It was a technical error to impose a single global extension period when sentencing for two or more offences by means of consecutive extended sentences. Simplicity was achieved by imposing one single extended sentence on one of the offences, and setting its terms having regard to all the other features of the case.
A sentence of a three-year supervision order imposed on a 17-year-old for offences of sexual assault on a child under 13 and causing a child to engage in sexual activity was not unduly lenient, as the long-term need for public protection required appropriate intervention that would not be provided by the imposition of a detention […]
Where a defendant made admissions of offences to a probation officer those admissions could be relied on by the prosecution. Although those situations would be unusual, the court could provide sufficient protection to the defendant to prevent unfairness.
