Each defendant appealed against the imposition of an extended sentence of imprisonment.
Held: The The provisions were unduly complicated and about to change again. Courts would see their way clear by focussing on the offence for which the extended sentence was to be considered, and bearing in mind that the purpose of this particular form of sentence was not primarily to protect the public. The courts should also bear in mind the importance of the date of the offence and the difference drawn between violent and sexual offences. Nelson should still be followed. Prosecuting counsel should be equipped at court to give guidance and assistance to the judge if required, and should bear in mind the availability of the slip rule if a mistake was discovered later.
Judges:
Rose LJ, Jibbs, Stanley Burnton JJ
Citations:
Times 10-May-2005
Statutes:
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 86
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Webb, Attorney General’s Reference (No 52 of 2003) CACD 9-Dec-2003
The reference was for an unduly lenient sentence for offences of gross indecency with a child and attempted rape.
Held: Even experienced judges could be unaware of guideline cases. In this case Millberry and the Reference 91 etc of 2002 would . .
Cited – Regina v Nelson CACD 24-Oct-2001
The court gave guidelines on sentencing violent or sex offenders. The court should consider in order the commensurate sentence, whether any longer sentence was needed to protect the public, and if the sentence would be four year or longer, whether . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing, Criminal Practice
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.224767
