In Court
| Published date | 01 March 1989 |
| Date | 01 March 1989 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455058903600117 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
custodial sentence was not justified
and previous Court of Appeal guidance
had suggested that only a short period
of CS should be ordered where it was
not an ’alternative to custody’, then this
order was excessive. The Court of
Appeal held that the sentence was
proper and should stand.
AtMietMMt
Mitigation?
Can the fact that the motive for an
addict’s crime was to gain
IN COURT
money to
obtain drugs be a mitigating factor? No,
said the Court of Appeal in R v LAWR-
ENCE (The Times December 1 1988),
dismissing an appeal against 3
~Last€BMMM:e’
years im-
prisonment for burglary, imposed on a
Prabation
22 year old man who needed ~~0 per
What is proper sentencing approach to
day to control his heroin addiction. ’It is
the defendant with a substantial record
no mitigation whatsoever that a crime
for offences of no special gravity who
is committed to feed an addiction,
may
be at the point of becoming institu-
whether drugs, drink, gambling, sex,
tionalised through repeated prison
fast cars or anything else.’
terms, yet might be able to break the
pattern because of
Life
Sentence
Parole
some new hope in
his life? In R v ADAMSON (Crim LR
The Home Secretary can properly re-
January 1989) a 33 year old man was
fuse to accept the Parole Board’s re-
convicted of multiple dishonesty off-
commendation for the release of a pris-
ences
(entering university rooms, steal-
oner serving a ’discretionary’ life sent-
ing cash and cheque books) and, given
ence, even if there is no new evidence
20 previous convictions for 400 plus
before him. He may also base his refus-
similar offences, received a total of 5
al on suspected factors which cannot
years imprisonment.
be proved...
To continue reading
Request your trial