In Court
| Published date | 01 July 1993 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455059304000221 |
| Date | 01 July 1993 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
111
IN
COURT
Justifying
Custody
Sentencing
a
defendant
to
custody
for
three
residential
burglaries,
the
judge
merely
referred
to
the
total
of
offences.
This
was
criticised
by
the
Court
of
Ap-
peal
in
R
v
HUSBANDS
The
Times
9
March
1993
as
failing
to
comply
with
the
statutory
framework.
Sentencers
should
indicate
which
two
offences
they
had
in
mind
when
determining
that
a
custodial
sentence
is
justified
under
CJA
1991
sl(2)(a)
Activating
Suspended
Sentences
If
a
court
decides
to
activate
a
suspend-
ed
sentence,
is
the offence
for
which
the
suspended
sentence
was
passed
an
’associated
offence’
for
the
purpose
of
assessing
seriousness
under
CJA
criteria?
No,
said
the
Court
of
Appeal
in
R
v
CRAWFORD
The
Times
25
March
1993,
because
putting
the
suspended
term
into
effect
was
not
’passing
sentence’
for
the
original
offence.
Sentence
had
been
passed
on
the
earlier
sentencing
occasion.
It
thus
did
not
satisfy
the
definition
of
an
’associated
offence’
(CJA
1991,
s
31(2)).
’So
Serious’
Two
recent
decisions
give
some
sense
af
the
interpretation
of
the
’so
serious’
criteria
in
CJA
1991
sl(2)(a).
In
R
v
WINTERTON
(Crime
LR
April
1993)
the
defendant
had
caused
death
by
reckless
driving
when
he
had
tried
to
overtake
at
speed
in
his
father’s
powerful
car,
ig-
noring
the
double white
lines
and
his
restricted
view
of
the
road
ahead.
He
lost
control
and
killed
the
driver
of
an
on-coming
car.
The
Court
of
Appeal
held
that
’this
was
a
case
in
which,
if
the
public
at
large
knew
all
the
facts,
they
would
say
that
when
a
life
had
been
lost
through
the
deliberate
flouting
of
road
markings
at
excessive
speed,
only
a
custodial
sentence
was
appropriate’.
In
R
v
CORKHILL
(Crim
LR
April
1993)
the
offender
had
been
out
rat
shooting
when
he
fired
a
shot
at
a
14
year
old
boy
to
frighten
him,
hitting
him
in
the
leg.
The
pellet
had
to
be
removed
by
surgery.
The
Court
of
Ap-
peal
considered
the
offence
of
unlawful
wounding
’so
serious’,
though
personal
mitigation
allowed
reduction
of
sentence
length.
Conciliation
Confidentiality
Given
the
public
importance
of
con-
ciliation
in
family
proceedings
concer-
ning
children,
statements
made
by
either
of
the
parties
in
the
course
of
meetings
held
or
communications
made
for
the
purposes
of
conciliation
cannot
be
disclosed
in
proceedings
under
the
Children
Act
1989,
save
in
the
exceptional
case
where
such
a
state-
ment
indicates
that
the
maker
had
in
the
past
caused,
or
was
likely
in
future
to
cause,
serious
harm
to
the
wellbe-
ing
of
a
child.
This
’privilege’
meant
that
a
statement
prepared
by
a
con-
ciliator,
based
on
conciliation
meetings
in
which
both
parents
had
participated,
was
inadmissible
in
proceedings
for
residence
orders,
unless
both
parents
chose
to
waive
it.
The
only
narrow
exception
arises
if
the
trial
judge
exercises
a
discretion
to
admit
the
evidence,
if
the
public
in-
terest
in
protecting
the
child
outweighs
the
importance
of
confidentiality.
The
Court
of
Appeal
held
that
this
privilege
extended
to
’in
court
and
out
of
court,
voluntary
and
directed’
conciliation.
Re
D
The
Times
12
February
1993.
To continue reading
Request your trial