Weekly Digest: 22 January 2018

6KBW

6KBW
23 January 2018

This week’s Digest discusses two recent Court of Appeal judgments. The first relates to the admissibility of evidence of a defendant’s bad character under the provisions of s. 101 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, as well as the correct starting point for sentencing for joint enterprise offences involving a firearm. The second concerns a number of appeals against sentence imposed for offences contrary to s. 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 on the basis that they were manifestly excessive.

R v. Lovell [2018] EWCA Crim 19

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Treacy LJ on 18.01.18.

This was an appeal against conviction for murder and a renewed application for leave to appeal against a sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment; the appeal against conviction was dismissed and leave to appeal against sentence refused. In relation to the conviction, the appellant contended that the trial judge had been wrong to admit evidence of a conversation that, the Crown contended, was important explanatory evidence under s. 101(1)(c) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, or formed part of the facts of the alleged offence within s. 98(a) of the 2003 Act. The court held that the trial judge was right to admit the evidence and that the judge’s directions in respect of that evidence had been sufficient. Regarding sentence, the appellant contended that the term imposed was manifestly excessive, as the judge had chosen the incorrect starting point. This was rejected and leave was refused on the basis that the language of paragraph 5 to Schedule 21 to the 2003 Act was sufficient to cover an offender involved in a joint enterprise.

 

R v. Alamgir & Ors [2018] EWCA Crim 21

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Treacy LJ on 18.01.18.

This was an appeal against sentence heard with three applications for leave to appeal against sentence on the basis that the sentences imposed for offences contrary to s. 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 were manifestly excessive. The offending conduct related to speeches given by the appellant and applicants in support of ISIS. The appeal was dismissed and leave in respect of all the applications refused; the judge had not erred either substantively or procedurally in relation to the sentencing of the defendants.

 

Other News

Former prostitutes to challenge UK law on basis of discrimination

 

Terminally ill man granted leave to appeal against right-to-die ruling

 

Falling standards in forensic science making miscarriages of justice inevitable

 

Government will not pursue Worboys judicial review

 

>