Leave to Appeal on Specified Grounds Only
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839906300620 |
| Published date | 01 December 1999 |
| Date | 01 December 1999 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Journal
of
Criminal
Law
involved was particularly repulsive, the statutory
maximum
for that
offence is 10 years' imprisonment. The false imprisonment was for the
sole purpose of the commission of the indecent assault, which is
not
inevitably to be regarded as a 'very serious offence'.
The argument advanced by the appellant was that on this occasion
the
graver offence was the indecent assault
and
that
the
temporary
imprisonment associated with it was purely incidental. The terms of ss 1
and
2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 would be satisfied, in relation to
what
was in fact the major offence, by a sentence of 10 years (which
was, in fact, that imposed by
the
trial judge for that offence). Counsel
drew the court's attention to R v Ragusa [1993] 14 Cr App R (5)' 118,
where
the
victim of an indecent assault had been tied up
and
threatened
with a knife in order to force
her
to engage in sexual activities, including
oral sex. In that case, the suggestion was made by
one
member
of the
court that a 1O-yearsentence should be imposed for
the
indecent assault
with
another
two years for the false imprisonment. Counsel suggested
that that sentence would be appropriate here. In RvEllis (19
June
1998,
unreported), however, a life sentence was imposed for indecent assault
accompanied by kidnapping. The prosecution'S argument was that it is
the
duty
of the court to assess
the
overall seriousness of the totality of
the
appellant's acts
and
to sentence accordingly, as required by the
defendant's history: see R v Canavan [1998] 1 Cr App R (5) 243.
HELD,
DISMISSING
THE
APPEAL,
in order to assess
the
seriousness of the
false imprisonment, it is necessary to look at
the
purpose of the false
imprisonment. In the opinion of the court, that
purpose-of
forcing
non-consensual sexual activity on
the
victim-made
the false imprison-
ment
a'very serious offence'.
COMMENTARY
Although it might be argued
that
ss 1
and
differentiating between the various offences charged, thereby itself
'compartmentallses' those charges,
the
court rejected
the
appellant's
argument
that
the
false imprisonment was merely an associated offence
(which
per
secould
not
possibly merit life imprisonment), on
the
ground
that
'it is
not
possible to compartmentalise the appellant's activity' in the
manner
suggested by counsel. The false imprisonment was a feature of
the
indecent assault, just as the indecent assault was a feature of the false
imprisonment. As it was the purpose of the false imprisonment which
made
itaserious offence, the relatively short time of
the
imprisonment
was immaterial.
Leave to Appeal on Specified Grounds Only
RvCox
and
Thomas [1999] 2 Cr App R 6
When
an application is made for leave to appeal against
the
decision of
acriminal court, it is more likely
than
not
that it will be based on an
552
To continue reading
Request your trial