This week’s Digest considers three judgments. In R v D the Court of Appeal considered the definition of a foldable pocketknife under section 139(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, while in R v LG  the same court assessed whether sentences passed for historic sex crimes should have taken into account the appellant’s relative youth at the time of the offences. Finally, in Douherty v The Chief Constable of Essex Police, the High Court considered whether a County Court judge should have adjourned proceedings for a young appellant to seek legal representation for his committal hearing despite the appellant’s expressed wish to continue unrepresented.

R v D [2019] EWCA Crim 45

The judgment of Simon LJ, handed down 15 January 2019, is available here.

At trial the defendant was charged with having an article with a blade or a point in a public place without lawful excuse, contrary to section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The article in question was a foldable cut-throat razor. The judge held that it was excluded from section 139(1) by sections 139(2) & (3), which create an exemption for folding pocketknives with a cutting blade of less than 3 inches. The prosecution appeal was successful. The razor was not a pocketknife.

 

R v LG [2019] EWCA Crim 109

The judgment of Simon LJ, handed down on 16 January 2019, is available here.

The appellant was convicted of 14 historic sexual crimes against two young girls. The sentence passed included custodial periods of 12 years consecutively for the offences against each victim, so 24 years custody in total, with an extended licence period of two years. He appealed against his sentence. The appeal was allowed to the extent that some further reductions should have been made given that the appellant himself was under 18 at the time of many of the offences. The Court substituted a sentence of 18 years.

 

Douherty v The Chief Constable of Essex Police [2019] EWCA Civ 55

Judgment was handed down by Davies LJ on 30 January 2019.

The appellant appealed as of right against an order committing him to prison for 28 days, suspended for a period of 12 months, for breach of an injunction. He had represented himself at the committal hearing. The appeal was allowed. The judge had failed to adjourn the proceedings to permit the appellant to obtain legal aid and representation, advise the appellant of his right to remain silent, warn him of the risk of self-incrimination, and permit him to find representation to enable proper mitigation to be made on his behalf.

 

IN THE NEWS

Supreme Court opens applications for new President and Justices

 

ISIS bride asks to return to the UK

 

Chair of the Criminal Bar Association demands more support for women barristers

 

 

 

Previous post UK Anti-Corruption Strategy – one year on
Next post Casement and Capitol Hill: on grammar