R (Crown Prosecution Services) v Crown Court at Guildford
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE GRIFFITH WILLIAMS,THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 04 July 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] EWHC 1798 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/7046/2006 |
| Date | 04 July 2007 |
[2007] EWHC 1798 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
(Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers) and
Mr Justice Griffith Williams
CO/7046/2006
MR RICHARD BENDALL (instructed by CPS Guildford) appeared on behalf of THE CLAIMANT
MR ROBERT TRESMAN (instructed by Atkins Hope) appeared on behalf of THE INTERESTED PARTY
( As Approved by the Court )
Wednesday 4 July 2007
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE:
This is an application for judicial review of a decision of His Honour Judge Bull QC made in the Crown Court at Guildford on 15 May 2006 to sentence Andrew Edwards (the interested party) to an extended sentence and an extended licence period under section 227 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 ("the Act") for an offence of rape.
Mr Bendall on behalf of the claimant Crown Prosecution Service submits that section 227 only applies to offences which do not fall within the category of "serious offences" under the Act. Rape is one of the category of serious offences. The consequence of that is that the judge, having formed the conclusion that he did as to dangerousness, was required to sentence the interested party either to life imprisonment or to an indeterminate period of imprisonment for public protection. He invites us to quash the sentence and to remit the case to the Crown Court for sentencing in accordance with the Act. This, if possible, would result in the interested party receiving a more severe sentence than the one imposed by the judge.
Section 29(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 provides that this court has no jurisdiction to make a quashing order in relation to the jurisdiction of the Crown Court in 'matters relating to trial on indictment'. Mr Bendall seeks to persuade us that this provision does not exclude our jurisdiction on the facts of this case.
The facts can be shortly stated. The interested party was charged with one count of rape. He was accused of raping a 15 year old girl on the evening of 12 August 2005. He was 32 years of age at the time of the offence. He did not know his victim. He came across her when she was under the influence of alcohol and in distress near Earlswood Lakes in Surrey, having had a quarrel with her friends. He took her away to a hill and raped her. After the assault she ran back to her friends and the police were called. Mr Edwards was identified as the assailant by DNA evidence.
He had been stopped three times earlier by police in Redhill when he was out late with his bicycle. On each occasion he was found with a pornographic magazine and his trousers unzipped or his clothing damp. Argument took place before the judge as to whether this history should be introduced. The judge refused the Crown's application to adduce it as evidence of bad character.
After the verdict there was a further debate before the judge as to the use of this material for the purpose of pre-sentence reports and the admission of the evidence of the relevant police officers at the sentencing hearing. In the course of this debate the judge received confirmation from counsel in an erroneous understanding that the facts of the case were not such as to require him to consider an indeterminate sentence for public protection.
Section 224 of the Act provides the definition of a 'specified offence' and a 'serious offence'. Rape falls within the definition of each. Section 225 provides that, where a person over the age of 18 is convicted of a serious offence and the court is of the opinion that there is a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission by him of further specified offences, the court must impose either a life sentence or a sentence of imprisonment for public protection. Section 227 makes provision for imposing an extended sentence of imprisonment in circumstances where the offender has been convicted of a specified offence other than a serious offence and the court considers that there is a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission by the offender of further specified offences.
The interested party was sentenced on 15 May 2006. The pre-sentence report had unhelpfully suggested that the judge consider an extended licence period and defence counsel took up this suggestion in mitigation. The judge stated that the three earlier incidents reinforced his view that there was a significant risk that the interested party might commit further specified offences against young women. The judge erroneously concluded that the law required him to impose an extended sentence and that is what he did. He stated that the custodial term would be the shortest the law permitted, which reflected the seriousness of the offence, namely seven years. The interested party would serve at least one-half of this sentence and then be released only if the Parole Board were satisfied that he no longer required custody for the protection of the public. At the end of that period, he would be on licence for an extension period of four years.
Mr Tresman for the interested party accepts that, in imposing an extended sentence, the judge fell into error. His client should have been sentenced pursuant to section 225 to an sentence of imprisonment for public protection.
The error made by the judge was identified by counsel shortly after the sentence had been imposed. On the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Faithfull) v Ipswich Crown Court
...Mr Fordham emphasises, of the claim being advanced to supplant appeal rights. Reference is also made to R (on the application of the Crown Prosecution Service) v Guildford Crown Court [2007] EWHC 1798 Admin, and also to R (on the application of Kenneally) v Crown Court at Snaresbrook [2002]......
-
DLA Piper UK LLP v BDO LLP
...QB 1169 a judge passed a sentence in the form of a hospital order without a conviction. But in R (CPS) v Crown Court at Guildford [2007] 1 WLR 2886 Lord Phillips CJ denied that there was any general principle that a court has power in judicial review proceedings to quash any sentence that e......