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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll