The judge imposed a longer than commensurate sentence in an indecent assault case to protect the public. The applicant complained that he should have been entitled to a review of the lawfulness of his detention as he was in the same position as a discretionary life prisoner because his sentence contained a preventative part as well as a punitive part.
Held: the application was manifestly unfounded. The A5(4) supervision is normally incorporated in the decision where a sentence of imprisonment is pronounced after conviction by a competent court. There was no question of the sentence being imposed because of the presence of factors which ‘were susceptible to change with the passage of time, namely mental instability and dangerousness’. ‘Such an ‘increased’ sentence is, however, no more than the usual exercise by the sentencing court of its ordinary sentencing powers, even if the ‘increase’ has a statutory basis. In particular, nothing in the sentencing procedure indicates that the fixed term sentence of five years imprisonment was anything other than a sentence which was imposed as punishment for the offences committed.’
Citations:
Unreported, 2 July 1997, 32072/96
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Giles, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board and Another HL 31-Jul-2003
The defendant had been sentenced for offences of violence, but an additional period was imposed to protect the public. He had been refused leave for reconsideration of that part of his sentence after he completed the normal segment of his sentence. . .
Cited – Black, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice HL 21-Jan-2009
The appellant complained that the system for considering the release of a life prisoner did not comply with the Convention when the decision was made by the Secretary of State and not by the Parole Board, or the court. The Board had recommended his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.185426