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

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