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

NLJ Career Profile: Mark Hastings, Quillon Law

NLJ Career Profile: Mark Hastings, Quillon Law

Mark Hastings, founding partner of Quillon Law, on turning dreams into reality and pushing back on preconceptions about partnership

Kingsley Napley—Silvia Devecchi

Kingsley Napley—Silvia Devecchi

New family law partner for Italian and international clients appointed

Mishcon de Reya—Susannah Kintish

Mishcon de Reya—Susannah Kintish

Firm elects new chair of tier 1 ranked employment department

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll