W at, welcome on behalf of myself, Colleen Beaumont. I also welcome on behalf of data law. Uh This, as you're probably aware is the 2024 Data Law spring live event. We do two of these a year. Uh One is in the um spring of course and one is in the autumn. Uh just a word or two about myself. Uh My name is Colleen Belmont, uh retired now um qualified as both a barrister and a solicitor. Um I was for many years um a solicitor working for a large criminal legal aid practice in uh Berkshire. Uh Can I mention um something for the future? Uh I'm in the process of putting together 61 hour webinars in relation to advising clients at the police station stage. Uh Those are going to be very useful. I hope for probationary reps, accredited reps really useful for anyone I suppose um advising clients at that early stage um in the police station investigation. So without more ado, let's just have a look at the first of the slide. Shall we, we kick off with slides in relation to case law in the first case there, Regina and Martin, uh the appellant was aged 20 was sentenced to a community order for two years with a requirement of 100 and 50 hours of unpaid work. Nothing wrong with that as a sentence usually, but in relation to this particular person, um he effectively served the equivalent of a 16 month sentence whilst being on remand. And so the court for PF had to determine, was this an appropriate type of sentence for someone who'd effectively already served their sentence? Well, you may or may not be aware of the case of coats, which is a 2022 Court of Appeal Authority. Uh that says that a court always retains the discretion to impose a community order with rehabilitative requirements and that discretion remains even where the sentence has been served. And by way of having been remanded in custody during the proceedings. But this of course, wasn't a co scenario, was it, this wasn't a community order with rehabilitative rehabilitative requirements. This was pure punishment, 100 and 50 hours of unpaid work. And in those circumstances, the court of appeal said no, uh coats clearing didn't apply to this scenario. And the community order was simply wrong in principle. Why? Well, because he'd served the sentence on remand already. And so they substituted a centers effectively deemed serve and then they had to ask themselves the question. Did that offend section 11 3 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 which uh you may or may not know, says that if you appeal the severity of a sentence from the Crown Court to the court of appeal, the court of appeal can alter the sentence. But the defendant must not consider that he's been dealt with more severely in the court of appeal than he'd been dealt with in the crown court. Now, did the imposition of an immediate custodial sentence mean that he'd effectively been given a more serious sentence by the court of appeal than he'd been given by the Crown court. Remember at the Crown Court, he'd been given a community order and the court of appeal said, no, we don't think it offends section 11 3. Why? Well, because although it's a custodial sentence, it is deemed served and he's therefore better off. Is he not than a community order with um a two year requirement, 100 and 50 hours of unpaid work, Thompson and the CPS 2024. This was an interesting read. I don't know whether you read it. It went to the High court by way of an appear that case stated uh concerning the statutory definition of a zombie knife under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 offensive weapons order of 1988. I hope you know that you now of course, can't have various items even in private. The law was amended, wasn't it sometime I believe in about May or July. Uh 2021. Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 offensive weapons images or words, this is in particular reference to a zombie knife, images or words whether on the blade or handle that suggest that it is to be used for the purposes of violence. And this particular zombie knife that he had in private, the words were Rambo first blood part one, I'm sorry. It, it meant very little to me. Um The district judge concluded that the knife in question did fall within the definition. The district judge was not wrong said the high court when the matter uh went before the high court against the decision clearly of the district judge to uh to label this as a zombie knife within the meaning of the order. The high court said yes, yes, Rambo first blood. Uh part one would suggest that it was indeed an item to be used for the purposes of violence. Uh uh No doubt you, you people who know an awful lot more than I know about Rambo and would probably be aware that the main characteristic of Rambo is that I'm reliably informed, he's a very violent character. Um In his movies I three R NTA Court of appeal decision, the appellant had been convicted of offenses occurring between 2015 and 2018. Thus, the increase in the maximum sentence for the offense of cruelty to a person under 16 under the crime sentencing and courts Act 2022 did not apply because clearly that increase in sentence only applied to offenses committed on or after the date upon which the particular section of that act came into force. However, there were new guidelines in force, new guidelines came into force after the commission of the offense. But of course, uh before sentencing, these new guidelines came in on the first of April 2023. Um and the court of appeal said that it was absolutely right. Uh that the judge apply the guidelines that were currently in force at the time of sentencing. There's nothing new in this. Is there the thing to remember as criminal lawyers, two things you've got to remember. Firstly, if a guideline is currently in force, then the judge is to have regard to that particular guideline regardless of when the offense was committed. Secondly, if the sentence has been increased for any particular offense, then in the main, because these increased sentences are never backdated. If the offense predating the increase in sentence, then the judge of course, must look to the old uh sentence applicable at the time of the occurrence of the offenses. In other words, uh the maximum penalties available, uh were those that were available uh to a court when the offenses were committed between 2015 and 2018. And those are just two general principles about sentencing that as a criminal lawyer, you just need to be aware of. That's right for war. Uh Regina and Cohen, a court for appeal decision concerning two strikes. The tests as a result of amendments under the peace crime sentencing and Corpse Act 2022 is that the court is now to consider and to impose a minimum sentence unless exceptional circumstances would justify the court in not doing so. And circumstances must be truly exceptional. The minimum term uh would mean that the sentence was arbitrary or dis arbitrary and disproportionate on the facts. Court of appeal looked at this particular case and said, did exceptional circumstances exist whereby uh the judge could have departed from the minimum sentence required under the two strikes provisions. And they said, well, let's look at what happened in this particular case. Firstly, there was a long period of time between the first and the second offense. Secondly, he was only aged 12 at the time of the previous offense and had been given a referral order for it. This second conviction, unlike the previous conviction was not uh for a bladed article. This time, it was a knuckle gossip. And in those circumstances, the court of appeal said yes, yes, there was enough there uh for the judge to have found exceptional circumstances uh whereby uh it was deemed that the imposition of the custodial sentence was arbitrary and disproportionate. And the court of appeal allowed the appeal and altered the sentence. Please, before I move away from site four, do uh note that the test now in relation to whether or not your client is going to be on the receiving end of a minimum sentence, doesn't matter what minimum sentence it is. It might be third time supply of class a drugs. It might be your third dwelling burglary. It might be two strikes, second possession of a knife, bladed article, offensive weapon, corrosive substance. It doesn't matter. Now, the test has been changed that minimum sentence to be imposed unless the court can find exceptional circumstances. The former test was a lower test. The court merely having to find circumstances uh particular to the offense or to the offender circumstances particular to the offense or the offender, which would make the imposition of the minimum sentence unjust in all the circumstances. Well, do do make a note the bar has been raised. Minimum sentence is now to be imposed unless the court can find exceptional circumstances. And that was simply a good example of the court finding exceptional circumstances. Side five. On the case of Davies, the appellant was made subject to a detention and training order. No, he was made subject to a detention in a young offender institution. He was 18 at the time of the sentence. We know don't we? If you're 1819 or 20 upon conviction, your sentence is detention in a young offender institution. If you're 21 or over at the point of conviction, your sentence is a term of imprisonment was this sentence lawful. The opponent was aged 14 at the time of the offenses important. Those of you who operate in the Youth Court will know that if you're 14 or below, you can't be given a detention and training order, which is the custodial sentence. Of course available in the Youth Court unless you can be categorized as a persistent offender. Now, I appreciate that he was 18 at the time of sentence, but that's not the point. You see he was 14 at the time of the commission dates of these offenses. And the Lord said and still says that you can't be made the subject of a detention and training order if you're 14 or below, unless you are persistent. And so the court of appeal had to determine whether or not a detention and training order would have been permissible for him. Of course, if it had been permissible for him, then of course, there was nothing wrong with the detention in a young offended institution but had it not been permissible? Then the custodial sentence of detention in a young offender institution would be wrong in law. So was he persistent? What did he have against him? He had one previous caution recorded against him and he'd only been involved in one incident which gave rise to the two offenses for which he was sentenced. That's not enough said the court of appear at 14, he could not have been categorized as persistent whereby it would not have been possible in law to make him the subject of a detention and training order. And that being the case, you couldn't lock him up as an 18 year old by way of detention in a young offender institution. Excellent. But really, I've come to the end of those um first five slides in relation to case law. Um I just remind you of what I said at the beginning. Um I've done 61 hour webinars for data law. And um those six topics are mentioned on the first slide of this uh presentation so clearly, and if you want to watch the whole of that particular webinar on case law, uh there's an awful lot more in it than those first at five slides. I now turn to another one hour webinar and I've taken some slides from it and this time it concerns the Online Safety Act of 2023. These next few smart hes uh will detail the new offenses that came into force in January this year 2024. Uh when part 10 of the Online Safety Act, 2023 came into force in its entirety. Part 10 gave us some new offenses and part 10 also inserted some new offenses into the sexual offenses Act of 2003. So let's look at the first new offense given to us by the Online Safety Act of 2023 a false communications offense slide, six section 179 creates a criminal offense for the sending of false communications that meet the threshold of the offense. Person will be guilty of the offense. If without a reasonable excuse, they send a message, conveying information that they know to be false. And at the time of sending it, they intend the message to cause non-trivial, psychological or physical harm to a likely audience ie someone who could reasonably be foreseen to encounter the message or content. The prosecution must prove that the sender lacked a reasonable excuse for sending the message. Not unsurprisingly, this offense replaces the old offense created by the Malicious Communications Act of 1982. It is summary only and please ignore any reference to 6 to 51 weeks in the section of the Online Safety Act 2023. Who knows it may at some point become 51 weeks. I put 56 there. I mean 51 it may at some point become 51 weeks presently. It is of course 26 weeks, six months. That is the maximum that Magistrates can impose currently for a summary offense. See the Magistrates court at 1980. Section 133, that reference to 51 weeks for a summary offense is a reference to the increased powers contained in the Criminal Justice Act of 2003. Those increased powers have never been brought into force. And so it's still 26 weeks. Also section 100 and 27 does not apply. In other words, you don't have to bring proceedings for this offense within six months of the commission date of the offense, even though it's summary only, it's one of those where six months runs from the date upon which the prosecutor reviewing the case considers that he or she has sufficient evidence in order to charge and for there to be a realistic prospect of conviction and that the charge is in the public interest. The prosecutor signs the certificate and the six months runs from the date of the signing of that certificate. Yet another example, Pope of the trend, uh whereby albeit it's a summary only offense, the proceedings do not need to be brought within six months at the commission date of the offense. Second, new offense created by the online safety app section 181, a threatening communications offense. This section creates a criminal offense of se sending threatening communications that meet the threshold of the offense. Namely, you're now sending a message, conveying a threat of death, serious injury, rape, assault by penetration or serious financial loss and you intend or you are reckless as to whether someone encountering the message will fear that the threat will be carried out. You argue the offense if the recipient fears someone other than the sender may carry out the threat. So it's not limited, is it to the um you carrying out the threat? Uh The recipient may fear that rather than you, someone else may carry out the threat. So, what, uh, you're still called, uh, because you've sent that threatening communication in terms of threats of serious financial loss. It's a defense. Good, good luck with this one. It's a defense that the threat was used to reinforce a reasonable demand that they reasonably believed was proper. Yeah. Ok. You've probably, um, overstepped the mark, haven't you in your communication? And that's why you've been charged and carry on with threats of serious financial loss. Uh This offense replaces the offense in the Malicious Communications Act of 1988 series injury means grievous, bodily harm. If you do raise the defense, a propose serious financial loss, you must adduce sufficient evidence to raise your defense. And then there is an assumption that your defense is made out unless the prosecution can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that that defense is not available to you on these facts. It's an either way offense carries five years on indictment. Another new offense, section 183, the offense of threatening or showing flashing images. This section creates two specific offenses of sending or showing flashing images electronically to people with epilepsy intended to cause them harm, harm, having the meaning of a seizure or alarm or distress. The sending in events involves sending a communication by electronic means which consists of or includes flashing images where one of two conditions are met without a reasonable excuse. Condition one at the time the communications sent, it is reasonably foreseeable that an individual with epilepsy would be among those who would view the communication and the communication is sent with the intention that such individual will suffer harm as a result of viewing the flash, as you can see. Condition one is essentially intended to capture speculative messages sent to multiple people. For example, by social media in internet trolls. Condition two, when sending the communication, the person sending it believes that an individual whom the sender knows or suspects to be an individual with epilepsy will or might view it and intends that that individual suffer harm as a result of viewing the flashing images condition two is essentially intended to capture the more targeted, sending a flashing images to an individual whom the sender knows or suspects has epilepsy. The offense of sending may be committed by a person who forwards or shares an electronic communication, certain offensive, sending flashing images or electronically cannot be committed by recognized news publishers or those with licenses under the broadcasting acts. The other offense is showing showing another person flashing images and you might show those flashing images, for example, on a mobile phone screen. And when showing the images, you know, or suspect that the individual concerned has epilepsy and you intend that that individual will suffer harm as is of, of viewing them and you have no reasonable excuse for showing them either way offense five years on indictment. Another new offense under the Online Safety Act 2023. Remember, these all came into force when part 10 of the act came into force in January this year 2024 this one is the offense of encouraging or assisting self harm, encouraging or assisting for serious self harm of another person. You must do a re relevant act capable of encouraging or assisting the serious self harm of another person. And your act was intended to encourage or assist the serious self harm of another person. Doing a relevant act includes in person or electronic communications, publications, correspondence, and the sending or giving of items with stored electronic data. Serious self-harm means grievous, bodily harm. The person committing the offense need not know or even be able to identify the person or persons who received the communication, a person who intends that a recipient or recipients of their communication will seriously self harm themselves is guilty of an offense even though he or she may never know the identity of those who received the communication. Important to note that this offense can be committed whether or not serious self harm even occurs. A person who arranges for someone else to do an act capable of encouraging or assisting the serious self harm of another person would also be committing an offense if that other person does that particular act. In other words, a arranges for someone to do it and they actually do it. Uh The offense may be committed online where someone forwards another person's direct message or shares another person's post. The offense will also be committed uh where a person publishes a physical document such as a pamphlet or a booklet. Even if they didn't write the material, or you might send a hyperlink and the person accesses the material via that hyperlink or you might send them a memory stick. An internet service provider does not commit the offense merely for providing a means through which others can publish the content. Doing an act capable of encoding, resisting the serious self harm of another person includes a reference to doing so by threatening another person or otherwise putting pressure on another person to seriously self-harm. An act includes a course of conduct and also includes an omission, for example, uh encouraging people not to eat or drink or take their medication by the way, five years on indictment. So we've come to the end of those specific new offenses created uh by the Online Safety Act of 2023 I say new, some of them, of course, uh merely replace um offenses in the Malicious Communications Act. We're now dealing with amendments to the sexual offenses Act 2003 as a result of the Online Safety Act 2023. Again, all of this came into force in January this year when part 10 of the act came in. So firstly, section 187 creates a new offense of sending a photograph or film of a person's genitals to another person in England. And Wales, we have a new section 66 A of the sexual offenses act of 2003 person intentionally sends or gives a photograph or film of any person's genitals to another person. And the sender either intends the recipient will see the genitals and be caused harassment, distress or humiliation or the sending sends or gives the photograph or film for the purposes of obtaining sexual gratification. And he's reckless as to whether the recipient will be caused alarm, distress or humiliation, sending or giving includes sending it electronically or otherwise. Uh subsections define what is meant by photograph and what is meant by film. Section 66 A sexual offense Act 2003, an either way offense two years on indictment. Section 188, sharing or threatening to share intimate photograph or film. This section creates three new offenses of sharing an intimate photograph or film and one new offense of threatening to share an intimate photograph or film. We have additions to the sexual offenses act 2003, whereby we have section 66 BC and D 66 B one new offense. Number one, sharing or threatening to share intimate photograph or film, a person intentionally shares a photograph or film which shows or appears to show another person in an intimate state, it might not be genuine, hence appears it might be a tweet without the consent or a reasonable belief in the consent of that other person. There's no requirement to prove that the sharing was done for a particular purpose. This is the least serious of the new offenses. It is summary only. However, if you're on trial for one of the three more serious offenses that we're about to look at that you might be found guilty by the Magistrates of this lesser offense in the alternative 66 B two, no offense. Number two, intentionally sharing a photograph or film which appears which shows or appears to show another person in an intimate state uh with the intention to cause alarm, humiliation or distress to that person. This is either way uh two years on indictment appears to show is a theme running throughout these sections. The film or photograph may have been altered or manufactured so that it appears to be genuine when in fact, it is not and I'm sure you'll probably be reading in your newspapers about a very famous female artist. Um I won't name her. Uh But there were certain images of her um on the internet, uh which had clearly been manufactured to look like her, but they most certainly were not her. Uh They were of a pornographic nature section 66 B three. New offense. Number three, intentionally sharing a photo or film of another person which shows or appears to show another person in an intimate state without the consent or a reasonable belief in the consent for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification. Either way, two years on indictment, 66 B four, new offense four, threatening to share a photograph or film which shows or appears to show another person and where the perpetrator intended that B or someone who knows B will fear that the threat will be carried out. Always reckless as to that result, the threats, events either way, two years on indictment. Also, please be aware of schedule 14 at the back of the Online Safety Act of 2023 amendments consequential on these offenses coming into force as a result of part 10 of the Act in January this year, there are 25 different paragraphs in schedule 14 and I've just given you three of them there. Uh schedule five of the sexual offenses Act 2003 offenses which your client at the Crown Court might be. The subject of a sexual harm prevention order were added to schedule five sections 179 and 181 of the Online Safety Act 2020 23 paragraph 14, sending a photo film of janitors for certain of the new offenses of sharing or threatening to share intimate photograph or film. These are qualifying offenses within the meaning of section 65 A two of pace, which has ramifications in relation to the power of the police to retain your client's fingerprints and your client's DNA. Paragraph 19, section 66 A 66 B two and 66 B three have been added to schedule four of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, whereby you cannot argue the statutory defense under section 45 of the um of that particular modern slavery act. In other words, you know, you were, you'd been trafficked and you were effectively being used as a slave. Well, that won't help you at all because of course, that statutory defense doesn't apply to any offense mentioned in schedule four at the back of the modern slavery Act of 2015. Can we just pass the halfway point slide 27 of 50? And I'm now turning to a series of slides in relation to new guidelines uh that were published by the Sentencing Council last year, we had 12, we had 12 new road traffic guidelines uh that came into force and are operative that anyone sent us as an adult on or after the first of July uh 2023. And if you haven't already done, so, might I please invite you to go on to the Sentencing Council website and to download those 12 new guidelines on road traffic offenses. Clearly, we had to have a new guideline in relation causing death by dangerous driving because I'm sure you're aware that this offense now carries life uh rather than 14 years, it was increased from 14 years to life by the section 86 of the Peace crime sentencing and Courts Act 2022 on the 28th of June 2022. It's an offense of course created by section one of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It's also a specified offense whereby your client could find themselves being sentenced at the crown court by the judge under the dangerous offender provisions of the sentencing code 2020 uh causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence of pre court drugs. Again, we had to have a new guideline for this because again, this was an offense where the sentence was increased from 14 years to life. Three A section three A of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Again, it's a specified offense whereby the client uh might find themselves being sentenced as a dangerous offender. We also had causing death by careless driving alcohol, drugs causing death by careless driving, alcohol or drugs. Continued. Uh The offense carries an obligatory disqualification from driving, absent special reasons, minimum five years plus an extended retest, minimum six years if it's your second conviction uh within 10 years. As with all guidelines, uh you've got um your starting point, haven't you A B or C? And then you've got your range of sentences within uh that particular particular uh starting point. Statutory aggravating factors. Yeah, statutory mitigating factors as well. So you've got statutory aggravating factors like for example, offense committed on bail and then your list of mitigating and aggravating factors causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving. Well, we had to have a guideline but this, this was a new offense created by section 87 of the police crime sentencing at Corse Act 2022 serious injury, grievous bodily harm either way, two years on indictment, as you know, any sentence of two years or below is capable of suspension by a crown court judge. Same would apply of course if given six months in the Magistrates capable of being suspended. So I don't know, give some thought to uh what you would need to do in order to seek to persuade a judge to sentence, could be any of this, couldn't it? As drivers facing that charge were all careless at times causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving. I'm sure a timely guilty plea would help to seek to persuade the judge to possibly suspend the most, perhaps early admissions in a police station. Yeah, none of it's gonna hurt. Is it driving or attempting to drive with a specified drug above the specified limit guidelines? Do you remember this, this offense coming into 14 March 2015, we were given some guidance, weren't we by the sentencing council in November 2016? But now it's proper a proper guideline. Remember 12 new guidelines on road traffic offenses published by the sentencing Council operative with effect from the first of July 2023 if you're 18 or over So there you are guidelines of a much higher order than mere guidance. And so who knows, I'm not in practice anymore, but it might be that Magistrates are now starting to give community sentences. But now that we've got guidelines, who knows, some people might even end up going to custody. Uh Now we've got proper guidelines from the sentencing council in relation to driving or attempting to drive with a specified drug above the specified limits. And the final guideline of the 12 guidelines is a guideline in relation to in charge with a specified drug above the specified limit, summary events as you know, level four maximum of £2500 and or three months custody. I doubt many people go into custody in charge. Uh One of those offenses uh for which custody could never be posted in the youth court. Of course, because the offense must carry four months or more in the case of an adult. In order for custody to be available in the youth court, it doesn't carry an obligatory ban unlike driving or attempting to drive which as you know, absent special reasons carries an oblique toy ban of a minimum period of 12 months. Uh This one carries uh 10 penalty points having said that as you know, uh Magistrates could always instead of giving points, impose a discretionary ban if they want to. There, it is section 34 subsection two discretionary ban, road traffic offenders act 1988 minimum one day maximum life and anything in between, that's what's meant by discretion. Another document published by the Sentencing Council last year, miscellaneous amendments to sentencing guidelines. This is worth a read, a certain guidelines were amended uh with effect from the first of April last year to make them slightly more user friendly and to update them as a result of amendments to legislation. And the document I suggest you go on to the sentencing council website, uh uh and download it. The document deals with amendments uh to five areas. Disqualification from driving football, banning orders, criminal damage, minimum sentences and required life sentence for manslaughter of an emergency worker. In relation to disqualification from driving. There's a bit of an ouch if you do road traffic law and it's this, if you look at the new guidance, it says people who are potential totters should ordinarily be given points and then made a totter and then the court has to decide whether or not they've got a decent exceptional hardship argument whereby they don't have to be disqualified for the requisite minimum period. However, says the guidance you can if you want to give a discretionary ban on the offense instead of points whereby he or she does not become a totter, but so far so good. But the guidance census. But if you're considering a discretionary disqualification for a person who is potentially a totter, your discretionary disqualification should never be lower than or less than the disqualification he would have received, had you given him points and made him a totter. In other words, you can forget a 14 day ban, 21 day ban, 28 day ban because the minimum he would have received as a Totter is six months. Dear. Oh, dear. So watch out for that. The last thing you want is a discretionary ban if they're gonna ban you for the same period as they would have banned you as a totter. A discretionary ban does not wipe points from your rec gosh, at least if you're disqualified as a totter, your points are wiped from the record. So the last thing you want is a six month discretionary battle. Watch out for that. Have a read of the document. Also have a read of the document in relation to amendments to criminal damage. Also have a read of the document in relation to minimum sentences. Now that we have the new test, exceptional circumstances as opposed to particular circumstances. As I said earlier, the bar has definitely been raised in relation to minimum sentences. Uh, we now turn to extracts from the webinar that I did in relation to the criminal procedure rules. 2020 as amended and the criminal practice directions. 2023 all of the statutory instruments are available on the website legislation.gov dot UK. And in order now to have a full set of the criminal procedure rules, 2020 is amended. You need to follow it. You need statutory estimate 2020. Number 795. That's the main document that gave us the criminal procedure rules 2020 in force fifth of October 2020. And you then need all of the amended statutory instruments that have been published since October 2020. And I've listed them there for you and it's only really by having the full set that you'll have a full set of the criminal procedure rules. 2020. As amended, you've got the first amending statutory instrument, the details of it. The second one, the third one, the 4th 1/5 1, 6th, 1/7 and the most recent one statutory instrument there 2024 number 62 which amended the rules yet again with effect from the first of April this year. As you know, these amending documents are required because the rules are a living instrument and must constantly be updated in line with changes to legislation or case law. And the rules committee sits every every so often to determine how and when these rules need to be updated and changed. I don't know about you, but I think those statutory instruments, they're a bit dry. I find the best thing to do is to go to the explanatory note at the end and that gives you a racy of the important contents of that particular statutory instrument. And you might read something in the explanatory note in a sort of bullet point fashion, which makes you think. Ah. Right. Ok. I better read the statutory instrument in relation to that particular amendment. Criminal Practice Directions. Brand new criminal Practice directions published by the Lord Chief last year 2023. Uh, the document runs to 100 and 36 pages. I don't know if you have problems finding it as a document. If you do send me an email Colin at the legal ele.org and I'll happily send you the uh the criminal practice directions 2023 which we vote the previous document, the criminal practice directions 2015, save for those parts which have been saved. There's only a few parts of the 2015 directions which have been saved and they're mentioned on page four of the criminal practice directions 2023 be in no doubt the criminal practice directions 2023 and the criminal procedure rules 2020 as amended are the law it says. So they're not like sentencing guidelines whereby you can go outside the guideline. So long as you can give a reason in court as to why you're going outside the guideline. No, the criminal procedure rules and the criminal practice directions are the law and must always be followed. The criminal practice directions provide a code of current practice binding on the courts to which they are directed and the participants must comply with the rules and must comply with the practice directions and the criminal practice directions supplement and add to the criminal procedure rules. 2020. As amended, remember the criminal procedure rules 2020 is amended. You've got the rules that statutory instrument plus those seven amending statutory instrument documents, both documents, the rules and the practice directions must be read together in order for participants to fully understand the legal position at some point. Hopefully we'll get a consolidation document but don't hold your breath slide. 14. Uh we now turn to sentencing in 2024. Uh some slides taken from that particular webinar. And of course, we kick off with the Sentencing Act 2020. Sometimes referred to as the sentencing code. The court of appeal, uh like to refer to it as the sentencing code. It applies of course to the sentencing of any offender where the conviction is on or after the first of December 2020 99% of it came into force with, but a single uh statutory instrument back in December 2020 if you haven't downloaded it. Well, you really ought to have it on the device that you take to court with you. It's there for you, isn't it? On the website legislation.gov dot UK 420 sections, 29 schedules. Very little on road traffic for road traffic still have regard to the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic Offenders Act of 1988. It doesn't deal with release provisions in terms of release provisions. One must still have regard to the offender Rehabilitation Act of 2014. In order for the Act to be applicable, the conviction must have occurred on or after the first of December 2020. Breaches where the conviction took place before war. The first of December 2020 will be dealt with under the former legislation. The powers of criminal court sentencing Act 2000, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Well, you won't have many of those. Now, will you quite? It's April 2024 committal was for sentence. You're not expected to know all the sections and all the schedules. But please say the court will appear, please have a working knowledge of the committals for sentence sections. They are sections 14 through to 24. Yeah, and they deal with both committals for sentence of adult and committals for sentence of youth. If you are found guilty of what we formally referred to as grave crimes, but apparently under the sentencing code, we now have to refer to them as serious offenses. It'll be extremely rare for youth to be committed to the crown court for sentence most of the time. The two year detention and training order is ample sentencing power with a youth. But where there is uh a committal under section 16 to the Crown court, the judges powers are at large he or she can impose anything up to the maximum that could have been imposed on indictment for the offense. And of course, the judge uh will be sentencing under section 250 of the act. That is the section that enables a crown court judge to impose a sentence of detention on a serious offense. Formally a grave crime. How long should the youth get? Well, in terms of one term, see the percentage guidelines in the document published by the sentencing Council uh overarching principles, the sentencing of Children and young people, which talks in terms of percentages. Does it not uh lower percentages that would have been appropriate for an adult? Because you're dealing with someone at 17 down to 10, they're a child or young person worth a read that document been with us now since the first of June 2017, the Judicial Review and Courts Act of 2022 section 11 has given us a new section 25 a of the Sentencing Act 2020. And what does it do? Well, essentially, it gives the power to the crown court judge to remit an adult defendant back to the magistrate's court for sentence. Yeah, they might have just been convicted at the crown court and the judge thinks the appropriate place for sentence is the Magistrates court. In which case he or she can remit, but it might also be the case. Look at the bottom bullet point, there are slide 44 he's been committed for sentence. And the crown court judge says, no, this is a matter that could perfectly well be sentenced in the Magistrates court. And so the matter gets remitted to the Magistrates court for sentence. That's new judge couldn't do that. Uh, before the power was given under the judicial review and Courts Act of 2022 at minimum sentences, it was the legal aid sentencing and punishment of offenders act, which first introduced the concept of threatening someone with a knife or bladed article. And it's one of those offenses, is it not for which the court must consider a minimum sentence four months if you're 16 or 17, 6 months, if you're 18 or over Public Order Act 2023 I don't think it's gonna cross your path very often, quite frankly, but I think there's a need to perhaps download the Public Order Act of 2023 legislation.gov dot UK. And I've given you there the statutory instruments that were published last year in relation to the Public Order Act of 2023. And the, um, the crimes that were introduced crime such as locking on, going, equipped for locking on, attaching yourself to a person object or land. Yeah, causing serious disruption by tunneling or going equipped to tunnel. You don't need me to tell you, you read your newspapers. You don't need me to tell you why we now have these crimes. A slide 47 diversionary cautions and community cautions. These sections are not in yet, but as and when they do come in, it will give us a whole new cautionary cautioning regime at the police station and everything we have at the moment will be swept away and the police have already been been given their code of practice in relation to diversion rate and community caution. So watch this space 48 like 48 to 50 again. Uh We're looking at the judicial review and Courts Act of 2022. This of course, will give or has given the crown court judge the power to remit someone back uh to the magistrate court purely for sentencing purposes. The judge purported to do it in the case of Marshall back in 2023 but the court had no power to do it. Well, it's now got that power in 2024 in relation to people who are committed for sentence. Yeah, judge can said it or rather remit uh to the Magistrates court uh for sentence. And finally uh slide 50. What about youth? Yeah, the judge has the power to remit a youth to the youth court uh for sentencing. Well, that's always been the case and of course, it's reiterated in the judicial review and Courts Act of 2022. It might be as I put there, this new power uh is more likely to be used uh where the person is under the age of 18 and it only comes to light at the crown court that this person is indeed under 18 and therefore the appropriate place for them to be sentenced is indeed the Youth Court. It is. Thank you on behalf of myself Colleen Baymont. Thank you on behalf of data law.
Recorded Webinar
Webinar Slides
2347 Users
82 Courses
118 Reviews