R v Stillwell ; R v Jewell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 July 1991 |
| Date | 17 July 1991 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Taylor, Mr Justice Ian Kennedy and Mr Justice Morland
Criminal sentencing - variation - time limit
The 28-day period within which a judge had power to vary a sentence under section 47(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 could not be extended by rescinding the original sentence within the time limit but then not sentencing until after the time limit had expired.
The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, so held in a reserved judgment quashing the sentences imposed upon the appellants, Kenneth Stillwell and Ian Jewell, by Judge David Griffiths at Portsmouth Crown Court following their pleas of guilty to inflicting grievous bodily harm and, in Jewell's case, occasioning actual bodily harm. Stillwell had been sentenced to nine months imprisonment and Jewell to a total of 12 months.
Mr Richard Onslow, assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, for the appellants; Mr Jeremy Wright for the prosecution.
MR JUSTICE MORLAND, giving the judgment of the court, said that the judge had originally sentenced the appellants on April 16 without obtaining social enquiry reports.
The judge had then reconsidered the case and decided that he should have had reports before passing sentence. The appellants were brought back before him on April 22 when he quashed the sentences and remanded them in custody for reports.
On May 17, well over 28 days after the appellants had first been sentenced, the judge considered the reports and imposed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Michael Edwin Reynolds
...under section 155 of the 2000 Act to rescind the original sentence, and then adjourned the sentencing hearing to a later date. 9 In R v Stillwell and Jewell (1992) 94 Cr App R 65, this court was faced with a very similar situation. Both appellants were originally sentenced to imprisonment. ......
- R v Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court, ex parte Tann
-
R v Gavin Stephen Gordon; R v Taylor; R v D; R v Pusey; R v Shaukat; R v McManus
... ... In Stillwell and Jewell [1992] 94 CAR 65 , this Court observed that “the 28 day period is not elastic.” However the correction of an error, notwithstanding ... ...
-
R v Dunham
... ... 35 "Logically, whatever word is used to describe the rescission —whether, as in this case, it is setting aside, or, as in Stillwell and Jewell, quashing or annulling —the effect may well be that there is thereafter no sentence to vary ... 36 The reason why we ... ...
-
Court of Appeal
...to extend thatperiod, the judge himself in this case had no power to proceed as therecorder had done: see R v Stillwell and Jewell (1992) 156 JP 335.There was, moreover, a further objection to the judge's proceeding ashe had done. In R v Hart (1983) 5 Cr App R (S) 25 and in R v Menocal[1980......