R v McLeod

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeal
JudgeTHE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
Judgment Date28 Mar 1994
Judgment citation (vLex)[1966] EWCA Crim J1128-2
Docket NumberNo. 2004/66

[1966] EWCA Crim J1128-2

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Before:-

The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Parker)

Lord Justice Sellers

and

Mr. Justice Blain

No. 2004/66

Regina
and
Archibald McLeod

MR. V. K. WINSTAIN appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.

THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
1

This Appellant pleaded guilty at Coventry City Magistrates' Court last June to one offence of warehouse breaking and larceny and one of shopbreaking and larceny. He was committed for sentence and at Coventry Sessions was sentenced to eighteen months' and six months' imprisonment concurrent. He now appeals by leave of the single Judge against that sentence.

2

The facts are in a very short compass. On the night of the 28th/29th April the Appellant broke into a warehouse at Coventry and stole a quantity of clothing; a few hours later in company with another man and a girl they broke into a jeweller's shop and stole rings and precious stones worth about £245.

3

This young man is 20 years of age; he has been before the Courts, mainly in Scotland, on at least ten and I think it is twelve previous occasions in the course of which he has been sent to an approved school, he has been returned to an approved school, he has been sent to Borstal, he has been put on probation, and for the last offence sent for six months to a detention centre. He has a poor record at work and a deplorable school record, and the Probation Officer makes a very unfavourable prognosis for the future.

4

The Assistant Recorder in this case took the view, with which this Court entirely agrees, that Borstal would be quite a wrong sentence in the present case. There was no report that he would be likely to benefit from Borstal, and indeed it is most unlikely that reformative influences anywhere will have any effect on this young man short of severe punishment.

5

In those circumstances, this Court can see nothing wrong whatever in a sentence of eighteen months, which was a permissible sentence in the case of a young man under 21 who had already served a sentence of Borstal Training.

6

The only trouble that has arisen in this case, and the reason why leave to appeal was given, is that the Assistant Recorder, as appears from the shorthand note, stated that he took the view that this young...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT