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) (Haddon-Cave LJ, Goss J, Judge Kinch QC)
16 April 2019
A judge had erred in stating that the sentence he imposed on an offender who had been convicted following a retrial would start on the day he was sentencing him. In accordance with the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 Sch.2 para.2(3), the sentence should have commenced from the date the equivalent sentence passed following the original trial would have begun.
CA (Crim Div) (Thirlwall LJ, Andrews J, Judge Dhir QC)
12 April 2019
The court quashed a sentence of imprisonment for public protection imposed for wounding with intent and replaced it with hospital and restriction orders under the Mental Health Act 1983 s.37 and s.41 respectively. The offender had served more than twice the minimum term ordered and the s.37 and s.41 regime was the most effective way of protecting the public and of monitoring his continued treatment.
QBD (Admin) (Supperstone J)
5 March 2019
The secretary of state had been entitled not to order the deportation under the Tariff-Expired Removal Scheme of an Irish national whose minimum term of a sentence of imprisonment for public protection had expired.
QBD (Admin) (Holman J)
22 January 2019
The Parole Board’s refusal to re-release a prisoner on licence or to transfer him to open prison conditions was quashed. There had been no separate consideration of the possibility of transfer, and the decision regarding release on licence contained numerous errors or omissions which fatally undermined the reliability of the conclusion.
CA (Civ Div) (Sir Brian Leveson PQBD, Davis LJ, Lewison LJ)
20 December 2018
Applications which sought to continue a claim for judicial review of the indeterminate licence regime in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 s.31A were a “criminal cause or matter” within the meaning of the Senior Courts Act 1981 s.18 and s.151, and the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) had no jurisdiction to entertain them.
CA (Crim Div) (Hallett LJ, Treacy LJ, Sir Wyn Williams)
27 March 2018
The court summarised the general principles to be considered by those representing and those sentencing offenders with mental health problems that might justify a hospital order under the Mental Health Act 1983 s.37 and s.41, a finding of dangerousness and/or a s.45A order.
CA (Crim Div) (Gross LJ, Spencer J, Judge Marson QC)
6 October 2017
A sexual harm prevention order should not be made for an indefinite period without careful consideration. All concerned in making such orders should be alert to the fact that the effect of an order of longer duration than the relevant statutory notification requirements had the effect of extending the operation of those requirements. Inadvertent extension of the requirements was to be avoided.
QBD (Admin) (Lang J)
28 July 2017
The secretary of state was not obliged to exercise his power under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 s.128 as a means of relaxing the Parole Board’s test for releasing prisoners serving existing sentences of imprisonment for public protection, following the abolition prospectively of such sentences from December 2012. Given the difficulties in finding a suitable alternative release test, the secretary of state was entitled to instead improve the operation of those sentences to enable more prisoners to meet the conditions for release.
CA (Crim Div) (Sir Brian Leveson PQBD, Thirlwall LJ, Gilbart J)
25 July 2017
The imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for public protection on the appellant shortly before the introduction of new legislation which prevented the passing of such a sentence on offenders in his position had not given rise to a breach of ECHR art.7 or the lex mitior principle.