Tag: Criminal Sentencing

Regina v Oosthuizen: CACD 11 Jul 2005

The defendant appealed his sentence of two years for robbery, saying that it had been wrong to impose a deterrent sentence because of an apparently high number of robberies in the area.
Held: The judge must sentence the defendant before him. Though in every case regard must be had to the Sentencing Guideline’s Council’s recommendations, they need not be followed in every case. The sentencing rules had been changed repeatedly and some sympathy must be allowed to judges called upon to implement these changes. The sentence here was not inappropriate, though credit would be given for 28 days spent on remand.

Judges:

Rose LJ, Holland J, Crane J

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Crim 1978, Times 01-Sep-2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Greenland, Regina v CACD 28-Jun-2002
The court considered the significance of a guilty plea when sentencing: ‘ . . he is not entitled to the full credit that he would have had had the evidence against him not been so overwhelming and had he not been caught red-handed.’ . .

Cited by:

Cited – French and Webster, Regina v (Attorney General’s Reference No 14 and No 15 of 2006) CACD 8-Jun-2006
The defendant had been convicted of repeatedly raping a 12 week old girl, and other sexual offences against young girls. After pleading guilty, the judge had passed a life sentence setting the minimum term at six years which was lower because of the . .
Cited – Norman and Others, Regina v CACD 20-Jul-2006
The defendant said that the judge in setting his sentence had failed correctly to identify the time he had spent in custody awaiting trial, and which would act as time served.
Held: The defendants were entitled to a direction. If the time for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.229998

Benabbas, Regina v: CACD 12 Aug 2005

The Court considered a recommendation for the deportation of an Algerian national after the completion of his sentence.
Held: Rix LJ referred to both the Nazari and the Bouchereau tests, and said: ‘The Appellant is not of course an EU national, but we refer to Bouchereau because English authority (see below) has said that the ‘detriment’ principle in English law works on the same basis.’

Judges:

Rix LJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Crim 2113

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Pierre Bouchereau ECJ 27-Oct-1977
ECJ The different language versions of a community text must be given a uniform interpretation and hence in the case of divergence between the versions the provision in question must be interpreted by reference . .
Cited – Regina v Nazari CACD 1980
The CACD heard several appeals together, giving guidance as to the general principles to be applied in deciding on recommendations for deportation under the Act. Lawton LJ said that ‘no court should make an order recommending deportation without . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Kluxen CACD 14-May-2010
The court considered the occasions on which a court should recommend deportation after completion of a prison sentence and how this might differ between EU and non-EU nationals.
Held: Since the 2007 it is not appropriate to recommend . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229867

Middleton and Another, Regina v: QBD 15 Jun 2005

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1236 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 Sch22

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Middleton, Regina v CACD 11-Mar-2005
. .
See Also – Middleton and Others, Regina v QBD 27-May-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.227005

Regina v Singh (Dara): CACD 28 Oct 1998

When a judge passes a sentence of imprisonment on a defendant already serving time, and wants this sentence to follow the other, he should make it quite clear the sentence is consecutive to the current sentence, and follow the practice direction.

Citations:

Gazette 04-Nov-1998, Times 28-Oct-1998, Gazette 25-Nov-1998

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1991 51(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Practice Direction (Sentence) 1959
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.88031

Kolawole, Regina v: CACD 11 Nov 2004

Sentencing for possession of false identity documents.

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Crim 3047, [2005] 2 Cr App R(S) 14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mabengo, Regina v; Regina v Lomoka etc CACD 18-Jun-2008
Sentencing for possession of false document. Goldring J said: ‘These four appellants had failed in their applications for asylum. It may be that they had subsequently renewed them. They remained in the United Kingdom. They knew they could not work. . .
Cited – John, Regina v CACD 19-Aug-2008
The defendant was convicted of possession of false identity documents, and sentenced to fifteen months imprisonment.
Held: An immediate custodial sentence was inevitable, but the sentence was reduced from 15 months to eight months. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.226817

Page and Another, Regina v: CACD 8 Dec 2004

The court considered the need for proportionate responses in sentencing to the particular offence before the court.

Citations:

[2005] 2 Cr App R (S) 37, [2004] EWCA Crim 3358

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Lamb CACD 2005
The court heard an appeal against sentence for breach of an anti-social behaviour order, and considered the sentence in Braxton: ‘The vital distinction between that case and the circumstances with which we are concerned is that albeit the deliberate . .
Cited – Steven Fenton v Regina CACD 19-Sep-2006
The defendant had been convicted of breaching his sex offender’s order. He appealed his sentence of 2.5 years. The order had included a prohibition on being drunk in a public place and using abusive or insulting behaviour toward a female.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.226826

Hardy, Regina v: CACD 20 Dec 2004

The defendant appealed a sentence of two and a half years imprisonment for attempting to pervert the course of justice by putting pressure on a juror to find the defendant guilty.

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Crim 3397

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.226823

Regina v Jarvis Facilities Ltd: CACD 26 May 2005

The defendant company had been fined when a train was derauled as a result of the company’s failure properly to maintain rail track. It appealed the fine of andpound;400,000.
Held: Fines should properly be increased where the failure arose in the course of provision of a public service. However here had been no significant injury or damage. Even allowing for the need for deterrence the fine was reduced to andpound;275,000.

Judges:

Waller, LJ, hedley, Royce JJ

Citations:

Times 08-Jun-2005, [2005] EWCA Crim 1409

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1) 33

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Health and Safety

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226038

Regina v Cooper (Toby): CACD 28 Apr 2000

An adult (19) and a youth (17) had been sentenced together, and the judge had clearly looked to sentence them equally. The new rules, however, would grant to the Home Secretary, the discretion to release the adult earlier under the home curfew and tagging scheme. The youth appealed saying that the equality sought by the judge was not achieved. It was held that the Home Secretary must be relied upon to remedy any possible injustice. The situation was unfortunate, but will be remedied under legislation due to come into force.

Citations:

Times 05-Apr-2000, Gazette 28-Apr-2000

Statutes:

Crime and Disorder Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.86437

Regina v Corran, Regina v Cutler, Regina v Heard, Regina v Willams: CACD 2 Feb 2005

Various sentences were appealed in respect of defendants convicted of sexual offences under the 2003 Act.
Held: The Act contained new extended ranges of sexual offences, and these required resvised sentencing guidelines. The starting point for non-penile penetration will be generally lower. No safe guideline could be given for a rape of a child under 13, save that immediate custody would be appropriate and long determinate of life sentences might be given where there were significant additional aggravating features. Garvey and Millberry remeined effective guidelines.

Judges:

Rose, Smith LJJ, Owen J

Citations:

Times 08-Mar-2005, [2005] EWCA Crim 192

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sexual Offences Act 2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Garvey, Attorney-General’s Reference (No 104 of 2004) CACD 25-Oct-2004
The Attorney General appealed the sentence of 18 months imposed on the defendant for sexual assault by a digital penetration.
Held: The maximum sentences for the offence had been increased to life imprisonment, and accordingly sentence levels . .
Cited – Millberry, Morganian, Lackenby v Regina CACD 9-Dec-2002
The Court gave detailed guidelines on sentencing for offences of rape, following a report from the sentencing advisory panel.
Held: The court outlined the base sentences for single and multiple offences of rape, listing aggravating and . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v G (Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening) HL 18-Jun-2008
The defendant was fifteen. He was convicted of statutory rape of a 13 year old girl, believing her to be 15. He appealed saying that as an offence of strict liability he had been denied a right to a fair trial, and also that the offence charged was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223481

Tovey 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 the defendant’s criminal behaviour. The court considered when a series of acts might properly be charged as one offence.

Judges:

Lord Woolf LCJ, Grigson J, Gross J

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Crim 530, Times 19-Apr-2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Clark CACD 1996
It was not open to a sentencer to sentence on the basis that the offence of which the defendant had been convicted was aggravated by unproved, separate and distinct offences. Henry LJ said that a defendant may only be sentenced for an offence that . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Jemmison v Priddle 1972
‘it is legitimate to charge on a single information one activity even though the activity may involve more than one act’. . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Evans CACD 18-May-1999
There would need to have been 200 or more counts to reflect the full extent of the financial gain that the offender had obtained.
Held: If an indictment were drafted containing that number of counts, it would prove unmanageable if tried by a . .
Cited – Hodgetts v Chiltern District Council HL 1983
The House was asked as to an alleged offence of non-compliance with an enforcement notice under section 89(1) of the 1971 Act, and particularly: ‘Whether an information which alleges initial failure to comply with the provisions of an enforcement . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No. 82 of 2002) CA 2003
Where a defendant was thought to have committed a wide range of offences but faced only representative charges, then provided that the admitted basis on which an offender pleads guilty embraces that wider course of conduct, it was proper for a . .
Cited – Barton v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 2001
The defendant appealed by way of case stated against the Stipendiary Magistrates’ decision that an information alleging theft of andpound;1,338.23 over a period of years did not offend against the rule that an information should only allege a single . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v McCabe 1993
The defendant had 76 library books at his home which he had taken from one or more of the 32 different branches of a county library. He was convicted of a single offence of theft in relation to those books. . .
Cited – Cullen v Jardine CACD 1995
90 trees were felled by the defendant without a licence over a period of three days.
Held: May LJ: ‘It was entirely possible for magistrates to decide which trees were cut down illegally and which were not, and to impose penalties by reference . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223367

H and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Southampton Youth Court: Admn 2 Dec 2004

The court considered the principles for sentencing for sexual assaults by youths and the decision of magistrates whether to decline jurisdiction. Leveson J: ‘That the position would be different for an older person is obvious. Had an adult behaved in this manner to a 13 year old boy, sexual gratification would have been an obvious motive and a substantial custodial sentence would indeed have been justified. An older teenager could also lose his liberty. In my judgment, however, 13 and 14 year olds behaving in this way to one of their school friends, while deeply reprehensible and demanding condemnation, do not come within that category, and certainly not at the level of a sentence approaching two years.’

Judges:

Leveson J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2912 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 24, Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 91(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Crown Prosecution Service (Redbridge Section), Regina (on the Application Of) v Redbridge Youth Court and Another Admn 8-Jun-2005
The CPS appealed the refusal of the respondent magistrates to decline jurisdiction to hear allegations against a youth.
Held: The magistrates had applied the wrong test, asking themselves whether a sentence substantially greater than two years . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220543

Dudson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 28 Jul 2005

The defendant had committed a murder when aged 16, and after conviction sentenced to be detailed during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. His tarriff had been set at 18 years, reduced to 16 years after review.
Held: ‘What is at issue is the general right to a ‘fair and public hearing’ in article 6(1). There is no absolute right to a public hearing at every stage in the proceedings at which the applicant or his representatives are heard orally. The application of the article to proceedings other than at first instance depends on the special features of the proceedings in question. Account must be taken of the entirety of the proceedings of which they form part, including those at first instance. Account must also be taken of the role of the person or person conducting the proceedings that are in question, the nature of the system within which they are being conducted and the scope of the powers that are being exercised. The overriding question, which is essentially a practical one as it depends on the facts of each case, is whether the issues that had to be dealt with at the stage could properly, as a matter of fair trial, be determined without hearing the applicant orally. ‘ An oral hearing would have been a formality, and ‘the absence of an oral hearing in this case did not violate article 6(1) of the Convention.’

Judges:

Bingham of Cornhill, Hope of Craighead, Nichols of Birkenhead, Hoffmann,LL, Baroness Hale of Richmond

Citations:

[2005] 3 WLR 422, [2005] UKHL 52, Times 29-Jul-2005, [2006] 1 All ER 421

Links:

Bailii, House of Lords

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act 1933 53(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – V 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 . .
Cited – Smith, 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 . .
At First Instance – Regina (on the Application of Dudson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Lord Chief Justice Admn 21-Nov-2003
The applicant had been sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. He sought a judicial review of the Lord Chief Justice’s recommendation to the Home Secretary for the minimum term he was to serve.
Held: In exercising this function, . .
Appeal from – Regina (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; and similar CA 11-Feb-2004
The applicants were young persons who had been detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure after convictions for murder. The respondent appealed a finding that he was under a duty to review the tariff with a view to release even before the expiry of the . .
Cited – Delcourt v Belgium ECHR 17-Jan-1970
The applicant had failed in appeals against conviction and sentence for offences of fraud and forgery before the Belgian Cour de Cassation. He complained that he had not enjoyed the right to a fair trial recognised by Article 6(1) of the Convention . .
Cited – Sigurthor Arnarsson v Iceland ECHR 15-Jul-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
The applicant had been acquitted of . .
Cited – Easterbrook v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-Jun-2003
The prisoner was convicted of an armed robbery in which a policeman had been shot, and had been sentenced to life imprisonment. The judge set no tariff himself. The tariff was set by the Home Secretary, but only after some time. The discretionary . .
Cited – Monnell And Morris v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Mar-1987
ECHR No violation of Art. 5-1; No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 6-3-c; No violation of Art. 14+5; No violation of Art. 14+6
The applicants had unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal against . .
Cited – Hoppe v Germany ECHR 5-Dec-2002
Hudoc No violation of Art. 8 ; No violation of Art. 6-1
The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair hearing in appeal proceedings concerning his right of access to his daughter contrary to . .
Cited – Fejde v Sweden ECHR 29-Oct-1991
The manner of the application of article 6 to proceedings before courts of appeal depends on the special circumstances of the proceedings involved. Account must be taken of the entirety of the proceedings in the domestic legal order and of the role . .
Cited – Regina 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’, . .
Cited – Goc v Turkey ECHR 11-Jul-2002
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 on account of the absence of an oral hearing; Violation of Art. 6-1 on account of the non-communication of the opinion of the Principal Public . .
Cited – Practice Statement (Juveniles: Murder Tariffs) CACD 27-Jul-2000
Legislation is to be enacted to set the tariff for life sentences for youths to be sentenced to life for murder. Until enacted the Lord Chief Justice gave recommendations for both existing and new cases, and the Home Secretary will follow them. . .
Cited – Bulut v Austria ECHR 22-Feb-1996
The Procurator General had submitted to the Supreme Court comments on a plea of nullity made by a defendant without bringing them to the attention of the accused.
Held: The principle of equality of arms had not been respected in the . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Venables, Regina v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Thompson HL 12-Jun-1997
A sentence of detention during her majesty’s pleasure when imposed on a youth was not the same as a sentence of life imprisonment, and the Home Secretary was wrong to treat it on the same basis and to make allowance for expressions of public . .
Cited – Regina 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: . .

Cited by:

Cited – Hammond, 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.229068

Smith, 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 Chief Justice.
Held: New provisions were in place for prisoners convicted after the date. However, if ‘the respondent remains subject to a sentence which imports a duty of continuing review and the Secretary of State cannot absolve himself from that duty by indicating that he will not perform it’. The sentence should be subject to periodic review. The appeal was dismissed.

Judges:

Bingham of Cornhill L, Nicholls of Birkenhead, Hoffmann, Hope of Craighead LL, Baroness Hale of Richmond,

Citations:

[2005] UKHL 51, Times 29-Jul-2005, [2006] 1 Prison LR 12, [2006] 1 All ER 407, [2005] 3 WLR 410, [2005] HRLR 33, [2006] 1 AC 159

Links:

Bailii, House of Lords

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 60

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At First instance – Regina on the Application of Smith v The Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 3-Apr-2003
The case asked what duty the respondent had, in respect of youths sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure before 30th November 2000, to review their continued detention at regular intervals. A statement said that once a tarriff had . .
Appeal from – Regina (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; and similar CA 11-Feb-2004
The applicants were young persons who had been detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure after convictions for murder. The respondent appealed a finding that he was under a duty to review the tariff with a view to release even before the expiry of the . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Venables, Regina v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Thompson HL 12-Jun-1997
A sentence of detention during her majesty’s pleasure when imposed on a youth was not the same as a sentence of life imprisonment, and the Home Secretary was wrong to treat it on the same basis and to make allowance for expressions of public . .
At First Instance – Smith, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 31-Jul-2003
. .
Mentioned – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Handscomb 1987
. .
Mentioned – 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.
Cited – Practice Statement (Crime: Life sentences) LCJ 31-May-2002
The statement followed the report of the Sentencing Advisory Panel of March 15, 2002. The statement contained guidance, not firm rules. The phrase ‘minimum term’ should replace the term ‘tariff’. Offenders are normally not released on the expiry of . .
Mentioned – Hussain v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1996
The determination of a life sentence by the Home Secretary without recourse to a court was unlawful. There had been a violation of article 5(4) because the applicant who had been detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure was unable, after the expiry of his . .
Cited – Regina 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’, . .
Mentioned – Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Oct-1990
The applicants, discretionary life prisoners, complained of a violation on the ground that they were not able to have the continued lawfulness of their detention decided by a court at reasonable intervals throughout their imprisonment.
Held: A . .

Cited by:

Cited – Dudson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 28-Jul-2005
The defendant had committed a murder when aged 16, and after conviction sentenced to be detailed during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. His tarriff had been set at 18 years, reduced to 16 years after review.
Held: ‘What is at issue is the general . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.229071

Regina v Perks: CACD 5 May 2000

Victim impact statements must be dealt with properly. The sentencer should make no assumptions about the effect on the victim, and any particular distress caused should be made known to the sentencer. Any such evidence should be in standard form and served upon the defendant. Evidence from the victim should be taken with care where the defence would not be able to challenge it, and opinions from the victim and his or her family as to sentence should not be taken account of. Particular distress or a victim’s forgiveness might affect the sentence.

Judges:

Potter LJ, Garland J, Recorder of London

Citations:

Times 05-May-2000, [2000] EWCA Crim 34

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.87541

Regina v Sykes: CACD 1982

Citations:

(1982) Cr App R (S) 173

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Stack CACD 12-Jan-1999
The defendant appealed a sentence of 16 months’ detention in a young offender institution, for violent disorder. There had been a fracas involving over 100 youths. He was not the instigator. He had one previous conviction for dishonesty. He said the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.179678

Regina 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.

Citations:

Independent 22-Nov-1995

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1991 34(4)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.87530

Hindawi and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 29 Jan 2004

The prisoner was subject to a long term of imprisonment, and also to a deportation order which was to take effect upon his release. He complained that, because of the latter, he had not been considered for parole, and that this was discriminatiry.
Held: The difference in treatment occurred because of the nationality of the prisoner. Such a decision in respect of French nationals would be discriminatory. It was not for the court to speculate as to the reasons for the policy, but it was discriminatory and unlawful.

Judges:

McCombe J

Citations:

Times 05-Feb-2004, [2004] EWHC 78 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1991 31, European Convention on Human Rights 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Regina (M) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Admn 25-Mar-2004
The applicants sought judicial review of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of leave to appeal. The court had to decide whether such a right survived section 101 of the 2001 Act.
Held: The right to have a judicial review could only be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.192687

Wright v Her Majesty’s Advocate: HCJ 2 May 2003

The defendant appealed his sentence of life imprisonment for assault and attempted rape, with a minimum of twelve years to be served. The trial judge was right in deciding that, because of the risk that the appellant presented to women, a discretionary life sentence was appropriate. It was argued for him that, in view of O’Neill, the trial judge had erred, particularly in his failure to apply a reduction of fifty percent on account of the early release provisions in the 1993 Act. In view of Ansari it was appropriate to set the sentence again. In view of the gravity of the sexual offence, the related offence of assault, the appellant’s criminal record, and the fact that he committed this crime during the unexpired portion of a previous sentence, the notional determinate sentence, under exclusion of the risk element (cf. Ansari), should be 13 years. The notional determinate sentence should reflect the idea of general deterrence as well as deterrence of the offender himself. In view of the gravity of the case, as in Ansari, a high proportion of that figure should be applied to reach the punishment part. Appeal allowed to the extent of fixing the punishment part of the life sentence at a period of 9 years and of backdating that.

Judges:

Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Kirkwood, Lord Marnoch, Lord Reed, Lord McCluskey

Citations:

[2003] ScotHC 18

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Cited – O’Neill v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 9-Mar-1999
The appellant pleaded guilty to an assault with a knife upon a stranger. He had a previous conviction for assault causing severe injury and permanent disfigurement, and two previous convictions for inter alia attempted murder and assault. He had . .
Cited – Regina 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’, . .
Cited – Ansari v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 2-May-2003
The applicant assaulted and abducted an innocent passer-by, a young woman of 23, in the streets of Aberdeen and drove her, bound and gagged, to his house in Leith where he stripped her naked and assaulted and raped her. He was sentenced to life . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181784

Berthill Fox v Regina (No 2): PC 11 Mar 2002

(Saint Christopher and Nevis) The appellant had been convicted of murder, for which the penalty was death. He claimed that the sentence was an infringement of his constitutional and human rights. The constitution declared that it prevailed over all other laws, and guaranteed certain fundamental rights and freedoms. Though it allowed for the possibility of the death sentence for murder, he claimed the sentence was inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment.
Held: The council had already twice held that similar constitutions did not allow for a death penalty which was mandatory. The appeal was allowed, and the case remitted for re-sentencing.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Hutton Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Millett Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

Citations:

[2002] 2 AC 284, [2002] UKPC 13

Links:

PC, Berthill Fox v. The Qu’ target=’_n’>PC, Bailii, PC

Statutes:

Saint Christopher and Nevis Constitution Order 1983 (SI 1983 No 881)

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Hughes PC 11-Mar-2002
(Saint Lucia) Having been convicted of murder, the defendant was made subject to the mandatory death penalty applied under St Lucia law. He appealed successfully on the basis that the constitution of St Lucia protected him from inhuman or degrading . .
Cited – Reyes 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Hughes PC 11-Mar-2002
(Saint Lucia) Having been convicted of murder, the defendant was made subject to the mandatory death penalty applied under St Lucia law. He appealed successfully on the basis that the constitution of St Lucia protected him from inhuman or degrading . .
Cited – Pilar Aida Rojas v Brian Berllaque PC 10-Nov-2003
PC (Gibraltar) The system of selecting a criminal jury obliged men to be available for selection, but women could choose not to be on the role of jurors. The result was that jury lists and juries were almost . .
Cited – Watson v Regina PC 7-Jul-2004
(Jamaica) The defendant was convicted of two murders from the same incident. The Act provided for the death penalty if he was convicted of a second murder. He appealed the death sentence in the circumstances, and said also that it was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Constitutional

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167755

Regina v Hughes: PC 11 Mar 2002

(Saint Lucia) Having been convicted of murder, the defendant was made subject to the mandatory death penalty applied under St Lucia law. He appealed successfully on the basis that the constitution of St Lucia protected him from inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment under article 5, and the Crown appealed to the Privy Council.
Held: The mandatory death penalty is indeed to be regarded as inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. The committee which exercised the prerogative of mercy was not an independent tribunal sufficient to save the procedure. The Crown’s appeal was dismissed, and the case remitted for re-sentence.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Hutton Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Millett Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

Citations:

[2002] UKPC 12, [2002] 2 AC 259

Links:

PC, Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Code of Saint Lucia 1992 172, Saint Lucia Constitution Order 1978 (SI 1978 No 1901) 5

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Citing:

Applied – Reyes 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 . .
Cited – Berthill Fox v Regina (No 2) PC 11-Mar-2002
(Saint Christopher and Nevis) The appellant had been convicted of murder, for which the penalty was death. He claimed that the sentence was an infringement of his constitutional and human rights. The constitution declared that it prevailed over all . .

Cited by:

Cited – Berthill Fox v Regina (No 2) PC 11-Mar-2002
(Saint Christopher and Nevis) The appellant had been convicted of murder, for which the penalty was death. He claimed that the sentence was an infringement of his constitutional and human rights. The constitution declared that it prevailed over all . .
Cited – Pilar Aida Rojas v Brian Berllaque PC 10-Nov-2003
PC (Gibraltar) The system of selecting a criminal jury obliged men to be available for selection, but women could choose not to be on the role of jurors. The result was that jury lists and juries were almost . .
Cited – Watson v Regina PC 7-Jul-2004
(Jamaica) The defendant was convicted of two murders from the same incident. The Act provided for the death penalty if he was convicted of a second murder. He appealed the death sentence in the circumstances, and said also that it was . .
Cited – Bally Sheng Balson v The State PC 2-Feb-2005
PC (Dominica) The appellant had been convicted of the murder of his partner and appealed the conviction.
Held: The case did not fall within the case of Anderson, and counsel’s failure was not such as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Commonwealth

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167754

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another Ex Parte Bulger: QBD 7 Mar 2001

The family of a murder victim has no standing to intervene to challenge the tariff set for the sentence to be served by the youths convicted of the murder. They had been invited to state the impact of their son’s death, but not the sentence to be served. Although the standing required for judicial review was now generally lower, the fact of having made representations did not give them any such standing. When fixing the tariff of sentence to be served by a youth, the court must look on each occasion also at questions of rehabilitation.

Citations:

Times 07-Mar-2001, [2001] 3 All E R 449

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act 1933 44, Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 82A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (on the Application of Dudson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Lord Chief Justice Admn 21-Nov-2003
The applicant had been sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. He sought a judicial review of the Lord Chief Justice’s recommendation to the Home Secretary for the minimum term he was to serve.
Held: In exercising this function, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Judicial Review

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88628

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Akhtar: QBD 23 Feb 2001

The defendant committed an offence whilst released on licence. She was sentenced by the magistrates for the offence and ordered to be recalled to serve a month for the offence committed whilst on licence. The Secretary received a probation report and revoke her licence entirely.
Held: The fact that the magistrates had carried out a sentencing procedure did not prevent the Secretary of State carrying out a different exercise. He was not subject to the same requirement to act proportionately to the offence on licence.

Citations:

Times 23-Feb-2001

Statutes:

Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 116, Criminal Justice Act 1991 39

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88630

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Anderson Same v Same, ex parte Taylor: QBD 27 Feb 2001

When the Home Secretary set a tariff sentence for a mandatory life sentence prisoner, in order to satisfy the requirement for retribution and deterrence, that exercise was not a judicial sentencing exercise to which the provisions of the Human Rights legislation applied. The issues he considered were wider than those involved in the strict sentencing process.

Citations:

Times 27-Feb-2001, Gazette 20-Apr-2001

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal to – Regina (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:

Appeal from – Regina (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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88632

Regina v North East Essex Justices, ex parte Lloyd: QBD 7 Dec 2000

The magistrates had full power to commit a defendant to the Crown Court for sentence where they wanted to fine him, but considered that their powers to impose a fine were too limited. When doing so, they should invite representation on the proposal, and convey their views to the Crown Court.

Citations:

Gazette 07-Dec-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88571

Regina (Wirral Health Authority and Another) v Mental Health Review Tribunal and Another: CA 13 Nov 2001

The applicant had been detained under the Act. His detention had been ended by the Mental Health Tribunal, but he had been detained again under s3. The decision was later quashed, and he asserted that upon that decision, an earlier sentence of imprisonment took effect, preventing his re-detention. The Tribunal’s detention was later quashed.
Held: Where an inferior tribunal’s decision was unlawful, the High Court could quash it. the effect of quashing the decision was that the tribunal had never made the decision to discharge.

Judges:

Lord Justice Clarke, Lord Justice Mance and Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

Times 26-Nov-2001, Gazette 10-Jan-2002, [2001] EWCA Civ 1901

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 37, 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166856

Regina (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 carrying mandatory and discretionary life sentences. The decision as to what measure of deterrence was required was not solely a matter suitable for decisions by the courts, but included elements to be considered which looked to wider issues. The exercise of such powers with respect to discretionary lifers had been ruled unlawful. The legislation, following that decision, explicitly excluded tariffs for mandatory lifers, and it was not for the courts to set aside such decisions. The present system might not survive challenge in the Court of Human Rights, but it must be their decision

Judges:

Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Simon Brown and Lord Justice Buxton

Citations:

Times 16-Nov-2001, Gazette 06-Dec-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1698

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 29

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina 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’, . .
Cited – V 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 to – 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.
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Anderson Same v Same, ex parte Taylor QBD 27-Feb-2001
When the Home Secretary set a tariff sentence for a mandatory life sentence prisoner, in order to satisfy the requirement for retribution and deterrence, that exercise was not a judicial sentencing exercise to which the provisions of the Human . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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.
Appeal to – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Anderson Same v Same, ex parte Taylor QBD 27-Feb-2001
When the Home Secretary set a tariff sentence for a mandatory life sentence prisoner, in order to satisfy the requirement for retribution and deterrence, that exercise was not a judicial sentencing exercise to which the provisions of the Human . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166778

Attorney General for Northern Ireland Reference No 3 of 2000: CANI 28 Jun 2001

Citations:

[2001] NIECA 25

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Citing:

See Also – Attorney General for Northern Ireland Reference No 3 of 2000 CANI 28-Jun-2001
The court considered the question of the propriety of section 36 applications (to increase a sentence) where an indication has been given by the judge of the likely sentence. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Attorney General for Northern Ireland Reference No 3 of 2000 CANI 28-Jun-2001
The court considered the question of the propriety of section 36 applications (to increase a sentence) where an indication has been given by the judge of the likely sentence. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166310

Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v The United Kingdom: ECHR 25 Oct 1990

The applicants, discretionary life prisoners, complained of a violation on the ground that they were not able to have the continued lawfulness of their detention decided by a court at reasonable intervals throughout their imprisonment.
Held: A discretionary life sentence in English law was composed of a punitive element followed by a security element giving the Secretary of State the responsibility for determining when the public interest permits the prisoner’s release. In these cases the punitive period had expired and the applicants were entitled to judicial control as guaranteed by Article 5(4). The detention of the applicants after the expiry of the punitive periods of their sentences was compared to the VAN DROOGENBROECK and WEEKS cases: the factors of mental instability and dangerousness are susceptible to change over the passage of time and new issues of lawfulness may arise in the course of detention. It follows that at this phase in the execution of their sentences, the applicants are entitled under Article 5(4) to take proceedings to have the lawfulness of their continued detention decided by a court at reasonable intervals and to have the lawfulness of any re-detention determined by a court.

Judges:

Mr R Ryssdal, P

Citations:

11787/85, 11978/86, (1990) 13 EHRR 666, 12009/86, [1990] ECHR 29, (1991) 13 EHRR 666

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5(4)

Citing:

Cited – Van Droogenbroeck v Belgium ECHR 24-Jun-1982
The applicant was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for theft. He had a previous convictions and was thought to have a persistent tendency to crime, and was placed at the government’s disposal for 10 years on that ground. This was subject to . .
Cited – Weeks v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Mar-1987
The applicant, aged 17, was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment in the interests of public safety, being considered by the trial judge on appeal to be dangerous.
Held: ‘The court agrees with the Commission and the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Neil Grant Murray, Mark James Hartley and Steven Simpson v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 19-Sep-1999
The defendants appealed against sentence. The first and second were youths who had been convicted of a vicious and homophobic murder, and had been sentenced to be detained without limit of time. The third had also been convicted of a savage and . .
Cited – O’Neill v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 9-Mar-1999
The appellant pleaded guilty to an assault with a knife upon a stranger. He had a previous conviction for assault causing severe injury and permanent disfigurement, and two previous convictions for inter alia attempted murder and assault. He had . .
Cited – Ansari v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 2-May-2003
The applicant assaulted and abducted an innocent passer-by, a young woman of 23, in the streets of Aberdeen and drove her, bound and gagged, to his house in Leith where he stripped her naked and assaulted and raped her. He was sentenced to life . .
Cited – Mohammadi v Advocate General Scotland HCJ 2-May-2003
The applicant had claimed asylum. His claim had been rejected and an order made for repatriation to Iran. His appeal was lodged two days out of time. He appealed its rejection. The solicitors accepted full responsibility for the delay.
Held: . .
Cited – Giles, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board and Another HL 31-Jul-2003
The defendant had been sentenced for offences of violence, but an additional period was imposed to protect the public. He had been refused leave for reconsideration of that part of his sentence after he completed the normal segment of his sentence. . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte H and Others, Regina v Same ex parte Hickey CA 29-Jul-1994
A discretionary life prisoner who had been transferred to a mental hospital is not automatically eligible for a certificate under the section. The right conferred on a discretionary life prisoner by section 34 of the 1991 Act did not extend to those . .
Cited – P, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 11-Dec-2003
The applicant was a discretionary life prisoner compulsorily detained in a mental hospital. His tariff had now expired. If not detained under the 1983 Act he would now be entitled to a review. He argued that there should be a joint hearing.
Cited – Flynn, Meek, Nicol and McMurray v Her Majesty’s Advocate PC 18-Mar-2004
PC (High Court of Justiciary) The applicants had each been convicted of murder, and complained that the transitional provisions for determining how long should be served under the life sentences infringed their . .
Cited – Regina 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: . .
Cited – Blackstock v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Jun-2005
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 5-4; Violation of Art. 5-5; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
The claimant . .
Mentioned – Smith, 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 . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Justice v Walker; Same v James CA 1-Feb-2008
The claimant had been sentenced to a short period of imprisonment but with an indeterminate term until he demonstrated that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public. He complained that the term having expired, no opportunity had . .
Cited – Brooke 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 . .
Cited – Black, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice HL 21-Jan-2009
The appellant complained that the system for considering the release of a life prisoner did not comply with the Convention when the decision was made by the Secretary of State and not by the Parole Board, or the court. The Board had recommended his . .
Cited – Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another SC 1-May-2013
The applicants had each been given a life sentence, but having served the minimum term had been due to have the continued detention reviewed to establish whether or not continued detention was necessary for the protection of the pblic. It had not . .
Cited – Sturnham, 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 . .
Cited – Haney 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165090

Attorney General’s Reference No 36 of 1996 Under Section 36 of Criminal Justice Act 1988: Regina v Johnson: CACD 15 Oct 1996

The minimum approriate sentence for an offence of s18 wounding was 4 years.

Judges:

Lord Bingham

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Crim 1070, [1997] 1 Cr App R (S) 363

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 18

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference No 88 of 2000 CACD 2001
The Attorney General referred a sentence for inflicting grievous bodily harm in a ‘road rage’ situation.
Held: The section 18 offence should have attracted a sentence of four years after a trial. . .
Cited – Regina v Lyon CACD 12-May-2005
The defendant appealed his sentence of five years after conviction for causing grievous bodily harm.
Held: Care should be taken only to place relience upon guideline cases. Particular care should be adopted when considering Attorney General’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.148734

Jones, Regina v: CACD 10 Jul 2006

Appeal by the Crown under section 31 of the 2002 Act, in relation to orders in proceedings under the Act. Those proceedings related to the assessment of benefit and consequential orders to be made as a result in relation to four defendants.

Judges:

Latham VP CACD LJ, Forbes, Simon JJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Crim 2061, [2007] 1 WLR 7

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 31

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.247427

Gunning, Regina v: CACD 20 Feb 2018

Renewed application for an extension of time, 179 days, in which to apply for leave to appeal against conviction, and a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence, both following refusal by the single judge.

Judges:

McCombe LJ, Spencer, Phillips JJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Crim 677

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.609725

Monington, Regina v: CACD 5 Sep 2018

Appeal from sentence of two years imprisonment and 5 year disqualification from driving on conviction on his admission to causing death by careless driving.
Held: The appeal failed.
‘we should re-emphasise the role of the courts when sentencing in cases of this kind. No prison sentence that the Crown Court is able to impose, whatever its length, can sufficiently reflect the loss of someone’s life. Instead, the role given to the court involves assessing the offender’s culpability in committing the offence and the harm he has caused, applying the Definitive Guideline, and subject to the maximum penalty which Parliament allows to be imposed. Sentencing for offences of this kind is highly sensitive to the circumstances of each individual case.’

Judges:

McCombeLJ, Holgate, O’Farrell DBE JJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Crim 2016

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.622341

Regina 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 level, selling to other addicts in order to buy drugs for himself and to found a modest living, and without previous convictions, would be six years imprisonment. The sentence might be increased for sales to the vulnerable and young, but an early plea and personal circumstances might reduce it. Since other offences could be prosecuted for wider scale activity, and in the absence of admissions, the court must sentence on the basis of the indictment as drawn.
Where an offender charged with a single count claims this had been an isolated transaction, this may be rejected if the evidence establishes that this was not the case. The offender should be given the appropriate sentence for a single offence but without the credit he would receive if it were an isolated incident.

Judges:

Sir Paul Kennedy VP QBD, Kennedy LJ, Alliott J

Citations:

Times 30-Nov-2000, [2001] Crim LR 151, [2001] Cr App Rep (S) 37, [2001] Cr App Rep (S) 9, [2001] Cr App R (S) 37, [2000] EWCA Crim 98

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Approved – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88694

Regina v Montgomery: CACD 19 Jul 1994

A witness had refused to give evidence, and found to have committed contempt.
Held: Guidelines were given on sentencing for offences of interfering with the course of justice, criminal contempt, refusal to give evidence and so forth.
The court set out the matters likely to influence the level of punishment appropriate in cases of contempt of court:
(a) the effect or potential consequences of the breach upon the trial or trials and upon those participating in them;
(b) the scale of the breach, with particular reference to the numbers of people to whom the report was made, over what period and the medium or media through which it was made;
(c) the gravity of the offences being tried in the trial or trials to which the reporting restrictions applied;
(d) the contemnor’s level of culpability and his or her reasons for acting in breach of the reporting restrictions;
(e) whether or not the contempt was aggravated by subsequent defiance or lack of remorse;
(f) the scale of sentences in similar cases, albeit each case must turn on its own facts;
(g) the antecedents, personal circumstances and characteristics of the contemnor;
(h) whether or not a special deterrent was needed in the particular circumstances of the case.

Citations:

Ind Summary 25-Jul-1994, Times 19-Jul-1994, [1995] 2 Cr App R 23

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Re Yaxley-Lennon (Aka Tommy Robinson) CACD 1-Aug-2018
Need for clarity in Contempt Allegation
The defendant appealed from his convictions for contempt of court, being said to have broadcast details of criminal prosecutions despite orders to the contrary. He argued that any failure of procedure was fatal to the prosecutions.
Held: As to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87378

Thomas Reckley v Minister of Public Safety and Immigration and Others (Bahamas) (No 2): PC 6 Feb 1996

(The Bahamas) The actual exercise of the prerogative of mercy by a state falls outside the scope of the law. No further stay of execution granted.

Citations:

Times 06-Feb-1996, [1996] UKPC 1, [1996] 1 All ER 562

Links:

Bailii, PC, PC

Constitutional, Criminal Sentencing, Commonwealth

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85921

Regina (Pearson Martinez and Hirst) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Others; Hirst v Attorney-General: QBD 17 Apr 2001

A law which removed a prisoner’s right to vote whilst in prison was not incompatible with his human rights. The implied right to vote under article 3 was not absolute, and states had a wide margin of appreciation as to how and to what extent the right should be limited, provided that the conditions should not curtail the rights to such an extent as to remove their effectiveness, and should only be imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim, and should not be disproportionate.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy

Citations:

Times 17-Apr-2001, Gazette 07-Jun-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 239

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Representation of the People Act 1983 3 (1), European Convention on Human Rights 3

Cited by:

Appeal from – Hirst v The United Kingdom (No. 2) ECHR 30-Mar-2004
(Commission) The prisoner alleged that the denial of his right to vote whilst in prison was disproportionate. He was serving a life sentence for manslaughter.
Held: The denial of a right to vote was in infringement of his rights and . .
Appeal from – Hirst v United Kingdom (2) ECHR 6-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The applicant said that whilst a prisoner he had been banned from voting. The UK operated with minimal exceptions, a blanket ban on prisoners voting.
Held: Voting is a right not a privilege. It was a right central in a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Elections, Prisons, Elections, Human Rights

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85999

Practice Statement (Juveniles: Murder Tariffs): CACD 27 Jul 2000

Legislation is to be enacted to set the tariff for life sentences for youths to be sentenced to life for murder. Until enacted the Lord Chief Justice gave recommendations for both existing and new cases, and the Home Secretary will follow them. Before making a recommendation the Lord Chief Justice will seek representations from the lawyers acting for the detainee, and from the Director of Public Prosecutions who should include representations made on behalf of the family of the deceased. ‘Before I make a recommendation to the Home Secretary, in both new and existing cases, I shall invite written representations from the detainees’ legal advisers and also from the Director of Public Prosecutions who may include representations on behalf of victim’s families and ‘Before the first such cases are put before me to make a recommendation to the Home Secretary, it is appropriate for the general principles which will guide me in recommending tariffs to be made public. This is because it is right that the process by which tariffs are set should be open to public scrutiny. When making recommendations to the Home Secretary in such cases I will announce my reasons in open court after taking into account any written representations I receive.’

Judges:

Lord Chief Justice

Citations:

Times 09-Aug-2000, [2000] 1 WLR 1655

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Replaced – Practice Statement (Crime: Life sentences) LCJ 31-May-2002
The statement followed the report of the Sentencing Advisory Panel of March 15, 2002. The statement contained guidance, not firm rules. The phrase ‘minimum term’ should replace the term ‘tariff’. Offenders are normally not released on the expiry of . .
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Dudson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Lord Chief Justice Admn 21-Nov-2003
The applicant had been sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. He sought a judicial review of the Lord Chief Justice’s recommendation to the Home Secretary for the minimum term he was to serve.
Held: In exercising this function, . .
Cited – Dudson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 28-Jul-2005
The defendant had committed a murder when aged 16, and after conviction sentenced to be detailed during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. His tarriff had been set at 18 years, reduced to 16 years after review.
Held: ‘What is at issue is the general . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85002

Director of Public Prosecutions v Humphries: QBD 3 Dec 1999

Following a conviction for driving with excess alcohol, the defendant argued that the short (nil) distance driven constituted a special reason for not disqualifying him. The court said that the magistrates were entitled to take into account the defendant’s intention, over and above what had actually been achieved by him in driving away.

Citations:

Times 03-Dec-1999

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a), Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 Sch 2

Citing:

Interpreted – Chatters v Burke QBD 1986
A car had rolled over and stopped in a field next to the highway and was then driven with a flat tyre a few yards from the field through a gate, onto the road and parked there.
Held: In determining whether special reasons existed to justify . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80010

Curley v United Kingdom: ECHR 28 Mar 2000

A prisoner was sentenced to be detained during her majesty’s pleasure, but given a tariff which expired in 1987. Reviews of his continued detention did not lead to his release. He complained that the system of reviews by a Parole Board whose recommendations for release were subject to approval by the Home Secretary did not allow his detention to be reviewed by a court with the power to order his release. This was a breach of his rights, as also was the absence of any system for compensating him.
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Violation of Art. 5-5; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings

Citations:

Times 05-Apr-2000, 32340/96, [2000] ECHR 122, [2000] ECHR 122, (2001) 31 EHRR 14, [2000] Prison LR 65, (2000) 31 EHRR 401

Links:

Worldii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights article 5.4

Cited by:

Judgment – Curley v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-Mar-2011
(Execution of judgment) – Examination closed on satisfaction . .
Cited – Osborn 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79714

Criminal Proceedings Against Calfa: ECJ 21 Jan 1999

A provision by a member state that a national from another member state could be expelled for life on conviction for certain drug offences and without consideration of his personal circumstances or the threat posed was contrary to Community law.

Citations:

Times 21-Jan-1999, C-348/96, [1999] EUECJ C-348/96

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

ECTreaty 177

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79657

Leeworthy v Regina: CACD 2010

The offender pleaded guilty at the first opportunity to supplying heroin and cocaine. He took undercover police officers to an address. Supplied with money, the offender went inside and emerged with the drugs which he then handed over. He had a bad criminal record, including ten convictions for simple possession of drugs. He was treated, as were these offenders, as a facilitator. He was in breach of bail and in breach of a suspended sentence for which he received a consecutive sentence. His sentence was reduced in respect of that single offence to three years’ imprisonment from four years.

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Crim 464

Cited by:

Cited – Attorney General’s Reference Nos 61, 62 and 63 of 2011 CACD 27-Oct-2011
The AG appealed against sentences imposed on the several defendants for supplying Class A controlled drugs. The sentencer had applied recently proposed guidelines, sentencing them as having low grade involvement in the supply of high quality drugs. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.449750

Foxley’s Case: 1572

If a man steals goods and brings them into a manor and there leaves them, in a home or in the custody of any one, or hides then, and afterwards flies, these goods are not waif.
Waif is where the felon in pursuit waives the goods, or from fear of being apprehended flies and waives the goods.
If the thief in his flight waives goods they were forfeited, if the felon on fresh suit is not attainted at the suit of the owner.
*If a man flies for felony his proper goods are not forfeited till it be found by indictment before the coroner; in case of death, or otherwide lawfully found of record, on acquittal that he fled for the felony.
* Things forfeited by matter of record, as bona fugitivorum, cannot be claimed by prescription *
* But waif, estray, treasure, trove, wreck, andc. which may be gained by usage without record may be prescribed for.*
* If man be tried for felony and acquitted and, the jury find he did not fly, yet his goods are forfeited by force of the the finding the flying before the coroner on the indictment found super visum corporis, if it be in the case of the death of a man *
* If a felon flies and is killed in pursuit, all his goods and chattels are forfeited, upon this matter being presented before the coroner, andc. *
*If a man kills a thief who would rob him, if the thief does not retreat he shall lose nothing *
* the 18th Eliz. makes the party as capable to purchase goods as if he had made his purgation or obtained his pardon *
* The common law notwithstanding purgation, the party forfeited his goods which he had before purgation or obtained his pardon. *
* Pardon of the burning of the hand discharges the punishment and pardon before conviction prevents the forfeiture. *

Citations:

[1572] EngR 149, (1572-1616) 5 Co Rep 109, (1572) 77 ER 224

Links:

Commonlii

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.432115