In passing sentence for sexual assault, a judge had been entitled to take an adjusted starting point of six years’ imprisonment, as opposed to one of 12 months as recommended in the sentencing guidelines. The offence had been replete with aggravating factors and, save for a guilty plea, devoid of any mitigation. The judge had correctly observed that the guidelines were precisely such: guidelines, not tram lines.
AGGRAVATING FEATURES DANGEROUSNESS EXTENDED SENTENCES JUDGE TAKING STARTING POINT ABOVE THAT RECOMMENDED IN SENTENCING GUIDELINES NUMEROUS AGGRAVATING FACTORS WITH ONLY GUILTY PLEA IN MITIGATION OFFENDER ASSAULTING WOMAN IN TOILET CUBICLE PERSISTENT OFFENDERS SENTENCING SENTENCING GUIDELINES SEXUAL ASSAULT STARTING POINT
It had not been reasonably open to a district judge to exercise his power of committal to the Crown Court for sentence under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.3C in respect of an 11-year-old boy who had pleaded guilty to child sex offences. Having accepted jurisdiction prior to the guilty pleas, further information put before the court regarding the offender’s background and risk of reoffending was not sufficient to change the initial assessment of seriousness and risk.
CHILD SEX OFFENCES CHILD SEX OFFENCES COMMITTED BY 11-YEAR-OLD COMMITTAL FOR SENTENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 Pt 12 s.226(3) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DANGEROUSNESS JURISDICTION JURISDICTION INITIALLY ACCEPTED BY YOUTH COURT LAWFULNESS OF SUBSEQUENT COMMITTAL TO CROWN COURT FOR SENTENCE UNDER S.3C POWERS OF CRIMINAL COURTS (SENTENCING) ACT 2000 LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION MAGISTRATES’ COURTS ACT 1980 s.24(1) POWERS OF CRIMINAL COURTS (SENTENCING) ACT 2000 s.3C s.228 s.228(2) s.228(2A) s.3C(2) s.7 s.91 SENTENCING SENTENCING POWERS SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.5 YOUNG OFFENDERS YOUTH COURTS
Although imprisonment for public protection was a sentence of last resort, it was appropriate where there was nothing to say that the risk posed by a dangerous defendant would be significantly reduced by the time of the projected release date from a determinate or extended sentence.
ASSAULT OF CHILD UNDER 13 BY PENETRATION CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 DANGEROUSNESS IMPRISONMENT FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION NO EVIDENCE THAT RISK POSED BY OFFENDER WOULD BE REDUCED BY RELEASE DATE RAPE OF CHILD UNDER 13 SENTENCING UNLAWFUL SENTENCES
When sentencing an offender for making and distributing indecent images of children, a judge had been entitled to take a high starting point above the sentencing guidelines to reflect the scale, gravity and grotesqueness of the material before him. However, extended sentences relating to possession of such images had to be corrected as they exceeded the maximum sentences allowable.
CORRECTIONS TO POSSESSION SENTENCES WHERE ABOVE MAXIMUM SENTENCES ALLOWED CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1988 s.160 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND IMMIGRATION ACT 2008 s.63(7) DANGEROUSNESS EXTENDED SENTENCES GRAVITY AND SCALE OF MATERIAL HIGH STARTING POINT ABOVE SENTENCING GUIDELINES INDECENT PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN POSSESSION OF EXTREME PORNOGRAPHIC IMAGES SENTENCING UNLAWFUL SENTENCES
A judge could not be criticised for making a finding of dangerousness in respect of a man of previous good character who had repeatedly raped his wife. Imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term of eight years was not excessive. The fact that the offender had been brought up in Pakistan to believe that he had a right to rape his wife was no basis for leniency.
DANGEROUSNESS IMPRISONMENT FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION MINIMUM TERM RAPE REPEATED RAPE OF SPOUSE IN ARRANGED MARRIAGE SENTENCING SPOUSES WHETHER OFFENDER “DANGEROUS” OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE WHETHER OFFENDER’S NON-BRITISH UPBRINGING ENTITLED HIM TO SENTENCING LENIENCY
The decision of R. v Smith (Nicholas) [2011] UKSC 37, [2011] 1 W.L.R. 1795 did not undermine the long-established practice that the assessment of dangerousness involved addressing the question whether or not an offender would be dangerous when he would otherwise be released from a determinate sentence; it underlined the principle that the decision whether to make an order of imprisonment for public protection could only be made at the date of the sentencing hearing.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.225(1)(b) CRIMINAL LAW DANGEROUSNESS DATE AT WHICH JUDGE REQUIRED TO MAKE ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE RISK EFFECT OF R V SMITH ON INDETERMINATE SENTENCES IMPRISONMENT FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION INDETERMINATE SENTENCES Pt 12 s.225 Pt 12 s.225(1)(b) RAPE OF CHILD UNDER 13 RISK s.225 SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING
A minimum term of five-and-a-half years’ imprisonment for committing an offence with intent to commit a sexual offence was reduced to four-and-a-half years, because it was disproportionate to the five-year starting point for an actual single offence of rape.
COMMITTING AN OFFENCE WITH INTENT TO COMMIT A SEXUAL OFFENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.229 DANGEROUSNESS IMPRISONMENT FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION MINIMUM TERM OFFENDER INTENDING TO RAPE YOUNG WOMAN s.224 s.225 s.225(1)(b) s.225(b) s.62 s.62(4) Sch.15 SENTENCING SEXUAL OFFENCES SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.62(1)
A sentence of detention for public protection with a minimum term of two years imposed for attempted rape was manifestly excessive as the offender was only 16, was of previous good character and had pleaded guilty at the earliest point. The sentence was replaced with one of three years’ detention.
AGE ATTEMPTED ANAL RAPE OF 11-YEAR-OLD BOY ATTEMPTS CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.226(3A) DANGEROUSNESS RAPE s.226 s.226(2) s.226(3) s.228 s.229 s.229(1)(b) SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING SEXUAL OFFENCES YOUNG OFFENDERS
Offences committed by a young offender contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.13 were not serious specified offences for the purposes of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
ASSESSMENT OF DANGEROUSNESS CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.226 DANGEROUSNESS EXTENDED SENTENCES IMPRISONMENT FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION OFFENCES COMMITTED BY YOUTH NOT AMOUNTING TO SERIOUS SPECIFIED OFFENCES s.1(1) s.1(2) s.11(1) s.12(1) s.13 s.13(1) s.13(2)(b) s.224 s.224(2) s.226(3) s.7(2) Sch.15 SENTENCING SERIOUS SPECIFIED OFFENCES SEXUAL OFFENCES SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.7(1) YOUNG OFFENDERS
A sentence of imprisonment for public protection was inappropriate where there was evidence to suggest that a defendant’s repressed paedophilic tendencies could be controlled and minimised with effective treatment.
AGGRAVATING FEATURES CHILD SEX OFFENCES CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.225 DANGEROUSNESS DEFENDANT FORMING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH 13-YEAR-OLD GIRL IMPRISONMENT FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION MEETING CHILDREN FOLLOWING SEXUAL GROOMING MITIGATION REASONABLENESS OF SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH CHILDREN SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDERS
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.