In Court
| DOI | 10.1177/026455058903600415 |
| Published date | 01 December 1989 |
| Date | 01 December 1989 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
(Crim LR October 1989), in which a
sentence of 6 months’ detention on a
woman
aged 19 for fraudulent use of
stolen cheques and credit cards, totall-
ing around £l,(100, was overturned and
a one year probation order substituted.
The Court reminded sentencers that
unless one of the criteria was met,
a
custodial sentence was not merely in-
appropriate but outwith the powers of
the Court.
IN COURT
However, two further cases have
shown some modification of approach.
In Hurren (The Times, June 8 1989)
and Monks (The Times, July 27 1989)
the Court held that an offence could
Gatekeepina Custody for
be considered ’so serious’ by reason of
Under 21 s
the full circumstances, including the
commission of other offences. Parlia-
The criteria by which a young offender
ment could not have intended that
’qualifies’ for a custodial sentence, as
each offence had to be viewed in com-
revised and strengthened by the
plete isolation as if only that crime had
Cri~txn~l fustic~ Act 1988, have receiv-
been committed. Custodial terms for
ed
recent
Court
of
Appeal
repeated criminal damage (3 charges,
interpretation.
plus 28 TICs) and for four burglaries
totalling £32,000 were confirmed.
’So Serious’: This criterion has
Thus it appears that a pattern of per-
created some uncertainty when a
sistent or systematic, planned offending
defendant faces more than one charge.
can contribute to satisfying the
Should each offence be weighed strict-
criterion. ’Seriousness’ must be con-
ly in isolation or can their total criminal
sidered in the light of the particular
behaviour accumulate to justify
facts, not simply by reference to the
custody? The 1987 case of Roberts had
bald description or definition of the
given the impression that each offence
crime: Poyner (Crim LR, Sept 1989).
should be viewed individually. In
Hassan and Khcan (Crim LR
Protection of
Public: Though we do
September 1989) the defendants ap-
not yet have guidance on the meaning
pealed against 18 months’ detention
of ’serious harm’ in...
To continue reading
Request your trial