In Court
| DOI | 10.1177/026455059304000320 |
| Published date | 01 October 1993 |
| Date | 01 October 1993 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
169
IN COURT
@
a
.
w
~/
>
When
does
a
commercial
burglary
not
pass
the
’so
serious’
threshold?
Some
clue
to
the
Court
of
Appeal’s
thinking
was
given
in
R
v
TETTEH
(Crim
LR
August
1993),
the
only
case
of
burglary
of
any
kind
since
CJA
1991
considered
by
the
Court
not
to
qualify
for
custody.
The
offender
aged
35
had
broken
into
the
cellar
of
a
club
and
forced
open
the
spirits
store
but
was
spotted
before
anything
was
stolen.
Defence
counsel
had
conceded
at
trial
that
the
offence
was
’so
serious’
but
the
Court
of
Appeal
(Lord
Taylor
CJ
presiding)
held
that
the
opportunistic
nature
of
this
non-domestic
burglary
in
which
nothing
was
taken
made
a
community
sentence
appropriate.
Compare
R
v
DORRIES
AND
DORRIES
(Crim
LR
May
1993)
where
two
offenders
(20
and
28)
burgled
a
lock-up
shop
at
night
by
removing
bricks
from
a
rear
wall
and
stealing
goods
worth
£600.
They
had
used
a
hammer,
crowbar
and
a
radio
scanner.
They
drove
off
when
the
police
arrived
and
the
older
man
was
also
convicted
of
reckless
driving
in
a
bid
to
escape.
The
Court
of
Appeal
held
that
custodial
sentences
were
inevitable
for
both,
even
though
the
younger
man
had
no
previous
convictions.
j
~,
r
~~
~o
I
»
.
islim
During
the
course
of
inquiries
for
a
welfare
report
in
a
disputed
application
for
a
residence
order,
the
court
welfare
officer
gave
an
undertaking
to
an
informant
who
made
allegations
about
one
of
the
parents,
that
confidentiality
would
be
respected.
The
welfare
officer
sought
to
bring
the
allegations
to
the
court’s
attention
by
a private
letter
attached
to
the
welfare
report,
intending
that
this
should
be) seen
only
by
the
court
and
not
by
the
parents.
The
welfare
officer
had
also
informed
the
court
that
if
the
court
felt
disclosure
was
necessary
then
she
would
wish
to
withdraw
the
letter.
The
mother
appealed
successfully
against
refusal
to
disclose
the
letter.
The
Court
of
Appeal
held
that
the
welfare
officer
should
not
have
given
undertakings
of
confidentiality
nor
could
she
opt
to
withdraw
the
letter.
Her
evidence,
if
relevant,
was
compellable
unless
she
could
claim
privilege.
The
question
of
disclosure
was
a
matter
for
the
judge
and
not
for
the
welfare
officer
to
determine,
RE
G
77t~
Times
29
April
1993.
>
g
.
,
.
,
Two
recent
cases
of
assault
occasioning
actual
bodily
harm
illustrate
that,
in
the
eyes
of
the
Courts
of
Appeal,
the
threshold
of
seriousness
justifying
custody
may
be
quite
low.
Neither
offender
had
any
previous
convictions.
In
R
v
AUDIT
(Crime
LR
August
1993),
the
26
year
old
offender,
having
consumed
nine
pints
of
Guinness,
attacked
a
man
he
had
been
drinking
with,
punching
his
face
and
punching
him
again
as
he
lay
on
the
ground.
The
victim
required
stitches
to
a
cut
eyebrow
and
sustained
bruising
to
the
face
and
jaw
but
no
fractures.
Reviewing
sentence
of
six
months
imprisonment,
the
Court
of
Appeal
considered
that
this
unprovoked
gratuitous
drunken
attack
involving
repeated
blows
was
clearly
’so
serious’
but
felt
that
three
months
was
sufficient.
In
R
v
GRAHAM
(Crim
L,R
August
1993),
the
21
year
old
offender
became
involved
in
a
restaurant
argument.
When
invited
to
’go
outside’
by
the
victim,
she
struck
her
twice
in
the
face,
causing
To continue reading
Request your trial