In Court
| Date | 01 June 2000 |
| Published date | 01 June 2000 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455050004700227 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
155
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.
,
.
’
f
A
boy
aged
15
was
before
a
youth
court
on
a
charge
of
burglary.
Following
his
conviction,
the
justices
considered
an
application
from
the
editor
of
the
local
newspaper
for
reporting
restrictions
to
be
lifted
and
also
invited
a
reporter
present
to
address
the
court.
The
court
then
permitted
publication
of
the
boy’s
name,
though
not
his
address,
school
or
photograph,
as
in
its
view
he
constituted
a
serious
danger
to
the
public,
showing
complete
disregard
for
the
law.
On
the
boy’s
complaint
that
the
reporter
should
not
have
been
permitted
to
make
representations,
the
Divisional
Court,
headed
by
Lord
Bingham
CJ,
determined
that
though
a
court’s
power
to
dispense
with
reporting
restrictions
in
the
prosecution
of
juveniles
should
be
exercised
with
great
care,
caution
and
circumspection,
with
regard
to
the
provisions
of
international
law
safeguarding
the
welfare
and
privacy
of
young
persons,
the
court
can
properly
hear
representations
from
the
press
representative
present
in
court.
Lord
Bingham
added
that
it
would
be
wholly
wrong
to
dispense
with
anonymity
as
an
additional
punishment
and
that
it
was
extremely
difficult
to
see
any
place
for
&dquo;naming
and
shaming&dquo;.
MCKERRY
v
TEESDALE
&
WEAR
VALLEY
JUSTICES
The
Times
29
February
2000.
Y ¥ 9 i ~ ~ Y
As
anticipated
in
the
March
2000
column,
the
ex
parte
OYSTON
case
of
Judicial
Review
of
refusal
of
parole
for
a
man
convicted
of
sexual
offences
but
maintaining
his
innocence,
has
been
considered
by
the
Court
of
Appeal
(2000,
unreported).
Dismissing
the
Parole
Board’s
appeal,
the
Court
commented
that
the
Board’s
reasons
for
refusing
parole
indicated
a
view
that
the
only
way
in
which
an
applicant
can
persuade
the
Board
that
the
risk
is
sufficiently
low
for
parole
purposes
is
if
he
is
&dquo;willing
to
address
his
offending
behaviour
...
and
has
made
positive
effort
and
progress
in
doing
so&dquo;
(as
stated
in
the
Home
Secretary’s
Directions
to
the
Board),
in
other
words
by
acceptance
of
and
appropriate
response
to
guilt.
The
Board
had
thus
ignored
other
pertinent
factors,
including:
the
applicant’s
previous
good
character;
his
proposed
change
of
lifestyle;
his
acknowledgement
that
his
sexual
behaviour
in
other
respects
needed
to
be
addressed;
his
wish
to
clear
his
name
(with
consequent
incentive
to
be
of
good
behaviour).
As
Lord
Bingham
CJ
expressed
it:
&dquo;The
Board
would
be
quite
wrong
to
treat
the
prisoner’s
denial
as
irrelevant
but
also
quite
wrong
to
treat
denial
as
necessarily
conclusive
against
grant
of
parole.&dquo;
men=
I
If
an
offender
released
on
licence
is
recalled
to
prison
under
CJA
1991
s39
after
being
prosecuted
for
a
fresh
offence
and
is
subsequently
convicted
of
that
further
offence,
is
it
legitimate
for
the
court
dealing
with
the
new
offence
also
to
order
a
return
to
prison
under
CJA
1991
1
s40
(power
to
return
an
offender
to
prison
for
a
further
offence
during
the
’at
risk’
period)?
This
question
was
considered
last
year
in R v
Governor
of
Elmley
Prison,
ex
parte
Moorton
(noted
in
’In
Court’,
June
To continue reading
Request your trial