This week’s Digest considers two judgments of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). In the first, the Court considered whether sentences imposed upon individuals for public nuisance convictions arising out of a protest against fracking were manifestly excessive. In the second, the issue was whether failure to comply with s. 15(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, i.e. not imposing financial orders on offenders where confiscation proceedings were suspended, rendered financial orders, if they were made, a nullity.

R v. Roberts and others [2018] EWCA Crim 2739

The judgment, available here, was handed down on 06.12.18 by Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ.

The issue in this appeal was whether the sentences imposed upon three individuals for public nuisance – they caused great disruption on the A583 in protesting against the authorisation to commence fracking – were manifestly excessive; two of the appellants had received custodial sentences of 16 months’ imprisonment and the other 15 months. The Court allowed the appeal; the custody threshold in this case was not crossed. The appropriate sentence would have been a community order with an unpaid working requirement. In this case, as the appellants had already spent 3 weeks in custody, the court imposed two-year conditional discharges on each.

 

R v. Sachan [2018] EWCA Crim 2592

The judgment, available here, was handed down on 09.11.18 by Butcher J.

The issue in this appeal was whether a compensation order, made before confiscation proceedings were commenced and contrary to s. 15(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, was rendered a nullity. The Court held that it was not, following the reasoning of a different constitution of the Court in R v. Paivarinta-Taylor [2010] EWCA Crim 28, Parliament could not have intended that either the initial compensation order or the resultant confiscation order were a nullity.

 

Further CPS cuts impossible as workload grows, DPP says

 

Two Tesco directors cleared of fraud as judge labels case ‘weak’

 

‘Corrupt’ Vote Leave campaign undermines Brexit vote, court told

 

Death in prison of man with Asperger’s ‘raises serious concerns’

 

Previous post Weekly Digest: 3 December 2018
Next post Supreme Court: parole eligibility for EDS prisoners not discriminatory