header-logo header-logo

CRIMINAL LITIGATION

26 July 2007
Issue: 7283 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

R v Kulah [2007] EWCA Crim 1701, [2007] All ER (D) 207 (Jul)

The court considered the application of R v Goodyear [2005] EWCA Crim 888, [2005] 3 All ER 117 in cases where the defendant is charged with one or more offences which are specified offences within Sch 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003).

HELD It is not necessarily inappropriate to seek or to give a Goodyear indication merely because a defendant is charged with a specified offence. However, it must be considered that it will often be the case that the sentencing judge is not in possession of the information necessary to
enable him to make the assessment of risk that is  required, since pre-sentence and other appropriate reports will not be available at that stage. In such cases, it remains a matter for the judge to decide whether or not it is appropriate to give an indication; the judge is under no obligation to give an indication and he has an unfettered discretion in this regard.

If an indication is given, the judge should make it clear that if the defendant is later assessed as “dangerous”, the sentences mandated by  CJA 2003—an indeterminate or extended sentence—will be imposed and that, if the accused is assessed as dangerous, the indication can only relate to the notional determinate term which will be used in the calculation of the minimum specified period the offender would have to serve before he may apply to the Parole Board to direct his release or, in a case where an extended sentence is the only lawful option, it will relate to the appropriate custodial term within the extended sentence—that is, the indication does not encompass the length of any extension period during which the offender will be on licence following his release.Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No 16) Order 2007 (SI 2007/1999)  Section 29 of CJA 2003 creates (in the case of public prosecutions only) a new method of commencing criminal proceedings—written charge and requisition, to replace laying an information and issuing a summons.

It has been brought into force in certain areas only—in that it applies only to magistrates’ courts sitting in specified locations—from 25 July 2007.

Issue: 7283 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Phoebe Gogarty

Muckle LLP—Phoebe Gogarty

North East firm welcomes employment specialist

Browne Jacobson—Colette Withey

Browne Jacobson—Colette Withey

Partner joins commercial and technology practice

Ellisons—Lizzy Firmin

Ellisons—Lizzy Firmin

Chief operating officer joins equity partnership

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has restated a fundamental truth, writes John Gould, chair of Russell-Cooke, in this week's NLJ: only authorised persons can conduct litigation. The decision sparked alarm, but Gould stresses it merely confirms the Legal Services Act 2007
The government’s decision to make the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) the Single Professional Services Supervisor marks a watershed in the UK’s fight against money laundering, says Rebecca Hughes of Corker Binning in this week's NLJ. The FCA will now oversee 60,000 firms across legal and accountancy sectors—a massive expansion of remit that raises questions over resources and readiness 
The High Court's decision in Parfitt v Jones [2025] EWHC 1552 (Ch) provided a striking reminder of the need to instruct the right expert in retrospective capacity assessments, says Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell in NLJ this week
Paige Coulter of Quinn Emanuel reports on the UK’s first statutory definition of SLAPPs under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Sophie Houghton of LexisPSL distils the key lesson from recent costs cases: if you want to exceed guideline hourly rates (GHR), you must prove why
back-to-top-scroll