A judge had been right to refuse severance of a defendant’s indictment for child abduction from his co-defendants’ additional indictments for rape. The jury had not misunderstood the scope or nature of the case against the defendant, they had been directed carefully and the summing up had been clear.
APPLICATION TO SEVER INDICTMENT CHILD ABDUCTION CHILD ABDUCTION ACT 1984 s.2 CO-DEFENDANTS CRIMINAL PROCEDURE INDICTMENTS JURY DIRECTIONS RAPE s.2(1)(a) s.3 SEVERANCE SUMMING UP THREE CO-DEFENDANTS JOINTLY CHARGED WITH CHILD ABDUCTION TWO CO-DEFENDANTS CHARGED WITH RAPE
A sentence of three-and-a-half years’ imprisonment imposed following an offender’s conviction for kidnapping a 10-year-old child and inciting her to engage in sexual activity was not unduly lenient given the circumstances, which did not fit within the sentencing guidelines and included a relatively short duration kidnap and the fact that no sexual activity had taken place.
BUT NO ACTUAL CAUSING CHILDREN TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY CHILD ABDUCTION CHILD SEX OFFENCES COMMITTING AN OFFENCE WITH INTENT TO COMMIT A SEXUAL OFFENCE KIDNAPPING NON-APPLICABILITY OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES SENTENCING SENTENCING GUIDELINES SEXUAL ACTIVITY SHORT-DURATION KIDNAPPING OF 10-YEAR-OLD CHILD AND INCITEMENT TO ENGAGE IN UNDUE LENIENCY
Possible confusion caused by conflicting good and bad character directions to the jury was sufficient to make an appellant’s conviction for attempting to abduct a child unsafe.
ATTEMPTED ABDUCTION OF CHILD ATTEMPTS CHARACTER CHILD ABDUCTION CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.101(1)(d) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE EFFECT OF CONFLICTING GOOD AND BAD CHARACTER DIRECTIONS ON SAFETY OF CONVICTION EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 1950 art.8 HUMAN RIGHTS INDECENT ASSAULT JURY DIRECTIONS RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE s.101(3) s.112 SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDERS
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. However, in the circumstances, the judge was correct to impose imprisonment for public protection.
ASSESSMENT OF DANGEROUSNESS CHILD ABDUCTION CHILD SEX OFFENCES CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1991 s.2 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.229 CRIMINAL LAW DANGEROUSNESS GUILTY PLEAS IMPRISONMENT FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION LEGISLATIVE INTENTION Part 2 PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE RESTRICTIONS RISK OF REOFFENDING s.224(3) s.225 s.225(2) s.225(3) s.229(2) s.229(2)(b) s.229(2)(c) SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING SENTENCING WITHOUT PRIOR JUDGMENT SEXUAL ASSAULT TRIAL OF ISSUE CONCERNING PREVIOUS ALLEGATIONS TRIAL WITHOUT JURY TRIALS OF ISSUE
Consecutive sentences totalling 12 years’ imprisonment, comprising of three years for indecent assault and nine years for the abduction of an eight year old boy, imposed under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 s.2(2)(b), were inappropriate as both counts reflected one course of conduct, and whilst a longer than commensurate term was required for the indecent assault, in view of the seriousness of the offence, a term of eight years was appropriate, to be served concurrently to the other.
CHILD ABDUCTION CHILDREN CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1991 s.2(2)(b) EXTENDED SENTENCES INDECENT ASSAULT LEGAL REASONING PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC SENTENCING SEXUAL OFFENCES
Please use the form below to make contact. Your email will be responded to promptly (we endeavour to respond to all email enquiries within one hour). Alternatively, you can call Stephen's firm, Twelve Tabulae Limited, on +44 (0) 203 846 5801.