header-logo header-logo

18 October 2007
Issue: 7293 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Sentencing

R v Green [2007] EWCA Crim 2172

This case concerned the dangerous offender provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It was held that CJA 2003, s 225 does not require a nexus between the particular facts of the particular offence and the finding of dangerousness.

Once a defendant has been convicted of a serious offence within the meaning of the Act, whatever the facts and nature, it is perfectly possible for a finding of dangerousness to be made on the basis of material which has no close relationship to the actual offence for which sentence is being passed. In practice such cases will no doubt be very rare, but there is, said the court, no doubt as to the position in principle.

In R v Shan [2007] EWCA Crim 1861; [2007] All ER (D) 43 (Oct) the defendant was sentenced to 15 months’ detention in a young offender institution. He appealed against sentence, contending that the sentence was unlawful because s 101(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 stipulates that the terms of a detention and training order shall be four, six, eight, 10, 12, 18 or 24 months.

It was held that the only reason why 15 months is not available as a detention and training order is that the detention and training regime is geared to specific programmes of work and training which can not readily be adapted on a daily or weekly basis. There is no philosophical reason why a 15-month detention and training order could not exist.

In this case, the imposition of that sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. Note: it is respectfully submitted that this decision is inconsistent with the clear wording of the statute and so it might have been more appropriate to correct the sentence by reducing it to 12 months.

Issue: 7293 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll