In Court
| Date | 01 March 1988 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455058803500117 |
| Published date | 01 March 1988 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
of public opinion. The possibility of bailing a
defendant ’Who deserved a -priSon senae1lC&’
to a
hostel, in the hope that-they might react favourably,
was a valuable weapon in sentenclng. R v
WILKINSON, Court of Appeal (The Times, 28
November 1987).
PO Attacked : Disproportionate
Sentencing
In R
v
SMITH
(Cnm LR February 1988) The Court
of
IN COURT
Appeal reviewed a sentence of five years
imprisonment imposed for unlawful wounding (cuts
and bruises) of a probation officer making a home
visit. The defendant had previously received in-
patient psychiatric treatment, but current psychiatric
Breach of CS: Is Custody Justified?
evidence indicated that his condition was not
How
legitimate is it for a court to impose a custodial
responsive to medication and he was unlikely to
sentence on an offender under
21 who is in breach of
cooperate in hospital.
a community service order, having regard to the
Decision: This was a comparatively mild attack, not
criteria in CIA 1982 sl(4) restricting the use of
involving a weapon, and the sentence was out of all
cu~tc~y~? This arose in R v SENIOR (Crim. LR,
proportion to the offence, unjusti~able on the basis of
December 1987) in an appeal by an 18 year old male
punishment, deterrence, retribution or the protection
with no previous convictions against sentence of 18
8
of the public. The judge’s comment that he hoped The
months’ youth custody, imposed after failure to
defendant could be transferred later to a hospital was
complete 160 hours’ CSO originally made for an
not appropriate; it was not the function of the
offence of robbery. The SER suggested his failure 10
sentencing judge to express views ’about whether or
work was linked to his leaving home after the order
how prisoner should be treated whilst in custody,
was made, reported that he was now back with his
either medically or otherwise’. 18 months substituted.
parents and recommended a probation order.
The
Court
decided that it was deaf me appellant was
...
To continue reading
Request your trial