A sentence with a minimum term of nine years and three months’ imprisonment imposed for nine counts of rape was quashed as the minimum term had been wrongly increased by six months to reflect a breach of a suspended sentence imposed for breach of a sexual offences prevention order. The offence for which the suspended sentence had been received was not a specified offence and therefore should not have been added to the minimum term.
BREACH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 Pt 12 s.224 MINIMUM TERM MINIMUM TERM INCREASED FOR BREACH OF SUSPENDED SENTENCE OFFENCE FOR WHICH SUSPENDED SENTENCE IMPOSED NOT SPECIFIED OFFENCE Pt 12 s.225 RAPE s.224 s.225 Sch.15 SENTENCING SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDERS SUSPENDED SENTENCES
The imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term of four-and-a-half years following an offender’s conviction for rape and kidnapping could not be faulted, notwithstanding the judge’s failure to set out her reasons for rejecting an extended sentence in her sentencing remarks. An extended sentence had undoubtedly been discussed at the relevant time, and the offender, who posed a serious risk to vulnerable women, was unlikely to comply with the licence conditions under the extended sentence regime.
APPROPRIATENESS OF SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 Pt 12 DANGEROUS OFFENDER POSING SERIOUS RISK TO VULNERABLE WOMEN DANGEROUSNESS EXTENDED SENTENCES IMPRISONMENT FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION JUDGE FAILING TO SET OUT REASONS FOR REJECTING IMPOSITION OF EXTENDED SENTENCE IN SENTENCING REMARKS KIDNAPPING Pt 12 s.225 Pt 12 s.226 RAPE s.227 s.228 SENTENCING
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