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.’
Judges:
Kennedy LJ, Hooper J
Citations:
Times 15-Nov-2000, Gazette 05-Jan-2001, [2001] 1 WLR 253
Statutes:
Human Rights Act 1998, Crime (Sentences) Act 1997
Cited by:
Approved – Regina v Drew HL 8-May-2003
The defendant was mentally ill. He had been convicted of a second serious offence, and now appealed the life sentence imposed. Psychiatrists had recommended a hospital order, but such an order could not now be made by virtue of the 2000 Act save in . .
Cited – P, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 11-Dec-2003
The applicant was a discretionary life prisoner compulsorily detained in a mental hospital. His tariff had now expired. If not detained under the 1983 Act he would now be entitled to a review. He argued that there should be a joint hearing.
Cited – O v Crown Court at Harrow HL 26-Jul-2006
The claimant said that his continued detention after the custody time limits had expired was an infringement of his human rights. He faced continued detention having been refused bail because of his arrest on a grave charge, having a previous . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights
Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88576
