Regina (Inner London Probation Service) v Tower Bridge Magistrates’ Court: QBD 26 Jun 2001

A defendant had been convicted of shoplifting. His offending arose from his drugs habit. Then probation service gave its strong view that the defendant was not suitable to be placed upon a drug treatment and testing regime. They applied to review the decision to place him on the scheme. It was held that such a regime made substantial demands upon a defendant. The law did not require the consent of the probation service, but it should respect the expert evidence it had sought. If the court was considering going against such advice, it should express the reasons for its conclusion. ‘Drug treatment and testing orders were introduced from October 2000 as a new community sentence aimed at breaking the link between drug addiction and offending. The orders may last for the period, specified by the court, of between six months and three years. The treatment and testing carried out under the orders are an expensive resource targeted particularly at high volume offenders who have been largely driven to commit offences by their addiction to drugs and the need to finance treatment. The DTTO is unusual among community sentences in that it involves regular testing for drug abuse, and it involves the court which imposes the order having a formal and regular role in reviewing progress under the order and monitoring the offender’s conduct subject to the order.’

Judges:

Bell J

Citations:

Times 26-Jun-2001, [2002] Cr App R(S) 43

Statutes:

Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 52

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Belli CACD 20-Oct-2003
The defendant, a drug addict, had been arrested and released on bail for a series of offences. He appealed against a sentence of two years and nine months. The court rejected a suggestion that he might be made the subject of a Drug Treatment and . .
CitedRegina v Belli CACD 20-Oct-2003
The defendant, a drug addict, had been arrested and released on bail for a series of offences. He appealed against a sentence of two years and nine months. The court rejected a suggestion that he might be made the subject of a Drug Treatment and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85977