Rajendra Prasad v State of Uttar Pradesh: 1979

The court noted the substantial differences in culpability in different murders.

Krishna Iyer J
[1979] 3 SCR 78
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedReyes v The Queen PC 11-Mar-2002
(Belize) The Criminal Code of Belize provided that any murder by shooting was to be treated as Class A Murder, and be subject to the mandatory death penalty. The applicant having been convicted, appealed saying this was inhuman or degrading . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.226133

Attorney Generals Reference Nos 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of 2014: CACD 13 Mar 2014

AG’s appeal against sentences imposed saying that they were too lenient. The defendants had variously been convicted of offences of conspiracy to possess a firearm and, in some cases ammunition also, with intent to endanger life or to enable another to endanger life. There was a gangland context.

[2014] EWCA Crim 651
Bailii
England and Wales

CrimInal Sentencing

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525087

Howe, Regina v: CACD 10 Feb 2014

This matter is concerned with the appropriate level of sentencing for the offence of encouraging or assisting suicide pursuant to Section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961. It is a crime which is relatively rarely prosecuted.

[2014] EWCA Crim 114, [2014] WLR(D) 77
Bailii, WLRD
Suicide Act 1961 2(1)
England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521113

The Secretary of State for Justice v RB and Another: CA 20 Dec 2011

The court considered and rejected the possibility of the First Tier Tribunal making orders under the 2005 Act which would have the effect of depriving a patient of his liberty. The respondent, now aged 73, suffered a persistent delusional condition and was a ‘restricted patient’.

Maurice Kay LJ VP, Arden, Moses LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 1608, (2012) 124 BMLR 13, [2012] 1 WLR 2043, [2012] AACR 31, [2012] MHLR 131, [2011] WLR (D) 379, (2012) 124 BMLR 13
Bailii, WLRD
Mental Health Act 1983
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedSecretary of State for Justice v MM SC 28-Nov-2018
The respondent had been detained after conviction for arson, under the 1983 Act, and was liable to indefinite detention in hospital for medical treatment and dischargeable only by the Appellant or the First Tier Tribunal, possibly only as a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.450118

Regina v Yorkshire Water Services Ltd: CACD 16 Nov 2001

The defendant company was sentenced for supplying water which was below standard. The fine imposed was calculated according to the number of consumers affected.
Held: When considering the level of fine, the court should look to, the degree of culpability; damage caused; the previous record; the need for balance between censure and any counter-productive effect, in the light of efforts to remedy the situation; and the acts of the water authority after the events in question. The number of complainants should not be used as a multiplier.

Lord Justice Mance and Mr Justice Rougier
Times 12-Dec-2001
Water Industry Act 1991 70(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v F Howe and Son (Engineers) Limited CACD 6-Nov-1998
The general run of fines imposed for Health and Safety breaches is too low. Penalties should be increased where the standards were compromised for cost cutting, for the degree of lapse, and where a fatality resulted. The same standards apply for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 23 November 2021; Ref: scu.167015

Director of Public Prosecutions v Scarlett: CACD 7 Feb 2000

A defendant subject to a confiscation order in criminal proceedings for drugs related offences could be ordered to repatriate assets from banks accounts held abroad. The absence of an explicit power in this behalf did not prevent the order because of the wide power to make such ancillary orders to ensure compliance with an order as appeared necessary. An additional punishment for contempt for failing to obey was not punishing him twice, and he could purge the contempt if he chose.

Times 07-Feb-2000
England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Banking, Contempt of Court

Updated: 23 November 2021; Ref: scu.80043

Regina v R (Sentencing: Extended licences): CACD 25 Jul 2003

The imposition of an extended period of licence in respect of offences committed before 1992 did not infringe the defendant’s human rights. The defendant had been convicted of offences from 1976 and 1982. The commencement date for the 1991 Act was 1 October 1992.
Held: The true nature of the provision was preventive, to ensure that some control was retained over a sex offender released early on licence, rather than punitive. The JT case had been decided without full reference to reported cases and was given per incuriam.

Kennedy LJ, Pitchers J
Times 04-Aug-2003
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 86, European Convention on Human Rights A-7, Criminal Justice Act 1991 44
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedWelch v United Kingdom ECHR 15-Feb-1995
The applicant was convicted in 1988 of drug offences committed in 1986. The judge passed a sentence of imprisonment but imposed a confiscation order pursuant to an Act that came into force in l987.
Held: The concept of penalty in Article 7 was . .
CitedRegina v Field (Brian John); Regina v Young (Alfred) CACD 12-Dec-2002
Each applicant having been convicted of indecent assaults involving children, now appealed an order banning them from working with children.
Held: The orders were not penalties within article 7. The order was available in the absence of a . .
per incuriamRegina v JT CACD 2003
The provisions of section 68 were punitive, and therefore could not be read to have retrospective effect. . .
CitedHogben v United Kingdom ECHR 3-Mar-1986
. .
CitedRegina v Hodgson CACD 27-Jun-1996
Court to make use of control over sex offenders in appropriate cases by the use of extended licences. . .
CitedRegina (Uttley) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 8-Apr-2003
The court had to consider consider whether the application of statutory provisions requiring a prisoner to be released on licence, that were not applicable at the date of the offence, violated Article 7. The claimant had been sentenced to 12 years’ . .
CitedMcFetrich, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 30-Jun-2003
The defendant had been convicted of murder in Scotland. He requested a transfer to an English prison. The trial judge recommended a tariff of eight years which was eventually set at 12 years by the respondent. That figure also exceeded the maximum . .
CitedSimpson v Regina CACD 23-May-2003
The appellant challenged a confiscation order made on his conviction of VAT fraud. It was argued that one could not be made unless a proper notice had been given, and none of the offences occurred before 1995. On the assumption that section 1 of the . .
CitedIbbotson v United Kingdom ECHR 1998
While the applicant was serving a sentence for possession of obscene material, the 1997 Act came into force, requiring him to register with the police. It was argued that the passing of the Act and its impact on the offender involved a ‘penalty’ . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.185761

Harvey, Regina v: CACD 3 Jul 2013

The defendant had been convicted of handling and receiving stolen goods. He now appealed from a confiscation order made under the 2002 Act. The defendant having admitted to benefiting from a criminal lifestyle, the court had to decide to what extent, if any, he had benefited over the relevant period from his ‘general criminal conduct’, as defined by subsections (1) and (2) of section 76 of POCA. By no means all the items of machinery hired out by the Company were stolen, and the Crown accepted that the Company would have been viable if it had limited itself to legitimate activities. The total sum was calculated to include VAT. The defendant argues that since he had paid the VAT, this amounted to double counting.
Held: Save as to a default sentence, his appeal was dismissed.
As to the application of VAT: ‘[t]he court ha[s] to focus on the property coming to the offenders, not what happened to it subsequently’

Jackson LJ, Wyn Williams J,Russell QC HHJ
[2013] EWCA Crim 1104, [2013] WLR(D) 268, [2014] 1 Cr App Rep (S) 46, [2014] 1 WLR 124, [2013] Lloyd’s Rep FC 439
Bailii
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 6 7 (10
England and Wales
Citing:
AppliedBasso and Another v Regina CACD 19-May-2010
The defendants had been convicted of offences of failing to comply with planning enforcement notices (and fined andpound;10.00), and subsequently made subject to criminal confiscation orders. The orders had been made in respect of the gross income . .

Cited by:
At CACDHarvey, Regina v SC 16-Dec-2015
Police had discovered quantities of stolen goods at the appellant’s business premises. He was convicted of receiving stolen goods, and confiscation order made. He now appealed from the inclusion in that order of sums of VAT which had already been . .
CitedAhmad, Regina v SC 18-Jun-2014
The court considered the proper approach for the court to adopt, and the proper orders for the court to make, in confiscation proceedings where a number of criminals (some of whom may not be before the court) had between them acquired property or . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 15 November 2021; Ref: scu.512128

B v Leeds Crown Court and Another: Admn 24 Feb 2016

Appeal by way of case stated from the Leeds Crown Court raises a question about the implications for the sentencing of youths of restrictions on the powers of a magistrates’ court to sentence adult offenders.

Simon LJ, Leggatt J
[2016] EWHC 1230 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Magistrates, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.564801

Noone, Regina (on The Application of) v Governor of HMP Drake Hall and Another: SC 30 Jun 2010

The prisoner had been sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment, one for less, and one for more than 12 months. She disputed the date on which she should be released to home detention under curfew under the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State explaining how the release date should be calculated where longest sentence as subject to the 2003 Act, and the shorter sentences subject to the 1991 Act. The CA had ruled the policy lawful.
Held: The appeal succeeded and the policy was declared unlawful. The 2003 Act brought in provisions which had not been implemented, and the Transitional Order applied. However the 2005 Order allowed the possibility of capricious results, and the result was not that intended by Parliament. Paragraph 14 of the 2005 Order was intended to apply only where all the sentences were less than twelve months, but this left a gap for the situation where one or more was not. It was intended that sections 262(3) and 264(2) and (3) should apply. The guidance incorrectly inferred that an order that two sentences are to be consecutive directs that the second should start when the custodial part of the first ends has no basis in law and converts a sentence that is directed to be consecutive into a sentence which is in part concurrent.

Lord Phillips, President, Lord Saville, Lord Brown, Lord Mance, Lord Judge
[2010] UKSC 30, [2010] WLR (D) 164, [2010] 1 WLR 1743, [2010] 4 All ER 463, [2010] 1 WLR 1743
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
Criminal Justice Act 1991, Criminal Justice Act 2003 181 244, Crime and Disorder Act 1998 101, Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No 8 and Transitional and Savings Provisions) Order 2005 14
England and Wales
Citing:
At First InstanceNoone, Regina (on the Application of) v HMP Drake Hall and Another Admn 31-Jan-2008
The court considered the complications created when the schemes for providing early release of short term prisoners had not been implemented, but the new Act impacted in the previous arrangements anyway as regards those sentenced to consecutive . .
Appeal fromNoone, Regina (on the Application of) v HMP Drake Hall and Another CA 17-Oct-2008
The prisoner disputed the calculation of the date when she would become entitled to consideration for early release under a Home Detention Curfew. The Secretary of State appealed against a decision that his policy guidance was unlawful.
Held: . .
CitedHighton, Regina (on the Application of) v Her Majesty’s Youth Offender Institute Lancaster Farms and Another Admn 17-Apr-2007
Challenge to calculation of servable sentence term. . .
CitedRound and Dunn v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2009
Non-consolidation of sentence to debar home curfew
Each defendant had been sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment under the 1991 and 2003 Acts. One was above and one below twelve months. They complained that the result of trying to reconcile the statutory provisions was that they had . .
CitedInco Europe Ltd and Others v First Choice Distributors (A Firm) and Others HL 10-Mar-2000
Although the plain words of the Act would not allow an appeal to the Court of Appeal under the circumstances presently applying, it was clear that the parliamentary draftsman had failed to achieve what he had wanted to, that the omission was in . .
CitedAttorney General’s Reference (No 5 of 2002) HL 14-Oct-2004
The Attorney General sought the correct interpretation of section 17 where a court was asked as to whether evidence obtained from a telephone tapping had been taken from a public or private network. A chief constable suspected that the defendants, . .
CitedStellato, Regina (on the Application of)v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 28-Feb-2007
The prisoner had served part of his ten year sentence, been released on licence and then recalled. He complained that the new parole system under which he had then to apply was invalid, having been made Parliament by negative resolution.
Held: . .
CitedBuddington v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 27-Mar-2006
The court considered the validity of of the claimant’s recall to prison. The words ‘falls to be released’ in paragraph 23 mean ‘is entitled to be released’ or ‘is released’. The author of the Order may have been suffering from ‘Homeric exhaustion’. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Prisons

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.420018

Regina v Sivan: CACD 1988

Lord Lane CJ discussed the systems surrunding the giving of assistance to the police by suspects: ‘It is an area of law fraught with difficulties, as anyone who has practised in this field at the Bar or who has had to decide this type of case, either at trial or on appeal, will know all too well.’
He went on to identify three issues – the difficulty of ascertaining the true facts, the desire of the offender for confidentiality and the extent of credit to be given. He continued with suggestions as to good practice. A letter should be provided from a senior officer of police (or other authority). That officer must be unconnected with the case where assistance was to be given, must have examined the facts and be able to certify the facts as reported by the officers conducting the investigation. The officer in charge of the investigation should set out the facts as certified and should be available to give evidence if necessary, either in court or in chambers. In each case the procedure should be tailored to the circumstances.

Lord Lane CJ
(1988) 87 Cr App R 407
Cited by:
CitedAXN v The Queen CACD 27-May-2016
The defendant argued that greater note should have been taken on his sentencing to allow for the assistance he had given to the police after his arrest.
Held: The current accepted practice is that the text of the letter from the police to the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.564846

Shutt, Regina v: CACD 10 Dec 2010

The defendant had stolen from cash machines he was employed to repair. He appealed against the concurrent sentences of 8 months imposed.
Held: The appeal succeeded, and a sentence of 12 months supervision substituted. The defendant was of previous good character, had repaid much of what had been stolen, and had stolen only to support his young family. He had suffered psychological damage after witnessing two violent robberies. Reports had recommended non-custodial sentences. The recorder had put the offendig on a higher scale than it was.

Jack J, Stepens QC J
[2010] EWCA Crim 3033
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Kinloch CACD 2009
The offender worked for a brewery and ran their public houses in central London. He was responsible amongst other tasks for collecting takings. He stole andpound;20,000.
Held: The court accepted the submission that the manager of a public . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.428668

Bieber (Aka Coleman) v Regina: CACD 23 Jul 2008

The Court considered whether a whole life sentence under section 269(4) of the 2003 Act was compatible with Article 3. The defendant had been convicted of murdering a policeman and of attempted murder of two others.
Held: The whole life tarriff was quashed. The 2003 Act introduced the possibility of a whole life sentence with the result that a sentenced prisoner might never be released. Although in this case a minimum sentence of 37 years would be substituted, the imposition of such a sentence in appropriate cases need not infringe the defendant’s human rights. Even with such a sentence it was the practice of the Home Secretary to consider the case after twenty five years, and also there was provision under the 1997 Act to allow a reduction in exceptional cases on compassionate grounds. The case of Kafkaris had not established that a whole life sentence was necessarily an infringement: ‘Schedule 21 of the 2003 Act proceeds on the premise that some crimes are so heinous that they justify imprisoning the offender for the rest of his life, however long that may be’.

Baron Phillips of Worth Matravers LCJ, Pitchford, Dobbs JJ
[2008] EWCA Crim 1601, Times 11-Aug-2008, [2009] 1 All ER 295, [2009] 1 WLR 223, [2008] HRLR 43
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003, European Convention on Human Rights 3, Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 30
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedKafkaris v Cyprus ECHR 12-Feb-2008
(Grand Chamber) The claimant said that his rights had been infringed by the mandatory imposition of a life sentence after conviction for murder. Only the President could order the release of such a prisoner, either by exercising the power of mercy . .

Cited by:
AdoptedWellington Regina, (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 10-Dec-2008
It was sought to extradite the defendant to face trial for two alleged murders. He now challenged the order for his extradition saying that his treatment in Missouri would amount to inhuman or degrading punishment in that if convicted he would face . .
CitedBamber, Regina v CACD 14-May-2009
The defendant had been convicted in 1986 of the murder of five members of his adoptive family. The judge had initially recommended a minimum term of 25 years. A later judge had suggested a whole life term. The convictions had been upheld in 2002. . .
CitedOakes and Others v Regina CACD 21-Nov-2012
A specially constituted CACD heard sentencing appeals for defendants serving life terms for very grave crimes, and in particular, the judicial assessment of the minimum term to be served by the appellants for the purposes of punishment and . .
CitedVinter And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-Jul-2013
(Grand Chamber) The three appellants had each been convicted of exceptionally serious murders, and been sentenced to mandatory life sentences, but with provision that they could not be eligible for early release, making them whole life terms. They . .
CitedVinter, Regina v CACD 25-Jun-2009
The appellant challenged the imposition of a whole life term after his conviction for a serious, second, murder. . .
CitedVinter And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-Jul-2013
(Grand Chamber) The appellants had each been convicted of more than one murder and had been sentenced to to whole life terms. They complained that the absence of a possibility of review or remission
The applicants had each been convicted of . .
CitedRegina v McLoughlin; Regina v Newell CACD 18-Feb-2014
In each case the appellant had been convicted of particularly serious murders and had been given whole liife terms. They now appealed saying that such sentences were incompatible with their human rights after the ruling of the ECHR Grand Chamber in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.271029

Martin v Her Majesty’s Advocate: SC 3 Mar 2010

The claimant challenged the law extending the power of Sheriffs sitting alone to impose sentences of up to one year.
Held: The defendants’ appeal failed (Lord Rodger and Lord Kerr dissenting). The change was within the power of the Scottish Parliament and the challenge failed. The section set out to contribute to the reform of summary justice by reducing pressure on the higher courts. The jurisdiction of a Sheriff was defined by the penalties which he can impose and his powers are quintessentially matter of Scots criminal law. As a rule of Scots criminal law, it did not relate to a reserved matter within the meaning of s.29(2)(b) of the Scotland Act 1998. It was a change in procedure.
Lord Walker said that the expression ‘relates to’ in section 29(2)(b) and (3) was ‘familiar in this sort of context, indicating more than a loose or consequential connection, and the language of section 29(3), referring to a provision’s purpose and effect, reinforces that.’

Lord Hope (Deputy President), Lord Rodger, Lord Walker, Lord Brown, Lord Kerr
[2010] UKSC 10, UKSC 2009/0127, 2010 SCL 476, 2010 SLT 412, 2010 SC (UKSC) 40
Bailii, Times, SC, SC Summ, Bailii Summary
Scotland Act 1998 29(2)(b), Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform)(Scotland) Act 2007 45
Scotland
Citing:
CitedLogan and Another v Procurator Fiscal HCJ 2-Jul-2008
The appellant challenged sentences for driving whilst disqualified. The defendant questioned the extent of the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament under judicial scrutiny on grounds other than compliance with Convention rights. . .

Cited by:
CitedJude v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 23-Nov-2011
The Lord Advocate appealed against three decisions as to the use to be made of interviews where the detainees had not been given access to lawyers. In each case the prosecutor now appealed after their convictions had been overturned in the light of . .
CitedImperial Tobacco Ltd v The Lord Advocate SC 12-Dec-2012
The claimant company said that the 2010 Act was outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament insofar as it severely restricted the capacity of those selling cigarettes to display them for sale. They suggested two faults. First, that the subject . .
CitedLocal Government Byelaws (Wales) Bill 2012 – Reference By The Attorney General for England and Wales SC 21-Nov-2012
Under the 1998 and 2006 Acts, the Welsh Assembly was empowered to pass legislation subject to confirmation by the English Parliament Secretary of State. The Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Bill 2012 was passed by the Assembly and purported to . .
CitedRecovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill (Reference By The Counsel General for Wales) SC 9-Feb-2015
The court was asked whether the Bill was within the competence of the Welsh Assembly. The Bill purported to impose NHS charges on those from whom asbestos related damages were recovered.
Held: The Bill fell outside the legislative competence . .
CitedThe Christian Institute and Others v The Lord Advocate SC 28-Jul-2016
(Scotland) By the 2014 Act, the Scottish Parliament had provided that each child should have a named person to monitor that child’s needs, with information about him or her shared as necessary. The Institute objected that the imposed obligation to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Criminal Sentencing

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.402004

Blackman, Regina v (Sentence): CACD 28 Mar 2017

Sentence – manslaughter of prisoner

The defendant whilst serving in Afghanistan had killed a prisoner. His appeal against his conviction for murder had been successful, and a conviction for manslaughter had been substituted on the basis that he was at the time suffering a recognised medical condition. The court now considered sentencing.
Held: A sentence of seven years was imposed, which would, allowing for time served, lead to his imminent release.

[2017] EWCA Crim 325
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoBlackman, Regina v (Media) CACD 28-Mar-2017
The defendant officer appealed against his conviction for murder. Whilst serving a s an officer in Afghanistan, he had killed a captured soldier. That conviction had been quashed and a conviction for manslaughter on diminished responsibility . .
See AlsoBlackman, Regina v CACD 15-Mar-2017
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. As an army officer serving in Afghanistan he had killed an injured captured insurgent.
Held: The defendant had at the time of the offence suffered a recognised psychiatric condition, . .
See AlsoBlackman, Regina v CACD 22-May-2014
The appellant had been convicted of murder. As an Army sergeant serving in Afghanistan, he had killed a captured insurgent. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Armed Forces

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.581276

Waite v The United Kingdom: ECHR 10 Dec 2002

The claimant had been sentenced to be detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure when a youth. After release on licence, the Parole Board met and revoked that licence without an oral hearing, and in contravention of the rules. He did not dispute the facts which led to his recall. However, he submitted that issues arose concerning his character and mental state which rendered an oral hearing essential to the fairness of the proceedings.
Held: The effect of compliance with article 5.4 by the adoption of ppropriate procedures did not extend beyond the consequences of the first court decision. Where new issues arose affecting the lawfulness of a detention, such as after the expiry of the initial tariff period, the article 5.4 rights were revived. In this case they had been breached. There was no breach of article 5.1 rights because the applicant had given good cause for his recall. References to his relationship with another male whilst under the age of 18 had not affected the decision to recall, and he had not been discriminated against for his sexual orientation.
‘The court is not persuaded by the Government’s argument which appears to be based on the speculative assumption that whatever might have occurred at an oral hearing the Board would not have exercised its power to release. Article 5(4) is first and foremost a guarantee of a fair procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of detention – an applicant is not required, as a precondition to enjoying that protection, to show that on the facts of his case he stands any particular chance of success of obtaining his release. In matters of such crucial importance as deprivation of liberty and where questions arise involving, for example, an assessment of the applicant’s character or mental state, the Court’s case-law indicates that it may be essential to the fairness of the proceedings that the applicant be present at an oral hearing. In such a case as the present, where characteristics pertaining to the applicant’s personality and level of maturity and reliability are of importance in deciding on his dangerousness, Article 5(4) requires an oral hearing in the context of an adversarial procedure involving legal representation and the possibility of calling and questioning witnesses . . ‘

(2002) 36 EHRR 1001, Times 31-Dec-2002, 53236/99, [2002] ECHR 798, [2002] ECHR 804, [2003] Prison LR 160, (2003) 36 EHRR 54,
Worldlii, Bailii
Human Rights
Citing:
CitedWynne v United Kingdom ECHR 18-Jul-1994
A Discretionary lifer is not entitled to a review by a court of his continued detention. His article five rights were not breached. Where a national court imposed a fixed sentence of imprisonment, the supervision required by article 5.4 was . .
CitedWeeks v The United Kingdom ECHR 5-Oct-1988
The Court was asked as to the recall to prison of a prisoner who had been released on licence. His recall and subsequent detention were considered by the Board, but under the system then in place it could only make a non-binding recommendation. . .

Cited by:
CitedRoberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
CitedHirst v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 6-Jul-2006
The prisoner had been released on licence but then recalled. He complained that the procedure infringed his human rights. He had been convicted of manslaughter, and was seen to be a long term danger. The court awarded him compensation saying that . .
CitedOsborn v The Parole Board SC 9-Oct-2013
Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on . .
CitedOsborn and Another v The Parole Board CA 15-Dec-2010
The three claimants complained that the respondent had made decisions adverse to them as to their release to or recall from parole.
Held: Review was refused. While there was ‘some force in the submission that, contrary to the understanding of . .
CitedOsborn v The Parole Board Admn 19-Mar-2010
The claimants complained that decisions had been made by the respondents without them having been first given a right to an oral hearing. They now sought permission to bring judicial review.
Held: Permission was refused. The facts in the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons, Criminal Sentencing

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.178372

Main Against Scottish Ministers: SCS 22 May 2015

Second Division, Inner House. The petitioner said that the statutory delay of 15 years after leaving prison before a review of the idenite notification provisions of the 2003 Act were incompatible with his right of respect for his private life in terms of Article 8.1 of the European Convention.

Lord Carloway, Lord Justice Clerk
[2015] ScotCS CSIH – 41
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8.1, Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Remedial) (Scotland) Order 2011, Sexual Offences Act 2003
Scotland

Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.547648

Offen and Others, Regina v: CACD 9 Nov 2000

The court heard appeals against automatic life sentences imposed under the 1997 Act. It was contended that either the interpretation of section 2 of the 1997 Act was affected by section 3 of the 1998, or that section 2 is incompatible with a Convention right so that the appellants are entitled to a declaration of incompatibility.
Held: The challenges failed. Lord Woolf, gave fresh consideration to the construction of the statutory provisions in the light of the new circumstances.
The problem had arisen because of the restrictive approach formerly adopted to the interpretation of ‘exceptional circumstances’ in section 2. If exceptional circumstances are construed in a manner which accords with the policy of Parliament in passing section 2, the problem disappears: ‘Under section 2 it will be part of the responsibility of judges to assess the risk to the public that offenders constitute. In many cases the degree of risk that an offender constitutes will be established by his record, with or without the assistance of assessments made in reports which are available to the court. If a court needs further assistance, they can call for it. The courts have traditionally had to make a similar assessment when deciding whether a discretionary life sentence should be imposed. There should be no undue difficulty in making a similar assessment when considering whether the court is required to impose an automatic life sentence, although the task will not be straightforward, because of the lack of information as to the first serious offence which will sometimes exist because of the passage of time.
This does not mean that we are approaching the passing of an automatic life sentence as though it is no different from the imposition of a discretionary life sentence. Notwithstanding the interpretation resulting from the application of section 3(1) of the 1998 Act suggested, section 2 will still give effect to the intention of Parliament. It will do so, however, in a more just, less arbitrary and more proportionate manner. Section 2 will still mean that a judge is obliged to pass a life sentence in accordance with its terms unless, in all the circumstances, the offender poses no significant risk to the public. There is no such obligation in cases where section 2 does not apply. In addition, if the judge decides not to impose a life sentence under section 2, he will have to give reasons as required by section 2(3). Furthermore, the issue of dangerousness will have to be addressed in every case and a decision made as to whether or not to impose a life sentence.’
If in a individual case the facts showed that the statutory assumption that the public needed to be protected against the offender in the future was misplaced, then the position was exceptional. The norm is that those who commit two serious offences are a danger, or risk, to the public, but if in fact the offender on the evidence does not create an unacceptable risk to the public he is an exception to the norm. Offenders who do not constitute a significant risk to the public should not, said the court, receive an automatic life sentence

The Lord Woolf of Barnes LCJ, Steel, Richards JJ
[2000] EWCA Crim 96, [2000] Prison LR 283, [2001] 2 Cr App Rep (S) 10, [2001] 1 Cr App R 24, [2001] Crim LR 63, [2001] 1 WLR 253, [2001] 2 All ER 154, [2001] 1 Cr App Rep 372, [2000] Prison LR 283
Bailii
Crime (Sentences) Act 1997
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedS, Regina v CACD 25-Feb-2002
Appeal against sentence for rape, as the result of a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Life sentence imposed because of historic serious violence. The court was asked what were ‘exceptional circumstances’ so as to allow a non-life . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.263619

Bamber, Regina v: CACD 14 May 2009

The defendant had been convicted in 1986 of the murder of five members of his adoptive family. The judge had initially recommended a minimum term of 25 years. A later judge had suggested a whole life term. The convictions had been upheld in 2002.
Held: The judge setting the tariff had agreed with and not merely felt himself bound by the judgments of the Home Secretary and earlier judges, and nor had he misdirected himself. The whole life tariff was not incompatible with the prisoner’s human rights.

[2009] EWCA Crim 962
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Hickey and Others, Same Ex Parte Bamber; Same Ex Parte Malone (No 2) QBD 29-Nov-1994
The Home Secretary is obliged to disclose new evidence to a defendant before rejecting his application for a reference to Court of Appeal. The Home Secretary’s powers to refer a case back to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) was an integral . .
See AlsoRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Bamber CA 15-Feb-1996
The right of a prisoner to provide a recorded message for a radio station could properly be curtailed. . .
See AlsoBamber v United Kingdom ECHR 11-Sep-1997
The Commission declared inadmissible a complaint that Standing Order 5 G 2B infringed Article 10. The Order precluded prisoners from contacting the media by telephone except in exceptional circumstances. The Standing Order satisfied the requirement . .
See AlsoRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department (ex parte Bamber) Admn 24-Apr-1998
The applicant was refused leave to apply for judicial review of a decision as to his release made on the basis of his refusal to accept his guilt. . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody and Others HL 25-Jun-1993
A mandatory lifer is to be permitted to suggest the period of actual sentence to be served. The Home Secretary must give reasons for refusing a lifer’s release. What fairness requires in any particular case is ‘essentially an intuitive judgment’, . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Anderson HL 25-Nov-2002
The appellant had been convicted of double murder. The judge imposed a mandatory life sentence with a minimum recommended term. The Home Secretary had later increased the minimum term under the 1997 Act. The appellant challenged that increase.
CitedBamber v Regina CACD 12-Dec-2002
. .
CitedKafkaris v Cyprus ECHR 12-Feb-2008
(Grand Chamber) The claimant said that his rights had been infringed by the mandatory imposition of a life sentence after conviction for murder. Only the President could order the release of such a prisoner, either by exercising the power of mercy . .
CitedCaines, Regina v, Regina v Roberts CACD 23-Nov-2006
The prisoners appealed the review of the recommended minimum terms they must serve on that term being reviewed by the court, saying that the court should have made allowance for the exceptional progress to rehabilitation made in prison.
Held: . .
CitedPitchfork, Regina v CACD 14-May-2009
The defendant had been convicted of two rapes and murders in 1988. He was found to have a psychopathic disorder. His minimum term was first set at 25 years, then altered on review to 30 years. He now sought review of the period.
Held: Judge . .
CitedBieber (Aka Coleman) v Regina CACD 23-Jul-2008
The Court considered whether a whole life sentence under section 269(4) of the 2003 Act was compatible with Article 3. The defendant had been convicted of murdering a policeman and of attempted murder of two others.
Held: The whole life . .
CitedWellington Regina, (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 10-Dec-2008
It was sought to extradite the defendant to face trial for two alleged murders. He now challenged the order for his extradition saying that his treatment in Missouri would amount to inhuman or degrading punishment in that if convicted he would face . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing., Human Rights

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.343899

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Anderson: HL 25 Nov 2002

The appellant had been convicted of double murder. The judge imposed a mandatory life sentence with a minimum recommended term. The Home Secretary had later increased the minimum term under the 1997 Act. The appellant challenged that increase.
Held: The increase in the minimum term to be served was an increase in the sentence. A mandatory life sentence was not to be distinguished for this purpose from a discretionary life sentence. The tariff-fixing procedure is not a statutory creature, and had to be looked at in substance not in form. Such an act carried out by the executive was an unacceptable blurring of the separation of powers. An act of sentencing could only be done by a court. In addition, the arrangement was in breach of the appellant’s right to have his sentence determined by a court, and a declaration of incompatibility of the section was made. A whole life tariff need not be inconsistent with a defendant’s human rights when properly imposed.
As to the relationship of the House of the ECHR, the House of Lords ‘will not without good reason depart from the principles laid down in a carefully considered judgment of the Grand Chamber.’

Bingham of Cornhill, Nicholls of Birkenhead, Steyn, Hutton, Hobhouse of Woodborough, Scott of Foscote, Rodger of Earlsferry, LL
Times 26-Nov-2002, Gazette 23-Jan-2003, [2002] UKHL 46, [2002] 3 WLR 180, [2003] 1 AC 837, [2003] HRLR 7, (2003) 13 BHRC 450, [2003] UKHRR 112, [2003] 1 Cr App R 32, [2002] 4 All ER 1089
House of Lords, Bailii
Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 1(1), European Convention on Human Rights Art 6(1), Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 29
England and Wales
Citing:
AppliedStafford v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-2002
Grand Chamber – The appellant claimed damages for being held in prison beyond the term of his sentence. Having been released on licence from a life sentence for murder, he was re-sentenced for a cheque fraud. He was not released after the end of the . .
CitedBenjamin and Wilson v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-Sep-2002
The applicant challenged the system in the UK of deciding on his release from a secure mental hospital. He had been a discretionary life prisoner, but then later his detention was continued because of his mental condition. Though an independent . .
Appeal fromRegina (Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (Taylor) v Same CA 13-Nov-2001
The applicants had been convicted of murder. The Home Secretary had to fix sentence tariffs for their release. They contended that it was a breach of their rights for that tariff to be set by a politician. The distinction was made between offences . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina v Lichniak HL 25-Nov-2002
The appellants challenged the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment imposed on them on their convictions for murder. They said it was an infringement of their Human Rights, being arbitrary and disproportionate.
Held: The case followed on . .
Appeal toRegina (Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (Taylor) v Same CA 13-Nov-2001
The applicants had been convicted of murder. The Home Secretary had to fix sentence tariffs for their release. They contended that it was a breach of their rights for that tariff to be set by a politician. The distinction was made between offences . .
CitedRegina on the Application of Clift v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 13-Jun-2003
The claimant had been sentenced to 18 years imprisonment. He challenged the differing treatment for parole purposes of those sentenced to more than 15 years, as infringing his human rights, insofar as the decision was retained by the Home Secretary. . .
CitedMcFetrich, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 30-Jun-2003
The defendant had been convicted of murder in Scotland. He requested a transfer to an English prison. The trial judge recommended a tariff of eight years which was eventually set at 12 years by the respondent. That figure also exceeded the maximum . .
CitedRegina (on the application of R) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 12-Dec-2003
The decision to designate a prisoner with mental difficulties as a ‘technical lifer’ was not a sentencing exercise requiring a right for the issue to be heard before a court, and it remained a decision for the respondent. . .
CitedGhaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
CitedRegina v Sullivan; Regina v Gibbs; Regina v Elener; Regina v Elener CACD 8-Jul-2004
The appellants, each convicted of murder, challenged the minimum periods of detention ordered to be served.
Held: As to the starting point for sentencing, judges should have regard to the published practice directions, and not the letter from . .
CitedSheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
CitedHammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 25-Nov-2004
The defendant had heard that the sentencing judge would set his sentence tarriff without an oral hearing, and would then give his decision in open court. He sought judicial review.
Held: Review was granted. The availability of a right of . .
CitedHooper and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 5-May-2005
Widowers claimed that, in denying them benefits which would have been payable to widows, the Secretary of State had acted incompatibly with their rights under article 14 read with article 1 of Protocol 1 and article 8 of the ECHR.
Held: The . .
MentionedSmith, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 28-Jul-2005
The applicant had, as a child been subject to detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure, the sentence being imposed before 30 November 2000. She argued that that sentence should be subject to periodic review despite the term had been fixed by the Lord . .
CitedHammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 1-Dec-2005
The claimants had been convicted of murder, but their tariffs had not yet been set when the 2003 Act came into effect. They said that the procedure under which their sentence tarriffs were set were not compliant with their human rights in that the . .
CitedWilkinson v Kitzinger and others FD 31-Jul-2006
The parties had gone through a ceremony of marriage in Columbia, being both women. After the relationship failed, the claimant sought a declaration that the witholding of the recognition of same-sex marriages recoginised in a foreign jurisdiction . .
CitedBegum (otherwise SB), Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School HL 22-Mar-2006
The student, a Muslim wished to wear a full Islamic dress, the jilbab, but this was not consistent with the school’s uniform policy. She complained that this interfered with her right to express her religion.
Held: The school’s appeal . .
CitedBarker, Regina v CACD 24-Oct-2008
The defendant appealed against the minimum term imposed on her under the 2003 Act. She argued that the court should have made allowance for the fact that she had made exceptional progress since arriving in prison.
Held: Caines established that . .
CitedBamber, Regina v CACD 14-May-2009
The defendant had been convicted in 1986 of the murder of five members of his adoptive family. The judge had initially recommended a minimum term of 25 years. A later judge had suggested a whole life term. The convictions had been upheld in 2002. . .
CitedVinter And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-Jul-2013
(Grand Chamber) The three appellants had each been convicted of exceptionally serious murders, and been sentenced to mandatory life sentences, but with provision that they could not be eligible for early release, making them whole life terms. They . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.178249

F and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 21 Apr 2010

The defendants had been convicted and sentenced for offences which under the 2003 Act would mean that they stayed permanently on the Sex Offenders’ register without possibility of a review. The Secretary of State appealed aganst a finding that the absence of a review was incompatible with their article 8 rights.
Held: The appeal failed. It was a question of proportionality. The requirements to notify addresses and report were infringements of the respondents’ article 8 rights. The court asked, to what extent it was an infringement, how vauable was the regime in the pursuit of a legitimate aim, and whether the success of the arrangement was dependent on the absence of a review system.
Where, given an opportunity, a defendant could satisfy the authorities that there was no need for a continued registration, there was no purpose served by a continued registration, and its associated infringements. There were already systems in place and relied on for the review of sex offenders, and therefore a system of review was practicable.
Lord Phillips said: ‘it is obvious that there must be some circumstances in which an appropriate tribunal could reliably conclude that the risk of an individual carrying out a further sexual offence can be discounted to the extent that continuance of notification requirements is unjustified. As the courts below have observed, it is open to the legislature to impose an appropriately high threshold for review. Registration systems for sexual offenders are not uncommon in other jurisdictions. Those acting for the first respondent have drawn attention to registration requirements for sexual offenders in France, Ireland, the seven Australian States, Canada, South Africa and the United States. Almost all of these have provisions for review. This does not suggest that the review exercise is not practicable.’

Lord Phillips (President), Lord Hope (Deputy President), Lord Rodger, Lady Hale, Lord Clarke
[2010] WLR (D) 98, [2010] UKSC 17, [2010] 2 WLR 992, [2011] 1 AC 331, [2010] 2 All ER 707, (2010) 113 BMLR 209, 113 BMLR 209
WLRD, SC, SC Summ, Bailii
Sexual Offences Act 2003 82, European Convention on Human Rughts 8
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedDe Freitas v The Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Lands and Housing and others PC 30-Jun-1998
(Antigua and Barbuda) The applicant was employed as a civil servant. He joined a demonstration alleging corruption in a minister. It was alleged he had infringed his duties as a civil servant, and he replied that the constitution allowed him to . .
Appeal FromJF and Another, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 23-Jul-2009
The claimants complained of the system under which they had been placed on the sex offenders’ register indefinitely with no ability to have the registration reviewed. They said that this interfered with their right to respect for their private and . .
CitedHuang v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 21-Mar-2007
Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split
The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own . .
At first InstanceF and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 19-Dec-2008
The defendants each complained that being placed on the sex offenders’ register indefinitely was a disproportionate interference with their rights for private and family life, and under European law.
Held: A declaration of incompatibility was . .
CitedStubbings and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Oct-1996
There was no human rights breach where the victims of sex abuse had been refused a right to sue for damages out of time. The question is whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment in law: . .
CitedIbbotson v United Kingdom ECHR 1998
While the applicant was serving a sentence for possession of obscene material, the 1997 Act came into force, requiring him to register with the police. It was argued that the passing of the Act and its impact on the offender involved a ‘penalty’ . .
CitedBouchacourt v France ECHR 17-Dec-2009
The applicant had been sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment for rape and sexual assault on minors. His name had been placed automatically on a Register of Sexual and Violent Offenders, and had had to confirm his address every year and to give notice . .
CitedMarper v United Kingdom; S v United Kingdom ECHR 4-Dec-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicants complained that on being arrested on suspicion of offences, samples of their DNA had been taken, but then despite being released without conviction, the samples had retained on the Police database.
Held: . .
CitedAdamson v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-Jan-1999
The Court reached the following conclusion as to the purpose of the notification requirements for sex offenders: ‘the purpose of the measures in question is to contribute towards a lower rate of reoffending in sex offenders, since a person’s . .
CitedMassey v United Kingdom ECHR 8-Apr-2003
The applicant complained that there was no ‘assessment or review’ of the necessity for his sex offender registration. . .
CitedGallagher, Re an Application By for Judicial Review QBNI 9-Apr-2003
The applicant had been convicted of offences of indecent assault. He contended that the notification requirements of the 1997 Act infringed his rights under Article 8.
Held: The court rejected the claim: ‘The task of deciding whether the . .
CitedWilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent of its property . .
CitedA v The Scottish Ministers and Others, Re Application for Judicial Review SCS 27-Nov-2007
. .
CitedForbes v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Jul-2006
The defendant had been placed on the sex offenders’ register on conviction for fraudulent evasion of prohibitions on importing goods, by importing indecent photographs of children. He had maintained that he had not known of the exact nature of the . .

Cited by:
CitedT, Regina (on The Application of) v Greater Manchester Police and Another Admn 9-Feb-2012
The claimant challenged the terms of an enhanced Criminal Records Certificate issued by the defendant. He had been warned in 2002 for suspicion of theft of two cycles. The record had been stepped down in 2009, but then re-instated. He wished to . .
CitedT and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another SC 18-Jun-2014
T and JB, asserted that the reference in certificates issued by the state to cautions given to them violated their right to respect for their private life under article 8 of the Convention. T further claims that the obligation cast upon him to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.409977

Kahar, Regina v: CACD 17 May 2016

Prosecutors choice of charge is his not the courts

The Court gave guidance on sentencing for offences under s5 of the 2006 Act.
Held: It was not for the court to say that more specific offences could have been charged and should have been charged: ‘As a matter of constitutional principle, it is generally for the prosecutor to decide what charge to prefer. Whatever may have been the purpose of Parliament, the offence under s.5 is clearly on its ordinary language wide enough to cover conduct that might otherwise be charged as conspiracy or even attempt to commit particular offences’
The court set out five general principles: ‘(i) conduct threatening democratic government and the security of the state was particularly serious; (ii) the purpose of sentence would be to punish, deter and incapacitate but rehabilitation was unlikely to play a part; (iii) in accordance with section 143(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the sentencer had to consider the offender’s culpability (usually extremely high), and any harm which the offence caused, had been intended to cause, or might foreseeably have caused; (iv) the starting point was the sentence that would have been imposed if the intended act(s) had been carried out; (v) when relevant, it was necessary to distinguish between a primary intention to endanger life and a primary intention to cause serious damage to property, with the most serious offences generally being those involving an intended threat to human life.’

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, CJ
[2016] EWCA Crim 568, [2016] WLR(D) 267
Bailii, WLRD
Terrorism Act 2006
England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Criminal Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.564458

Regina v Dobson and Norris: CCC 4 Jan 2012

CCC (Central Criminal Court) The Offence
The murder of Stephen Lawrence on the night of 22nd April 1993 was a terrible and evil crime. Recently the Lord Chief Justice described it as a ‘murder which scarred the conscience of the nation.’
A totally innocent 18 year old youth on the threshold of a promising life was brutally cut down in the street in front of eye witnesses by a racist thuggish gang. You were both members of that gang. I have no doubt at all that you fully subscribed to its views and attitudes. The covert Footscray DVD with its disgusting and shocking scenes and the nature of the attack itself convince me of that.
This crime was committed for no other reason than racial hatred. You did not know Stephen Lawrence or Duwayne Brooks. Neither of them had done anything to harm, threaten or offend you in any way, apart from being black and making their way peaceably to the bus-stop on their way home.
At least one of your group was armed with a lethal knife that night. I am sure you were aware of that. The Footscray tapes, although recorded in 1994, reveal the sort of people you were and associated with in 1993. They reveal not only violent racist attitudes but also a casual and accepting attitude to the carrying and use of knives. They reveal a group acceptance of the use of knives to threaten or harm black people.
The brief but co-ordinated nature of the attack by your group confirms that view. A racist taunt, followed by a group charge towards the two young black men, and then the swallowing up of Stephen Lawrence, surrounded and put to the ground by all of you, shows a deliberately concerted attack. A knife was used to stab him with blows aimed to vulnerable parts of the body: once when he was upright at the start of the attack; the second when he was on the ground whilst the rest of you were gathered round aiming blows or kicks to put him or keep him on the ground.
The evidence does not prove so that I could be sure that either of you had a knife, but the person who used it did so with your knowledge and approval. That is apparent from the brief nature of the attack in which those who were unarmed did not themselves inflict blows or kicks of sufficient gravity to leave injury or involve themselves in a sustained attack as they would if this was a conventional plan to beat up. The attack lasted in the region of 10 seconds and then the whole group moved off together as one making its escape. I take the view that, in the circumstances, it does not matter that the knife was not in your hands.
The cohesive nature of the group tells its story. It is not as if, for example, one person unexpectedly did something that no one else expected or approved of. You, Dobson, repeatedly lied to keep Norris’ name away from the police, a clear example of group loyalty.
Whilst the attack on Stephen Lawrence himself clearly could not have been pre-meditated since it was a chance encounter, I cannot accept that a crime of this type simply arose on the spur of the moment. The way in which the attack took place strongly suggests to me that your group, if not actively seeking out a victim, was prepared, if opportunity arose, to attack in the way in which you did.
Stephen Lawrence is not the only victim of this crime. His family, (two parents, a brother and a sister), whose victim impact statements I have read, have been most grievously affected. So has his friend Duwayne Brooks. Of that I have no doubt.
Neither of you has shown the slightest regret or remorse. Each of you has lied to the court. I do not punish you for that, but this is not a case where there is any mitigation available for contrition.
As to other potential mitigation, it is urged upon me that I should make allowance on the basis that this was a murder involving an intention to cause grievous bodily harm rather than an intention to kill. That is a recognised mitigating factor. However in this case it is not a factor to which I can attach much weight although I accord it some. The reasons for this are that (i) there was premeditation in the sense I have explained, (ii) the carrying and use of a deadly weapon was part of what was contemplated, (iii) even if you did not positively intend death to result, you intended very serious injury and were in reality utterly indifferent as to whether death resulted or not, (iv) death was an obvious risk in this sort of attack. This is not a case where the division between the two forms of intent is a wide one. Accordingly, the weight to be attached is not great. See R v PETERS [2005] EWCA Crim 605 at paragraphs 13-16.
You are both now in your mid 30’s but I have to look at you as you were at the time of the crime. Both of you were undoubtedly streetwise at the time of the December 1994 Footscray tapes. I believe they reflect how you were in 1993. There is nothing I have seen or been told which suggests to me that either of you was particularly immature, easily led or otherwise disadvantaged in April 1993. There is no suggestion that psychiatric or other reports are needed for either of you.
Sentencing Framework
The sentencing framework is clear. All parties, after consideration of the relevant legal provisions are agreed. In short, the law dictates that I must sentence you by reference to your age and maturity at the time of the crime. I cannot sentence you as the mature men you now are. In addition I must sentence you in accordance with the practice in force before the coming into force of Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which now governs sentencing for more modern murders.
In modern times an adult committing this crime would be facing a life sentence with a starting point for a minimum term of around 30 years. That is the effect of the provisions of Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. That same Act by contrast fixes the starting point for sentencing where the offender was under 18 at the time of committing the offence at 12 years.
I am also required by Schedule 22 Paragraph 10(a) of the same Act not to pass a heavier penalty than would have been imposed before that Act came into force. So, I must follow sentencing practice as it was before the 2003 Act. As is made clear by the Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction [2004] 1WLR 2251, (issued by the then Lord Chief Justice and dealing with sentencing for murders committed before 18th December 2003), the starting point for an adult for an offence of this type would be around 15/16 years.
It may be, therefore, that the resultant sentences are lower than some might expect, but the law as laid down by Parliament must be applied and I am constrained by it.
The Sentences
I will of course apply the law faithfully, but recognising that it is for the trial judge to determine the period he considers appropriate within the legal framework and guidance. See S 269 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
The gravity of this case is in my view of a different order from, for example, a murder committed by one individual upon another as a result of some sudden quarrel. There was a degree of general premeditation; it was a racist crime driven by hatred; it involved a gang of like-minded attackers; a lethal weapon was employed and known in advance to be carried; the victim was completely blameless and helpless. The high level of public interest in this case is at least in part a reflection of the abhorrence felt by right-thinking people at the nature of this crime. This, too, should be reflected in the sentence.
This is an offence which calls for an upward adjustment in the starting point because of the aggravating features referred to above. Such an increase is in line with observations in R v SULLIVAN and Others [2004] EWCA Crim 1762, and R v PETERS (Supra). In this case, were an adult involved and facing sentence for this crime based on pre-2003 Act sentencing practice, I would envisage a minimum term of around 18 years. I must, however, reflect the fact that both of you were under 18 at the time. I shall adopt a starting point of 12 years and then adjust it to reflect the aggravating features and such mitigation as exists in you cases.
In each case, and as a reflection of the fact that the offender was under 18 at the time, I must impose a sentence of Detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure. See S 90 Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. This form of sentence is, for practical purposes, the same as a life sentence passed on an adult. See S 277 Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Next, I must fix the minimum term to be served in each case. This is the period which must be served before an offender can be released by the Parole Board. This is a real-time period and is not reduced in the way that ordinary sentences of imprisonment are. It is what it says, a minimum term of the length stated. There is no guarantee of release once the term is served. An offender will only be released if, on the basis of a stringent assessment by the Parole Board at that time, he is deemed no longer to pose a risk to the public. Otherwise he will remain in prison.
After release, whenever that is, an offender is not free of his sentence. He will remain subject to licence for the rest of his life and may be recalled to prison at any time.
Gary Dobson, you are now 36; at 17 years and 10 months you were very nearly 18 when you murdered Stephen Lawrence. You are serving a 5 year sentence for drug supply offences. It would be unjust to grant you credit for any time spent in custody awaiting trial on this matter. I therefore decline to grant you any credit for time already spent in custody pursuant to S 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. In addition, there is no just reason why you should be able effectively to write off the remainder of the custodial element of the drug supply sentence, so I will increase the minimum term for this offence to prevent you receiving an undeserved benefit. I take note of two positive reports from HMP Belmarsh.
Taking account of all the circumstances referred to above, the sentence of the court for the murder of Stephen Lawrence is one of Detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure. I specify a minimum term to be served of 15 years and 2 months.
David Norris, you are now 35 years old. You were 16 years and 8 months old at the time of the offence. Since 1993 you have been in trouble for dishonesty and in 2002 you received 12 months imprisonment for Racially Threatening Words or Behaviour. This confirms my view, (and no doubt that of the jury), that you were a violent racist in 1993.
You were just over a year younger than Dobson. I shall make allowance for that in fixing the minimum term, but not a great deal since there is nothing to suggest that you were anything other than a full member of your gang with any age differences being less relevant than the fact of membership, participation and identification with its aims. I do not regard delay as a mitigating factor. That, and hostility towards yourself and your family, arises from your own actions.
Taking account of all the circumstances in your case, the sentence of the court for the murder of Stephen Lawrence is one of Detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure. I specify a minimum term to be served of 14 years and 3 months. Pursuant to S 240 Criminal Justice Act 2003, I direct that 483 days representing all time spent on remand since 9th September 2010 be credited towards the minimum term. Any arithmetical error may be corrected administratively.

Treacy J
[2012] EWHCA Crim B1
Bailii, Judiciary
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoRegina v Dobson CACD 18-May-2011
Retrial After Acquittal – New Scientific Evidence
The court heard an application for the quashing of a verdict of not guilty and the retrial of a defendant for the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993. Other defendants previously acquitted were not to be tried, but a defendant not previously tried . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.450183

Ahmad, Regina v: SC 18 Jun 2014

The court considered the proper approach for the court to adopt, and the proper orders for the court to make, in confiscation proceedings where a number of criminals (some of whom may not be before the court) had between them acquired property or money as a result of committing an offence for which all or only some of them had been convicted in the trial which led to the proceedings. They challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal that each of the appellants should be separately liable for the whole of that amount.
Held: The appeals were allowed. Though the state should make double recovery each defendant was liable for the entire amount.

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
[2014] UKSC 36, [2014] 4 All ER 767, [2014] WLR(D) 264, [2014] Crim LR 756, [2014] 3 WLR 23, [2014] Lloyd’s Rep FC 547, [2014] 2 Cr App R (S) 75, UKSC 2012/0082
Bailii, SC Summary, SC, WLRD, Bailii Summary
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Criminal Justice Act 1988
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromAhmad and Another v Regina CACD 2-Mar-2012
The defendants appealed against confiscation orders each for more than andpound;92 million said to have been derived from a substantial fraud.
Held: The appeals succeeded. Sums which had been paid into banks as the result of a purported sale . .
CitedCrown Prosecution Service v Jennings HL 14-May-2008
The appellant appealed against the refusal to discharge a restraint order under the 1988 Act. The sum found to have been obtained in the later trial vastly exceeded the sum the defendant said had ever come within his control or benefit.
Held: . .
CitedOlubitan v Regina CACD 7-Nov-2003
The defendant appealed against a confiscation order. He had used a company to defraud suppliers on the continent of substantial sums. He said that his involvement in the conspiracy was only toward the later end and that he had received no benefit in . .
CitedMay, Regina v HL 14-May-2008
The defendant had been convicted of involvement in a substantial VAT fraud, and made subject to a confiscation order. He was made subject to a confiscation order in respect of the amounts lost to the fraud where he was involved, but argued that the . .
CitedPhillips v United Kingdom ECHR 5-Jul-2001
Having been convicted of drug trafficking, an application was made for a confiscation under the 1994 Act. On the civil balance of proof, and applying the assumptions under the Act, an order was made. The applicant claimed that his article 6 rights . .
CitedSilcock and Another, Regina v CACD 29-Jan-2004
The defendants had been found guilty of conspiracy to deliver counterfeit notes. They now appealed against sentence and confiscation orders. The notes were high quality and denomination dollar notes, with probable total face values of many millions. . .
CitedGrayson and Barnham v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Sep-2008
Each applicant had been subject to confiscation in criminal proceedings relating to drugs offences. They complained that the legislation had reversed the burden of proof.
Held: ‘it was not incompatible with the notion of a fair hearing in . .
CitedRegina v Clipston CACD 4-Mar-2011
Confiscation proceeding are themselves broadly criminal in nature. The judge can decide issues on the balance of probabilities, compel the defendant to disclose documents, draw adverse inferences from the absence of evidence, and rely on hearsay . .
CitedRegina v Ascroft CACD 2003
. .
CitedCrown Prosecution Service v Jennings HL 14-May-2008
The appellant appealed against the refusal to discharge a restraint order under the 1988 Act. The sum found to have been obtained in the later trial vastly exceeded the sum the defendant said had ever come within his control or benefit.
Held: . .
CitedWaya, Regina v SC 14-Nov-2012
The defendant appealed against confiscation orders made under the 2002 Act. He had bought a flat with a substantial deposit from his own resources, and the balance from a lender. That lender was repaid after he took a replacement loan. He was later . .
CitedHarvey, Regina v CACD 3-Jul-2013
The defendant had been convicted of handling and receiving stolen goods. He now appealed from a confiscation order made under the 2002 Act. The defendant having admitted to benefiting from a criminal lifestyle, the court had to decide to what . .

Cited by:
CitedHarvey, Regina v SC 16-Dec-2015
Police had discovered quantities of stolen goods at the appellant’s business premises. He was convicted of receiving stolen goods, and confiscation order made. He now appealed from the inclusion in that order of sums of VAT which had already been . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.526728

Regina v Lichniak: HL 25 Nov 2002

The appellants challenged the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment imposed on them on their convictions for murder. They said it was an infringement of their Human Rights, being arbitrary and disproportionate.
Held: The case followed on where the Anderson case left off. In these cases the judge had noted that he did not think the defendants were a risk to the public, and, if given a discretion, a life sentence might not have been imposed. It was argued that the sentences therefore did not serve a valid penological purpose. The House could only consider whether the sentence was lawful. It was. The sentence reflected the settled will of Parliament.
The complaints were not of sufficient gravity to engage the Convention rights asserted. In a balance between the interests of an individual and society, it was wrong to give too much weight to the interests of someone who had committed murder, where there might be any doubt as to their fitness for release. The V case had not suggested any such incompatibility The tariff imposed properly reflected the view taken by the judge who heard the matter.
The appellant’s complaints were not of sufficient gravity to engage Article 3 of the Convention and secondly, that the life sentence was not arbitrary or otherwise contrary to Article 5-1 of the Convention. Lord Bingham said: ‘If the House had concluded that on imposition of a mandatory life sentence for murder the convicted murderer forfeited his liberty to the state for the rest of his days, to remain in custody until (if ever) the Home Secretary concluded that the public interest would be better served by his release than by his continued detention, I would have little doubt that such a sentence would be found to violate Articles 3 and 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights . . as being arbitrary and disproportionate.’

Bingham of Cornhill, Nicholls of Birkenhead, Hobhouse of Woodborough, Scott of Foscote, Rodger of Earlsferry, LL
Times 26-Nov-2002, Gazette 06-Feb-2003, [2002] UKHL 47, [2003] 1 AC 903, [2003] HRLR 8, [2003] 1 Cr App R 33, 13 BHRC 437, [2002] 4 All ER 1122, [2003] UKHRR 62, [2002] 3 WLR 1834
HL, Bailii
Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 1(1), European Convention on Human Rights 3 5-1
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Anderson HL 25-Nov-2002
The appellant had been convicted of double murder. The judge imposed a mandatory life sentence with a minimum recommended term. The Home Secretary had later increased the minimum term under the 1997 Act. The appellant challenged that increase.
CitedV v The United Kingdom; T v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Dec-1999
The claimant challenged to the power of the Secretary of State to set a tariff where the sentence was imposed pursuant to section 53(1). The setting of the tariff was found to be a sentencing exercise which failed to comply with Article 6(1) of the . .
Appeal fromRegina v Lichniak; Regina v Pyrah CACD 2-May-2001
The claimants sought by judicial review to challenge their separate sentences to life imprisonment for murder, saying that section 1 of the 1965 Act was incompatible wth their rights under articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. They argued that all . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina (on the Application of Cawser) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 5-Nov-2003
The claimant was serving a prison sentence for serious sexual offences. He would not be released until he had completed a sex offenders programme, but one was not made available, delaying his release.
Held: ‘The Secretary of State is not under . .
CitedMcClean, Re HL 7-Jul-2005
The appellant was serving a life sentence for terrorist offences. He complained that he should have been released under the 1998 Act. It was said he would be a danger to the public if released. On pre-release home leave he was involved in a . .
CitedRoberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
CitedA and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL 8-Dec-2005
The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the . .
CitedAN, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) and others CA 21-Dec-2005
The appellant was detained under section 37 of the 1983 Act as a mental patient with a restriction under section 41. He sought his release.
Held: The standard of proof in such applications remained the balance of probabilities, but that . .
CitedO 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 . .
CitedWellington Regina, (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 10-Dec-2008
It was sought to extradite the defendant to face trial for two alleged murders. He now challenged the order for his extradition saying that his treatment in Missouri would amount to inhuman or degrading punishment in that if convicted he would face . .
CitedLumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
CitedVinter And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-Jul-2013
(Grand Chamber) The three appellants had each been convicted of exceptionally serious murders, and been sentenced to mandatory life sentences, but with provision that they could not be eligible for early release, making them whole life terms. They . .
CitedSturnham, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board of England and Wales and Another (No 2) SC 3-Jul-2013
From 4 April 2005 until 3 December 2012, English law provided for the imposition of sentences of imprisonment for public protection (‘IPP’). The Court addressed the practical and legal issues resulting from the new system.
Held: The decision . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.178248

Regina v Canavan, Kidd, Shaw: CACD 10 Jul 1997

A sentencing court cannot take into account factors neither admitted by nor proved against the defendant. The cases sought to be allowed for by the Crown were representative but unadmitted counts. It offended a fundamental principle of sentencing for the defendant to be sentenced not only for the four specific offences of which he has been convicted after a trial, but also for other offences of which the four were specimens; offences of which the defendant had been neither convicted, nor to which he had pleaded guilty nor agreed to have taken into consideration.
Lord Bingham LCJ said: ‘[The defendant] may be sentenced only for an offence proved against him (by admission or verdict) or which he has admitted and asked the court to take into consideration when passing sentence: see Anderson [1978] A.C. 964. If, as we think, these are basic principles underlying the administration of the criminal law, it is not easy to see how a defendant can lawfully be punished for offences for which he has not been indicted and which he has denied or declined to admit.’

Lord Bingham LCJ
Times 21-Jul-1997, Gazette 17-Sep-1997, [1997] EWCA Crim 1773, [1998] 1 Cr App R(S) 243, [1998] 1 Cr App R 79, [1998] 1 All ER 42, [1998] 1 WLR 604, 151201, [1997] Crim LR 766
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Huchison CACD 1972
For the judge to form his own judgment of the evidence he has heard on the extent of the offending conduct beyond the instances specified in individual counts is to ‘deprive the appellant of his right to trial by jury in respect of the other alleged . .
CitedRegina v Anderson; Anderson v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1978
A defendant may be sentenced only for an offence proved against him (by admission or verdict) or which he has admitted and asked the court to take into consideration when passing sentence. . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina v Willoughby CACD 5-Nov-1998
Appeal against conviction dismissed. Appeal against sentence for offences of false imprisonment, indecent assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The sentences were life imprisonment for the offence of false imprisonment, with . .
CitedTovey and Another v Regina CACD 9-Mar-2005
Each defendant appealed sentences where he had committed a series of offences and the sentence had been for specimen acts.
Held: When choosing representative offences a prosecutor should be careful to try to give the court a proper picture of . .
CitedClifford, Regina v CACD 7-Nov-2014
The defendant appealed against his sentence to eight years imprisonment on 8 counts of indecent assault. The offences occurred between 1977 and 1984.
Held: Each of the victims was young and vulnerable and the assaults had had continuing . .
CitedHartley, Regina v CACD 12-May-2011
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.151228

HM Solicitor General v Cox and Another: QBD 27 May 2016

Applications for committal of the defendants for having taken photographs of court proceedings when their friend was being sentenced for murder and publishing them on Facebook. The SG urged that the offences had aggravating features taking the matter beyond the offence under section 41 of the 1925 Act.
Held: The appeal failed. The offence had been committed. Section 41 of the 1925 Act did not remove the possibility of a charge of contenpt of court for taking photographs in court.
Whilst it was pssible that a person taking photographs might not have the necessary mens rea for the offence: ‘A person cannot defend himself by evidence that, ignorant of the criminal law and unaware of the prohibition on photography, he could not intend to interfere with the administration of justice. If there were no signs prohibiting the taking of photographs in the part of the building where the act takes place or prohibiting the use of mobile phones in court, and there may be none say in canteens, the court could not be left powerless to deal with the risk created to the administration of justice as a result of ignorance of the criminal law on the part of the person whose acts create or risk creating the interference. The same applies to publication of illegally taken photographs in the Facebook postings.
Where the act which constitutes a contempt in the face of the court, or one closely akin to such a contempt, is not a crime, the deliberate breach of a court order of which he has notice will be sufficient. It is not necessary that the person additionally intended by his breach to interfere with the administration of justice, though for the reasons we have set out and which were considered in Dallas, it will generally readily be inferred that such an intention is established. It does not matter in principle whether the order is specific, as in a judge’s direction to a jury on internet searches, or general, as in the public notices in court buildings. The latter are there, either reflecting the criminal law, or, where not, expressing what every judge requires and relies on to let the public and participants know what is required for the administration of justice. Where a person knows of the court order and deliberately breaches it, he knows that the prohibition which he breaches was put in place to prevent interference with the course of justice. Therefore, the questions whether the breach was knowing and deliberate and whether it was intended to interfere with the course of justice amount to the same question, even if the person may not have realised or understood quite how the administration of justice could be interfered with. He would know that it would be put at risk.’

Thomas LCJ L, Ouseley J
[2016] EWHC 1241 (QB), [2016] EMLR 22, [2016] 2 Cr App R 15
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1925 41
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAttorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd HL 1-Feb-1979
The appellants were magazines and journalists who published, after committal proceedings, the name of a witness, a member of the security services, who had been referred to as Colonel B during the hearing. An order had been made for his name not to . .
CitedAttorney-General v Newspaper Publishing plc CA 1987
The court explained the common law basis of the law of contempt of court. Lloyd LJ said: ‘Since the test of contempt is not a breach of the order but interference with the administration of justice, it follows that at common law a contempt may be . .
CitedAttorney-General v Sport Newspapers Ltd QBD 24-May-1991
The newspaper was accused of disclosing details of the previous convictions of an absconded suspect in a murder investigation, despite a prior warning from the police that any such publication would be likely to prejudice future criminal . .
CitedSchot and Another, v Regina CACD 12-May-1997
Jurors, after retirement refused to deliver a verdict claiming personal reasons. The were summoned to court to answer charges of contempt of court. Explaining the contempt proceedings that the jurors faced, the trial judge said: ‘[I]n so far as . .
CitedRegina v Vincent D (Contempt of Court: Illegal Photography) CACD 2004
The appellant was the brother of the defendant in a major drugs trial, which involved a protected witness. He took a photograph in the canteen area, and another from the public gallery facing towards the witness box, witness and bench. The quality . .
CitedRobertson and Another v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 7-Nov-2007
Gough, ‘the naked rambler’, argued that his desire to appear naked in court, an act which he characterised as a fundamental freedom, was not an act calculated to offend the authority and dignity of the court; in order for his naked appearance to . .
CitedAttorney General v Dallas Admn 23-Jan-2012
The A-G, using RSC Order 52, sought a finding that the defendant was in contempt when, as a juror she had conducted internet research about the case, revealing her results to other jury members.
Held: She was in contempt. She had deliberately . .
CitedHM Attorney General v Davey Admn 29-Jul-2013
The Attorney general sought the committal of the defendants for contempt of court alleging their misbehaviour as jurors. One had posted to a facebook account about the trial and lied about it to the judge. The second, in a different trial, had . .
CitedHM Attorney General v Davey Admn 29-Jul-2013
The Attorney general sought the committal of the defendants for contempt of court alleging their misbehaviour as jurors. One had posted to a facebook account about the trial and lied about it to the judge. The second, in a different trial, had . .
CitedMorris v Crown Office CA 1970
The applicants had been engaged in a calculated and coordinated campaign of disruption of the court.
Held: ‘The archaic description of these proceedings as ‘contempt of court’ is in my view unfortunate and misleading. It suggests that they are . .
CitedDallas v The United Kingdom ECHR 11-Feb-2016
Test for contempt was accessible and foreseeable.
The applicant had been convicted of contempt of court in that whilst acting as a juror, and in defiance of an explicit direction from the judge had researched the defendant in the internet, and passed on her findings to other jurors.
Held: the . .

Cited by:
CitedHM Attorney General v Yaxley-Lennon QBD 9-Jul-2019
Application by Her Majesty’s Attorney General for an order committing the respondent to prison for contempt of court. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court, Crime, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.564987

In re Peters: CA 1988

After the defendant was arrested for drugs offences a restraint order was made to prevent dissipation of his assets. Orders were made to vary the restraint to allow payment of his sons school fees, and in family proceedings for a payment to his wife. The Commissioners of Customs and Excise appealed the latter order.
Held: The purpose of a restraint order was to preserve assets so that any confiscation order could be satisfied. Some payments might be allowed but not so as to prejudice the purpose of the restraint. Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR: ‘The Act itself is terminologically complex, but the legislative intention and the broad scheme whereby that intention is to be achieved are reasonably clear. The intention is that no one convicted of drug trafficking offences shall be allowed to retain any part of the proceeds of his crime. The broad scheme involves the making of confiscation orders at the time of sentencing and of prior protective orders. The latter are designed to prevent an accused rendering a confiscation order inappropriate or nugatory by disposing of his assets between the time when an information is about to be laid against him and the making of a confiscation order in the event of conviction.’
Lord Justice Mann said: ‘There is, in the light of section 13(2) no room for the intrusion of sympathy.’

Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR, Mann LJ
[1988] 1 QB 871, [1988] 3 WLR 182, [1988] 3 All ER 46
Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 8(1)(5) 13(2)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedIn re X (Restraint Order: Payment out) QBD 22-Apr-2004
A restraint order had been made in respect of the defendant’s assets pending trial. Application was made to release a sum to pay the defendant’s company debts.
Held: A payment could be made only where the the realisable value of the property . .
CitedRegina v Stannard CACD 1-Nov-2005
The defendant had been convicted of offences in which he had operated to purchase companies and use false debentures to evade corporation tax. Compensation had been sought under the 1988 Act. It was argued that the confiscation order should be . .
CitedStodgell v Stodgell FD FD 18-Jul-2008
The parties were involved in ancillary relief proceedings. At the same time the husband was in prison after having hidden earnings from his business, and was subject to an unsatisfied confiscation order. The guardian had had doubts about the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Criminal Sentencing

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.199327

Docherty, Regina v: SC 14 Dec 2016

After conviction on his own admission for wounding with intent, and with a finding that he posed a threat to the public, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for public protection. Such sentences were abolished with effect from the day after his conviction. He said that the court had failed to apply the principle of lex mitior.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘English practice recognises lex mitior in its ordinary form, namely the principle that an offender should be sentenced according to the law and practice prevailing at the time of his sentence, subject to not exceeding the limits (ie in England normally the maximum) provided for at the time the offence was committed.’
The lex mitior represents a norm of a different order from the principle of no punishment without law. Whilst the lex gravior principle is a fundamental and essential condition of freedom, lex mitior: ‘expresses a choice that reflects the development of a social process in the context of criminal law. It circumscribes the scope of criminal law by preserving benefits accruing to defendants as a result of substantive laws subsequent to the commission of the offence and applicable while the case was pending.’ Whereas lex gravior prohibits applying to a case a rule which was not the law when the acts under judgment were committed, lex mitior, when it operates, actually requires such a rule to be applied.
‘There is a very clear difference between (1) a principle which prevents a court from imposing a penalty above and outside the range currently provided for by the State as appropriate to the crime and (2) a principle which requires the court to seek out and apply the most favourable rule which has existed at any intervening time since the offence was committed, even if it has since been abandoned. The first would fall within the rationale of confining the court to a range currently considered appropriate for the offence; the latter would not. The difference between the two is not adverted to, still less explored, in the judgment in Scoppola. It is, accordingly, by no means clear that the court intended to expand its incorporation of lex mitior into article 7 by including the latter proposition.’
‘Sentencing legislation and practice may well go up and down as public policy is held by legislators to change, or current responsible views on particular offending are perceived by courts to develop. But there is no injustice to a defendant to be sentenced according either to the law as it existed at the time of his offence or, if more lenient, according to the law as it exists when he is convicted and sentenced. To insist that a defendant should not be sentenced on a basis now authoritatively regarded as excessive is one thing. It is quite another to say that he should be sentenced according to a practice which did not obtain when he committed the offence and does not obtain now, merely because for some time in the interim, however short, a different practice was adopted which has now been abandoned as wrong.’
and ‘the new regime was not in force for his case. It was the subject of legitimate phased introduction. . lex mitior does not entitle Docherty to anticipate the statutory commencement of LASPO. The case made on his behalf was . . that he ought to have been sentenced to EPP. That exposes the flaw in the argument, for it would seek to insist on the benefit of (accelerated) removal of one part of the old regime (IPP) whilst at the same time claiming the preservation of another part of it (EPP).’
Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes
[2016] UKSC 62, UKSC 2014/0207, [2017] 1 Cr App R (S) 31, [2017] 1 WLR 181, [2017] 4 All ER 263, [2016] WLR(D) 667
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, WLRD
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, European Convention on Human Rights 791)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedJames, Wells and Lee v The United Kingdom ECHR 18-Sep-2012
ECHR Article 5-1
Deprivation of liberty
Failure to provide the rehabilitative courses to prisoners which were necessary for their release: violation
Facts – By virtue of section 225 of the . .
CitedBerlusconi (Law Relating To Undertakings) 2 ECJ 3-May-2005
Company law – Article 5 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 5 of the EC Treaty, in turn Article 10 EC) and Article 54(3)(g) of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 54(3)(g) of the EC Treaty, in turn, after amendment, Article 44(2)(g) EC) – First . .
CitedLang 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 . .
CitedWilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent of its property . .
CitedUttley, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 30-Jul-2004
In 1995 the defendant was sentenced to twelve years for rapes committed in 1983. He complained that the consequences of the later sentence were adverse because of the 1991 Act. He would now serve three quarters of the sentence rather than two . .
CitedUttley v United Kingdom ECHR 29-Nov-2005
. .
CitedSecretary of State for Justice v James HL 6-May-2009
The applicant had been sentenced to an indefinite term for public protection, but the determinate part of his sentence had passed with no consideration as to whether his continued detention was required.
Held: The post tariff detention was not . .
CitedScoppola v Italy (No 2) ECHR 17-Sep-2009
(Grand Chamber) The applicant murdered his wife on 2 September 1999; the offence was punishable by life imprisonment. On 18 February 2000, he agreed to be tried under a summary procedure. It lacked some of the safeguards of a full trial but carried . .
CitedRegina v DP CACD 2013
The court considered an offence committed before 3 April 2005 when the CJA 2003 came into effect, and was sentenced before 3 December 2012 when new sentencing rules came into effect changing the 2003 rules.
Held: The Court upheld a sentence of . .
CitedSaunders and Others v Regina CACD 28-Jun-2013
Appeals against sentence a non mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.
Held: There may be cases where a discretionary life sentence is justified for an offence outside Schedule 15 if its gravity and the danger presented by the defendant are . .
CitedBurinskas, Regina v, (Attorney General’s Reference (No 27 of 2013)) CACD 4-Mar-2014
Effect upon sentencing of amendments to dangerous offender provisions . .
At CACDDocherty, Regina v CACD 18-Jun-2014
The defendant appealed against his sentence to a term of imprisonment for public protection on his admission of wounding with intent. The sentencing system applied was replaced on the day following sentencing, and he said that the court should have . .
CitedHaney and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice SC 10-Dec-2014
The four claimants, each serving indeterminate prison sentences, said that as they approached the times when thy might apply for parol, they had been given insufficient support and training to meet the requirements for release. The courts below had . .
CitedBoakye and Others, Regina v CACD 3-Apr-2012
The defendants appealed their sentences for importation of class A drugs. They had acted as drugs mules. New guidelines were due to take effect which be expected to have led to shorter sentences. The court was asked whether such new standards could . .
CitedZaprianov v Bulgaria ECHR 6-Mar-2003
ECHR ‘Article 7 does not guarantee the right to have a subsequent and favourable change in the law applicable to an earlier offence.’ . .
CitedLe Petit v United Kingdom ECHR 5-Dec-2000
(Admissibility) . .
CitedCoeme and others v Belgium ECHR 22-Jun-2000
The mischief that Article 7 is designed to prevent is the imposition by the State of (i) criminal liability for an act which did not attract such liability at the time it was committed or (ii) a penalty greater than the maximum permitted when the . .
CitedMaktouf and Damjanovic v Bosnia And Herzegovina ECHR 18-Jul-2013
(Grand Chamber) The effect of the change was to alter the range for the defendant Maktouf (an accomplice) from 1-15 to 5-20 years. For the defendant Damjanovich (a principal) the range was altered from 5-15 to 10-20. Maktouf was expressly sentenced . .

Cited by:
CitedStott, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 28-Nov-2018
The prisoner was subject to an extended determinate sentence (21 years plus 4) for 10 offences of rape. He complained that as such he would only be eligible for parole after serving two thirds of his sentence rather than one third, and said that . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 October 2021; Ref: scu.572396

Regina v Davies: CACD 30 Dec 1994

A sentencing judge should explicitly allow for all time spent on remand when sentencing, though time spent in custody before probation order was not to be set off as time served after re-sentencing procedure on breach of probation.
Ind Summary 13-Feb-1995, Times 30-Dec-1994
Criminal Justice Act 1967 67
England and Wales

Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.86513

Stott, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 15 Feb 2017

The claimant committed ten rapes. He was sentenced to 21 years with four years extended sentence. He claimed it was discriminatory since he would lose a right to early release.
Held: The High Court dismissed his claim, but granted a certificate permitting Mr Stott to appeal directly to the Supreme Court.
Sir Brian Leveson P QBD, William Davis J
[2017] EWHC 214 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromStott, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 28-Nov-2018
The prisoner was subject to an extended determinate sentence (21 years plus 4) for 10 offences of rape. He complained that as such he would only be eligible for parole after serving two thirds of his sentence rather than one third, and said that . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 October 2021; Ref: scu.575300

McInerney, Keating v Regina: CACD 18 Dec 2002

The defendants appealed against their sentences for domestic burglary. The court took the opportunity to provide new guideline sentences for standard domestic burglaries.
Held: The sentencing advisory panel had issued new guidance, supported by scientific survey. Public opinion was one, but only one of several factors. The court should also look at the costs of a sentence, and its effectiveness. A domestic burglar, who might previously have received a sentence of eighteen months or less, should receive a non-custodial sentence involving effective punishment, and an attempt to address any underlying cause of the behaviour including addiction. The court gave lists describing what would be considered a standard burglary, and of aggravating and other features.
Mr Justice Silber The Lord Chief Justice Of England &Amp; Wales Mr Justice Grigson
Times 20-Dec-2002, [2002] EWCA Crim 3003, [2003] 1 Cr App R 627
Bailii
Theft Act 1968 9(1)(a)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Revisited inBrewster, Regina v CACD 27-Jun-1997
The court reviewed sentencing levels for domestic burglary. Such cases must always be very serious, but individual cases varied almost infinitely. After a trial an adult defendant could expect a sentence of three years’ imprisonment for burglary of . .
CitedSaw and Others, Regina v CACD 16-Jan-2009
The defendants appealed against sentences imposed for domestic burglaries.
Held: The court should properly allow for the effect of the burglary on the particular victim. Fuller guidance was awaited from the Sentencing Guidelines Council, but . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.178525

Regina v Balfour Beatty Rail Infrastructure Services Ltd: CACD 5 Jul 2006

The defendant appealed against a fine of 10 million pounds for its failings in maintaining track which led to the train crash at Hatfield.
Held: The company’s contract was substantial. Positive steps were to be taken by all concerned in a company to ensure compliance with Health and Safety duties. Management would be encouraged to satisfy its duties if the fine was of sufficient size to affect shareholders. Where an individual employee was at fault, and the danger did not arise from a fault in the management system, a deterrent sentence was not appropriate, but here there had been a serious systemic failure in management. The fine was out of proportion to that imposed on the co-defendant, Railtrack plc, to reduce it to a proportionate level would remove the deterrent effect, and the fine was reduced therefore to 7.5 million pounds.
Lord Phillips CJ, Nelson, Silber JJ
[2006] EWCA Crim 1586, Times 18-Jul-2006, [2007] Bus LR 77, [2007] ICR 354
Bailii
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1)
England and Wales

Updated: 22 August 2021; Ref: scu.243065

Qureshi, Regina v, Attorney General’s Reference no 7 of 2008: CACD 22 Apr 2008

The factual nexus between the offender’s conduct in preparation for giving effect to that intention and the future commission of the intended act(s) of terrorism will be a significant factor in determining the ultimate sentence for a s.5 offence
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers LCJ, Pitchford, Dobbs JJ
[2008] EWCA Crim 1054
Bailii
Terrorism Act 2006 5
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedDart and Others v Regina CACD 31-Oct-2014
dart_rCAcD1410
The defendants had been convicted on guilty pleas of offences under the 2006 Act. Dart had been sentenced to a six year term and a five year extended sentence. Other received shorter and longer sentences as appropriate. They now applied for leave to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 August 2021; Ref: scu.330980

Regina v Alfonso; Regina v Sajid; Regina v Andrews: CACD 9 Sep 2004

The defendants appealed sentences for supplying drugs. They were first time defendants, addicts caught selling drugs to police officers, and with no established stocks of drugs for sale.
Held: A short prison sentence was appropriate. A drug treatment and testing might be appropriate for some defendants. Whilst none of the defendants fell precisely within the group identified, the sentences were adjusted.
Rose LJ, Owen J, Mitting J
Times 14-Oct-2004
England and Wales
Citing:
ApprovedRegina v Twisse CACD 7-Nov-2000
There was no need for the Court of Appeal to notify the Sentencing Advisory Panel under the Act unless it intended to give sentencing guidelines across a wide field. A proper sentence for a defendant shown to be a dealer in class A drugs at street . .
CitedRegina v McKeown and Others (Attorney-General’s Reference Nos 13 to 18 of 2004) CACD 7-Jul-2004
The Attorney-General appealed sentences imposed on the defendants for supplying heroin.
Held: The offences involved all the aggravating factors for such cases. Drugs had been sold near schools though children not specifically targeted. The . .
ApprovedRegina v Dhajit CACD 1999
Sentencing guidelines for supply of drugs. . .
CitedAttorney-General’s Reference (No 64 of 2003) CACD 20-Nov-2003
The attorney general sought re-assessment of the defendant’s sentence of a Drug treatment and testing order.
Held: When considering a Drug Treatment and Testing Order, the court should consider: the realistic possibility that such orders may . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.218844

Guraj, Regina v: SC 14 Dec 2016

The defendant had pleaded to charges of possession of drugs with intent to supply. He was sentenced, but then the prosecutor was 14 months’ late serving its notice with regard to the confiscation order under section 16. The crown now appealed against the defendant’s successful appeal from the confiscation order as made.
Held: The judge had applied the correct test, and: ‘In this case it is not suggested that any unfairness at all has befallen the defendant in consequence of the irregularities which occurred. There was no obstacle to the making of the confiscation order, and it ought to have been made. The Crown’s appeal must be allowed and the order restored.’
Confiscation orders are enforced by the magistrates as if they were Crown Court fines.
Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Sir Declan Morgan
[2016] UKSC 65, [2016] WLR(D) 673, [2017] Lloyd’s Rep FC 117, [2017] 1 WLR 22, [2017] 1 Cr App R (S) 32, [2017] Crim LR 320, UKSC 2015/0152
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 16, Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . .
CitedRegina v Keith Ross CACD 13-Mar-2001
The defendant having pleaded guilty to a serious drugs offence now appealed a confiscation order. He claimed that he had been misled that the prosecution would not request an inquiry for this purpose, and during the course of the hearing the . .
CitedPalmer, Regina v CACD 11-Oct-2002
The defendant appealed against a very substantial confiscation order. The prosecution had served notices under sections 71 and 72(1), but the section 72(1) notice was invalid. The judge allowed a second notice to be served, and the case to be . .
CitedRegina v Knights and Another HL 21-Jul-2005
The defendants had been convicted of offences involving dealing with goods on which customs duty had not been paid. After conviction a timetable was set for sentencing and for confiscation proceedings. The House considered the making of the . .
Appeal fromGuraj, Regina v CACD 6-Mar-2015
The defendant appealed against a confiscation order made on his plea to charges of possession of drugs with intent to supply. The Crown had served its statement under section 16 of the 2002 Act, but it was 14 months’ late. . .
CitedRegina v Donohoe CACD 28-Jul-2006
The defendant appealed against the making of a confiscation order, saying that the court had erred in the procedure for forfeiting drugs.
Held: The appeal failed. The section contained an express prohibition against making both a forfeiture . .
CitedRegina v Iqbal; Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office (RCPO) v Iqbal CACD 3-Feb-2010
The RCPO appealed against refusal of permission to continue their application for a confiscation order. The defendant had been convicted of conspiracy to supply class A drugs, but said that the application was now out of time.
Held: The appeal . .
CitedCrown Prosecution Service v Neish CACD 6-May-2010
The defendant faced confiscation proceedings. The judge gave instructions to the listing office to give a later date for the hearing. The defendant said that the delay took the case out of the court’s jurisdiction to make an order.
Held: The . .
CitedWaya, Regina v SC 14-Nov-2012
The defendant appealed against confiscation orders made under the 2002 Act. He had bought a flat with a substantial deposit from his own resources, and the balance from a lender. That lender was repaid after he took a replacement loan. He was later . .
CitedRegina v Johal CACD 19-Apr-2013
The defendant appealed against a confiscation order made on his conviction for possession of a Class B controlled drug. There had been considerable delays in the completion of the process, and it had exceeded the two year limit. The appellant argued . .

Cited by:
CitedMcCool, Regina v SC 2-May-2018
The appellants complained that the recovery order made against them in part under the transitional provisions were unlawful. They had claimed benefits as single people but were married to each other and for a house not occupied. The difficulty was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2021; Ref: scu.572397

Regina v Ahmed: CACD 8 Feb 2000

The appellant had pleaded guilty to three offences of conspiracy to defraud by inflating invoices for goods supplied. The first of those offences took place at a time between January 1995 and October 2006; the second between January 1995 and June 2007; and the third between January 1997 and 30 November 2007. Section 16(5) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1995, which was the statute under which the confiscation orders were sought, provided: ‘Section 1 . . shall not apply in the case of any proceedings against any person where that person is convicted in those proceedings of an offence which was committed before the commencement of that section.’
The section came into force on 1 November 1995. In each of the otter cases there were overt acts committed in pursuance of the existence of the relevant conspiracy both before and after that date, 1st November 1995. Counsel’s submission was that as the conspiracies in Counts 1 and 2 ran from 1st January 1995, the offences in Counts 1 and 2 were being committed both before and after 1st November 1995. That being so in these proceedings the appellant was ‘convicted . . of an offence which was committed before [1st November 1995]’. It followed that the judge had the discretion to make an order in the full agreed sum of pounds 40,000 or a lesser sum or none at all.’
Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Goldring and Sir Charles McCullough
Unreported, 8 February 2000, 9905818X4
Criminal Justice Act 1988 71
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedMcCool, Regina v SC 2-May-2018
The appellants complained that the recovery order made against them in part under the transitional provisions were unlawful. They had claimed benefits as single people but were married to each other and for a house not occupied. The difficulty was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2021; Ref: scu.182380

Simpson v Regina: CACD 23 May 2003

The appellant challenged a confiscation order made on his conviction of VAT fraud. It was argued that one could not be made unless a proper notice had been given, and none of the offences occurred before 1995. On the assumption that section 1 of the 1995 Act was not in force, did the fact that the notice served by the prosecution was not in the form required by section 72, CJA 1988 mean that the court had no jurisdiction to make a confiscation order?
Held: The court had sat with 5 judges to consider the decision in Sekhon. The rules as to precedent reflect the practice of the courts and have to be applied bearing in mind that their objective is to assist in the administration of justice. The law was misunderstood and misapplied in Palmer. The court applied Sekhon and found that it had jurisdiction to make the order. Having considered the evidence put before the judge, his conclusions as to the resources available to the defendant were not to be criticised. The provisions concerning postponement were directory only.
Lord Woolf CJ: ‘The rules as to precedent reflect the practice of the courts and have to be applied bearing in mind that their objective is to assist in the administration of justice. They are of considerable importance because of their role in achieving the appropriate degree of certainty as to the law. This is an important requirement of any system of justice. The principles should not, however, be regarded as so rigid that they cannot develop in order to meet contemporary needs. ‘
Lord Justice Kennedy Mr Justice Mitchell Mrs Justice Hallett Mr Justice Pitchers Lord Chief Justice Of England And Wales
[2003] EWCA Crim 1499, Times 26-May-2003, Gazette 10-Jul-2003, [2004] QB 118, [2003] 3 WLR 337, [2003] Cr App R 36, [2004] 1 Cr App R (S) 24, [2003] 2 Cr App R 36, [2003] 3 All ER 531
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1988 71, Proceeds of Crime Act 1995 16(5)(c)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedSekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002
The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements.
Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, . .
DisapprovedPalmer, Regina v CACD 11-Oct-2002
The defendant appealed against a very substantial confiscation order. The prosecution had served notices under sections 71 and 72(1), but the section 72(1) notice was invalid. The judge allowed a second notice to be served, and the case to be . .
CitedIn re Sevenoaks Stationers (Retail) Ltd CA 1990
The court gave guidelines for the periods of disqualification to be applied for company directors under the Act. The maximum period of ten years should be reserved for only the most serious of cases. Periods of two to five years should apply to . .
CitedYoung v The Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd CA 28-Jul-1944
Court of Appeal must follow Own Decisions
The claimant was injured and received compensation. He then sought to recover again, alleging breach of statutory duty by his employers.
Held: The Court of Appeal was in general bound to follow its own previous decisions. The court considered . .
CitedMirehouse v Rennell 1833
Parke B described how the elements of a common law offence are to be distilled from the cases in which the relevant principles have been set out: ‘Our common-law system consists in the applying to new combinations of circumstances those rules of law . .
CitedPractice Statement (Judicial Precedent) HL 1966
The House gave guidance how it would treat an invitation to depart from a previous decision of the House. Such a course was possible, but the direction was not an ‘open sesame’ for a differently constituted committee to prefer their views to those . .
CitedRegina v Merriman CACD 1973
Although the criminal division of the Court of Appeal is not so strictly bound by its own previous decisions as is the civil division, its liberty to depart from precedent which it is convinced was erroneous is restricted to cases where the . .
CitedRegina v Gould CACD 1968
Diplock LJ said: ‘In its criminal jurisdiction, which it has inherited from the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Court of Appeal does not apply the doctrine of stare decisis with the same rigidity as in its civil jurisdiction. If upon due consideration . .
CitedCritchell v Lambeth Borough Council CA 1957
The court considered conflicting interpretations of Acts: It would be wrong for the court to introduce into a matter already in all conscience complicated enough, and made complicated by imperfections of drafting, refinements and narrow distinctions . .
CitedRegina v Copeland CACD 2002
The court considered the necessary of any postponment of a dermination of a confiscation order.
Held: The court rejected the contention that the postponement order must specify the period of postponement. It was pointed out that the word used . .
CitedRegina v Newsome CACD 1970
The court was dealing with the question of a guideline judgment on sentence. There was good reason to adopt a flexible approach. The discretion to depart from a previous precedent was not to be exercised lightly and we endorse that restrictive and . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina v R (Sentencing: Extended licences) CACD 25-Jul-2003
The imposition of an extended period of licence in respect of offences committed before 1992 did not infringe the defendant’s human rights. The defendant had been convicted of offences from 1976 and 1982. The commencement date for the 1991 Act was 1 . .
CitedGoodyear, Karl, Regina v CACD 19-Apr-2005
The defendant complained that he had pleaded guilty to a charge of corruption on the basis of an indication from the judge that he would not receive a custodial sentence. Having pleaded guilty he had then been sentenced to a six months prison . .
CitedRegina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . .
CitedGazette Media Company Ltd. and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Teeside Crown Court CACD 26-Jul-2005
The claimants appealed an order restricting their reporting of a criminal case so as to identify the defendant.
Held: Orders preventing the naming of a defendant in order to protect associated children are unlikely to enhance any child . .
CitedJames, Regina v; Regina v Karimi CACD 25-Jan-2006
The defendants appealed their convictions for murder, saying that the court had not properly guided the jury on provocation. The court was faced with apparently conflicting decision of the House of Lords (Smith) and the Privy Council (Holley).
CitedIn re Hill and Others (Restraint Order) CACD 20-Dec-2005
The Revenue appealed against discharge of a restraint order. The discharge had been on the basis that some of the offences under investigation (perpetrating a fraud on the revenue) took place before the 2002 Act came into effect.
Held: The . .
CitedRowe v Regina CACD 15-Mar-2007
The defendant had been convicted of possessing articles for terrorist purposes, namely a notebook with notes setting out how to construct a mortar bomb in his handwriting. There was also a coded list of potential targets.
Held: The decision in . .
CitedMcCool, Regina v SC 2-May-2018
The appellants complained that the recovery order made against them in part under the transitional provisions were unlawful. They had claimed benefits as single people but were married to each other and for a house not occupied. The difficulty was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2021; Ref: scu.182379

Regina v Burgess: CACD 28 Nov 2000

Where the court considered making a deprivation order, it may be inevitable that the effect will be different on different defendants. Although the court might want to treat defendants equally, that could only be taken so far. It must frequently arise that there are differences between defendants in financial circumstances, and the provision in this case by one defendant of a vehicle used by all defendants created an imbalance. A deprivation order would lead to an imbalance, but it remained a fair and proper decision, despite the existence of a joint venture.
Times 28-Nov-2000
Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 43
England and Wales

Updated: 12 July 2021; Ref: scu.88397

Attorney General v Associated Newspapers Ltd and News Group Newspapers Ltd: Admn 19 Jul 2011

The court considered the sentence for contempt of court by the defendant newspapers (Daily Mail and The Sun) in their online publication of a photograph which had not been cropped in the way required to avoid the prejudice complained of.
Held: Though in one case the photograph had been removed after only a few hours, each defendant was ordered to pay a fine of pounds 15,000 and the A-G’s costs summarily assessed.
Moses LJ, Owen J
[2011] EWHC 1894 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAttorney General v ITV Central Ltd Admn 15-Jul-2008
The Attorney General sought a finding of contempt against the defendant television company in respect of its reporting of a criminal trial. The defendant in the trial faced a charge of murder. The company broacast to the region on the morning of the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 July 2021; Ref: scu.441965

Regina v Kelly; R v Sandford: CACD 29 Dec 1998

The words of the Act imposing mandatory sentences save in exceptional cases are clear, and the word ‘exceptional’ has accepted meanings which are not to be extended by reference to the Convention on Human Rights. Mandatory life sentences were confirmed.
‘We must construe ‘exceptional’ as an ordinary, familiar English adjective, and not as a term of art. It describes a circumstance which is out of the ordinary course, or unusual, or special, or uncommon. To be exceptional a circumstance need not be unique, or unprecedented, or very rare; but it cannot be one that is regularly, or routinely, or normally encountered.’
Times 29-Dec-1998, [1999] 2 Cr App R(S) 178
Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 2
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedS, Regina v CACD 25-Feb-2002
Appeal against sentence for rape, as the result of a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Life sentence imposed because of historic serious violence. The court was asked what were ‘exceptional circumstances’ so as to allow a non-life . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 June 2021; Ref: scu.85339

Regina v G (Sex Offence: Registration): CACD 26 Jan 2000

Where a court came to sentence a defendant for an offence which would make him liable for registration on the Sex Offenders Register, the judge should avoid confusion, by dealing explicitly with the issue, including the need to register, and the period of registration.
Times 26-Jan-2000
Sex Offenders Act 1997
England and Wales

Updated: 17 June 2021; Ref: scu.85264

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Pierson: CA 8 Dec 1995

The courts’ control over the exercise by the Home Secretary of his discretion on lifers was limited to procedural fairness. It was not irrational to refuse any reduction of a lifer’s minimum sentence after aggravation involving the prisoner.
Independent 12-Dec-1995, Times 08-Dec-1995
Criminal Justice Act 1991 35
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Pierson QBD 14-Nov-1995
The Home Secretary does not have the power to increase a mandatory lifer’s base sentence for retribution purposes. His powers to revise minimum life sentence are not absolute; and must be used fairly. . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Pierson HL 21-May-1997
The Home Secretary may not later extend the tariff for a lifer after it had been set by an earlier Home Secretary merely to satisfy needs of retribution and deterrence. ‘A power conferred by Parliament in general terms is not to be taken to . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 June 2021; Ref: scu.87896

Regina v A and B: CACD 1999

Lord Bingham CJ discussed the effect on sentence of the defendant having provided information of assistance to the police: ‘If the information given is accurate, particularised, useful in practice, and hitherto unknown to the authorities, enabling serious criminal activity to be stopped and serious criminals brought to book, the discount may be substantial.
Where, by supplying valuable information to the authorities, a defendant exposes himself or his family to personal jeopardy, it will ordinarily be recognised in the sentenced passed. For all these purposes, account will be taken of help given and reasonably expected to be given in the future.’ If a defendant is convicted and sentenced without giving information to te police or without expressing a willingness to do so, then the Court of Appeal will not usually take account of information that is subsequently supplied after sentence, because it is a reviewing court, not one with original jurisdiction so far as sentencing is concerned.
Lord Bingham CJ
[1999] Cr App R S 52
England and Wales
Cited by:
AppliedRegina v R (Informer: Reduction of Sentence) CACD 28-Jan-2002
After conviction, but before sentence, the defendant had co-operated with the police in providing information about crimes other than the one for which he had been convicted. Further information had been given after he had been sentenced. He . .
CitedRegina v Z CACD 26-Jun-2007
The defendant appealed against his sentence for conspiracy to supply large volumes of prohibited drugs, the consecutive sentences totalling 18 years. The defendant had provided information to the police which had resulted in the recovery of . .
CitedRegina v K CACD 12-Apr-2002
The defendant appealed a sentence of 26 years for conspiracy to supply heroin. . .
CitedAXN v The Queen CACD 27-May-2016
The defendant argued that greater note should have been taken on his sentencing to allow for the assistance he had given to the police after his arrest.
Held: The current accepted practice is that the text of the letter from the police to the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 June 2021; Ref: scu.183440

Lavery, Regina v: CACD 9 Oct 2008

Where an offence which was one schedules as to be taken into consideration was in fact more serious than the offence tried, there was no reason why the court should not impose a greater sentence for the greater offence.
Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Owen and Mr Justice
[2008] EWCA Crim 2499, Times 20-Oct-2008, [2009] 3 All ER 295, (2008) 172 JPN 806
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 01 June 2021; Ref: scu.277324

Gibson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 24 Jan 2018

The appellant had been sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and a confiscation order pounds 5.4m with six years in default. Small payments were made later by his receivers, but the interest had taken the total sums due over pounds 8m at the time of payments. The Court was asked say whether when calculating the credit against time spent, the sums were as against the sums originally due, or the sums at the time of payment.
Held: The claimant’s appeal was allowed. At the time, the 1994 Act applied, under which the interest was to be treated as part of the amount to be recovered. s.79(2) expressly say that the days to be deducted are to be the number which bear the same proportion to the total default term imposed (by the Crown Court) as the part payments bear ‘to so much of the said sum . . as was due at the time the period of detention was imposed’. At the time the Crown Court imposed the default term, there was as yet no interest accrued at all. The words of a penalty statute are not to be strained to achieve a prejudicial outcome.
Lord Mance, Deputy President, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes, Lady Black
[2018] UKSC 2, [2018] Lloyd’s Rep FC 195, [2018] 2 All ER 478, [2018] 1 Cr App R (S) 51, [2018] 1 WLR 629, UKSC 2016/0052
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2017 Dec 5 am Video, SC 2017 Dec 5 pm Video
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 79(2), Drug Trafficking Act 1994, Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing Act) 2000
England and Wales
Citing:
At AdmnGibson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 4-Sep-2013
. .
Appeal fromGibson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 11-Nov-2015
‘The issue in the case is whether the words ‘the said sum . . as was due at the time the period of detention was imposed’ in section 79(2) of the Magistrates’ Court Act (MCA) 1980 should be construed in the case of confiscation orders made under the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 May 2021; Ref: scu.603119

Martin v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 30 Nov 1999

When a driver suffers an obligatory disqualification through a drink driving offence, the court may not at the same time impose on his licence additional penalty points for offences associated with the events of the drink driving offence. The 1988 Act was a consolidating act, and was not to be construed so as to change the law in the absence of clear intention. The omission of certain words was not enough to evince that intention.
Times 30-Nov-1999, Gazette 08-Dec-1999
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 44(1), Road Traffic Act 1972 9(1)(a)
England and Wales

Updated: 16 May 2021; Ref: scu.83440

Lincoln Anthony Guerra v Cipriani Baptiste and others (No 2): PC 6 Nov 1995

(Trinidad and Tobago) The execution of a prisoner after a substantial delay of 5 years was a breach of his constitutional rights, constituting cruel and unusual punishment.
Times 08-Nov-1995, Independent 15-Nov-1995, [1995] UKPC 3, Appeal No 11 of 1995, [1996] 1 A C 397
Bailii, PC
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedPratt and Morgan v The Attorney General for Jamaica and Another PC 2-Nov-1993
(Jamaica) A five year delay in execution is excessive, and can itself amount to inhuman or degrading punishment. ‘There is an instinctive revulsion against the prospect of hanging a man after he has been held under sentence of death for many years. . .

Cited by:
CitedTrevor Nathaniel Fisher v The Minister of Public Safety and Immigration and Others PC 16-Dec-1997
(The Bahamas) The extent of a delay before a trial is not relevant when considering whether a subsequent delay in carrying out an execution is cruel and inhuman punishment . .
CitedReyes v The Queen PC 11-Mar-2002
(Belize) The Criminal Code of Belize provided that any murder by shooting was to be treated as Class A Murder, and be subject to the mandatory death penalty. The applicant having been convicted, appealed saying this was inhuman or degrading . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2021; Ref: scu.81077

Regina v Robinson: CACD 27 Nov 1992

The defendant appealed against sentence after conviction for attempted rape. He said that the offence, being charged under the 1981 Act was not a sexual offence, and neither was it a violent one within the 1991 Act.
Held: The appeal failed. Attempted rape is a sexual offence under the 1956 Act. Attempted rape was to be treated exactly as the full offence. The 1991 Act characterised ‘violent’ offences widely, and inlcuded no requiremet that any physical injury should be serious. He therefore fell to be sentenced under section 53(2) of the 1933 Act, and the maximum sentence was not to be limited to a maximum of 12 months.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth LCJ, Pott, Judge JJ
Independent 12-Jan-1993
Criminal Attempts Act 1981, Criminal Justice Act 1991, Sexual Offences Act 1956, Children and Young Persons Act 1933 53(2)
England and Wales

Updated: 06 May 2021; Ref: scu.87636

Irfan, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 14 Nov 2012

The claimant challenged the application to him of the notification requirements under the 2006 Act.
Held: It was not disproportionate to impose the notification requirement for ten years after release on license even though there was no right of review.
Maurice Kay, Munby, Tomlinson LJJ
[2012] EWCA Civ 1471, [2013] HRLR 6, [2013] QB 885, [2012] WLR(D) 328, [2013] 2 WLR 1340, [2013] 1 QB 885
Bailii, WLRD
Terrorism Act 2006
England and Wales

Updated: 21 April 2021; Ref: scu.465797

Regina v Docklands Estates Ltd: CACD 22 Sep 2000

The offence committed by an estate agent of erecting ‘House Sold’ signs outside house in which it had had no instructions, was the offence of giving a false indication that services were supplied. The offence was commercial, and the penalty should be judged accordingly. The offence was unsightly, was for commercial gain, and to the disadvantage of honest agents. Current fines levels were too low, and a fine of pounds 2,000 per offence was a proper level.
Times 22-Sep-2000
Trade Descriptions Act 1968 13
England and Wales

Updated: 21 April 2021; Ref: scu.85237

Regina v Parole Board, ex Parte Watson: CA 11 Mar 1996

The test as to whether there was still a need to protect the public safety from the defendant was just as appropriate when considering the revocation of a licence, as it was when the need for continued detention was being reviewed before the grant of the licence: ‘In exercising its practical judgment the Board is . . balancing the hardship and injustice of continuing to imprison a man who is unlikely to cause serious injury to the public against the need to protect the public against a man who is not unlikely to cause such injury. In other than a clear case this is bound to be a difficult and very anxious judgment. But in the final balance the Board is bound to give preponderant weight to the need to protect innocent members of the public against any significant risk of serious injury.’ The Parole Board, in exercising this very important function, is an independent and impartial tribunal for purposes of article 6(1) of the European Convention. It is the primary decision-maker, and is not entitled to defer to the opinion of the Secretary of State or a probation officer.
Sir Thomas Bingham MR
Times 11-Mar-1996, [1996] EWCA Crim 44, [1996] 1 WLR 906
Criminal Justice Act 1991 39
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRegina v Parole Board, Ex Parte Watson QBD 22-Nov-1995
The test for whether or not to recall a lifer who was free on licence is the same test as was used for his release, namely whether his detention was required for the protection of the public. . .

Cited by:
CitedRoberts v Parole Board CA 28-Jul-2004
The discretionary life-prisoner faced a parole board. The Secretary of State wished to present evidence, but wanted the witness to be protected. The Parole Board appointed special counsel to hear the evidence on behalf of the prisoner on terms that . .
CitedRegina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals) HL 27-Jan-2005
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed.
Lord Bingham stated: . .
CitedMcClean, Re HL 7-Jul-2005
The appellant was serving a life sentence for terrorist offences. He complained that he should have been released under the 1998 Act. It was said he would be a danger to the public if released. On pre-release home leave he was involved in a . .
CitedRoberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
CitedRegina (Gulliver) v Parole Board CA 4-Jul-2007
The claimant had been released on licence, and recalled. He complained that the parole board had, in considering his re-release taken into account circumstances beyond those which had directly caused his recall.
Held: The prisoner’s appeal . .
CitedBrooke and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Parole Board and Another CA 1-Feb-2008
The claimant prisoner complained that the Parole Board was insufficiently independent of government to provide a fair hearing. The court at first instance had found that the relationship between the Parole Board and the sponsoring Department put the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 April 2021; Ref: scu.88585

Regina v Aranguren, Regina v Aroyewumi, Regina v Bioshogun, Regina v Littlewood Etc: CA 23 Jun 1994

Sentences for drug importation to be based on 100% pure weight not on street value.
Independent 30-Jun-1994, Times 23-Jun-1994, [1994] 16 Cr App R (S) 211
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedAttorney General’s Reference Nos 5-8 of 2003 (Davies, Rowan, Abbey, Hassan) CACD 14-Nov-2003
The Attorney-General referred sentences for conspiracy to supply drugs. The offenders were part of a highly professional organisation, in close contact with each other and others in this country and abroad over a period of months, which culminated . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 April 2021; Ref: scu.86056

Regina v Goodwin; Regina v O’B; Regina v H: CACD 28 Dec 1998

The offence of wounding with intent will almost inevitably attract an immediate custodial sentence and even where the act was an over-reaction in self-defence. The offence was also an offence for which a second conviction would attract a life sentence.
Times 28-Dec-1998
Offences Against the Person Act 1861 18, Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 2
England and Wales

Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.86713

Regina v Debagg and Izzet: CACD 1991

Auld J faced a request from a defendant to have taken into consideration his assistance to the police and said: ‘There is a clear public policy interest in encouraging the speedy proffering of information by those who have it and as part and parcel of their acceptance of their own responsibility for the matters with which they are charged. Where the offer of assistance is made late in the day and proves to be of no value, there must always be some difficulty for the Court in determining how genuine the offer and the remorse are.’
Auld J
(1991) 12 Cr App R (S) 733
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedAXN v The Queen CACD 27-May-2016
The defendant argued that greater note should have been taken on his sentencing to allow for the assistance he had given to the police after his arrest.
Held: The current accepted practice is that the text of the letter from the police to the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.564850

Attorney-General’s Reference No 72 of 1999 (MG): CACD 2000

[2000] 2 Cr App R (S) 79
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v Ali CACD 14-Nov-2003
The defendant appealed conviction and sentence for sexual assaults on young girls. He complained that the prosecution had been allowed to bring in evidence of previous consistent statements.
Held: The evidence of the mother had been admitted . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.187967

Regina v Berry: CACD 20 Oct 1999

In the absence of evidence from the defendant as to the value of the drugs found, where the quantity was substantial it was right to apply some discount, in this case twenty per cent, on the basis that he would have received some wholesale discount, before making a confiscation order.
Times 20-Oct-1999
Drug Trafficking Act 1994
England and Wales

Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.88383

Regina v W: CACD 16 Mar 1993

The court of appeal had no jurisdiction to hear an application by the Attorney General to review what he considered an unduly lenient sentence on a youth of sixteen convicted of rape. The offence is for the purposes of the Act only triable at the Crown Court, and is not subject to review.
Times 16-Mar-1993
Criminal Justice Act 1988 35(3)(a)
England and Wales

Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.88225

Regina v Secretary of State Home Department, ex parte McCartney: CACD 25 May 1994

Under the applicable legislation the trial judge fixed the tariff for discretionary life sentence prisoners, but there were transitional provisions which required the Secretary of State to fix the tariff for discretionary lifers who had been sentenced before the new judicialised regime came into force.
Held: The Home Secretary is not free to take his own view of length of sentence under s34, but certify his own view of the appropriate tariff in schedule 12 certificate for a lifer.
Hoffmann LJ
Times 25-May-1994, Independent 25-May-1994, Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Transcript No. 667 of 1994
Criminal Justice Act 1991 34 sch12 9(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Mccartney Admn 28-Oct-1993
The Home Secretary need not seek judicial or advice before issuing a certificate for length of sentence. . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Hindley HL 30-Mar-2000
The prisoner, sentenced to life imprisonment with a whole life tariff for the murders of children, now appealed against the imposition of the whole life tarriff.
Held: The appeal failed. It was possible for a Home Secretary to set a whole life . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.87988

Regina v Richardson, Regina v Teixeira etc: CACD 4 Apr 1994

Richardson, was described as ‘an important member of the team’ with a ‘highly significant role in the whole enterprise’ of importing drugs to a street value of andpound;50 million, that is, 44 kgs of cocaine on one occasion and 144 kgs on another, plus 2 tons of cannabis.
Held: Levels of sentencing for most serious drugs cases were raised. The court set possible sentences of up to twenty five years for abnormally serious offences of drug trafficking.
Ind Summary 04-Apr-1994, Times 18-Mar-1994, [1994] 15 Cr App R (S) 876
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Scamaronie CACD 1992
A senior Peruvian diplomat was involved in importing a large quantity of cocaine with the aid of diplomatic paraphernalia; he was using, amongst other things, a Peruvian diplomatic pouch. He was identified by the judge as a senior figure in the . .

Cited by:
CitedAttorney General’s Reference Nos 5-8 of 2003 (Davies, Rowan, Abbey, Hassan) CACD 14-Nov-2003
The Attorney-General referred sentences for conspiracy to supply drugs. The offenders were part of a highly professional organisation, in close contact with each other and others in this country and abroad over a period of months, which culminated . .
CitedRegina v Kayar CACD 2-Mar-1998
A sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment imposed following trial was reduced to one of 16 years in respect of an offender who had organised the importation of a 10.3 kilo consignment of heroin. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.87628

Regina v Morris: CACD 25 Oct 1994

The otherwise unexplained or unexplainable possession of large amounts of cash can be admissible as evidence of drug dealing.
Independent 25-Oct-1994, Times 20-Oct-1994, [1995] 2 Cr App R 69
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedPayton, Regina v CACD 26-May-2006
The defendant appealed a conviction of possession of 66 grams of cannabis with intent to supply. Also found were a large number of small bags and pounds 7,000 in cash. The defendant said the cannabis was for his personal use, and the equipment had . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.87390

Regina v Harper; Regina v Sabin: CACD 12 Oct 1998

The court was right to look beyond the facts of the instant case, and at the defendant’s background history, when assessing whether it was necessary to impose an additional sentence for the protection of the public from a violent offender.
Times 12-Oct-1998
Criminal Justice Act 1991 2(2)(b)
England and Wales

Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.86813

Regina v Crawford: CACD 26 Apr 1993

The activating of a suspended sentence was not itself a passing of a sentence, and the other offence was not made more serious by the activation.
An activation of a suspended sentence is not itself the act of passing a sentence.
Gazette 02-Jun-1993, Ind Summary 26-Apr-1993
Criminal Justice Act 1991 1(2), Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 23
England and Wales

Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.86466