In Court
| Date | 01 June 1989 |
| Published date | 01 June 1989 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455058903600213 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
82
IN
COURT
Time
Counts
A
defendant
had
received 5
years
imprisonment
for
burglary
but
this
was
varied
on
appeal
to
a
’last
chance’
pro-
bation
order,
after
he
had
already
spend
10
months
in
custody.
During
the
life
of
the
order
he
was
convicted
of
a
fresh
offence
of
GBH.
He
was
now
sentenced
to
3
years
for
the
assault
and
5
years
consecutive
for
the
original
burglary.
On
appeal
in
R v
McDON-
ALD
(Crim
LR
March
1989)
the
Court
of
Appeal
held
that
the
term
for
bur-
glary
should
be
reduced
by
15
months
to
reflect
the
time
already
served.
On
Probation
in
Custody
If
a
defendant
is
placed
on
probation
for
three
years
and
shortly
afterwards
commits
a
further
similar
offence,
is
it
proper
for
the
court
dealing
with
the
new
matter
(3
months
after
the
making
of
the
probation
order}
to
impose
9
months
imprisonment,
but
not
deal
with
the
original
offence?
In
R
v
ROWSELL
(rim
LR
April
1989)
the
defence
argued
that
the
second
sen-
tencer
should
not
have
passed
a
prison
sentence
whilst
a
probation
order
was
in
force
and
that
in
consequence
the
probation
order
was
no
longer
in
effect.
The
Court
of
Appeal
held
the
sec-
ond
sentencer’s
decision
was
sound.
What
should
happen
in
such
cases
depended
on
the
individual
facts.
is
the
offender
showing
a
flagrant
disregard
for
the
order%
opportunity,
or
has
the
order
had
insufficient
time
to
have
an
impact?
Will
the
custodial
term
leave
to
little
probation
time
remaining
as
to
render
the
order
futile?
Is
it
desirable
to
‘tidy
up’
the
defendant’s
liability
to
various
sentences
and
orders
so
that
they
do
not
continue
to
have
prolonged
effect
unfairly
or
when
their
original
purpose
can
not
longer
be
accom-
plished ?
Here
the
order
would
continue
to
operate
for
a
long
period
after
the
appellant’s
release
and
remained
a
valid
order,
unaffected
by
the
temporary
absence
in
custody.
Fine
Times
Two
defendants
convicted
at
Crown
Court
of
wounding
with
intent
(a
street
attack
with
a
bottle
whilst
under
the
influence
of
drink)
were,
in
addition
to
suspended
sentences,
ordered
to
pay
fines,
costs
and
compensation
totalling
k4,000
and
~1,800,
by
monthly
instal-
ments
over
30
months.
They
appealed,
arguing
that
these
financial
penalties
were
too
high
and
the
length
of
time
to
pay
too
long.
The
Lord
Chief
Justice
in
the
Court
of
Appeal
(R
v
OLLIVER
The
Times
January
28
1989)
approved
the
sen-
tencer’s
wish
to
keep
people
who
could
be
sentenced
otherwise
out
of
valuable
prison
places,
particularly
because
the
judge
wished
to
save
the
defendants’
’ successful
carpentry
business
upon
which
23
employees
depended.
A
belief
had
grown
up
that
payment
by
‘instalment
order’
should
not
be
made
to
run
for
a
period
of
much
longer
than
12
months,
but
there
was
no
such
prin-
ciple.
There
was
nothing
wrong
in
the
repayment
period
being
longer,
even
much
longer,
providing
it
was
not
an
undue
burden
and
so
too
severe
a
pun-
ishment,
having
regard
to
the
nature
of
both
the
offence
and
the
offender.
A
To continue reading
Request your trial