In Court
| Published date | 01 September 2000 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455050004700328 |
| Date | 01 September 2000 |
| Author | Nigel Stone |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
298
Nigel Stone, Senior Lecturer in the
School of Social Work, University of
East Anglia, reviews recent appeal
judgements and other judicial
developments that inform sentencing,
early release and court welfare
practice.
Exasperated that his ex-partner would not
pay anything towards their joint debts
incurred when they lived together and had
not responded to his letters requesting her
contribution, a man aged 25 wrote to her
indicating that if she did not pay £900 he
would circulate sexually explicit
photographs of her taken during their time
together. She had reason to fear that he
would publish these on the Internet. On
his guilty plea to blackmail, he was
sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.
While upholding that custody was
justified, the Appeal Court ruled that, in
the light of his previous good character, a
term of 12 months was adequate to satisfy
the necessary aim of deterrence.
R v KEWELL [2000] 2 Cr App R(S) 38.
As a further illustration of the approach to
racially motivated crime, in R v JESSON
[2000] 2 Cr App R(S) 200 a man aged 25
had intervened when police were trying to
arrest his cousin following a disturbance in
Leicester, shouting racist abuse in the face
of an officer of Asian origin, including
“Fuck off, Paki”. Agreeing that a custodial
sentence was justified on his guilty plea to
racially aggravated harassment (ie POA
1986 s4A), the Appeal Court noted that
the offender had subsequently apologised
to the officer and heeded his explanation
that while he had been racially abusive,
his conduct had not been racially
motivated but arose out of concern for his
cousin’s health and safety because,
unknown to the police, he suffered from
epilepsy. In the circumstances, sentence
was reduced from nine to six months.
Dealing with a man for indecent assault
(by grabbing the woman victim in the
street at night and attempting to pull down
her tights), and in the light of his five
previous convictions for offences of this
nature, a Crown Court judge imposed a
term of five years under CJA 1991
s2(2)(b) as a longer-than-commensurate
sentence to protect the public from serious
harm. The Court of Appeal agreed that
s2(2)(b) was applicable in these
circumstances but felt that the sentencer
had paid insufficient regard to the fact that
the offender, who suffered from
Asperger’s Syndrome, had made a
voluntary confession of guilt to staff at the
hostel where he lived, without which he
would not have been detected for this
assault. In the circumstances, it was more
appropriate to deal with him by way of a
two year commensurate custodial period
backed by a three year extension period.
Comment: This case illustrates the
choice that faces courts when dealing with
sexual or violent offenders who pose
continuing risk to the public, while
seeking to reflect factors of culpability and
mitigation. Under the proposed s2(2)(b)
sentence, this offender would have been
eligible for discretionary release after
serving 30 months, with automatic release
after 40 months, and the licence running
for either 15 or five months until the 45
month point. The alternative course of an
IN COURT
‘So Serious’ Extortion Bid
Public Protection: Longer
Sentence or Extended
Sentence?
Sentencing Racially
Motivated Crime
7147-In Court 11/12/00 3:27 pm Page 214
To continue reading
Request your trial