header-logo header-logo

12 February 2025
Issue: 8104 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Prison terms for kidnap & blackmail

Judges have, for the first time, been issued with sentencing guidelines on blackmail, kidnap and false imprisonment.

The first guideline, published this week by the Sentencing Council, covers blackmail under the Theft Act 1968, which generally involves demands for money or other property coupled with threats to the victim.

The guideline recognises the psychological harm and distress caused. It suggests a range of four to ten years in custody for the most serious offences in terms of culpability and harm, such as repeated or prolonged conduct, sophisticated planning, use of violence and deliberate targeting of particularly vulnerable victims. A high-level community order may be imposed for the least serious offences, for example, where the property demanded would ‘represent a limited loss’ to the victim.

Under the second guideline, on the common law offences of kidnap or false imprisonment, individuals may receive a high-level community order for the least serious levels of offence, and up to 16 years’ custody where there is high culpability and the highest level of harm.

The guideline allows the courts to recognise that false imprisonment in particular often occurs within the context of domestic abuse.

Sentencing Council member Mrs Justice May said the offences ‘are personal in nature, can leave victims feeling distressed and violated, and are often committed in cases involving domestic abuse.

‘The new guidelines from the Sentencing Council will enable the courts to take a consistent approach to sentencing these offences and help them pass sentences that recognise the full extent of the devastating impact these crimes can have on victims’ lives.’

The Sentencing Council consulted on the draft guidelines last January, receiving a ‘broadly positive’ response. For both draft guidelines, about half of those responding felt the proposed sentence levels were about right.

The guidelines, which apply to adults, come into effect on 1 April.

Issue: 8104 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Firm expands in London and Leeds with dual merger

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Private wealth and real estate firmpromotes two to partner and five to senior associate

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Agile firm expands employment team with two partner hires

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll