The defendant had been convicted of rape. The judge had decided that an extended sentence was appropriate, and added four years to the seven year sentence under section 227. However the judge had no jurisdiction to do so, he retired on the same day and could not correct his mistake, and the prosecution delayed the appeal beyond the time limit. They now asked the divisional court to quash the sentence to allow him to be resentenced.
Held: To found a jurisdiction to quash the order, the prosecution had to establish that the matter related to a trial on indictment. The court had no such jurisdiction in this case, and could only resentence if requested by the defendant, who made no such request. The sentence was not itself an nullity and must be left to stand.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers LCJ, Griffith Williams J
Times 16-Jul-2007, [2007] EWHC 1798 (Admin), [2007] 1 WLR 2886
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 227
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Maidstone Crown Court, ex Parte Harrow London Borough Council QBD 30-Apr-1999
The High Court may review, on an application made by a properly interested party, a decision made by a Crown Court under the Act. Although this related to a trial on indictment, the Crown Court judge had made an order without jurisdiction. . .
Cited – Regina (Kenneally) v Snaresbrook Crown Court Admn 27-Nov-2001
That a mentally disturbed defendant may cause embarrassment by his behaviour in court was no reason for him not to be brought to court to be present when an order detaining him under the Act was to be made. The words of section 51(5) must be . .
Cited – Reynolds and Others, Regina v CACD 8-Mar-2007
The court considered how it could marry the law against the increase of penaties on appeal with the possible need to correct a judge’s error in sentencing. It summarised the provisions for sentencing for specified offences: ‘[The] regime requires . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.254620
