In each case a young person had been convicted on a guilty plea of murder. The court considered the affect on sentence of the defendant’s age and maturity.
Held: A difference of a few months might make an arbitrary difference in the minimum sentence of as much as three years. This was arbitrary and it was proper to make some allowance either upwards or downwards for the defendant’s maturity of character as part of the statutory lists. The statute acknowledged that sentencing could not be by rote.
Judges:
Mr Justice Cresswell Deputy Chief Justice Of England And Wales Fulford, Mr Justice Fulford Judge, Lord Justice Judge
Citations:
Times 29-Mar-2005, [2005] Crim LR 492, [2005] EWCA Crim 605, [2005] 2 Cr App R (S) 101
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Justice Act 2003 269(2)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Jones, Regina v CACD 30-Nov-2005
The court considered appeals against tarriffs set for defendants convicted of murder in the light of the schedules to the 2003 Act.
Held: ‘The guidance given by Schedule 21 is provided to assist the judge to determine the appropriate sentence. . .
Cited – Adeojo and Another v Regina CACD 6-Feb-2013
The defendants appealed against their convictions for murder saying that the court should not have relied upon hearsay evidence. A witness had refused to give evidence, but his earlier evidnece was used.
Held: The appeals failed. The judge had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223501