In Court
| Published date | 01 March 1999 |
| Date | 01 March 1999 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/026455059904600126 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
59
IN COURT
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.
.
a
Two
boys
aged
16
sentenced
to
three
years
detention
under
section
53
of
the
Children
and
Young
Person’s
Act
1933
for
robbery,
sought
judicial
review
of
the
Home
Secretary’s
decision
to
allocate
them
to
Portland
Young
Offenders’
Institution
(YOI).
The
Home
Office
policy
in
question
has
been
to
require
’grave
crime’
detention
to
be
served
in
a
YOI
unless
there
are
exceptional
reasons
for
placement
in
a
community
care
establishment
(CCE).
This
is
in
contrast
to
Home
Office
Circular
31/1987
which
had
indicated
that
allocation
should
be
to
a
CCE
unless
there
were
particular
reasons
why
that
was
inappropriate.
The
Court
of
Appeal
has
upheld
the
present
policy
as
lawful.
Though
the
Secretary
of
State
has
to
consider
the
circumstances
of
each
young
person
individually,
an
approach
to
that
exercise
of
discretion
based
on
the
principle
that
YOI
should
be
the
normal
location
for
s53
detainees
was
in
line
with
the
statutory
provision
in
CJA
1982
slA
(introduced
by
CJA
1988)
that
those
detained
for
less
serious
crimes
should
serve
their
sentence
in
a
YOI.
It
would
be
inconsistent
with
Parliamentary
intent
if
those
who
committed
more
serious
offences
should
normally
serve
their
sentence
in
what
could
be
regarded
as
more
favourable
conditions.
The
Home
Secretary
was
right
to
apply
a
policy
that
is
&dquo;sensible
to
offenders
as
a
whole&dquo;.
In
viewing
s53
detainees
essentially
in
the
same
light
as
offenders
serving
shorter
slA
custodial
terms,
this
decision
appears
to
ignore
the
particular
developmental
needs
of
young
persons
held
for
longer
periods
of
their
adolescence
and
the
special
welfare
considerations
that
arguably
should
apply
to
those
who
have
committed
graver
crimes
and
are
generally
understood
to
have
been
exposed
to
more
adverse
childhood
experiences.
R
v
SECRETARY
OF
STATE
FOR
HOME
DEPARTMENT,
ex
parte
J
AND
B
The
Times
2
December
1998.
,.~i! i
’
Having
been
granted
political
asylum
in
Sweden,
an
Iranian
man
came
to
the
UK
where
he
was
convicted
and
imprisoned
for
drug
offences.
A
deportation
order
directed
his
removal
to
Sweden
on
release
but
the
Swedish
authorities
would
not
permit
his
return
because
of
his
conviction,
thus
remained
in
the
UK,
though
not
permitted
to
hold
employment,
and
sought
accommodation
from
a
local
authority
as
&dquo;a
person
in
need
of
care
and
attention&dquo;
under
the
National Assistance
Act
1948
s21 ( 1 ).
On
his
application
for
judicial
review
of
the
council’s
refusal
to
assist
him,
the
High
Court
has
ruled
that
though
an
illegal
entrant
or
overstayer
is
generally
not
entitled
to
benefit
from
their
wrongdoing
by
receiving
such
assistance,
unless
s/he
is
not
fit
to
travel
without
risk
of
serious
damage
to
health
or
life,
in
this
instance
the
applicant
had
no
choice
and
was
prevented
from
leaving
the
UK
by
factors
entirely
beyond
his
control.
The
Council’s
refusal
was
thus
quashed.
R
v
LAMBETH
BOROUGH
COUNCIL,
ex
parte
SARHANGI
The
Times
9
December
1998.
To continue reading
Request your trial