Review: The New Powers of Sentencing
| DOI | 10.1177/002201837303700312 |
| Published date | 01 July 1973 |
| Date | 01 July 1973 |
| Subject Matter | Review |
226 REVIEWS
At p. 90
the
author
comments
that
amounts
to be allowed to
witnesses in legally aided cases should be based on
the
Witnesses'
Allowances Regulations, 1971,
but
at
the same time he comments
that
those sums
are
no longer realistic so
far
as professional witnesses of
fact
are
concerned.
They
are
actually no longer realistic so
far
as
any
witness is concerned,
but
it would be invidious to have one set of
allowances
under
one Act
and
another
for the same type of witness
under
another.
This
is certainly a book
that
should find a place in
the
office
of every
court
and
it
must
be
quite
indispensible to solicitors.
THE
NEW
POWERS
OF
SENTENCING
by D.
M.
Booth, Barrister
and
N.F.F. Pirie,
LL.B.
(Hons) Barrister.
Butterworths
113 pages. Price £2.65 net
D.M.
Booth is
the
Clerk to
the
Justices of Huntingdonshire.
N.F.F. Pirie was the
Deputy
Chief
Clerk
at
Wells Street Magistrates'
Court
but
is now at Gravesend Magistrates' Court.
The
authors of this book have concentrated on
the
new
powers
of sentencing in
the
Criminal Justice Act, 1972.
There
is
no
doubt
that
this was a correct decision as these new powers are by
far
the
most
important
aspect of
the
Act.
After a well written introduction
the
first section of
the
book
contains a review of the various forms of sentence
and
ancillary orders
now open to the Criminal Courts.
It
is demonstratedclearly
how
the
new
powers fit into
and
extend
the
pre-existing
pattern.
The
second section
consists of the text of the Act with detailed annotations.
There
are
three
very useful appendices.
The
book was intended to introduce
the
Act
and
was
undertaken
in advance of its passing into law.
It
is to a certain extent therefore,
already out-of-date
and
the authors have not
had
the benefit of studying
the
results of
the
legislation in operation.
This
is
not
acriticism of
the
authors
but
rather
acommendation because advice
on
the
working of
a new Act is needed
at
an
early stage.
One
subsequent difficulty which
has arisen in
the
working of
the
Act
in practice is
the
interpretation
of s.22
(deferment
of sentence). Another is
the
determination of which
provisions
are
retrospective
(apart
from those expressly referred to
in
5.66(7) ).
Many
publications dealing with legislation provide annotations
which are merely regurgitations of
the
text
of
the
Act.
The
authors
of this book deal with
many
points in
depth
and
solve
many
problems.
They
do
not
cover in such detail
the
miscellaneous enactments relating
to matters
other
than
sentencing
and
say very little
about
the
minor
and
consequential
amendments
in Schedule 5, some of which
are
of
much
more
importance
than
the
heading
might
imply.
There
must
be certain reservations in one
or
two places as to
the
interpretations of the law. These examples
may
suffice. S. 1
(4)
in effect
reverses
the
rule in R. v. Ironfield 1971 1 All E. R. 202
and
does
not
merely restate
the
old
rule
(Para
II-2).
The
general note in
(II-5)
is
To continue reading
Request your trial