R v ALEXANDER JAMES TERRELL (2007)

It was inappropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment for public protection pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.225 on an offender convicted of making indecent photographs of children, because the link between the offending act of downloading images and the possible harm to children was too remote to satisfy the requirement that the […]

Read More

R v TERRY GORDON MYLES (2007)

The judge had erred in principle in imposing a sentence of imprisonment for public protection in respect of the appellant’s sexual assault of a child under the girl of 13; repetitive violent or sexual offending at a relatively low level without serious harm did not of itself give rise to a significant risk of serious […]

Read More

R v DAVID JOY (2007)

A sentence of imprisonment for public protection following an offender’s conviction for making indecent photographs of children was unreasonable where on the facts there was no significant risk of his causing serious harm to others. A sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment was substituted.

Read More

R v STEPHAN PAUL WALSH (2007)

The defendant, who had kissed a 20-year-old man with learning difficulties without consent, did not pose a significant risk of serious harm; therefore a term of imprisonment for public protection was inappropriate.

Read More

R v STUART FARRAR (2006)

A judge had been wrong to undertake a trial of an issue concerning a defendant’s alleged conduct prior to an offence that had neither been admitted nor proved by verdict and further erred in using his findings against that defendant to form the basis of an assessment of dangerousness under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. […]

Read More

R v KIM RAMPLEY (2006)

A finding that a defendant did not pose a risk of serious harm to the public within the meaning of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.229 did not preclude the court from imposing a sexual offences prevention order under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.104 on that defendant.

Read More

R v STEPHEN HOWARD LANG & 12 ORS (2005)

The court considered and gave guidance on the principles applicable to the new mandatory sentencing provisions for the protection of the public from dangerous offenders contained in Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.224 to s.229 and the factors that judges should take into account when deciding whether one of the new sentences must be imposed.

Read More