CA (Crim Div) (Fulford LJ, Sweeney J, Lambert J)
28 February 2020
A judge had erred in refusing to admit bad character evidence against a witness whose credibility was at issue in a criminal trial. The witness had been accused of attempting to blackmail another witness by saying that she would allege sexual misconduct against him if he did not pay her money. The judge had erred in concluding that the blackmail allegation was not evidence of a false complaint and in holding that the allegation did not have substantial probative value because the evidential dispute could not be resolved by a jury.
CA (Crim Div) (Fulford LJ, Cheema-Grubb J, Foster J)
19 February 2020
When considering whether it was appropriate to impose an extended sentence on an offender who had already been recalled on licence in relation to an indeterminate sentence imposed for other offences, the fact that the offender had been recalled and the effect on the early release provisions was irrelevant. Insofar as there were conflicting Court of Appeal decisions on that point, R. v Smith (Nicholas)  UKSC 37 was to be followed.
CA (Crim Div) (Holroyde LJ, William Davis J, Judge Lodder QC)
19 November 2019
A judge had erred when imposing a life sentence on an offender already serving an extended determinate sentence, in setting the minimum term to run from the expiry of the custodial element of the extended sentence rather than from the offender’s earliest release date from that sentence.
CA (Crim Div) (Simon LJ, Cockerill J, Judge Bate)
1 November 2019
Although two defendants who had pleaded guilty to violent disorder and had been convicted of applying a corrosive fluid with intent to cause grievous bodily harm were dangerous within the meaning of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 Pt 12 s.229, determinate sentences of 12 and 14 years’ imprisonment provided a sufficient degree of protection to the public to make an extended sentence unnecessary. An extended sentence, including a custodial term of 16 years, was appropriate for a third defendant convicted of similar offences, who had armed himself with the corrosive fluid and had used it indiscriminately, and had previous convictions which indicated a pattern of offending.
CA (Crim Div) (Leggatt LJ, Carr J, Judge Thomas QC)
25 October 2019
A judge had failed to pay adequate regard to the likelihood of a young offender’s development and susceptibility to change in the right environment when imposing an extended sentence for offences including robbery. The judge had been wrong not to find that the offending, serious though it was, could be sufficiently punished and the public sufficiently protected by a determinate sentence.
CA (Crim Div) (Hamblen LJ, William Davis J, Andrew Baker J)
11 October 2019
In assessing the dangerousness of a young offender a judge should specifically address, and give sufficient weight to, the age and apparent maturity of the offender.
CA (Crim Div) (Nicola Davies LJ, Spencer J, Edis J)
24 September 2019
An application for permission to appeal against a 13-year extended sentence imposed following a conviction for wounding with intent, where the judge had made a finding of dangerousness without the benefit of a pre-sentence report, was refused. Although such a finding without a pre-sentence report required careful justification, the trial judge had been able to form an impression of the offender and had a proper basis for making the finding.
CA (Crim Div) (Green LJ, Spencer J, Morris J)
26 July 2019
The court quashed as unlawful a restraining order imposed on a mother diagnosed with factitious disorder induced in another who had been convicted of administering a poison to her child. However, the breadth of the restriction which rendered the restraining order unlawful did not prevent the court from replacing it with a criminal behaviour order in similar terms.
CA (Crim Div) (Bean LJ, Choudhury J, Judge Potter)
4 July 2019
It was unclear if a judge had found that an indeterminate sentence was necessary for two robberies, but after considering the factors in the offender’s favour, an extended sentence should have been imposed. The sentences of detention for public protection were quashed and substituted with concurrent extended sentences of 12.5 years’ detention, comprising a 7.5-year custodial sentence and an extended licence period of five years.
CA (NI) (Morgan LCJ, Stephens LJ, Maguire J)
27 June 2019
Panels of the Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland had the power to call a witness to give oral evidence where the failure to do so might cause a substantial injustice or a fundamental procedural unfairness. As recognised in K’s Application for Judicial Review, Re  NIQB 34, the Parole Commissioners’ Rules (Northern Ireland) 2009 r.3 gave the panels a wide power to regulate their own procedure, and although they were not provided with an express power to call witnesses, they were not prohibited from doing so.