CA (Crim Div) (Macur LJ, Jay J, Judge Marks QC)
4 August 2020
The convictions of two young offenders for a gang-related joint enterprise murder were safe. The judge had not erred in admitting evidence of relevant previous convictions and had properly directed the jury on accessorial liability. Sentences of detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure imposed on the three young offenders convicted of the murder were reduced to reflect their age and circumstances.
CA (Crim Div) (Simler LJ, Turner J, Cutts J)
22 June 2020
The court reduced two sentences for offences of conspiracy to supply cocaine. In relation to the first appellant, who was the sole carer of her 7 year old son, the sentencing judge had afforded insufficient weight to the definitive guidelines which specifically listed being the sole carer for dependent relatives as a factor reducing seriousness. In relation to the second appellant it had not been necessary to go outside of the sentencing range provided by the category 1 “significant role” guidelines in light of his role in the conspiracy.
CA (Crim Div) (Lindblom LJ, Hilliard J, Judge Flewitt QC)
6 May 2020
Where an offender had pleaded guilty to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility, a judge had erred in assessing his “retained responsibility” as medium to high under the sentencing guideline. Although the judge concluded that the offending was caused by the offender’s anger, the psychiatric evidence clearly indicated that the most significant factor was his mental illness and that his anger at the time of the offence was not extraneous to his mental illness, but a manifestation of it. The offender’s retained responsibility was low, and it was appropriate to impose a hospital order under the Mental Health Act 1983 s.37 and a restriction order under s.41.
CA (Crim Div) (Fulford LJ, Sweeney J, Turner J)
5 May 2020
Sentences of six years’ imprisonment and four years’ detention imposed on two offenders who were found to be in possession of a loaded shotgun whilst in a stolen vehicle were not manifestly excessive.
CA (Crim Div) (Fulford LJ, Holroyde LJ, Sir Peter Openshaw)
29 April 2020
The court provided guidance for sentencers on following the Sentencing Guideline “Arranging or Facilitating a Child Sex Offence” relating to offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.14. The judge should first identify the category of harm on the basis of the sexual activity the defendant intended, then adjust the sentence to ensure that it was proportionate to the applicable starting point and range if no sexual activity had occurred, including because the victim was fictional. Although that might lead to the result that a defendant who arranged the rape of a fictional child was punished more severely than one who facilitated a comparatively minor sexual assault, that was not necessarily wrong in principle.
CA (Crim Div) (Simon LJ, Cutts J, Eady J)
11 March 2020
When considering whether the value of two or more low-value shoplifting offences could be aggregated for the purposes of determining a judge’s sentencing powers, the phrase “charged on the same occasion” in the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 s.22A(4)(b) referred to when the accused appeared before the magistrates’ court to answer the charges.
CA (Crim Div) (Thirlwall LJ, Spencer J, Sir David Foskett)
11 March 2020
The absence of specific references to time and location was not an omission or defect in the definitive guideline on unlawful act manslaughter: the list of aggravating factors in the guideline was described as “non-exhaustive”. In every case, there were a number of potentially aggravating factors and it was for the judge to identify them and accord them the appropriate weight.
CA (Crim Div) (Thirlwall LJ, Cheema-Grubb J, Judge Wendy Joseph QC)
12 February 2020
Where a person imported and dealt in Class A drugs over a long period, it was inescapable that an immediate custodial sentence of some length would be imposed, regardless of whether that person was of positive good character with every expectation of good behaviour in future. A judge’s imposition of a suspended sentence in such circumstances had therefore been inappropriate.
CA (Civ Div) (Underhill LJ, David Richards LJ, Leggatt LJ)
23 January 2020
The fact that an injunction against “persons unknown” referred to the requirement for an “intention” to impede lawful activities did not render the injunction insufficiently clear or certain to be enforceable by committal to prison following a breach. “Intention” did not have any special legal meaning and was not difficult for a member of the public to understand.
CA (Crim Div) (Haddon-Cave LJ, Eady J, Johnson J)
23 January 2020
A sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment which had been imposed on a man who had pleaded guilty to entering into or becoming concerned in a money-laundering arrangement was not manifestly excessive. The man had been a trusted courier of large amounts of money in a cigarette-smuggling operation.