The primary objective of the IPP sentence is to protect the public, not to rehabilitate D. Detention of Ds will cease to be justified under Art.5(1)(a) ECHR when the stage is reached that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that they should be confined or if so long elapses without a meaningful review of this question that their detention becomes disproportionate or arbitrary.
|
The Parole Board is not sufficiently independent of the executive.
|
No general power under s.45(4), Supreme Court Act 1981 to prohibit publication of defendant’s identity to protect children not concerned in proceedings: An order made under s.11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 at the end of criminal proceedings to prohibit the naming of a convicted defendant, whose name had not been withheld by the court during the proceedings, in order to protect his children, could not properly be made under either that section or s.45(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981.
|
A decision by a police officer to offer that a blood, instead of breath, sample be taken by a doctor, could be revisited by that doctor, who could then conclude that D should have given a breath sample and could be charged with failing to provide a sample.
|
S.154(1) Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, which provides that a sentence imposed by the Crown Court shall take effect from the beginning of the day on which it is imposed unless the court otherwise directs, means that the court is impliedly empowered to direct that an element of successive sentences shall be served consecutively. This case seeks to resolve the release point for short terms prisoners who are eligible for release on HDC. Home Office policy was ruled unlawful.
|
A full care order was set aside in respect of an 11 year old boy and replaced with a placement with his father under an interim care order.
|
S.142 Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (power to reopen cases) has no application in relation to ASBOs, which are civil in nature.
|
Petition for a Recovery Order in terms of section 266 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 - The only live issue at this stage was whether the petitioners have proved on a balance of probabilities that certain assets are recoverable property in terms of the 2002 Act in respect of which the court must make a recovery order. In addition the petition seeks an order in respect of a standard security granted by Mrs Buchanan as associated property in terms of section 245 of the 2002 Act.
|
D pleaded guilty to one offence of indecent assault and was committed to the CC for sentence. The Judge at the CC commented that the single count failed to reflect the overall criminality and invited the Crown to consider further charges. The CPS laid a further 17 counts at the MC and the defence successfully applied for proceedings to be stayed for abuse of process. The Crown appealed. It was proper for the Judge to make the comments he did, and also a matter for the prosecution to decide wheth ...
|
A prosecution witness was not able to attend court because adverse weather conditions had forced the closure of a school and that witness could not arrange childcare at such short notice. The magistrates refused the prosecution application to adjourn. There had been a previous adjournment and D was privately funding his case. Given the lack of fault on the part of the witness and prosecution, the decision to refuse the adjournment was irrational and perverse.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |