R v O'Keefe
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 03 December 1968 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1968] EWCA Crim J1203-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 4353/68 |
| Date | 03 December 1968 |
[1968] EWCA Crim J1203-1
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Parker)
Mr. Justice Ashworth
and
Mr. Justice Willis
No. 4353/68
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. CARLISLE appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
On the 1st May of this year, at a Magistrate's Court, the Appellant pleaded guilty to two charges of receiving, and also a charge of using a motor vehicle without there being in force a policy of insurance, and for driving whilst disqualified. He was committed for sentence to Inner London Sessions, where on the 28th May he was sentenced on each of the receiving charges to 12 months' imprisonment, on the third count to one day's imprisonment, and on the last, driving whilst disqualified, to 6 months imprisonment consecutive, and disqualified from driving for two years. In other words, he was sentenced to a total of 18 months' imprisonment, and it is against that sentence that he now appeals by leave of the single Judge.
The facts matter little; the receiving charges involved a motorcar which had been stolen, and which was found in his possession the next day with false number plates and a Road Fund Licence which corresponds with the number plates. That Road Fund Licence had also been stolen. He was arrested after he was seen to have started to drive it away. He was in fact disqualified, and there was no policy of insurance.
He is 25, with a lamentable record. In 1957 he was conditionally discharged for larceny; in 1958 for larceny he was sent to an Approved School; in 1961 and 1962 he was fined; then in 1964 for conspiracy to rob, and assault with intent to rob, he was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment. In 1967 for receiving, 6 months' imprisonment, and then in April of this year, for malicious damage, he was conditionally discharged for 3 years.
Pausing there for the moment, it would seem that there was nothing wrong in principle in this sentence at all. What has given rise to the grant of leave here is something which I have not mentioned as yet, namely something which happened the day before he was sentenced to this 18 months' imprisonment. It was the day before, on the 27th May, that he came before South East London Sessions for possessing housebreaking implements by night, driving Whilst disqualified, driving a vehicle knowing it to have been stolen and driving away without the consent of the owner, and receiving a driving licence. He then received, for that, sentences amounting to 12 months' imprisonment, but - and this is the point - the period of imprisonment was suspended for three years.
That was the day before, and when he came the next day before Inner London Sessions, it was, of course, very naturally urged that he should be dealt with as South East London Sessions had dealt with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dinsdale v R
...Garvie (1980) 2 A Crim R 170 at 174; Davey (1980) 2 A Crim R 254 at 259–261. 66 cf R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212 at 213 per King CJ; cf R v P (1992) 39 FCR 276 at 67 (1994) 181 CLR 295 at 306. 68 (1994) 181 CLR 295 at 306. 69Peel v The Queen (1971) 125 CLR 447 at 452. 70Griffiths v The ......
-
The Queen v Wendell Varlack
...to a fine of $7,500 ECD and 3 years imprisonment in default. 11 Mr. Thompson also urged the court to adopt the approach of the court in R. v. O'Keefe [1969] 2 Q.B. 29, (admittedly not a death by dangerous driving case) in which the appellant pleaded guilty to various charges and was given ......
-
Green v R
...of Lord Lane, C.J. applied. (2) R. v. McCarthyUNK(1982), 4 Cr. App. R. (S.) 364; [1983] Crim. L.R. 201, applied. (3) R. v. O”Keefe, [1969] 2 Q.B. 29; [1969] 1 All E.R. 426; (1968), 53 Cr. App. R. 91. (4) R. v. SapianoUNK(1968), 52 Cr. App. R. 674, considered. Legislation construed: Penal Co......
-
The Queen v Christian
...not be imposed as a “soft option” when the court is “not quite certain what to do”: Dinsdale at [79] (per Kirby J), quoting R v O’Keefe [1969] 2 QB 29 at 32. It must be recognised that the suspension of a term of imprisonment will deprive the sentence of some of its effectiveness as a deter......