In court
| DOI | 10.1177/026455059504200416 |
| Published date | 01 December 1995 |
| Date | 01 December 1995 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
243
INCOURT
~1ii~¡~i’~¡j!¡¡ii’~i¡ii1~¡¡il!~~lj¡III~!I!~II’li¡!ij!!1!,’lt’j!i¡&dquo;!&dquo;il!’!!!!’!!~’I~’
!1¡íI,íílll!lii.jll¡II!!!_I!llíll’Îjíi~I!’,!!ji¡!
To
protect
her
husband
from
anticipated
disqualification
the
defendant,
a
mother
of
three
young
children,
with
no
previous
convictions,
stated
on
several
occasions,
despite
police
warnings,
that
she
had
been
driving
their
car
at
the
time
of
a
collision.
On
pleading
guilty
to
perverting
the
course
of
justice,
she
received
two
months
imprisonment;
her
husband
also
received
a
custodial
sentence.
The
Court
of
Appeal
indicated
that
though
this
was
not
a
spur
of
the
moment
act
and
would
normally
attract
a
custodial
sentence,
the
balance
was
here
tipped
in
favour of
a
community
sentence
because
her
children
would
otherwise
be
deprived
of
the
care
of both
their
parents.
R
v
WWJBIIEAD,
Crim
LR
September
1995.
>
~,I
,
MEN=
I;
If
a
defendant
has
spent
time
on
custodial
remand
awaiting
trial
for
an
offence
and
subsequently
receives
concurrent
sentences
both
for
that
offence
and
a
further
offence,
will
the
remand
period
count
towards
the
time
to
be
served?
Surprisingly,
the
Divisional
Court
in
R
v
GOVERNOR
OF
STYAL
PRISON
ex
parte
MOONEY
(Crim
LR
September
1995)
concluded
not
as
each
individual
sentence
attracts
credit
only
for
the
remand
time
attributable
to
the
particular
offence
for
which
it
is
ordered.
As
David
Thomas’
commentary
notes,
if
the
defendant
had
received
consecutive
sentences
for
the
two
offences,
together
totalling
the
same
as
the
concurrent
terms,
she
would
have
gained
full
credit
for
her
remand
time
as
this
would
have
counted towards
one
of
the
sentences.
Technical
differentiation
of
this
nature
seems
anomalous
and
unfair.
’
Having
previously
declined
to
give
sentencing
guidance
on
Ecstasy
offences,
the
Court
of
Appeal
has
now
received
detailed
evidence
about
the
drug
and
has
determined
that
it
should
be
dealt
with
on
the
same
basis
as
other
Class
A
drugs,
in
particular
heroin
and
cocaine
on
which
guidance
has
already
been
given.
Noting
that
Ecstasy
is
a
collective
name
for
three
amphetamine-based
drugs,
MDA,
MDMA
and
MDEA,
and
is
usually
supplied
in
tablet
form,
the
average
tablet
containing
100
milligrams
of
active
constituent,
the
Court
ruled
that
importers
of
5,000
tablets
or
more
(ie
500
grams)
should
expect
sentence
of
ten
years
and
upwards,
subject
to
considerations
of
plea,
the
offender’s
role
and
any
assistance
given
to
the
authorities.
Offenders
who
had
imported
1,071
and
1,585
tablets
had
sentence
reduced
to
five
and
six
years
respectively.
R
v
WARREN
and
R
v
BEELEY,
Crim
LR
October
1995.
~-/j%/
/ _ .
= j* ,g
fif/ _
;,;;
ms,
gj j
=j~
.§
~~~ ~.. ~~m~~~~~~~~%~P~~~~~ ~~~~
~B
!jj~,y~ _
,fi,;u,j,~
._
g,>.=-».
o: :»g~i:
D#.
Faced
with
a
woman
who
killed
her
husband
in
the
course
of
a
violent
and
drunken
argument,
after
he
had
hit
her,
offered
her
a
knife
and
invited
her
to
stab
him,
and
subsequently
pleaded
guilty
to
manslaughter,
on
grounds
that
she
did
not
intend
to
cause
grievous
bodily
harm,
the
Court
of
Appeal
overturned
three
years
imprisonment
and
imposed
a
probation
order.
The
Court
considered
that
there
were
exceptional
circumstances
arising
from
the
marital
history
of
violence,
abuse
and
provocation
against
her,
her
To continue reading
Request your trial