header-logo header-logo

20 September 2006
Issue: 7289 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Sentencing

R v Watty [2007] EWCA Crim 123, [2007] All ER (D) 219 (May)

In order to pass a sentence of imprisonment for public protection, the judge has to be satisfied that there is a serious risk of the defendant causing serious harm by the commission of further offences.

The test requires: (i) that there is evidence to conclude that there is a significant risk of the defendant committing further offences of the kind which might give rise to physical or psychological damage; and (ii) that there is a significant risk of his causing serious harm by so doing.

Repetitive sexual offending with relatively low or without serious harm does not of itself give a significant risk of serious harm in the future. Parliament cannot have intended a sentence of imprisonment for public protection for offences of a relatively minor nature which would at most result in a short term of imprisonment.

Issue: 7289 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson appoints Vicky Tomlinson as Head of Independent Health and Care

DWF—five appointments

DWF—five appointments

DWF further strengthens major injury and casualty offering with new partner and four directors from DAC Beachcroft

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis strengthens Grimsby child care team

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll