Weekly Digest: 15 January 2018

6KBW

6KBW
15 January 2018

In this week’s Digest, we consider three Court of Appeal judgments handed down in recent months on topics including whether a sentence that did not take into account the time spent on remand pursuant to an EAW was unlawful; whether a sentencing judge was correct to conclude that the offender was dangerous from a single offence; and whether a Sexual Harm Prevention Order that imposed a blanket ban on internet use was disproportionate.

R v Prenga [2017] EWCA Crim 2149

The judgment, which is available here, was handed down by Green J on 19 December 2017.

The defendant was arrested on suspicion of committing drugs offences. He was granted bail, subject to a curfew, pending trial. Whilst on bail, he became the subject of a European Arrest Warrant (‘EAW’), issued by Italy. He was remanded in custody pending extradition. No application was made to revoke his bail, however. The defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to supply drugs and received a sentence of imprisonment. His sentence did not take into account the period spent on remand pursuant to the EAW, however. The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant’s appeal and held that whilst the court did have a residual power to make allowances for time spent on remand if necessary to correct an injustice and to reflect exceptional factors, there was no such injustice in the instant case and no exceptional factors.

 

R v Bourke [2017] EWCA Crim 2150

The judgment, which is unavailable, was handed down by Green J on 19 December 2017.

The defendant appealed against an extended sentence comprising a ten-year custodial period and a five-year extended licence period, imposed following his guilty plea to wounding with intent. As to the matter of dangerousness, the Court of Appeal held that there was nothing wrong in principle with the judge’s starting point that he could find dangerousness on the basis of a single incident. As to the matter of an extended sentence, the court observed that it would have been of assistance were the sentencing judge to explain, even briefly, why a determinate sentence was rejected. The court held that this indicates the importance, when imposing an extended sentence, of providing reasons why a determinate sentence would not suffice.

 

R v Parsons [2017] EWCA Crim 2163

The judgment, which is available here, was handed down by Gross LJ on 20 December 2017.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the guidance given in Smith [2011] EWCA Crim 1772 on restrictions on internet access and use that may be imposed by way of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (‘SHPO’) needed to be adapted in the light of recent technological developments and changes in the way the internet is used in modern society. The Court of Appeal held that a total prohibition on internet access would not be appropriate in anything other than exceptional cases. In all other cases, a blanket ban would be unrealistic, oppressive and disproportionate as it would cut the offender off from too much of everyday, legitimate living.

 

Legislative developments

Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill 2017-19 (Second Reading)

 

Magistrates’ Courts (Freezing and Forfeiture of Terrorist Money in Bank and Building Society Accounts) Rules 2017/1290

 

Magistrates’ Courts (Detention and Forfeiture of Terrorist Assets) Rules 2017/1296

 

The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Administrative Forfeiture Notices) (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2017 SI 2017/1223

 

The Administrative Forfeiture of Terrorist Cash and Terrorist Money Held in Bank and Building Society Accounts (Cash and Account Forfeiture Notices) Regulations 2017 SSI 2017/1226

 

The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Application of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984) (Amendment) Order 2017

 

Other news

David Gauke appointed Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice

 

UK Justice Secretary seeks legal advice over John Worboys’ release

 

Brexit bill leaves a hole in UK human rights

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>