header-logo header-logo

Prison terms for kidnap & blackmail

12 February 2025
Issue: 8104 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail
Judges have, for the first time, been issued with sentencing guidelines on blackmail, kidnap and false imprisonment.

The first guideline, published this week by the Sentencing Council, covers blackmail under the Theft Act 1968, which generally involves demands for money or other property coupled with threats to the victim.

The guideline recognises the psychological harm and distress caused. It suggests a range of four to ten years in custody for the most serious offences in terms of culpability and harm, such as repeated or prolonged conduct, sophisticated planning, use of violence and deliberate targeting of particularly vulnerable victims. A high-level community order may be imposed for the least serious offences, for example, where the property demanded would ‘represent a limited loss’ to the victim.

Under the second guideline, on the common law offences of kidnap or false imprisonment, individuals may receive a high-level community order for the least serious levels of offence, and up to 16 years’ custody where there is high culpability and the highest level of harm.

The guideline allows the courts to recognise that false imprisonment in particular often occurs within the context of domestic abuse.

Sentencing Council member Mrs Justice May said the offences ‘are personal in nature, can leave victims feeling distressed and violated, and are often committed in cases involving domestic abuse.

‘The new guidelines from the Sentencing Council will enable the courts to take a consistent approach to sentencing these offences and help them pass sentences that recognise the full extent of the devastating impact these crimes can have on victims’ lives.’

The Sentencing Council consulted on the draft guidelines last January, receiving a ‘broadly positive’ response. For both draft guidelines, about half of those responding felt the proposed sentence levels were about right.

The guidelines, which apply to adults, come into effect on 1 April.

Issue: 8104 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

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