sentencing – Page 159 – Current Awareness

Regina v Goss – WLR Daily

Posted March 30th, 2016 in appeals, child abuse, law reports, rape, sentencing, sexual offences by sally

‘The defendant pleaded guilty to three charges of rape … one charge of aiding and abetting rape, two charges of indecent assault and one charge of indecency with a child. He was initially sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment on each of the rape charges and on the aiding and abetting rape charge, and four years’ imprisonment on each of the other charges, the seven sentences to run concurrently. The sentences of 16 years were calculated by taking a starting point of 24 years and deducting one-third for the guilty pleas. Some four weeks later the sentencing judge had the case re-listed and, in reliance on the “slip rule” in Crim PR r 28.4, he changed the four sentences of 16 years to 18 years on the footing that a reduction of 25%, not one-third, was appropriate in view of the fact that the defendant had made no admissions when, much earlier, the complainant had made complaints but no prosecution had resulted. The defendant appealed against sentence. Permission to appeal was given by the single judge on the ground that it had been established in R v Nodjoumi (1985) 7 Cr App R (S) 183 that it was incorrect to use the slip rule to change a sentence solely because the sentencing judge had, on reflection, concluded that the original sentence had been inadequate. On the hearing of the appeal, however, R v Nodjoumi was relied on only as support for a submission that the sentencing judge had not been justified in concluding that the reduction should be 25% rather than one-third.’

WLR Daily, 23rd March 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina v Nguyen – WLR Daily

Posted March 30th, 2016 in appeals, attempts, evidence, grievous bodily harm, law reports, sentencing, time limits, weapons by sally

Regina v Nguyen, Attorney General’s Reference No 79 of 2015

‘The defendant pleaded guilty to attempting to inflict grievous bodily harm contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and to having an offensive weapon contrary to section 1(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. He was sentenced to three years and four months’ imprisonment and 12 months’ imprisonment respectively. The Attorney General applied to the Court of Appeal under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for leave to refer the sentence as unduly lenient. At the same time the prosecution applied to the Crown Court under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 for the sentence to be varied on the grounds that new material showed that, contrary to the way in which the case had been presented at the sentencing hearing, the complainant had been specifically targeted by the defendant. The time limit for making a variation order was subsequently extended by a Crown Court judge, and a variation order was later made by the sentencing judge. The defendant appealed against the varied sentence. On the hearing in the Court of Appeal it was common ground that there was no power to extend the time limit for the making of a variation order, so that the variation order had been invalid.’

WLR Daily, 23rd March 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina v Roberts (Mark) and others- WLR Daily

Posted March 30th, 2016 in appeals, criminal justice, dangerous offenders, detention, human rights, interpretation, judicial review, jurisdiction, law reports, proportionality, sentencing, time limits by sally

Regina v Roberts (Mark) and others [2016] EWCA Crim 71

‘In each of the 13 applications before the court, the applicants applied for an extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal against sentences of imprisonment or detention for public protection (“IPP”)), imposed between 2005 and 2008 under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Before the sentence of IPP was amended by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, the court was required to make the assumption that an offender was dangerous if he had been convicted on an earlier occasion of a specified offence, unless it was unreasonable to do so. Where he was found to be dangerous, and over 18, the court was required to pass a sentence of IPP or life imprisonment; the 2003 Act removed all discretion from the court once it was found that the offender was dangerous. All the applicants had either been detained in custody long after the expiry of the minimum term or had been recalled for breach of licence. The applicants submitted (1) that whatever might have been the position at the time the sentences of IPP were passed, the Court of Appeal had power under section 11 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to pass sentences that, in the light of what had happened over the intervening years, now would be the proper sentence; (2) the Court of Appeal should reconsider the assessments made by sentencing judges in the light of R v Lang [2005] EWCA Crim 2864; [2006] 1 WLR 2509, and (3) a time could and had been reached when the length of the imprisonment was so excessive and disproportionate compared to the index criminal offence that it could amount to inhuman treatment under article 3 or arbitrary detention under article 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. That was because the detention no longer had any meaningful link to the index offence. A much delayed review of a sentencing decision could therefore be a mechanism the court could employ to avoid a breach of those Convention Rights. As the period now served by each of the applicants was so much longer than any conceivable determinate sentence would have required, the continued detention amounted to preventative detention and was therefore arbitrary. ‘

WLR Daily, 18th March 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Man jailed for killing friend who asked to be punched – BBC News

Posted March 30th, 2016 in guilty pleas, homicide, news, sentencing by sally

‘A man has been jailed for three years after killing a friend who asked to be punched in the face, police said.’