Sentencing

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.