header-logo header-logo

18 October 2007
Issue: 7293 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Sentencing

R v Green [2007] EWCA Crim 2172

This case concerned the dangerous offender provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It was held that CJA 2003, s 225 does not require a nexus between the particular facts of the particular offence and the finding of dangerousness.

Once a defendant has been convicted of a serious offence within the meaning of the Act, whatever the facts and nature, it is perfectly possible for a finding of dangerousness to be made on the basis of material which has no close relationship to the actual offence for which sentence is being passed. In practice such cases will no doubt be very rare, but there is, said the court, no doubt as to the position in principle.

In R v Shan [2007] EWCA Crim 1861; [2007] All ER (D) 43 (Oct) the defendant was sentenced to 15 months’ detention in a young offender institution. He appealed against sentence, contending that the sentence was unlawful because s 101(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 stipulates that the terms of a detention and training order shall be four, six, eight, 10, 12, 18 or 24 months.

It was held that the only reason why 15 months is not available as a detention and training order is that the detention and training regime is geared to specific programmes of work and training which can not readily be adapted on a daily or weekly basis. There is no philosophical reason why a 15-month detention and training order could not exist.

In this case, the imposition of that sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. Note: it is respectfully submitted that this decision is inconsistent with the clear wording of the statute and so it might have been more appropriate to correct the sentence by reducing it to 12 months.

Issue: 7293 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll