Criminal Case Law Update 2019

Hello on. Welcome to this bite sized 20 minute webinar presentation on behalf of Data Law. Criminal case Law upgrade 2000 and 19. A few cases of interest at form last year. My name is calling. They want formerly of solicitor for many years in private practice are working, Tim. Sandy, I'm now a Barry stuff in brackets retired. I don't practice. So what have we got? Well, we've got a series of four slides with three bullet points per slide. So let's have a look at the 1st 1 The first case. An interesting case of Cooper. What happened in this particular case was that the defendant was 17 at the point off seconds. Andi, he was given Why? Oh, I you offender institute seconds loan should have been given a detention and trading order. Remember, detention and training orders, please. The people aged 17 down to 12. Why? Why? Young vendor Institute. That's of course, the sentence for someone 18 19 or 20 too young to go to prison because you can't go places unless you're 21 or over. What happened, Waas that the judge purported under the slip rule section 155 at the PCC s a 2000 to remedy at the matter within the 56 day period. I don't think the judge that notify the parties and so it'll have to be sorted out in the court of appeal. The Court of Appeal took into account the qualifying curfew on the fact that he be remanded into the care of the local authority as well. On they said, Well, clearly, we've got to reduce at the sentence a little bit to take into account of the qualifying curfew, take account off the rim bond into the local authority, and they decided that an appropriate sentence would be of shorter detention and trading order. And I believe they dealt with the matter by way of the 12 months detention in trading, which of course, was a lawful sentence on a sentence that he should have been given as a 17 year old. The young offender institute centers was a nominal sentence because, of course, he was too young for why I and it could have all Bean sorted out under the Slip Bull. But I believe that the relevant parties hadn't Bean notified, so it'll have to be sorted out by the Court of Appeal. Second case, The case of Gumbel, this particular person was given at three years imprisonment for a firearm. I'm sure you have. You know that fuel 18 or over the minimum period possession of certain firearms, unless exceptional circumstances of bound. Um, he's worn all five years. It's three years if you're 16 or 17 in this case, the judge having found exception of Circumstances and givens three years. There was then an application to the Court of Appeal, not on the basis that the centers of three years was manifestly excessive at the time when it was given, but rather as a result, off events subsequent to the sentence. Mr Gambles wife was very poorly as she was diagnosed with cancer. Actually, she died before the appear that was even heard. No, he caught appear had to consider whether or no in the light of subsequent events, the centers or to be suspended. The Court of Appeal came to the conclusion that they weren't prepared to suspend the sentence. They were going to leave the three years as it waas it being a matter for the secretary of State to determine whether on compassionate grounds the defendant should be released. That case case of oh, this again was a detention and training order sentence imposed by a Crown Court judge. The judge said that it would be consecutive to the detention and trading order already being said the problem wants in making today sentence consecutive to the existing one. It ended up with the offender being given a detention in trading order that lasted for more than 24 months. That is no permissible. You know what should have happened course was the judge that should have given a sentence, albeit consecutive, to the existing one, whereby the 24 months maximum rule was not offended. The judge purported toe have them at the back under the slip ball Section 155 at the BCC s a 2000 and to amend the sentence so as to not to infringe the 24 month rule. And so the center was amended to read 14 months while I well, I'm afraid that was wrong in law on two counts. Personally, you can't have a 14 month detention in trading order. It's No. One. The permissible periods. The permissible periods are 468 pain 12 18 or 24. The judge also expressed the sentence as being why Oh, I long He was too young for why Oh, I remember while I 18 19 or 20 he was 17 or below. The centers therefore should have Bean a detention in training order. The court appeared, sold it all out. That gave him a shorter sentence. Why, Oh, why That didn't defend the 20 former. Okay, next tonight, when we have three more cases. Who? Valya. If that's the pronunciation. Who? Petralia. What happened in this case? Causing serious injury by dangerous driving, a relatively relatively new offense. We've had a template for the last few years. The legislation says that there is a mandatory minimum sentence by way of a disqualification from driving all two years. The judge gave 18 months. I'm afraid that was too little. The judge also said this disqualification could begin on your release from custody, which again, I'm afraid, was wrong in law. Disqualifications from driving take effect from the date of their pronouncement in court. So, of course, the court Pierre have to solve, speak out and say it's a disqualification minimum two years because that of course is the minimum prescribed by parliament. And, of course, it began upon the date off its pronouncement by the judge. Now the court appear had to consider. Did that offend Section 11 3 at the criminal appeared Act 1968 Section 11 3 says, of course, that the Court of Appeal could old through a sentence. But the defendant must not consider that he's been dealt with more harshly by the Court of Appeal than he had Bean dealt with by the cramp. The Court of Appeal said No, we haven't offended Section 11 3 because although we've increased the disqualification from 20 from 18 months to 24 months, we're obliged to do this by Parliament. We have no choice in the matter. The minimum period of disqualification from driving for causing serious injury by dangerous driving is 24 months five and this is the case of York. A relatively simple case compensation. This was compensation by a Crown Court judge offender ordered to pay £1000 to the victim on her dog. A Rottweiler had bitten someone on the arm so badly that it went down to the boat. Unfortunately, the offender simply didn't have the means to pay it. She waas working that between fairly low paid employment as she was living with her daughter and effectively her daughter that was paying the bills, and it meant that she would probably end up paying the compensation as well. Now the court of a peer review the principles concerning whether or not compensation order should be made, one of those principles being course that it should not be discharged by someone other than the offender. When the Court of Appeal took the view that in reality probably would be discharged by her daughter at rather than by the offender because she simply didn't have the means to paid the compensation order was therefore quash, can I say, whilst I'm on the subject of compensation that the compensation in the magistrate to call these now unlimited a man it used to be capped at £5000? Perfect. Perfect. But it's now I'm leaving. It's also I'm limited in the clam and in terms of over what period of time should it be paid. It seems to me from the case goal that they really wouldn't be anything wrong in making compensation order payable over three years. 36 months. Funds, as you know, should be discharged within 12 months. Next case, the case of KP. Huh? Of all the complicated case, but I will distill the essence of it if I can. This was a sin Avea first trial conviction at the Crown Court given a determine its sentence of 17 years. Retry Judge appreciated that he was what we called an offender off particular concern in the p be found guilty of an offence contained within. Check your 18 a of equipment or just you saying 2000 and three? Yeah, with a shed. Your in 18. A conviction. The only sentence that could be impose is a determinant sentence with an automatic one year license from which the judge has no discretion. No, The point Waas did that offend against the principle that on a retrial on a conviction after a retrial, the offender should not be sentenced to a more harsher sentence than he being given after conviction on the first trial, where the Court of Appeal said, Well, perhaps, you know, we had being given a slightly higher sentence because with a 17 year sentence determined that he would have automatically be eligible for release. Once he'd served 8.5 years with, however the new centres of 16 years, he'd be eligible to apply to the parole board for release at the halfway stage I eight years. But if the parole board said no, he would run the risk, of course, of serving the whole of the 60 years. And so they said yes, he has to be given a sentence as an offender of particular concern with reduce the determinant part 2 40 years, thus perhaps giving him the opportunity of being paroled at the seven years. Strange, of course, if he's not poor old of the seven years stage, who knows, he might end up serving the whole of the 14 years. Of course, the one year license had to be imposed. They had no discretion. Everything the next night points 7 to 9. Parry Jones and the CPS was a rather simple matter. Awful weather. The beast from the east. This was a trial of an 80 year old lady. In her absence, it was quashed and remitted for retrial. The high court, taking the view that no reasonable bench that would have ordered at trial in absence on the fax people. Even the solicitor had sent an indication to the court that because of the awful weather and he was not able to attend, he could get access to the main roads because of this man night. Well, one particular sentence in the case of Night Court My Eye, in which the Court of Appeal said the appellant was certainly not entitled to full credit in circumstances where he had remained silent in interview, but with the greatest of respect. I don't agree with that sentence. If you look at the document published by the centers in council credit for an early guilty play available on the centers in Council website, it came into effect on the first of June 2017. They do say that if you make, if you are silent in your interview on that is nothing to do with credit. You're entitled to your full credit on an indication off early guilt in proceedings that cool. Of course, if you talk in your view, although it's nothing to do with credit, the judge might start the sentence at a lower starting point to reflect your really admissions. That was a LSO set out in the leading case of Caylee, C A, L E Y Kayleigh and others Court of Appear December 2000 and 12. The next case. Probably the most important case. The criminal practitioners to read Valley RT in the DPP on K M and the DPP Effectively, this was so Brian Levinson say, Be careful with the comments on the pet form in the Magistrates called Don't leave the matter in the hands of the Magistrates as it worked for the Magistrates in the retiring room. To confuse that which is written on the platform with evidence in the proceedings, it must be adding cold. There must be a proper application by the crown. If the crown want to rely on those hearsay statements in the pack for the defense must be given a full opportunity toe. Argue in the Section 78 of Pace that those statements or not to be admitted in the interests of justice, something not to be left for the justices in the retiring room, please. And finally, we have the final three cases. Lewis Ford. I'm a three. He became 18 in the youth court prior to plea on a matter that was purely indict Kable. He should have Bean treated as an adult. He should have Bean sent to the ground. Cool. He wasn't a plea was taken and he was committed for sentence and sentenced by the Crown Court judge A little long in law set the court of appear and they have to sort it out and re sentence him. The case of O Connor. This was a judge reflecting within the 56 days that you now perhaps your crew of sentence the offender as a dangerous offender. He therefore has the matter back and imposed a sentence under the dangerous offender provision. Nothing wrong with that, said the Court of appeal. Perfectly permissible. And finally, Dugal on the CPS. An important case. That's the high court telling us that, yes, you can amend in either way matter to become summary only, but you could only do that if the either way matter was charged within six months. In this particular case, the either way matter had not Bean charged within six months on, therefore could never be reduced to a summary only offense. It was all a misunderstanding off the scum ful justices ex parte a McPhee and Galahad case. Gosh, there you are. 20 minutes. You go past play quickly, doesn't it? Thank you for watching this, Webinar. Thank you for listening to May, Um, I look forward to your company again in the not too distant future on another one of these bite sized webinars, of which I've done a few. Thank you.