header-logo header-logo

22 February 2007
Issue: 7261 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

SENTENCING

R v Gordon and others [2007] EWCA Crim 165

The Criminal Justice Act 1967, s 67 continues to apply to sentences of imprisonment imposed in relation to offences committed before 4 April 2005; offences committed on or after 4 April 2005 are governed by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, s 240, so that the court has to order a
reduction for time spent in custody on remand.

Where s 240 applies, once the court has decided that credit should be given, it should say so, and is entitled to adjourn for appropriate information to be provided about the relevant number of days. If the calculation has not been made, or the court is uncertain about the time served, but considers that, in principle, the time spent in custody should be treated as time served, the court might properly direct that the period will be deducted after the appropriate calculation has been made, and adjourn that part of the process.

Thereafter, the calculation should be made promptly and the final decision should, save in exceptional circumstances, be concluded within 28 days. However, even if delayed beyond that period, it is permissible for the crown court to deal with what is no more than the final implementation of its order.

Issue: 7261 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll