header-logo header-logo

Sentencing

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

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll