Hello and welcome to this webinar. On behalf of data law. Case law update my name. His colleague Belmont. What I want to do over the course of the next hour Is to go through 12 really important cases for criminal practitioners, I'm going to deal with this by means of a number of slum heats And each lied will contain four essential bullet points relating to that particular case. So let's go to the first slide and have a look at the first case plaque, ooh, pacu boarding and smith an interesting and important court of Appeal decision Of 2021. This was the Court of appeal, looking at the whole area of credit in relation to a guilty plea and as you know, It was section 144 feet Criminal Justice Act 2003 to put the credit on a statutory footing. That of course is now section 73 of the sentencing act. The sentencing code 2020 I'm sure you know that the code Came into force on one December 2020. I need relevant for sentencing purposes. For anyone convicted on a last year. The 1st 57 2020 said what happened then in this particular case? Well, the court of appear gave very clear guidance. Two lawyers that said to be assured at the fall one credit for entry or indicated a timely guilty plate one must be guilty, but the first listing if it's possible to do so and of course it will be possible to do so if it's a summary offense, border fence, that's either way oh one must indicate an intention to do so at the very first listing the matter might be purely editable. Therefore, it's not possible to formally enter a play at the magistrate's court stage, but it's certainly possible to indicate guilt listing. And if the defendant thereafter be guilty at the first listing in the Crown Petey ph hearing. Okay, A full 1 3rd by way of credit should be given. But the court of appeal said this plea or this indication of play, it must be clear and unequivocal putting on the form. Things like possible guilty pleas on a basis more likely to be the guilty plea. Well, uh that won't do. That gives the judge happy Crown Court the right to reduce the credit for the third, possibly two 25%. If the if the play is all settled at the P. T. P. H. But without any clear indication on the form that being given at the magistrate's court stage and the court of appeal said the reason he judge Should consider 25%. But rather than a third. And in these circumstances is that because there hasn't been a clear and unequivocal indication of guilt. Very first listing the benefits to the system of such an indication having been given are not apparent and therefore it would be wrong in the circumstances for the defendant to be given his or her for one. I'm sure you're all aware the document published by the sentencing council credit relation to guilty pleas. It's on the sentencing council website reduction incentives for a guilty plea. It's on the website, It came into force, didn't it, on one June 2017. But the Court of Appeal said in this particular case, there are benefits to the system of entering a tiny guilty plea, all of a timely indication to enter an unequivocal plea of guilty, effective on the witnesses. We will be assured of course, that they will not need to testify the savings to the system in the sense of the case, not having to be prepare for trial. Other things mentioned in that document and the Court of Appeal said in this particular case, that those things simply don't apply if the lawyer writes something on the form like clean to be guilty because that still leaves open the option. Of course, the defendant might not enter a guilty play at that first listing in the Crown Court. So there you are, it's an interesting case and I don't really think the Court of appeal could have been any clearer in order to be assured Of the 1 3rd you must guilty first listing all indicate and intention to do so at the Petey ph mention was also made the effect upon sentence of those people who make full admissions in their interview at the police station. Nothing really new in this in that really was a repetition of the comments made by the Lord Chief Justice in the important case of Caylee. Let's see A L E Y December 2012 in which the Lord Chief said that if a person does make full admissions in their interview is cooperative with the police shows remorse, then the mitigation. But that defended is better than the mitigation of the person who simply has a no comment interview. Don't get me wrong, don't misunderstand the point. It's nothing to do with credit. Credit of course, being legal issue upon indication of guilt. Cool. But as the Lord Chief said in the case of Caylee, you know, early admissions in a police station interview might be persuasive in the judge might start the sentence at a lower starting point then he or she. Otherwise I would have done of course, from that lower starting point, deduct whatever credit is due to the defendant based upon the time at which he or she indicated and intention to be guilty. It's important isn't it? Because of course those of you who do crown court work and is particularly relevant for crown court cases. Those of you do this type of work would appreciate that the crown called the starting point is everything when one comes to consider the sentence. As the lawyer, you always wanted to be the lowest starting point. If you're for the defense, you want it to be capped three rather than two Or you want it to be category two. God category one. And of course as the Lord Chief said, you can put everything into the mix in deciding what the starting point of the sentence should be. Including early admissions may in a piece station every case on its own facts. It might be hugely relevant by making those early admissions. You have deflected attention away from other people who were suspects in the case. While they're not suspects in the case anymore, application made full admissions anyway. Or it might be relevant in that the victim complainant will have known from a very early stage in the proceedings that you will not have to give evidence or testify at trial. Why? Well, because early admissions were made in a police station. So just to summarize really black black board and smith, a black and black, you were complaining that they hadn't been given their 41 3rd. Well, they weren't entitled to accept the court of appeal. There had not been an unequivocal intention to be guilty at the first listing deter with borden, borden was not entitled To a full one right. Smith was slightly different because smith was an appeal or the attorney general placing the matter before the court of appeal for them to consider wanting application to the Attorney general that they consider an unduly lenient sentence has imposed by the Chronicle Judge. This is this is you go In Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and smith part of the Attorney General's argument, it was that the sentence was unduly lenient and one of the reasons why it was unduly lenient was that the judge in that particular case Had given Smith the full 1 3rd credit. That's a guilty play when there had not been an unequivocal indication of an intention to be guilty. The matter was first listed in the magistrate's court and the Court of Appeal said. Not unsurprisingly that because there wasn't That for 1 3rd should not have been given God 25%. However, having said although they granted leave to the attorney general for the sentence to be reviewed, they did not in the end all to the sentence in any, So there you are a very important read for criminal practitioners black and black. It's like two Hey and Regina a 2020. The Court of appeal decision, the types of sentences available to a crime called judge, we're dealing with an offender or particular concern. You may or may not be familiar with this particular concept. It would of course be hugely on occasion when you're dealing with matters background. You're starting point would have been scheduled 18 a of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which then became schedule 13 at the sentencing code 2020 which then became would you believe should you six of the counter terrorism And Sentencing Act 2021. Now, if you look at schedule six, you will see that most of the offenses on that schedule related to terrorism, so not going to cross your path very often. However, there are two sexual offenses on the schedule to which you may have to have regard more often the first one relate to rape of a child under 13 12 will be all penetration, have a child under 13 12. These offenders are to be considered offenders of particular concern on what does it mean? Well, in a nutshell, As I put there on Slide two, the crown called judge can no longer imposed an ordinary determine a set for this type of as you know, with an ordinary determinant sentence, the offender would serve half and would automatically be released at the halfway stage. These offenders, It seems to me the judge has three sentencing options. Firstly. The judge could if he or she felt it appropriate sentence Such an offender as a dangerous offender within the meaning of the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act Of 2003. And as you go, dangerous offenders are given what we call extended determinate sentences. There is a determinant turn home, but there's also an extension and that which is extended is the license period on the sentence. The license period can be extended A minimum of 12 months and a maximum of five years in relation to an offensive violence And for a minimum period of 12 months and a maximum period of eight years in relation to a sexual offense. I'll just give you an example if I may of an extended determinate sentence full they of a child, 12 or below. It may be the determined part of the sentence is 12 years. The extension being a sexual matter, He's eight years. This means it's a 20 year sentence in total. And as you know, if you're sentenced as a dangerous offender, you're entitled to apply for release to the parole board at the two that stage Of the determinant part of your sentence. So in relation to that particular sentence, because the determinant part was 12 years, there would be eligibility To apply for release and the Parole Board at the 8th. He is that And of course if you are released at the eight-year stage, you'll be on license, would you not for 12 years. This being A 20 Year sentence. You might not get released from the global Year eight. In which case you've applied. Year nine. Well your 10 for years, You have to be released in year 12. That was the determinant part of the sentence. And upon being released a year 12, you would there have to be licensed for a period of eight years. So that's one option to the judge to sentence as a dangerous offender. Option number two, I would have thought would be a sentence of discretionary life in prison. Those offenses rape of a child control below penetration of a child, both life imprisonment as a maximum on indictment because and it's with any sentence of life imprisonment obedience discretionary. The judge would set the tariff every day, which would need to be served before the defendant could gold. And if he was successful in getting old, he would thereafter be on life license. So that's option number two for the judge, discretionary life if he or she doesn't want to sentence as a dangerous of any Option. # three is this new sentence which is a deterrent sentence followed by an automatic one year period of supervision, straight license over which there is no discretion. The offender could apply for release to the parole board at the halfway point of the determinant part of the sentence. So going back to that example of right This time, the sentence is a determinant sentence of 12 years, followed by A one Year period license over which there is absolutely no discretion. This being now a 13 year sentence. The offender can apply for release at the halfway stage of the determinant stage the sentence, well that means that he could apply for release at the six year stage, the determinant part being 12 years and if successful then of course he would be on parole License for seven years. This being a 13 year sentence. However, he might not get along At the six year stage. In which case you could apply here. seven, 8, 9, 10 11 Must be released 12 years stay each of the determinant part of the sentence. 12 years. There would then be this automatic one year license. They want won't cross your path very often. But the Crown court judge may require a little bit of assistance if he or she is sentencing one of those two sexual offenses mentioned In short to six, The Counter Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021. As I say, the vast majority of offenses on that schedule. Our terrorism related. But watch out for those two sexual offenses. It's like three vagina and Jason. Lawrence. An interesting court of appeal decision defendant said that he had a vasectomy and that there was therefore no danger the complainant in the case becoming pregnant. On this basis, the complainant agreed to have sexual intercourse with the thank. He was charged With rape, two camps right on the basis that it was alive and that he had the sector at all and therefore the risk of pregnancy. It was very high. So having been convicted of those two counts of rape, but not a crowd called, he appealed to the court of Appeal on the basis that the consent to complain was not vitiated by the deception that he perpetrated apart. And the Court of appeal upheld the appeal, disagreeing with summing up on the law of the Crown Court. Judge the jury, but not in europe Court of Appeal said to the parents lie having had a vasectomy when he hadn't had a vasectomy at all, was not sufficiently closely connected to the performance of the sexual and in those circumstances. Well, there the behavior was disgraceful. They did not amount two. That's right. And I've given you their section 74 the sexual offenses 2003. The definition of consent. A person consents if he agrees by choice and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice and the court of appeal. We're effectively saying, weren't they? That you still have a choice. You are still consenting will be the person has not behaved honorably at all. It lined the night must be sufficiently closely connected to the performance of the sexual. And we have an examples of where that was true in the past. That was the quiet teacher who performed sexual acts and choirboys and said that it would it would help with their singing and that was deemed to be. And now I sufficiently closely connected to the performance of the sexual. Well, there you are. I'm sure You may have the 11 views on this particular case as to where no, The lies were sufficiently closely connected to the performance of the Sexual Act. So as to about two rate. Cool for P. M. We're saying it's really A Troublesome one is engaged. Okay. Life for Slide four is Vagina Machar 2021. Court of Appeal Decision. I must confess it rather surprised me. I suspect it surprised many lords. What we learn from the case of you my job, What we learn that a defendant may be sent from the magistrate court to the crown court in their absence Under section 51 of the crime and disorder act 1998. So long as they are deemed to be present at the magistrate's court stage because they are represented by a lawyer. See section 122 of the Magistrates court side 1980 it's only applicable. Said to prepare the defense is entirely blameless. Section 17 A of the magistrate courts at 1980 which deals with allocation and sending procedures on an offense tribal either way requires the actual attendance of the defendant because important things are happening an allocation and sentencing hearing and of course the the defendant must be there in person in order to make some important decisions. These are being election for crown called prior or exercising an option to have the trial in the magistrate's court of the Magistrates to be suitable. None of those considerations apply. Said the court of appeal with the matter that is purely indict able which must as you know, be sent section 51 of the climate disorder 19. Now the reason we all thought that it couldn't be sent in their absence. That was because of the case of Jonah In 2015 and most certainly in the case of Cali 2000 and 17 reported to follow Janet, I must confess having raised Janet. It isn't entirely clear on the point but carry. 2017 certainly was very clear on the point. The defendant could not be sent to the Crown court in their absence. Well we can forget john we can forget carry we have of course. Happy court decision of you maja is it? And my dad that the guidance on the C. P. S. Website was to the effect that a person couldn't be sent. It's actually 51 in their absence and no doubt that guidance has been changed. Slide five Chimpanzees and Regina 2021 Decision considering whether or not the they at the hotel them could be classified as a domestic burglary or whether or not it was a commercial burglary hugely relevant of course, because of the three strikes rule in relation to domestic burglary That which was formerly dealt with under the powers of Criminal Court Sentencing Act. 2000 Three strikes burglary, three strikes supply of class a drugs sections 1.110 and 111 The powers of criminal courts sentencing at 2000. Now, of course, one must look to the sentencing code, but the same sections have been replicated in the central code where the conviction Is on or after the 1st 57 2020. If you haven't downloaded the sentencing code yet, might I suggest that you go onto the website legislation dot gov dot UK and then download feet? The act, we call it a code. The act gave us the sentencing hugely relevant and you need to have forgotten to it when you're in court. Meanwhile, back at Chip opens up the court of appeal wrestling with whether or not we have a hotel room, is a domestic burglary or a commercial. The Court of Appeal coming to the conclusion, but the conviction was unsafe because the summing up, the judge was considered to be unfair in the sense of it simply wasn't balanced. It didn't as it were assist the jury with the list of factors to which they could have regard in determining whether or not they themselves believe this to be a domestic burglary or commercial. Nothing really new about any of this. Because of course, we had the case of Hudson and the crown prosecution service. That was a high court decision Going back to 2017. I well remember that particular case because I was training a large group of lawyers at the time and the issue of whether or not the burglary of my hotel room in which I was staying, the tribe, what would that be classified as domestic or commercial? Put that question to the lawyers in the room or would you believe we split the room 50, 50, of the law is there? I thought it was a domestic 50. Thought it would be more in the nature of a commercial. That what the court of appeal said was essentially what the high court said in the case of Hudson namely there is a spectrum of factual possibilities, every case to be decided upon its own merits. And essentially it being a matter for the court. It being a matter for the jury on the facts of the individual case for them to decide whether or not that which had been berg aled was domestic or can I shoot? I think Hudson was an easier case to be some need. This was in the Magistrates called where the district judge refuse used the argument of the defense that it was a commercial burglary because the premises were unoccupied, as the district judge said with a mere fact, no tenants, property doesn't mean that it ceases to be a dwelling. All of the utilities was skinned in the premises, premises were fully furnished. They were just waiting for new tenants to go in that didn't in any way stop it from being burglary of a dwelling. So they are each case to be decided on its facts and as the court of appeal said in the case of chimpanzees to some cases would be easier to decide than others if a person was permanent residents in a hotel indicate the example of the major In 40 towers who was a permanent residence In 48 hours. Be easy to decide. No doubt burglary of his room would be deemed to be a domestic, giving be quite different If a person had merely booked into the room for one night. Whether you are, these arguments will continue in both the Magistrates court and the Crown Court. I just stressed the point. The court of appeal said it's to be decided on an individual case dependent upon the facts of that case. It's like six Uh on the application of BB and Westland Morgan Youth Court, a high court decision of 2020 and consider the high court here, consider whether or not the youth call should have retained jurisdiction matter or whether or not it was like to allocate the case to the Crown Court. A 13 year old boy appeared in the youth Court charged with robbery and the High Court thought it was hugely significant that he was a child. A 13 year old boy. I'm sure you appreciate the Children Are those aged 10- 13. Young people are aged 40 2 17. This 13 year old boy appeared in the youth Court charged with robbery, an attempted another fact, sickness, It was rather unpleasant. The case was allocated by the Youth Court to the Crown Court. It was sent section 51. There was a challenge to the sending by way of judicial review in the High Court. four defendants in total, three of them had already been dealt with that day in the Youth Court and those three had already been sent to the Crown Court. I'm sure that way With the Magistrates in the Western Morgan Youth Court in deciding whether or not to send this 13 year old boy. What did the justices do when they looked at the adult guidelines and considered that the offenses might well warrant custody in excess of two years or why are youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision and surveillance near the sentence of course is available to them, You know, don't you? That if you're 14 or below, you cannot be given a youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision and surveillance unless you are deemed to be a persistent defender. Well, this 13 year old boy wasn't a persistent defender and therefore that sentence wasn't available to certainly custody in excess of two years. He's never available in youth Court. The maximum period of custody, as you know in the youth court is a two year detention and training. So they decided to send the High court disagreed say no, he's a child, he's 13. The court had to focus on the offender, no offense custody as a measure of last resort. Youth Court was the correct venue For this 13 year old boy, even though their sentencing options were severely limited. Well, so what said to I call that was a matter of, part of parliament decided in the way the legislation was enacted, The sentencing options available to the magistrate would be would be rather limit. And of course it mattered not. The three have been sent because when you're dealing with youth you must consider each one of them individually quite different in the adult court, isn't it? I'm sure you where there are a number of offenders in the if one of them elects trial by jury and dissent, then they must all be sent. The individual right of election has gone in the adult magistrate. If one is sent then they all must be safe. Not. So in the Youth Court where one must consider the matter As to whether or not to accept jurisdiction or to send under Section 51 on an individual basis. Quite important, that really isn't, especially if you're for the defense and you're trying to get the youth court to keep jurisdiction in the matter. Albeit their sentencing options there after are fairly limited. It's like seven Barton and Booze worth a mention. I know it's 2020 but it's still worth a mention. A very strongly constituted court of Appeal, giving us the definitive test a dishonesty in Criminal Law. If you read this judgment and you see who sat in the court of appeal on this occasion, you will quickly appreciate that it was a court comprising all of the talents, all of the senior judiciary. We're in that court of appeal and rightly so because they have to consider a very important issue namely what is the test, dishonesty eight? Criminal Law? Those of you who know your case law would have appreciated this. All started life with the Supreme Court, acting as a civil court of jurisdiction in the case of I've a genting casinos ivy, the professional gambler and his mate indulging in something called edge sorting. They were able to determine having played this game over a number of hours. They were able to determine from the microscopic differences to the edges of the playing cards whether or not a low card or high card was being delivered from the shoes and that of course assisted them enormously And over the course of their gambling I think they took casino for something like £7 million pounds and the casino refused to pay out. Experts view the casino's CCTV footage and it was decided that these two gamblers where we were indulging edge sorting and were there for being dishonest ivy. Soon the casino in the High court and lost in the court period, lost and in the Supreme Court and lost. The Supreme Court say that you've got it didn't matter that as far as an ivy was concerned that he didn't consider his actions to be dishonest in any way. And the Supreme Court said, we don't think that should be part of the test for dishonesty anywhere. What the Supreme Court said, who's mentioned in the case of Paterson Also in 2017 where Lord and Lord Leveson said that bearing in mind what the Supreme Court has said, albeit it was a bit tough because as you know, they were sitting as a civil court all between the Supreme Court is extremely powerful. And Lord Ellison said that he would very much doubt the Court of appeal would prefer. Gosh, which was the test We had for the best part of 30 years that the court of appeal would prefer. Gosh over that, which was set in and Lord Leveson was absolutely right because when the Court of Appeal came to decide what the current test for dishonesty is in criminal Law, they said this. The test for dishonesty decide what facts the defendant and what his beliefs were. Obviously that's something to glean from the evidence. Having had to try and when you've done that, which I suppose is part subjective because you're deciding what facts the defendants new. So there's a subjective element. You then apply the standards of the reasonably honest person to that, which was which is clearly an objective standard to be applied to that which was done. There's nothing subjective about the objective standard of the reasonable on his person. There is no additional requirement that the defendant must have known or appreciated that by those standards, his actions must have been dishonest. Which of course Is the Gosh test that criminal lawyers have been using for the best part of 30 years. So there you are, a defendant can be convicted of dishonesty. If the court having ascertained what facts he knew and what his beliefs were, apply the objective standard, the reasonable on his person to which was done would a reasonable honest person knowing what he knew and having his beliefs have acted in the way that he did. If the answer is yes, then of course he's not to be regarded as dishonest. However, if the answer is no and the reasonable on his person would certainly have not behaved in that particular way. Then of course, the test is made out and he used to be considered a dishonest person. I'm retired now, so it doesn't really affect me on a day to day basis because I no longer an advocate appear before the court. But if I were I would be rather concerned as to where the law is at the moment regarding dishonesty. Because it seems to me that a person can be convicted, defensive dishonesty or B. They themselves lack the men's rare, the guilty mind as replied a person may say, well, I genuinely did not believe that what I was doing on that occasion was in any way dishonest. Well, if that is there, but it's genuinely help. Would I personally, I think it's rather harsh that you convict them of an offense of dishonest. I much prefer the Gosh test because the Gosh test of course has within it that element of Mandria the guilty mind to go along with the actress race. But there we are. That's the state of the law in 2020 it's my eight. A defendant failing to comply with all of the judge that he revealed the pin or encryption in relation to to mobile phones. But this was the case of Regina and Spencer. I'm sure you know that under section 49 and she said you too, Of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Once the authorities have obtained an order from a district judge or a circuit judge, if they're often becomes an offense to refuse to give to the authorities details of the pain or the encryption as regards whatever device is being considered. More than not, it is a mobile phone. It is an offense. Once the order has been obtained, it's not an offense trying to the obtaining of the order once an order has been obtained. Clearly it's important to advise supply that if he or she still refuses to cooperate. It the offense carries two years on indictment or five years on indictment depending upon the nature of the investigation that's being carried. If it's in relation to national security or child abuse That it carries five years. Honey Mr. Spencer faced two counts on the indictment and in relation to one of the counts, he was given a period of nine months imprisonment concurrent with other counts on the indictment And in relation to the other account. He was given a period of 12 months and consecutive defense. As you know, be triable. Either way, if you're at the police station stage, watch out for this may be that the request is being made of the client at the police station stage try to a judge's order having been obtained and it may be that it's not in the interests of the suspect at that stage to reveal his or her pain or encryption. I would I think that probably in no circumstances suggest that he or she keep their powder dry and say no. That gracious request from the police and then leave it and wait and see. I suspect that there's many requests made in the police station, It doesn't get anywhere near an application to court for judges. Remember it only becomes a crime to refuse to provide once a judge's order has been and that might be in order of a district judge in the Magistrates court or a circuit judge at the a slide nine vagina and Harvard 2020 decision in relation to theft by way of no value shoplifting. Which is a rather strange offense, is it not Because where the value is £200 below Section 22 A of the Magistrates courts at 1980. That makes it effectively an offense whereby he can elect 12 gradually, if he wants to, the Magistrates cannot decline jurisdiction. So it's simply a question of asking him in the magistrate's court. But where do you want to be tried? Do you want to be tried in this court? If you say yes, you will be tried in this court. However, you do have the right to elect Crown jury trial. And if you re elect, you'll be sent section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and you have your trial all the time. Of course, an indictment the matter carries seven years. Should he elect and if he does elect, then it can properly appear as account on the entire Yeah. In this particular case, there was consideration the court of appear of aggregating the sons or the value Where they were dealing with multiple offenses, you know, don't you? Section 22 a subsection for war. Where the court is dealing with multiple offenses, they're entitled to aggregate the amounts and if the value exceeds £200,, then all of the offenses become truly. Either way, justices can decline jurisdiction. He or she could elect jury trial. They want to. And what stage huge should that consideration be made? Well in regina harvey the court of appeal said the time for consideration of all of this was when all of the offenses before the court and the court is considering the issue of allocation and said, which really seems a little oh, when one considers that the legislation speaks in terms of being charged on the same occasion, it may well be that he's been charged on different occasions. But if they're all put together in the one corp and the court considering and allocation sending at that state, each at that one hearing, they can aggregate the values of all the charges And if they exceed £200 and then the offense has all become tried. Mhm. She also the case of in this area this was a case in which a person was sent Section 51 from the magistrate to the crown called on a number of offenses including common assault, including theft by way of low value shoplifting and theft by way of low value shoplifting appeared as account of the diet wrong said the court of appear you can't have theft by way of low value shoplifting his account on the indictment where he or she has been sent because of course it is a summary thank and only certain summary offenses can appear as counts on an indicted. We know what those summary offenses are listed in section 40 Of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Things like taking motor vehicles without consent, drag was disqualified. What else? Common assault? There are various offenses in Section 14 and they can probably be counts on the indictment but not theft by way of low value shoplifting. That must sit aside from the indictment. Of course, somewhat surprisingly, if it's an attempt, then that can appear as a count on the indictment. If he elects trial by jury on low value shop 15, that could appear as account on the site, it blows the matter was sent and in those circumstances it being a summary events, it must set aside and count appear on the site. Another interesting question in relation to low value shoplifting is can it be charged more than six months after the commission date of the offense? Well, I personally don't think it can be because it is a summary offense And we know, don't we? That as a result of section 127 of the Magistrates courts at 1918 and Rule seven That the criminal procedure, who is 2020 as amended proceedings for a summary offense must be instituted within six months at the commission date of the offense unless the legislation provides otherwise. But the legislation doesn't provide otherwise. Section 20 22 a. is headed No value Shop 15 to be a summary effects and I therefore take the view that proceedings must be instituted within six months. And I believe it says to say on the C. P. S. Website Not to be confused. Of course with those offenses under section 22 things like low value criminal damage, low value damage, aggravated vehicle taking these offenses are either way. Section 22 informs us that these are either way offenses and of course because they're either way, there are no time limits, they can be charged at any time. There are no time limits. Right away offenses. There are no time limits for indictable, only offenses, of course having a job hunched with low value criminal damage or low value damage, Aggravated vehicle taking The Magistrates have to make a determination, do they not once the matter appears in court, and if the value does not exceed £5,000,, then of course, with this low value criminal damage Value damage, aggravated vehicle taking the Magistrates make a determination under section 22 At the Magistrate's courts at 1980 that the offense is to be tried summarily, meaning of course, that the defendant thereafter no longer has a right of election, but that's a matter to be determined in court By the magistrate under section 20 two. Of course, he only becomes summer Once that determination has been made under Section 22. And that's why, of course it is either way until that determination is made under section 22, and you can charge it more than six months after the commission date of the effects section 22. Not to be confused With the summary offense under section 22 a of low value shop. It's like 10 regina and money. A court of appeal 2020 decision, A consideration of the powers of the attorney general to refer a case to the court appeared on the basis of an unduly lenient sentence, as imposed by a crown. And we know, don't we, the members of the public can now contact the attorney general. If they themselves consider that the judge had imposed an unduly lenient sentence in the particular case. Would you believe that's the only circumstance in which the Court of appeal can actually increase a sentence imposed by a crown court jump, where you appeal the civility of a sentence imposed by a crown court judge of the Court of appeal. The Court of appeal can alter the sentence, but the defendant must not consider he's been dealt with more harshly in the court of appear that he had been dealt with the Crown Court. See section 11 3 Of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. And of course, in order for the Attorney General to refer the case to the court appeared, the centers must have been imposed by a Crown Court judge on intact. There's no power to refer the case and the magistrate and of course, the offense itself, and must be one of those mentioned In the Criminal Justice Act, 1988. Reviews of Sentencing Order 2006, which is, you know, has been produced as a result of Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 19. Keep an eye on the order please, because offenses are being added to it all the time. And whilst this isn't true every time, it seems to me, the attorney general is referring matters to the court of Appeal. We he or she considers that the sentence was not merely but unduly lenient. Perhaps a half of that which really should have been imposed. And I've read cases in which the court of appeal have agreed with the Attorney general has given lead. Have actually looked at the centers and would you believe have doubled. This is the original sentence having been unduly it's 9 11 when cheap one GB not sure the pronunciation of that 2020 court decision, we don't have many of these. This was an interesting case in relation to old trough convict cool peel. Looking at doctrine Oprah for a quick. The argument in the Crown Court, of course, was that the judge should have stayed the proceedings as being an abusive process. The judge rejected that argument, that that argument found favor in the court of appeal very briefly, the facts were a person was struck by a car which didn't stop very sadly. The person be struck, didn't regain consciousness and died from their injuries. A full investigation was carried out and the defendant placed a number of charges in the magistrate's court and pleaded guilty to the they were of a summary nature, summary. Road traffic offenses are guilty plea having been entered the District judge gave the event four months in prison. Now time they moved on. A further statements and reports were obtained concerning the speed and he was now charged with causing death by dangerous driving. And of course he argued Oprah foie convict as it excuse me, I've already faced charges arising out of the facts and circumstances of this incident and I've been sentenced as well. It's therefore wrong to bring new charges against me and the Court of Appeal agreed with that argument and disagreed with Crown Court judge and said that on these particular facts is the the case should have been stayed as an abuse of process. There was nothing new. There were no special circumstances. There were no exceptional circumstances warranting the bringing of new charges and the proceedings should therefore have been stayed. And that's exactly what they did in the sense of the conviction was every time. So there you are, we don't get many of those that court of appeal reminding us that there must be finality in the law. And of course it's wrong for people to be recharged unless exceptional circumstances apply. There were no exceptional circumstances here that which was discovered, as it were. Could well have been discovered in the original investigation and find it slide. 12 of 12. I haven't named The particular defendant. But this was an interesting high court 2020 decision where the High Court had to consider the status of a person appearing before a magistrate called on a requisition or it may have been a single justice procedure notice. No, I'm fairly sure that's a requisition to answer a number of serious charges. The defendant had been released under investigation for some 15 months before proceedings were commenced by way of written charges and a requisition. The defending quite properly attended the Magistrates court. The magistrate took the view that they had a ground for remanding him in custody. The court taking the view they had substantial grounds to believe, given the serious nature of the offenses and the likely sentence upon conviction that he might fail to surrender. They promptly, as he worked, took away his liberty and remanded him in custody. He went to the judge of the Crown court seeking bail. The judge agreed with the Magistrates and he then took the matter to the High Court High Court, agreeing with both the Crown Court judge and the Magistrates saying, look, it's a matter for the call. Every time a person appears before the court bail is an issue for the court, regardless of how you appeared before, you might appear before the court on a requisition. But if they have a ground for withholding bale bale can be refused and you can be remanded in custody. So do please watch out for that and don't say to clients, oh you'll be ok if you attend on a requisition you might not be okay. The client might find himself remanded in custody. Excellent. Well there you are. I hope you enjoyed that. A quick run through 12 important cases and I particularly chosen cases which would be of interest to you Work the U- 62 minutes stage. So all that remains is for me, colline beaumont to thank you on behalf of data law for watching this particular webinar and for listening to me and I look forward to your company again in the not too distant future on another data law webinar. Thank you very much. Yeah.
Webinar
Slides
2347 Users
82 Courses
118 Reviews
