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 thirds.
Held: Article 7.1 prohibits the imposition of a penalty which is heavier than the one that was ‘applicable’ at the time that the offence was committed. Applying Coeme, the maximum sentence in 1985 as in 1995 was life imprisonment. There was no infringement of article 7.1.
As to article 7, the House expressly rejected the contention that it was concerned with the penalty ‘which the court could in practice have been expected to impose’. Lord Rodger pointed out, that that would involve ‘speculative excursions into the realm of the counterfactual’. What matters is the maximum penalty permitted.
Judges:
Lord Steyn Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Baroness Hale of Richmond Lord Carswell
Citations:
[2004] UKHL 38, Times 13-Aug-2004, [2004] UKHRR 1031, [2004] 4 All ER 1, [2004] 1 WLR 2278
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Justice Act 1991, European Convention on Human Rights 7(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina on the Application of Uttley v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 30-Jul-2003
Licence conditions imposed at the time of sentence would restrict the defendant after he had served his sentence and been released, and so operated as a heavier penalty, and section 33(1) was incompatible with the defendant’s Art 7.1 rights.
Cited – Practice Statement (Crime: Sentencing) LCJ 1992
1. Sections 32 to 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 come into force on 1 October 1992. They make radical changes with regard to sentences.
2. Remission is abolished.
3. Parole will affect only those sentenced to four years’ . .
Cited – Regina v Cunningham CACD 1993
Referring to the 1992 Practice Statement on sentencing following introduction of the 1991 Act, Lord Taylor of Gosforth CJ said: ‘The Practice Statement does not require an arithmetically precise calculation to be made. Its object was to give general . .
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 – Coeme 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 . .
Cited – Welch 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 . .
Distinguished – Regina 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 . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – Regina on the Application of Uttley v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 30-Jul-2003
Licence conditions imposed at the time of sentence would restrict the defendant after he had served his sentence and been released, and so operated as a heavier penalty, and section 33(1) was incompatible with the defendant’s Art 7.1 rights.
Cited – Clifford, 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 . .
At HL – Uttley v United Kingdom ECHR 29-Nov-2005
. .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.199851