period, the detention becomes unlawful even if the reasonable period has not yet expired."
Mummery LJ (dissenting) said: "As the appellant does not want to go back to Afghanistan, refuses to co-operate with the authorities to return voluntarily and has so far had no success in his asylum claims, there are, in my judgment, reasonable grounds for believing that, given the chance, he will probably seek to frustrate attempts to remove him under the deportation order before it is possible to carry it into effect. So, there is a real risk that, if he is now released from his present detention under paragraph 2(3) of schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971, he will probably abscond and never return to Afghanistan.
. . In my judgment, the Secretary of State has supplied a valid justification of the detention to date and of the need for it to continue for a longer period. In addition to the risk that the appellant will probably abscond if he is now released, the Secretary of State reasonably relies on continuing efforts on his behalf to operate the machinery for the appellant's removal."
European Convention on Human Rights Art 5 - Immigration Act 1971
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Director Of Public Prosecutions v Dziurzynski [2002] EWHC 1380 (Admin); (2002) 166 JP 545
28 Jun 2002
Admn
Rose LJ, Gibbs J
Criminal Sentencing
The defendant was an animal rights protester who had been convicted under section 2(2) of the 1997 Act of engaging in a course of conduct amounting to harassment of the employees of a company. The District Judge hearing the case made a restraining order against him. Held: The court rejected the appellant's primary ground (the appellant being the Director of Public Prosecutions in that case) that the District Judge should have allowed the case to proceed beyond the close of the prosecution case. Having disposed of the appeal the court continued to discuss other grounds finding that the Act was aimed at the protection solely of individuals and that therefore corporate persons could not be the victims of harassment and be granted the person protected by a restraining order: "I accept of course that the word 'person', unless the contrary intention is shown, is, as Mr Hatton on behalf of the Crown submits, to be understood, by virtue of the Interpretation Act 1978, as including a body of persons corporate or incorporate. But that said, it seems to me that the legislative history to which, in my view, reference can properly be made when construing what is meant by the word 'person' in section 1 of the Act, points against person here meaning a corporation. It is to my mind also significant that in section 4(1) the word 'him' is used, and in section 5(2) the word 'victim' is used."
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 2(2) - Interpretation Act 1978
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Attorney-General's Reference (No 39 of 2002) Times, 11 July 2002
3 Jul 2002
CACD
Lord Justice Kay, Mr Justice Harrison and Mr Justice Ouseley
Criminal Sentencing
The Attorney general sought leave to appeal against a sentence for incidents of an indecent assault on children. Held: Willis remained the guideline case. The prime aim was to reflect the damage to the children, but other elements to be considered included the need to protect the public. Best would be any system under which the court could be sure that the offender received treatment, but there was no present system under which the court could impose a short prison sentence which they could be sure would be followed by treatment. In this case the difficulties faced by the sentencing judge in finding an appropriate sentence meant that his decision could not properly be set aside.
1 Cites


 
Regina on the Application of Giles v Parole Board and Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 23 July 2002; Gazette, 12 September 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 951; [2003] 2 WLR 196
4 Jul 2002
CA
Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice May and Lord Justice Tuckey
Criminal Sentencing, Prisons
The prisoner had been sentenced to a punitive term, and an additional protective term under the Act. After the parole board had decided that he could be released from the punitive part of the sentence, he obtained declaration that the board should also periodically review the protective part of the sentence. Held: The protective part of the sentence was fixed by the judge just because he had heard the evidence, and that part of a sentence was to be set and reviewed only by the judiciary.
Criminal Justice Act 1991 2(2)(b)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Burton, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 1187
4 Jul 2002
CA

Criminal Sentencing

[ Bailii ]
 
B, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 1149
11 Jul 2002
CA

Criminal Sentencing

[ Bailii ]

 
 Ghafoor v Regina; CACD 19-Jul-2002 - [2002] EWCA Crim 1857

 
 Mills v HM Advocate and Another; PC 22-Jul-2002 - Times, 23 July 2002; [2002] UKPC D2; [2004] 1 AC 441 (PC)

 
 H M Customs and Excise and Another v MCA and Another; A v A; Re MCA; CA 22-Jul-2002 - Gazette, 26 September 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1039; [2003] 2 WLR 210; [2003] Fam 55
 
Regina v Archer Times, 02 August 2002; [2002] EWCA Crim 1996
22 Jul 2002
CACD
Rose LJ VP, Colman, Stanley Burnton JJ
Criminal Sentencing
The defendant appealed against a sentence of 4 years for offences of perjury and similar in connection with the prosecution of a defamation action. Held: There is no distinction in principle for sentencing for perjury between evidence given in civil and criminal cases. Other relevant factors were the number of offences, the time scale, pre-meditation, persisting in the perjury, the impact of the lies on the proceedings, and the nature of relationships with others involved. In this case, sentences totaling four years were appropriate.
[ Bailii ]
 
Medina Housing Association Ltd v Connolly [2002] EWCA Civ 1263
26 Jul 2002
CA

Criminal Sentencing, Contempt of Court

Housing Act 1996 153
[ Bailii ]
 
Lenehan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWHC 1599 (Admin)
29 Jul 2002
Admn

Criminal Sentencing, Prisons

[ Bailii ]
 
Horgan v Horgan [2002] EWCA Civ 1371
18 Sep 2002
CA

Contempt of Court, Criminal Sentencing

[ Bailii ]
 
Prince Pinder v The Queen Times, 04 October 2002; Gazette, 31 October 2002; [2002] UKPC 46
23 Sep 2002
PC
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffman, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Millett
Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing, Constitutional, Commonwealth, Crime
(Bahamas) The applicant challenged his sentence to a flogging as an inhuman or degrading punishment. Held: The constitution of Bahamas did not prohibit flogging as an inhuman punishment. The constitution explicitly preserved modes of punishment which had been accepted on the island before its implementation. This was so despite its later revocation and revival. The article of the constitution had to be construed narrowly but properly. However the particular sentence failed to state whether the flogging was to be by a rod or a cat of nine tails, and so was incomplete and void. The choice of implement was a judicial one. (Nicholls and Hope dissenting)
Constitution of the Bahamas 17
[ PC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Attorney General's Reference No 76 of 2002 [2002] EWCA Crim 2344
3 Oct 2002
CACD

Criminal Sentencing

[ Bailii ]
 
Ali, Re Drug Trafficking Act 1994 [2002] EWCA Civ 1450
4 Oct 2002
CA

Criminal Sentencing
Renewed application for permission to appeal a decision refusing the applicant's application for a certificate of inadequacy under section 17 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Snowden Times, 11 November 2002
10 Oct 2002
CACD
Rose LJ, Pitchers J, Sir Richard Rougier
Criminal Sentencing
The defendant appealed against his sentence of seven and a half years for robbery. He had rammed a vehicle from behind and then used violence against the driver before taking the car. Held: For such activities the standard sentence should be ten years. With a valuable car, the offence could properly be compared to robbery of a bank. In this case proper allowance had been given for the plea of guilty. Appeal refused.

 
Palmer, Regina v Times, 05 November 2002; [2002] EWCA Crim 2202; [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 112
11 Oct 2002
CACD
Rix LJ, Sir Ian Kennedy
Criminal Sentencing
The defendant appealed against a very substantial confiscation order. The prosecution had served notices under sections 71 and 72(1), but the section 72(1) notice was invalid. The judge allowed a second notice to be served, and the case to be adjourned for a later full hearing, at which the order was made. Held: The service of a valid notice is a necessary condition for the making of such an order, and the court could not correct a mistake of its own motion. Nor did the judge have the power to postpone proceedings, nor to proceed directly to sentencing anticipating service of a notice. The confiscation order of more than pounds 30 million was quashed because of a defect in a prosecutor's notice.
Criminal Justice Act 1988 71 72(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Chapman, Regina v; CACD 16-Oct-2002 - [2002] EWCA Crim 2346
 
Dunbar, Regina v [2002] NICA 44
18 Oct 2002
CANI

Northern Ireland, Criminal Sentencing

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Poulton; Regina v Celaire Times, 01 November 2002
24 Oct 2002
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
The applicants appealed sentences for possession of offensive weapons. Held: The court gave guidance on the issues of relevance in sentencing. The court should follow the Sentencing Advisory Panel in considering the intentions of the defendant. Particular aggravations might be the specific planned use, any racial aggravation, or being under the influence of drugs. As to the circumstances, the court might look to see if there was any sensitivity as to the location, for example a Hospital, or public gathering. The nature of the weapon is relevant with some inherently more dangerous than others, and this might also provide indications as to the defendant's intentions. Mitigation might be found where the carrying was temporary, or from personal factors, and other usual mitigations applied. For an adult of previous good character the custody threshold will be passed with dangerous circumstances and actual use.
Criminal Justice Act 1988 139 - Prevention of Crime Act 1953 1


 
 Regina v Baldwin; CACD 29-Oct-2002 - Times, 22 November 2002
 
Regina v Walls (Andrew) Times, 07 November 2002; Gazette, 28 November 2002; [2002] EWCA Crim 2456; [2003] 1 WLR 731
30 Oct 2002
CACD
Judge, Butterfield LJJ
Criminal Sentencing
The defendant had been made the subject of a confiscation order. He appealed, saying that in calculating the assets, he had taken the gross value of his property without allowing for an outstanding mortgage. Held: The mortgage advance was not tainted money. Although the 1994 and 1988 Acts were intended to operate similarly and in a draconian fashion, the 1994 Act did operate differently on this occasion, and the mortgage should not have been disregarded
Drug Trafficking Act 1994 4 - Criminal Justice Act 1988 74(4)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Smith Times, 13 November 2002
5 Nov 2002
CACD
Longmore, Poole LJJ, Baker QC
Criminal Sentencing
The defendant appealed a confiscation order, claiming that the section, when it required two or more offences, required the offences to be separate offences. In this case a conviction for producing a false document which was used in on of the other offences was too closely involved. Held: It was not necessary for the offences to have separate origins or be based on separate allegations. The order stood.
Criminal Justice Act 1988 71(4) 72AA

 
Regina v Oliver etc Times, 06 December 2002; [2002] EWCA Crim 2766; [2003] 2 Cr App R (S) 15
21 Nov 2002
CACD
Rose LJ, Gibbs, Davis JJ
Criminal Sentencing
The defendants appealed their sentences for possession and distribution of indecent images of children. The court gave detailed sentencing guidelines for the offences. Distinctions were made for the gradations of pornography, from erotic posing only, to depictions of sexual activity between children, to non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children, to penetrative activity, and lastly acts of sadism or bestiality. Surrounding activities distinguished between degree of connection with the original abuse, the numbers of images involved, and presence of distribution. Sentences might range from a conditional discharge for the least offences to sentences of imprisonment. Such images may be used to corrupt the young, and therefore pseudo-photographs must be treated as having an equally corrupting effect.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Anderson; HL 25-Nov-2002 - Times, 26 November 2002; Gazette, 23 January 2003; [2002] UKHL 46; [2002] 3 WLR 180; [2003] 1 AC 837; [2003] HRLR 7; (2003) 13 BHRC 450; [2003] UKHRR 112; [2003] 1 Cr App R 32; [2002] 4 All ER 1089

 
 Regina v Lichniak; HL 25-Nov-2002 - Times, 26 November 2002; Gazette, 06 February 2003; [2002] UKHL 47; [2003] 1 AC 903; [2003] HRLR 8; [2003] 1 Cr App R 33; 13 BHRC 437; [2002] 4 All ER 1122; [2003] UKHRR 62; [2002] 3 WLR 1834
 
MMK, Regina v [2002] EWCA Crim 2772
25 Nov 2002
CACD
Buxton LJ, Holman J
Criminal Sentencing
Renewed application for leave to appeal after conviction on plea for common assault and sentence to a hospital order and restriction without time under section 41. Held: "the overall history that we have described and the balance of the psychiatric evidence did not justify making a restriction order in this case." The restriction was removed.
Mental Health Act 1983 37 41
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (U) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; Regina (R) v Chief Constable of Durham Constabulary Times, 10 December 2002; [2003] 1 WLR 897; [2002] EWHC 2486 (Admin)
29 Nov 2002
Admn
Latham LJ, Field J
Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Police
In each case the youth aged 15 had been given a warning after admitting a sexual assault, and a decision had been made not to prosecute. On accepting the warnings, they had then been required to place their names on the sex offenders register, but this had not been explained to them when asked about accepting the warning. Held: In one case, the acceptance of guilt was equivocal in any event. The placing of a name on the sex offender's register added a public dimension to the consequences of accepting guilt, but without the putative offender having the opportunity of a trial. To have this happen without the consequences being explained, and by an administrative procedure was unfair. Held: The warning procedure was not one requiring the consent of the youth (as opposed to a caution of an adult)
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 - Crime and Disorder Act 1998 65 66
[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v White; Regina v McKinnon; CACD 6-Dec-2002 - Times, 09 December 2002; [2003 2 Cr App R (S) 133
 
Regina v Ashton, Lyons and Webber Times, 10 December 2002; [2002] EWCA Crim 2782
6 Dec 2002
CACD
Mantell LJ, Treacey, Simon JJ
Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing
The appellants had appealed sentences for conspiracy to murder. There had been an inordinate delay between leave to appeal having been granted, and the appeal being heard. Held: The appellants' rights had been infringed by the delay, and they had a right to redress. That could be satisfied by a reduction in the sentences of one year. This was however an exceptional case.
European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Millberry, Morganian, Lackenby v Regina Times, 11 December 2002; [2002] EWCA Crim 2891; [2003] 1 WLR 546; [2003] 1 Cr App R 396; [2003] Crim LR 207; [2003] 2 Cr App R(S) 31; [2003] 2 All ER 939; [2003] 1 Cr App R 25
9 Dec 2002
CACD
Lord Justice Rose, Mrs Justice Hallett, Lord Chief Justice Of England And Wales -Lord Woolf Lord Justice Rose And Lord Justice Judge
Criminal Sentencing
The Court gave detailed guidelines on sentencing for offences of rape, following a report from the sentencing advisory panel. Held: The court outlined the base sentences for single and multiple offences of rape, listing aggravating and mitigating factors, and dealing specifically with date rape, acquaintance rape, male rape, and anal rape. The base sentence should be 5 years, or 8 for more serious offences, with 15 years for repeat offences, and life imprisonment is appropriate where the offender was likely to remain a threat.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Waite v The United Kingdom; ECHR 10-Dec-2002 - (2002) 36 EHRR 1001; Times, 31 December 2002; 53236/99; [2002] ECHR 798; [2002] ECHR 804; [2003] Prison LR 160; (2003) 36 EHRR 54,
 
Regina v Field (Brian John); Regina v Young (Alfred) Times, 16 January 2003; [2002] EWCA Crim 2913; [2003] 1 WLR 882
12 Dec 2002
CACD
Kay LJ, Grigson, Ouseley JJ
Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing
Each applicant having been convicted of indecent assaults involving children, now appealed an order banning them from working with children. Held: The orders were not penalties within article 7. The order was available in the absence of a conviction, and it was intended as a preventive measure rather than a punitive one. The section could also apply to behaviour which had occurred prior to its commencement. The mere fact that a statute depends for its application in the future on events that have happened in the past does not offend against the presumption. The Court accepted a submission by the Secretary of State for the Home Department that the court should take a more relaxed approach to a potentially retroactive element in legislation where its intended purpose was, as it clearly was to protect children.
Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 28 - European Convention on Human Rights 7
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Sekhon, etc v Regina; CACD 16-Dec-2002 - Times, 27 December 2002; [2003] 1 Cr App R 575; [2003] 1 WLR 1655; [2002] EWCA Crim 2954
 
Garrote v City of London Magistrates Court [2002] EWHC 2909 (Admin)
17 Dec 2002
Admn
Gibbs J
Criminal Sentencing

[ Bailii ]
 
McInerney, Keating v Regina Times, 20 December 2002; [2002] EWCA Crim 3003; [2003] 1 Cr App R 627
18 Dec 2002
CACD
Mr Justice Silber The Lord Chief Justice Of England &Amp; Wales Mr Justice Grigson
Criminal Sentencing
The defendants appealed against their sentences for domestic burglary. The court took the opportunity to provide new guideline sentences for standard domestic burglaries. Held: The sentencing advisory panel had issued new guidance, supported by scientific survey. Public opinion was one, but only one of several factors. The court should also look at the costs of a sentence, and its effectiveness. A domestic burglar, who might previously have received a sentence of eighteen months or less, should receive a non-custodial sentence involving effective punishment, and an attempt to address any underlying cause of the behaviour including addiction. The court gave lists describing what would be considered a standard burglary, and of aggravating and other features.
Theft Act 1968 9(1)(a)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Sullivan Times, 18 March 2003
19 Dec 2002
CACD

Criminal Sentencing
The defendant appealed his sentence. He had locked a man in a cupboard and left him to starve to death. He appealed the part of the sentence of 18 years for false imprisonment. Held: The offence amounted to torture of the deceased. There was no comparable case, but a sentence of 18 years could not be criticised.

 
Suratan and Another, Regina v [2002] EWCA Crim 2982
20 Dec 2002
CACD
Mantell LJ, Bell, Andrew Smith JJ
Criminal Sentencing
The appellant had been convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to a term of three-and-a-half years' imprisonment. He had killed his partner by striking two blows upon her during a quarrel. She had fallen to the ground and in doing so had suffered a fatal haemorrhage. The reason for the attack by the offender upon his partner was not clear. The Attorney General referred the matter to the Court of Appeal. Held: The sentence of three-and-a-half years' imprisonment was lenient but not unduly so, and the court declined to interfere. The most important factor the fact that the offender did not intend to cause his partner any severe injury, let alone to kill her.
1 Citers

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