Hello and welcome to this 20 minute bite sized webinar on behalf or Later Law. My name is calling Beaumont on this particular Webinar is entitled to assisting the judge at the Crown Court with sentencing costs, etcetera. And like all of these bite sized 20 minute webinars, there are 12 points for consideration. So let's just go to the first sigh and consider the 1st 3 in the war Sections three and six of the B. C. C. S. A 2000 was in section three years, you know, is the power of the Magistrates to commit to the Crown Court for sentence on an offence triable. Either way, if they consider their sentencing power was all insufficient, once they have decided that they're going to commit section three, they can. They look around to see whether or not there are any summary only offenses which are also the subject of guilty pleas, which may all may not be related to the I, the way matter which is being committed for sentence, and they can commit those summary offenses as well. A classic might be a committal per sentence on offense off dangerous driving Section three that could therefore be a committal for sentence on the offenses off driving Boss Disqualify and using a vehicle without insurance all on the same occasion wouldn't have to be on the same occasion. There might be an entirely unrelated common assault that could also be committed for sentence on assuming, of course, that it was the subject of a guilty plea over conviction. Please BP's do draw to the attention of judge of the fact that matters that were committed for centres under Section six are similarly only on the judge's, Therefore capped at summary only pounds 0.2. Aggravated vehicle taking is really a good example in the scent soul. If the nature of the aggravation is dangerous driving, then of course, that's always either way and could be committed for sentence under Section three and carries two years on indictment. If the nature of the aggravation is that someone was injured, that's always triable, either way again could be committed Section three and it carries two years on indictment. If, however, the nature of the aggravation is damage, whether it's damage to the fake itself or Gamage to something other than vehicle, then in these circumstances, if the value of the damage is below £5000 it becomes a summary only events. That's not to say that it might not be committed but sentence under Section six, assuming that client is already being committed for sentence under Section three for something else, please people do draw to the attention of the judge of the crown. Called the limited Sentencing Powers, where it is aggravated vehicle taking damage less than £5000 it is effectively a summary only offense capped a six months in prison. Three. The somewhat limited circumstances No, in which a Crown Court judge could make anything its costs. A judge could always make a defendant's costs under Section 16 of the Prosecution of Offenses Act 1985. If the matter is the subject of an appeal from the magistrate call that might be an appeal against conviction, that might be an appeal against sentence. It sent circumstances the judge, assuming the client his pain privately perfectly entitled to make a defendant's costs order, he lawyers dugout would submit their bell to something we formally called the National Taxing Team. We don't call it the Criminal Cases unit. No doubt the criminal cases you need more tax the costs at legal aid rates. Pease. Don't forget that you submit the whole of your bill including, of course, all of the costs incurred in the Magistrate Court proceedings as well. The defendant's costs order on an appeal made by a Crown Court judge covers the successful on proceedings in the Crown call on the somewhat unsuccessful proceedings in the magistrate school. Please do have a look at Section 16 off the Prosecution of Offenses Act 1985 the other limited circumstance where a judge KanAm Laker defenders, Coughs Order relates to a matter on indictment. These are no appeals, very limited circumstances because, as you know, if it is a matter on indictment, virtually everyone will be given of that boulder with all without the contribution, so they won't need to instruct their lawyer. Privately, however it came about ended in January 2000 and 12. Wolf Limited circumstances now in which you might apply for a reporter on be refused on the grounds of means your reviews because you have a joint household disposable income of 37 a half £1000 a year or more. In those circumstances, assuming you've applied for and assuming it's being refuse on the grounds of means, the judge may make the defendant's costs older in favor of the defendant in the event off being acquitted for one reason or another of the matches on indictment. Again, the Bell gets submitted to the criminal costs unit. The hourly rates payable are legal aid, hourly rates. They're not very attractive. I'm afraid client doesn't get very much back. I suspect he or she would have paid urinal a lot more than they're going to get back. The hourly rates, by the way, are to be found in statutory instrument 313 of 2000 and 16. They are your same hourly rates that you would claim for proceeds of crime. They are your same, our rates that you would claim in the rarely bank of doing special preparation on a crown court. Fine points for 26 Oh, so he omitted the test, didn't I? The test for refusing a defendant's costs order is that you brought suspicion upon yourself, and you have misled the prosecution into believing that their case is stronger than it is. Well, that's not gonna happen very often. Easy 0.4. The circumstances in which a judge could make a wasted costs order against a party to the proceedings or third party or even the defendant set out in sections 1919 a on 19 b that the prosecution of Offenses Act 1985 wasted costs against the party wasted costs against the defendant. It's the same test. The party or the defendant has Bean guilty of an unreasonable or improper or negligent act or omission whereby costs have bean incurred and therefore wasted by the other party. If that test is met, be Crown Court judge can order one party to pay the other parties costs. Those costs must be itemized on the order. May, in a specific sum, do have a read of the criminal procedure Rules 2000 and 15 in relation to this area. Now concerning wasted costs being made against 1/3 party that Section 19 B at the Prosecution of Offenses Act 1985 The test is higher. The third party must be guilty off serious misconduct 0.5 Sections 242 140 A of the Criminal Justice Act 2000 and three AM Sure you're aware of the importance of thes sections Section 240. The institution itself, assuming you're dealing with an adult, will deduct time that the defendant spent on remand. For many custody sentence, you have to have regard to Section 240 A. Qualifying curfews. Please, please bring to the attention of the judge Any time spent by you apply on a qualifying curfew, namely a curfew of nine hours or more per day, monitored by an electronic tag. As you know, the defendant is entitled to 1/2 a day for every day spent subject to such a time that should be endorsed on the wall. And that goes to the governor at the prison. No need to worry about clients who were remanded in custody. My understanding is that the institution will effectively deduct to date use for many customs centers for any day upon which he or she was remanded in custody 0.6. A Crown call judge is always permitted toe have the sentencing matter back as so that he or she could reconsider the appropriateness of the sentence it section 155 at the PCC s a 2000. The judge must exercise that power within 56 days. It is not limited to errors. All the steaks. A judge may decide that no one was a fault. It's just that he or she has reconsidered the matter and decided, You know that perhaps the defendant all to be sentenced as a dangerous offender, that rather than having being given a simple determinant sentence, there is nothing wrong with the judge reconsidering the sentence within a period off 56 days, even if that means that the defendant suffers amore, severe or harsher sentence that was initially given news case law on this and some fairly recent case law on this next slide points 79 imprisonment. Peace be Don't lose sight of the obvious. And it's clear from some case law that I've bean reading recently that some lawyers are. Some Crown Court judges are not entirely, oh, they in relation to ages on, Consider your sentences in an action. You can't go to prison unless you are 21 or over at the point of sentence. You can't be given imprisonment if you are 18 19 or 20. The appropriate custodial sentence for someone aged 18 19 or 20 is detention in a young offender institute not to be confused with a detention and training order, which is the custodial centers for anyone aged 17 down to 12. There cannot be a detention training order for anyone age 10 for 11. The only way you can begin in a custodial sentence as a 10 or 11 years old at the Crown Call is either long term detention under Section 90 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Sentencing Act 2000. That's on a great crime. Or you've bean effectively given the equivalent of life by way off detention during Her Majesty's pleasure for events of man sections 35 35 b a Do assist the judge with these please. They can be a big, tricky section 35 a. Obliges the judge where he or she is imposing custody and also a disqualification from driving to extend the driving disqualification upto the halfway point of the custody of you a sentence or up to the 2/3 point. If the offender is being sentenced as a dangerous offender, don't get me wrong. The disqualification start today. The date of its pronouncement is just extended to cover the incarceration period. In other words, the meaningful disqualification is not toe bite until the offenders released from custody, but it does start to them. 35 b is a little bit more complicated. 35 bees Discretion rate 35 days. Man Tree 35 b allows the judge to adjust. Adjust the extension period to get the defendant up to the halfway point of a sentence if he or she imposes a consecutive sentence for a known driving. A fame whereby the extension under 35 a doesn't get the defendant to the halfway point of the sentence. If you want to know more about 35 35 b, please read the leading case. Needham and Doubly, the H A M, Needham and others. The Court of Appeal. Set it all out very clearly. Nine. Mandatory disqualifications do Please bring to the attention of the judge the circumstances in which a mandatory disqualification is necessary. Under Section 34 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 also bring to the attention of the judge, his or her powers to give a discretionary disqualification under Section 34 to of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 in lieu of the imposition of penalty points minimum period of discretionary ban one day maximum life and please don't get confused by the imposition of those penalty points 3 to 11. Those points are to be endorsed, where special reasons are found for not giving a mandatory disqualification under Section 34 1 of the act, for example, laced drinks accepted special reasons. No driving disqualification points 3 to 11. Big, confusing and finally points 10 to 12. Number 10. Yes, we know, don't we, that a suspended sentence of imprisonment could be activated if the person fails to comply with the requirements or commits a new offence during the operational period at the suspension the judge or to take in to account any compliance with the requirements upon which the order was suspended? It may be that he or shape, as a result of substantial compliance, decides to activate the centers in part rather than fall. Do please have a working knowledge of shed you 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2000 and three in relation to revocation of a community order, please have regard to Schedule eight of the Criminal Justice Act 2000 and three. Nothing wrong. If the judge wants to in revoking a community penalty on imposing custodial sentences on the original offenses, it does happen occasionally where the offender shows a complete disregard to compliance with a community sentence. And finally Children and young people the crown called Can the judge centers at the Crown Court? The answer is yes. He or she can sentence or they can choose to remit to the local youth called for the area in which that child or young person is habitually resident. But it is committal or re metal for sentence following Gilkey play following conviction Would you believe there is no power for a Crown Court judge to remit a child or young person to the youth called for trial? It is purely re metal presentence. Well, there you are. He goes so fast doesn't get we come to the end about 20 minutes. Thank you for watching. Thank you for this name. I hope I made some points there which you found You spoke and I look forward to your company again in the not too distant future. On another one of these are bite sized 20 million webinars. This is Colleen Bateman. Say thank you for listening and thank you for watching. Cheerio.
Webinar
Slides
Quiz 
2324 Users
82 Courses
118 Reviews
