In Court
| DOI | 10.1177/026455059304000424 |
| Date | 01 December 1993 |
| Published date | 01 December 1993 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
234
IN COURT
8’B
,9~II
~i
;=J;/;
°°/w?
jA,5J.lj/..~?,.~;
+ic . ;
Where
the
offender
aged
27
had
committed
an
indecent
assault
on
a
girl
aged
6
which
was
neither
prolonged
nor
attempting
penetration
(he
put
his
hand
up
her
skirt
and
toucher
her
genital
area
through
her
knickers),
was
it
proper
to
impose
a
six
year
sentence
on
grounds
of
protecting
the
public
from
serious
harm?
Yes,
said
the
Court
of
Appeal.
The
offender
had
a
clear
pattern
of
sexual
fetishism,
having
eight
previous
convictions
since
age
16
for
indecent
assaults
on
women
by
touching
or
grabbing
at
their
knickers
and
there
was
clear
evidence
that
he
would
continue
to
commit
such
offences.
Indecent
assault
of
this
nature
might
well
lead
to
serious
psychological
injury
to
a
young
girl
and
some
adult
women
might
be
seriously
disturbed
by
such
conduct.
The
purpose
of
CJA
1991
s2(2)(b)
included
the
protection
of
women
less
robust
than
average,
who
might
be
vulnerable
to
this
kind
of
conduct.
The
court
is
obliged
to
exercise
the
powers
of
s2(2)(b)
where
the
necessary
conditions
are
satisfied.
Mitigation
such
as
the
offender’s
limited
intelligence,
the
guilty
plea
and
the
impulsive
nature
of
the
offence
will
carry
comparatively
limited
weight
in
such
circumstances.
R
v
BOWLER
Crim
LR
October
1993.
In
ATTORNEY
GENERAL’S
REFERENCE
No
34
OF
1993
(Crim
LR
October
1993),
the
offender
aged
38
with
no
previous
convictions
had
attacked
a
young
woman
whose
car
had
broken
down,
stabbing
her
in
the
shoulder
several
times
with
a
carving
knife,
albeit
causing
only
relatively
minor
injury.
Caught
18
months
later
in
possession
of
a
carving
knife
and
dagger
and
convicted
of
wounding
with
intent
and
possessing
an
offensive
weapon,
he
was
initially
sentenced
to
eight
years
imprisonment.
In
the
light
of
unanimous
medical
opmion
that
the
offender
represented
a
high
risk
to
women
and
that
his
condition
was
not
treatable
and
was
likely
to
persist
indefinitely,
the
Court
of
Appeal
substituted
life
imprisonment
to
give
proper
consideration
to
the
protection
of
the
public.
The
minor
injury
actually
inflicted
was
not
the
crucial
issue
and
could
have
been
merely
fortuitous.
l$
%
&dquo;
I
j
o
r,
I
@
o
&dquo;
w
,
R
v
BENNETT
(Crim
LR
October
1993)
presents
a
rare
example
of
a
domestic
burglary
which
the
Court
of
Appeal
did
not
consider
to
satisfy
the
’so
serious’
criterion.
The
offender
aged
20
broke
into
a
house
at
night,
knowing
that
the
occupier
was
away
on
holiday.
He
was
disturbed
by
a
neighbour
and
attempted
to
escape
empty-handed,
being
arrested
immediately.
Sentence
of
six
months
detention
was
quashed.
The
offender
had
several
previous
convictions
for
burglary
and
was
on
probation
at
the
time
of
the
offence,
so
a
custodial
sentence
might
now
be
indicated
in
the
light
of
the
revised
version
of
s29(1).
° .
o
o
&
+
’
*
oo
%
&
@
*
w
Before
being
placed
on
probation
for
taking
vehicles
without
consent,
the
offender
had
committed
a
burglary
and
was
subsequently
sentenced
to
young
offender
institution
at
Crown
Court.
The
Crown
Court
also
revoked
the
probation
order
and
imposed
a
consecutive
To continue reading
Request your trial