R v Goodlad
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 24 May 1973 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1973] EWCA Crim J0524-7 |
| Date | 24 May 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 6006/C/72 |
[1973] EWCA Crim J0524-7
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Widgery)
Mr. Justice MacKenna
and
Mr. Justice Bean
No. 6006/C/72
MR. W.B. PHILLIPS appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
On the 25th May 1972 at Rotherham Borough Magistrates Court this Appellant Goodlad was convicted of two offences of burglary, and was sentenced to concurrent sentences of six months imprisonment suspended for two years. On the 24th October of the same year at Sheffield Crown Court he pleaded guilty to an offence of causing grievous bodily harm, and in relation to that offence he was sentenced by Mr. Justice May to 18 months imprisonment, and I say at once that we have heard no word to suggest that there was anything wrong with that sentence so far as the offence of grievous bodily harm was concerned, because it was a serious case of grievous bodily harm and the Appellant can regard himself as fortunate not to have received a heavier sentence in respect of it.
Having decided to sentence him to 18 months imprisonment for the grievous bodily harm, the learned Judge then had to decide what to do about the suspended sentence, because the grievous bodily harm was an offence committed during the operative period of that suspended sentence. What he said, and I take it from the transcript, was "I think that it would be in all the circumstances unjust to activate the suspended sentence, but I propose to make it run for a period of two years from today. For the present offence, making the sentence as lenient as I can, because this was a serious injury you must go to prison for 18 months". So in regard to the suspended sentence the learned Judge was keeping it in suspense, but was increasing the operational period during which a further offence might give rise to the activation of that suspended sentence. Let it be said at once that the learned Judge was within his rights in law in doing what he did. It is perfectly clear under Section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act that whereas the ordinary course when a further offence is committed during the operational period of a suspended sentence is to activate that suspended sentence, the trial Judge has certain alternatives, and the third alternative in Section 40, subsection 1(c) is that he may by order vary the original order of a suspended sentence by substituting for the period specified therein a period expiring not later than three years from the date of the variation. That is exactly what he did, and there is no doubt whatever that what he did was within the strict letter of the law.
The complaint therefore is not that the Judge erred in law, but that he failed to follow what this Court has laid down over the last few years as being the desirable practice in regards to the treatment of suspended sentences. What is submitted is that he should not have left the sentence in suspense, and added to the operational...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
- R v Worsley
-
Cash v Judge Halpin
...JUSTICE ACT 1951 S5 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1984 S12 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1967 S104(2) (UK) R v SAPIANO 1968 52 CAR 674 R v GOODLAD 1973 1 WLR 1102 1973 2 AER 1200 1973 57 CAR 717 SWEENEY v GOVERNOR OF LOUGHLAN HOUSE OPEN CENTRE & ORS UNREP SUPREME 3.7.2014 2014 IESC 42 R (SMITH) v PAROLE BOAR......
-
British Airways Board v Taylor
...be found in one and the same statement. As Mackenna J. said in the course of his admirable judgment in Reg. v. Sunair Holidays Ltd [1973] 1 W.L.R. 1102, at 1109: "A promise or forecast may contain by implication a statement of present fact. The person who makes the promise may be implying ......
-
R v Mark Richard Smith
...provisions were differently expressed; but even in such a case the passing of such a sentence was deprecated by this court in R v Goodlad [1973] 1 WLR 1102.) 5 Since the options available under paragraphs 8(2)(c)(i) and (ii) were also unavailable—(i) because it could have no application if ......