R v Poulton (Sarah Jane); R v Celaire (Mario Rolando)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 October 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWCA Crim 2487 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 24 October 2002 |
| Docket Number | No: 200200015/Y4–200204878/Z2 |
[2002] EWCA Crim 2487
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
Lord Justice Rose
(Vice President of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division)
Mr Justice Hughes
Mr Justice Royce
No: 200200015/Y4–200204878/Z2
MISS P ROSE appeared on behalf of the APPELLANT POULTON
MR J BARKER appeared on behalf of the APPLICANT CELAIRE
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Very few appeals against sentence in relation to the offence of carrying an offensive weapon reach this Court. The appeal of Poulton and the renewed application for leave to appeal by Celaire provide what, it has transpired, is a slightly tenuous opportunity for this Court to suggest guidelines for sentencing for this offence, in the light of the report of the Sentencing Advisory Panel made in May 2000. I say slightly tenuous because, as will emerge, both of these cases have somewhat unusual features.
So far as the appellant, Poulton, is concerned, she on 19th October 2001, at Hove Crown Court, pleaded guilty to having an offensive weapon and, on 28th November, at the same court, was convicted of attempted robbery. She was sentenced by Mr Recorder Hall to 3 years for attempted robbery and 12 months concurrently for having an offensive weapon. She appeals against that sentence by leave of the Single Judge.
The facts were that, shortly after midnight, on 26th July 2001, a woman called Miss Crocket and a friend were on their way home from a nightclub. They went towards a taxi rank in central Brighton and were approached by the appellant, who asked Miss Crocket whether she had any cigarettes. Miss Crocket said "no, sorry", and the appellant produced a penknife with a three or four inch blade from her pocket, showed it to Miss Crocket and demanded that she open her handbag. Miss Crocket complied and, when the appellant found that there were no cigarettes in the bag, she walked away. Miss Crocket followed and telephoned the police. When the officers arrived, the appellant was arrested. When she was interviewed she made no comment.
In passing sentence, the learned Recorder, rightly, referred to the fact that two young women had been placed in fear and that this was, in effect, a street robbery using a knife.
The appellant was born on 12th July 1966. She has a considerable number of convictions spanning a period of some 20 years. They include a conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, one for threatening behaviour and one for assaulting a constable; and many convictions for dishonesty. She has been dealt with by way of fine, conditional discharge, probation orders and short periods of imprisonment, the longest being for a period of 3 months.
There is a psychiatrist's report, dated 19th June 2002, which refers to the appellant's history of growing up in an unstable and insecure environment and of the physical difficulties which she has endured, including a leaking brain aneurism and the removal of a kidney. She has made several attempts on her life and has been admitted to a psychiatric hospital on more than one occasion. She is described as having a personality disorder and could be categorised as suffering from a psychopathic disorder but absent highly specialised services, no useful purpose would be served, in the psychiatrist's view, from making an order under the Mental Health Act.
On the other hand, on-going and repeated custodial sentences are not likely to have an improving effect on her behaviour. The psychiatrist contemplated that, as and when the appellant was released from custody, any treatment which she then had should include within it a residential component. There are before the Court further reports, apart from that of the psychiatrist. In particular, there is one dated 18th October 2002, from Louise Chase, a counsellor at Downview Prison. She first saw the appellant at the beginning of August 2002, and the appellant has expressed a desire to change her way of life and to commit to her children. She has been working hard to come to terms with her position. She gives every indication of having gained more stability than was apparent at the time of the psychiatric report. She has caused no trouble, nor has she subjected herself to self harm while at Downview. She appears to be handling matters, which include having been bullied, well. She has been, it is said, enhancing her life skills and her understanding of herself and the view is expressed that she might have the chance of putting increasing self knowledge to use outside the prison. Furthermore, if she were to be released, a structured day care unit at the Oasis Project in Brighton (who have, as appears from a report from Peter Hale of CARAT within the prison service, agreed to her starting a programme on 25th October 2002) may be of benefit to her.
The submission made on her behalf by Miss Rose was that, as she has now served the equivalent of a 22 month sentence, it would be appropriate to order her immediate release without more. This Court has invited the liaison probation officer to see the appellant during the currency of these proceedings and, in due course, we shall return to the outcome of matters so far as this appellant is concerned.
The applicant, Celaire, to whom we give leave to appeal, pleaded guilty on 20th May 2002, at Camberwell Green Magistrates' Court, to possessing an offensive weapon and using a motor vehicle with no insurance. He was convicted of dangerous driving and committed to Inner London Crown Court for sentence. There, on 12th July 2002, by Mr Recorder Raggatt QC, he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for possession of an offensive weapon. No separate penalty was imposed for using the vehicle with no insurance and he was sentenced to 6 months consecutively for dangerous driving, that is to say the total sentence was 18 months' imprisonment, and he was disqualified from driving for 3 years.
The facts were these. On the evening of 8th December 2001 police officers in Brixton stopped the appellant, Celaire, who was riding a Yamaha motorcycle, because of the way in which he had overtaken some other vehicles. The officers parked their car in front of the appellant's motorcycle at an angle to prevent him getting away. But, after one of the officers had alighted from the police motorcar, the appellant revved up the engine and sped off through a gap. The officers set off in pursuit. The appellant drove at a speed of 50 miles per hour, in an area restricted to 30. He went through a red light and he passed between two pedestrians on a pelican crossing, causing them to jump out of the way. He drove into a busy road which was solid with traffic and came in contact with four vehicles before coming to a halt. He then began to run off but was detained by plain clothes police officers. He was asked if he had anything on him which he ought not to have. He then produced from his pocket a kitchen knife with a blade between 4 and 5 inches long.
He was arrested. In interview, he said he carried the knife for his own protection and he admitted he had no insurance. He said he recalled almost colliding with the pedestrians but was not looking at the lights and could not remember going through them on red.
The Recorder, in passing sentence, referred to the carrying of knives as being extremely dangerous because the production of a knife to threaten people, in circumstances of potential violence, has the capacity to cause the serious escalation of such violence. With that expression of view this Court agrees. He went on to pass the sentence to which earlier we referred.
This appellant was born on 4th February 1978, so he is 24 years of age. He has a previous conviction for rape and indecent assault, in relation to which he was initially sentenced to 5 years, reduced by this Court on appeal to 4 years', detention in a young offender institution in 1995.
There was a pre-sentence report before the learned Recorder, which referred to a high risk of the appellant re-offending, although he appeared to regret his actions. He has no history of mental illness.
The present position, so far as the appellant is concerned, as Mr Barker on his behalf has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- R v Clive Richard Povey and Others
-
R v Derek Graham David Gordon
...... . 10 In R v Celaire [2003] 1 Cr App R(S) 116 and in R v Povey [2009] ......
-
R v Wayne Lee Parkin
...... of the observations of the court in R v Poulton and Celaire [2003] 1 Cr App R(S) 116, the case in ......
-
R v Michael Evans
...... Advice on Appeal, counsel relies on R v Poulton and Celaire [2003] 1 Cr App R(S) 116. In fact, in ......
-
Criminal Law Legislation Update
...has not been judicially defined, but was used in theprevious Court of Appeal guideline judgment in R v Celaire and Poulton[2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 116. In relation to a knife, a circumstance is likelyto be dangerous if there is a real possibility that the knife could be used.The note sets out......
-
The Effect of the Advice of the Sentencing Advisory Panel upon the Form of Judgments
...is to give effect to SAP advice.8 See e.g. R v Millberry [2002] EWCA Crim 2891, [2003] 1 WLR 546 (rape). R vCelaire and Poulton [2002] EWCA Crim 2487, [2003] Crim LR 124 (offensiveweapon in public place).9 For example, whether SAP advice is based upon a guilty or not guilty plea: R vMillber......
-
Eradicating ‘This Dreadful Knife Problem’: Legislative and Judicial Initiatives against Knife Possession
...a deten-tion and training order of at least 4 months 184 Youth Justice 15(2) Judicial InterpretationR v Poulton and Celaire [2002] EWCA Crim 2487; [2003] 1 Cr App R(S) 116 provides a convenient starting point for this résumé. The Court of Appeal took the opportunity pro-vided by two unrelat......