s.5

[2017] EWCA Crim 307
[2017] EWCA Crim 307
CA (Crim Div) (Flaux LJ, Popplewell J, Sir Kenneth Parker)
17 March 2017

A total sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment was appropriate in respect of 29 historical sex offences where an offender had carried out a sustained campaign of very serious abuse against his younger stepbrothers for about seven years, starting when the victims were only 9 years old, and involving a gross abuse of trust.

[2017] EWHC 410 (Admin)
[2017] EWHC 410 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Morris J)
20 February 2017

The claim of a prisoner detained in a hospital that the Lord Chancellor’s powers under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 were to be interpreted so as to give effect to a right to free legal representation by a lawyer of his choice in tribunal proceedings under ECHR art.5(4), art.6 or art.8 was unarguable.

[2017] EWCA Crim 115
[2017] EWCA Crim 115
CA (Crim Div) (McCombe LJ, Russell J, Judge Batty QC)
27 January 2017

The court reminded prosecution counsel that the duty to assist the court when sentencing extended to informing it about suspended sentences which were still in operation when the index offence was committed.

[2017] EWCA Crim 1000
[2017] EWCA Crim 1000
CA (Crim Div) (McCombe LJ, Haddon-Cave J, Judge Batty QC)
17 January 2017

The court upheld a conviction for damaging property contrary to the Criminal Damage Act 1971 s.1(1) where the judge had given an appropriate direction as to lawful excuse and had correctly observed that no case on s.5(2) properly arose on the evidence.

[2016] EWCA Crim 569
[2016] EWCA Crim 569
CA (Crim Div) (Hallett LJ, Jeremy Baker J, Judge Bourne-Arton QC)
13 April 2016

The court considered the degree of particularity required in a count alleging an offence of trespass with intent to commit a sexual offence contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.63(1)

[2016] NICA 10
[2016] NICA 10
CA (NI) (Morgan LCJ, Weatherup LJ, Weir LJ)
7 March 2016

An appeal against a conviction for possession of cannabis was allowed where the indictment had been wrongly joined to an indictment for burglary. Since the defect had not been identified during the course of the trial, it had not been possible to make an order for amendment pursuant to the Indictments Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 s.5 and the conviction could not stand.

DC (Burnett LJ, Irwin J)
20 January 2016

A magistrates’ court had been wrong to refuse the Crown’s application for an adjournment where its witnesses had not attended because it had been informed that the trial was listed for pre-trial review and not for trial. The court had not enquired about whether it would have been possible to re-fix the trial date shortly afterwards.

[2015] EWCA Crim 2251
[2015] EWCA Crim 2251
CA (Crim Div) (Macur LJ, Sweeney J, Judge Carey)
10 December 2015

Where the bad character of a defendant was properly before a jury, his conviction for possession of a prohibited weapon was not rendered unsafe by cross-examination on the reasons he had previously pleaded guilty to similar offences.

[2015] EWCA Crim 1990
[2015] EWCA Crim 1990
CA (Crim Div) (Hallett LJ, Blake J, Judge May QC)
10 November 2015

A suspended sentence of two years’ imprisonment imposed on a 54-year-old woman following her plea of guilty to possessing a prohibited firearm was unduly lenient. Although the woman had been in possession of the firearm for only a few minutes without knowing what it was, she had nevertheless been involved in attempting to hide evidence from the police. Her powerful personal mitigation together with the circumstances justified a sentence of less than the five-year statutory minimum, but did not justify a suspended term.

[2015] EWCA Crim 852
[2015] EWCA Crim 852
CA (Crim Div) (Treacy LJ, Nicol J, Judge Tonking (Recorder of Stafford))
21 May 2015

A conviction for possessing a firearm without a firearm certificate in relation to the possession of two flash eliminators was safe. There had been a case to answer where the evidence before the judge was that the flash eliminators were designed to be fitted to firearms and where the issue of whether the eliminators were in fact mixed-use accessories which could be used with non-controlled items had not been a possibility.

Scroll to top