In Court
Author | Nigel Stone |
DOI | 10.1177/026455050204900123 |
Published date | 01 March 2002 |
Date | 01 March 2002 |
8801-In Court 20/2/02 9:26 am Page 1
Dismissing the appeal, the Court of
Appeal agreed that a sentence of
imprisonment carries a certain stigma but
IN COURT the offender had been found fit to plead
and been convicted. It has been recognised
that there are instances where an offender
Nigel Stone, Senior Lecturer in the
presents such a serious and continuing
School of Social Work, University of
danger to public safety that a s37/s41
East Anglia, reviews recent appeal
order affords inadequate protection, a life
judgements and other judicial
sentence affording greater protection.
developments that inform sentencing,
There was no evidence that a life sentence
early release and court welfare
prisoner will not receive appropriate
practice.
medical treatment, the offender being in
the same institution as he would have been
under s37/s41. It could not be said that his
Mental Illness not
Convention rights had been infringed.
‘Exceptional
R v DREW (2002) Times 14 January.
Circumstances’
A defendant pleading guilty to s18
wounding, a frenzied attack with a kitchen
Young Offenders: PSRs
knife on a man who sought to intervene in
and Pre-Appeal
an altercation he was having with a pub
landlord, had a previous conviction for s18
Prison Reports
GBH, incurred less than five years
previously. He was thus liable to an
A young adult aged 20 pleaded guilty to
automatic life sentence under what is now
affray, having attacked another youth at a
PCC(S)A2000 s109. However, examining
railway station when drunk, biting him on
psychiatrists were unanimous that he was
the head. He had previous convictions,
suffering from a mental illness within the
including for assault and robbery. He was
terms of the Mental Health Act 1983 and
sentenced to 30 months YOI detention
that the appropriate course was a s37/s41
without a PSR. On his appeal, his counsel
hospital order with restriction. The trial
acknowledged that a custodial sentence
judge had expressed regret that he had to
was inevitable but argued that the term
pass a life sentence, but concluded that he
was excessive, given that the statutory
had no other option, given that the Court
maximum for affray is three years and in
of Appeal had earlier ruled that mental
the light of plea and mitigation. The Court
illness alone cannot constitute exceptional
of Appeal had wanted to know how he
circumstances justifying departure from
was using his time in prison and adjourned
the expectation of a life sentence. He
the hearing for a report to be obtained.
appealed, arguing that the life sentence
In substituting a term of 21 months in
was in breach of the European Convention
the light of information from the prison
on Human Rights, Article 3 (prohibition of
probation officer, the Court emphasised
inhuman treatment) and Article 5 (right to
that, “particularly in the case of young
liberty). His representatives argued that it
offenders or those just over that age”, it is
is wrong to treat someone who is mentally
very valuable for the Appeal Court to have
ill as a deliberate wrongdoer deserving of
available to it a report from the institution
punishment and subject to a tariff set by
at which sentence is being served, setting
the court. Since his sentence he had been
out the appellant’s progress and behaviour,
transferred from prison to hospital under
the way he is responding and the use he is
MHA1983 s47.
making of his time. “If he is making
61
8801-In Court 20/2/02 9:26 am Page 2
constructive use of his time and his
factors, terms of twelve years were upheld
behaviour is good (for example, his tests
on a not guilty plea, notwithstanding that
for drugs are negative), that may be very
the offender was aged only 20.
helpful”, particularly in deciding whether
R v BEDIANKO and MARTIN (2001) Times
to intervene where a sentence is “near the
16 October.
borderline”. This is particularly the case
where there is no PSR. Furthermore, given
the absence of pre-sentence information
about this offender’s background, “it may
be useful for reconsideration to be given to
Discount for Guilty Plea
the desirability of courts requiring PSRs in
cases involving young defendants, even
Three recent appeal cases further illustrate
if ... a custodial sentence is inevitable”,
the principle of reduction of sentence in
since they are an important part of the
light of guilty plea.
process through which the courts and
1) Reviewing a term of 42 months
criminal justice agencies work together,
imprisonment imposed for possession of
and are a significant aid in sentence
cannabis with intent to supply, where the
planning and early release provision.
offender had indicated his intention to
R v ATKINS (2002) Times 14 January.
plead guilty at magistrates’court prior to
committal to Crown Court, the Court of
Appeal reiterated the importance of giving
maximum credit to those who plead guilty
before venue is determined. A discount
Drug-Related Violent
greater than one third will often be
Detention
appropriate, as in this instance. A term of
30 months was substituted. R v BARBER
In reviewing long terms of custody
[2001] Crim LR 998.
imposed for kidnapping and false
imprisonment imposed on offenders who
2) A man ejected from a supermarket
had committed these offences in the
had reacted by throwing a fire extinguisher
course of...
Dismissing the appeal, the Court of
Appeal agreed that a sentence of
imprisonment carries a certain stigma but
IN COURT the offender had been found fit to plead
and been convicted. It has been recognised
that there are instances where an offender
Nigel Stone, Senior Lecturer in the
presents such a serious and continuing
School of Social Work, University of
danger to public safety that a s37/s41
East Anglia, reviews recent appeal
order affords inadequate protection, a life
judgements and other judicial
sentence affording greater protection.
developments that inform sentencing,
There was no evidence that a life sentence
early release and court welfare
prisoner will not receive appropriate
practice.
medical treatment, the offender being in
the same institution as he would have been
under s37/s41. It could not be said that his
Mental Illness not
Convention rights had been infringed.
‘Exceptional
R v DREW (2002) Times 14 January.
Circumstances’
A defendant pleading guilty to s18
wounding, a frenzied attack with a kitchen
Young Offenders: PSRs
knife on a man who sought to intervene in
and Pre-Appeal
an altercation he was having with a pub
landlord, had a previous conviction for s18
Prison Reports
GBH, incurred less than five years
previously. He was thus liable to an
A young adult aged 20 pleaded guilty to
automatic life sentence under what is now
affray, having attacked another youth at a
PCC(S)A2000 s109. However, examining
railway station when drunk, biting him on
psychiatrists were unanimous that he was
the head. He had previous convictions,
suffering from a mental illness within the
including for assault and robbery. He was
terms of the Mental Health Act 1983 and
sentenced to 30 months YOI detention
that the appropriate course was a s37/s41
without a PSR. On his appeal, his counsel
hospital order with restriction. The trial
acknowledged that a custodial sentence
judge had expressed regret that he had to
was inevitable but argued that the term
pass a life sentence, but concluded that he
was excessive, given that the statutory
had no other option, given that the Court
maximum for affray is three years and in
of Appeal had earlier ruled that mental
the light of plea and mitigation. The Court
illness alone cannot constitute exceptional
of Appeal had wanted to know how he
circumstances justifying departure from
was using his time in prison and adjourned
the expectation of a life sentence. He
the hearing for a report to be obtained.
appealed, arguing that the life sentence
In substituting a term of 21 months in
was in breach of the European Convention
the light of information from the prison
on Human Rights, Article 3 (prohibition of
probation officer, the Court emphasised
inhuman treatment) and Article 5 (right to
that, “particularly in the case of young
liberty). His representatives argued that it
offenders or those just over that age”, it is
is wrong to treat someone who is mentally
very valuable for the Appeal Court to have
ill as a deliberate wrongdoer deserving of
available to it a report from the institution
punishment and subject to a tariff set by
at which sentence is being served, setting
the court. Since his sentence he had been
out the appellant’s progress and behaviour,
transferred from prison to hospital under
the way he is responding and the use he is
MHA1983 s47.
making of his time. “If he is making
61
8801-In Court 20/2/02 9:26 am Page 2
constructive use of his time and his
factors, terms of twelve years were upheld
behaviour is good (for example, his tests
on a not guilty plea, notwithstanding that
for drugs are negative), that may be very
the offender was aged only 20.
helpful”, particularly in deciding whether
R v BEDIANKO and MARTIN (2001) Times
to intervene where a sentence is “near the
16 October.
borderline”. This is particularly the case
where there is no PSR. Furthermore, given
the absence of pre-sentence information
about this offender’s background, “it may
be useful for reconsideration to be given to
Discount for Guilty Plea
the desirability of courts requiring PSRs in
cases involving young defendants, even
Three recent appeal cases further illustrate
if ... a custodial sentence is inevitable”,
the principle of reduction of sentence in
since they are an important part of the
light of guilty plea.
process through which the courts and
1) Reviewing a term of 42 months
criminal justice agencies work together,
imprisonment imposed for possession of
and are a significant aid in sentence
cannabis with intent to supply, where the
planning and early release provision.
offender had indicated his intention to
R v ATKINS (2002) Times 14 January.
plead guilty at magistrates’court prior to
committal to Crown Court, the Court of
Appeal reiterated the importance of giving
maximum credit to those who plead guilty
before venue is determined. A discount
Drug-Related Violent
greater than one third will often be
Detention
appropriate, as in this instance. A term of
30 months was substituted. R v BARBER
In reviewing long terms of custody
[2001] Crim LR 998.
imposed for kidnapping and false
imprisonment imposed on offenders who
2) A man ejected from a supermarket
had committed these offences in the
had reacted by throwing a fire extinguisher
course of...
To continue reading
Request your trial