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 the court to carry out a careful step by step evaluation of the sentencing consequences of the type of offence, the age of the offender and the assessment of his dangerousness. What follows is a synopsis of the way in which that exercise should be carried out.
(a) As far as the type of offence is concerned, the first question to ask is whether or not the offence is a ‘specified’ offence, and the second is whether it is a ‘serious’ offence.
(b) If it is a ‘specified’ offence, whether ‘serious’ or not, the court must determine whether the defendant meets the criteria of dangerousness. In doing so the judge will be guided by the decisions of this court in Lang and Johnson.
(c) If the criteria of dangerousness are met and the defendant is aged 18 or over,
(i) where the offence is a ‘serious’ offence, he must be sentenced to an indeterminate sentence under section 225 of the 2003 Act,
(ii) otherwise he must be sentenced to an extended sentence under section 227 of the 2003 Act.
(d) If the criteria of dangerousness are met, and the offender is under 18:
(i) If the offence is a ‘serious’ offence and an offence to which he would be liable to a sentence of detention for life under section 91 of the 2000 Act, and it justifies (together with any associated offence) detention for life; he must be sentenced to detention for life;
(ii) if the court considers in such a case that such a sentence is not justified, and, pursuant to section 226(3) of the 2003 Act, it considers that an extended sentence under section 228 of the 2003 Act would be inadequate to protect the public, it must impose detention for public protection;
(iii) in any other case the defendant must be sentenced to an extended sentence under section 227 of the 2003 Act.
(e) By virtue of sections 227 and 228 of the 2003 Act a court must impose an extended sentence on a defendant who meets the criteria of dangerousness if he has been convicted of a ‘specified’ but not ‘serious’ offence, even if he has been convicted at the same time of an offence carrying an indeterminate sentence, and has been sentenced accordingly.’
Specified offences are serious offences.
Latham LJ, Mitting J, Teare J
 EWCA Crim 538,  4 All ER 369
Cited – Lang and Others, Regina v CACD 3-Nov-2005
In each case the defendant had commited violent or sexual offences and were caught by the new mandatory sentencing provisions, and been made subject to life imprisonment, or detention for public protection, or an extended sentence.
Held: The . .
Cited – Gordon, Regina v; Regina v Taylor etc CACD 8-Feb-2007
The court considered the interaction of sections 240 of the 2003 Act, and 67 of the 1967 Act as applied to time spent on remand.
Held: The court laying down the sentence should address this issue, and declare whether all time or otherwise . .
Cited – Johnson, Regina v; Regina vHamilton; Attorney General’s Reference (No 64 of 2006) CACD 20-Oct-2006
The court provided explanation of the nature of sentences passed for public protection under the 2003 Act, and in particular whether it was correct to base the assessment on previous convictions.
Held: ‘dangerousness’ is intended to represent . .
Cited – Norman and Others, Regina v CACD 20-Jul-2006
The defendant said that the judge in setting his sentence had failed correctly to identify the time he had spent in custody awaiting trial, and which would act as time served.
Held: The defendants were entitled to a direction. If the time for . .
Cited – Cain and Others, Regina v CACD 5-Dec-2006
The court emphasised that both prosecuting and defence counsel to ensure should be fully aware themselves of the potential impact of Chapter 5 of the 2003 Act on their case, are prepared to assist the judge in that respect, and are alert to any . .
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Menocal HL 1979
The appellant had been convicted under the 1952 Act of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent importation of controlled drugs. She was sentenced to imprisonment on her plea. More than three months later, application was made to forfeit the . .
Cited – Regina v Hart CACD 1983
The court’s power to correct within 28 days its own sentence can be used to increase or to decrease a sentence. . .
Cited – Regina v Woop CACD 2002
The court should use its own power to vary a sentence within 28 days so as to increase it only with care. . .
Cited – Regina v Hadley CACD 1993
Cited – Regina (Crown Prosecution Service) v Guildford Crown Court QBD 4-Jul-2007
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 . .
Cited – Crees, Regina v CACD 24-Oct-2007
The defendant had been convicted of several offences involing serious assaults. He now appealed against a sentence to imprisonment for public protection. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249916