In Court
| Date | 01 September 1989 |
| Published date | 01 September 1989 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455058903600312 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
132
IN
COURT
Cannabis
and
the
Tariff
Back
in
1982
in
R v
ARAMAH
the
Court
of
Appeal
gave
general
guidelines
on
sentencing
in
drugs
cases,
including
the
importation,
supply
and
possession
of
cannabis.
For
example,
the
range
for
the
commercial
supply
of
cannabis
should
normally
be
between
one
and
four
years,
depending
upon
the
scale
of
operation.
In
R v
HEDLEY
(The
Times
June
13
1989)
the
Lord
Chief
Justice
con-
firmed
that
the
Aramah
guidelines
on
cannabis
still
apply.
The
defendant
had
pleaded
guilty
to
possession
of
nine
blocks of
cannabis
with
a
street
value
of
£8,000-£~0,000,
with
intent
to
supply,
and
was
sentenced
to
two
years’
imprisonment
plus
a
£5,000
fine
and
forfeiture
of
~200
found
on
him
at
time
of
arrest.
The
Court
of
Appeal
held
that,
given
the
amount
of
cannabis
involved
and
the
finding
of
dealing
paraphernalia
(scales
etc),
the
prison
term
was
appropriate.
However,
the
fine
should
be
quashed.
It
was
neither
punishment
because
that
was
meted
out
by
the
prison
term,
nor
removal
of
ill-gotten
gains
which
the
forfeiture
order
had
dealt
with.
GBH
to
ClMdren
Sentencing
for
offenders
of
grievous
bodily
harm
to
young
children
is
very
problematic.
The
Lord
Chief
Justice
has
now
given
some
broad
guidance,
in
dealing
with
R v
DURKIN
(lbe
Times
June
20
1989)
in
the
Court
of
Appeal.
The
defendant
in
a
sudden
loss
of
temper
had
thrust
his
19 Ih
months
old
hyperactive
and
difficult
son
into
a
bath
of
scalding
water
and
had
receiv-
ed
a
sentence
of
3’~
years
imprison-
ment.
His
appeal
relied
on
his
previous
good
character
and
his
psychiatric
problems.
Lord
Lane
stated
that
it
was
necessary
first
to
punish
for
this
kind
of
offence,
secondly
to
provide
some
sort
of
expiation
for
the
offender,
thirdly
to
satisfy
the
public
conscience
and
fourthly
to
deter
others
from
ac-
ting
likewise.
Here,
in
a case
of
sudden
loss
of
temper,
deterrence
of
others
did
not
come
into
it
and
the
defendant
was
never
going
to
repeat
such
behaviour.
The
least
sentence
required
as
punish-
ment
and
for
the
public
conscience
was
18
months.
Labour
Saving
The
Court
of
Appeal
has
disapproved
the
increasing
habit
of
seeking
an
up-
to-date
welfare
report
whenever
there
is
an
appeal
in
custody
and
access
cases.
Those
preparing
such
reports
are
’fully
stretched
and
grossly
overwork-
ed’
and
there
is
no
point
in
giving
them
extra
work
unless
it
is
really
going
to
assist
the
Court
of
Appeal
in
cases
where
the
judge
below
was
plainly
wrong.
It
is
better
if
the
order
for
a
fresh
report
comes
from
the
Court
of
Appeal
itself:
M v
M
(The
Times
27
April
1989).
Mental
Health
and
Sentencing
What
should
a
court
do
when
faced
with
a
defendant
with
clear
psychiatric
problems
linked
to
their
offending,
where
a
custodial
sentence
is
otherwise
a
strong
possibility?
In
R v
CART-
WRIGHT
(The
Times
April
18
1989)
a
To continue reading
Request your trial