Re Cadman's application
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judgment Date | 23 March 2006 |
Neutral Citation | [2006] EWHC 586 (Admin) |
Date | 23 March 2006 |
Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISIONI
Before Mr Justice Stanley Burton
A LIFE prisoner's exceptional progress since conviction should be taken into account by a judge determining the minimum period he was required to serve.
Mr Justice Stanley Burton so held in the Queen's Bench Division on March 23, 2006, when considering an application by John Richard Cadman, for the setting of a minimum term under paragraph 3 of Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. He had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of three elderly persons in 1988 and the Home Secretary had set the minimum period to be served at 25 years.
He submitted that his youth at the date of the offences, his remorse and his exceptional progress since he was sentenced ought to be taken into account in determining the minimum period.
HIS LORDSHIP said that when considering such applications, the court should take into account an applicant's exceptional progress in determining the minimum period.
Exceptional progress was that which would have justified the Home Secretary in reducing...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R (Malik) v Waltham Forest Primary Care Trust
... ... (4) The period of suspension under paragraph (1)(a) or (b) may extend beyond six months if – (a) on the application of the PCT, the Family Health Services Appeal Authority [FHSAA] so orders; … (8) The PCT may extend the period of suspension under ... ...
-
R v Caines and Another
...not yet been fully considered in this court, and on which there has been a difference of judicial view. (Re Waters [2006] 3All ER 1251: Re Cadman [2006] 3 All ER 1255). 2 The hearings were held on different dates. It is however convenient to provide a single judgment to cover both cases. Th......
-
Periodic Review of Tariffs for Prisoners Sentenced to Detention during HM Pleasure Decision upon the application of Hyrone, Hart (Under Paragraph 3 Schedule 22 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003)
...in paragraph 4(ii) of schedule 22 did not have the same effect as they do in section 269. We therefore agree with Stanley Burnton J in R v Cadman [2006] 3 All ER 1255 that, for the purposes of schedule 22, the general principles extend to and include the starting points themselves. 33. The ......
-
R v Gallatinov
...and Hawkes) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWHC 1789 (Admin); Caines & Roberts [2006] EWCA Crim 2915; Cadman [2006] 3 All ER 1255. But, as is clear from what Rose LJ stated in R (Cole, Rowland and Hawkes) v Secretary of State for the Home Department at [88] it was “inco......