Hold Over
| Published date | 01 June 2002 |
| Date | 01 June 2002 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455050204900229 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
The Court of Appeal has given further
guidance on what constitutes a violent
offence within the definition given by
PCC(S)A 2000 s161(3) (i.e. one “which
leads or is intended or likely to lead to a
person’s death or to physical injury”),
prompted by appeal against life
imprisonment imposed for false
imprisonment. The offender had broken
into the 71 year old victim’s home and
terrorised her in a bid to rob her. He had
sprayed her face with hairspray, causing
discomfort to her eyes, threatened her with
a walking stick, a screwdriver and his fist,
knocked her glasses off and placed his
hands round her throat, applying some
pressure. In consequence, her health had
suffered physically and mentally. As a
discretionary life sentence can only be
imposed for a violent or sexual offence,
the defence argued that this was not a
‘violent’ offence because the mere risk of
injury is insufficient to qualify; there must
be a probability of injury. The Court stated
that although the mere risk of injury is
insufficient, “it does not have to be shown
that injury was a necessary or probable
consequence. Conduct which could very
well lead to injury is ... properly
characterised as likely so to lead.” The
statutory definition is not restricted to
conduct likely to cause injury. Here, the
assault on the victim, given her age, had
been likely to lead to marks on her neck
and could very well have led to cardiac
arrest or vagal inhibition (interruption to
the nervous system regulating heart beat
and breathing). The life term was thus
upheld (though the specified tariff period
was reduced). R v SZCZERBA (2002) Times
10 April.
‘Violent’ Offenders
HOLD OVER
To continue reading
Request your trial