Archives: Crime

This category can only be viewed by members.

Confiscation order – property ownership

May 2024 | Crime

The Court of Appeal quashed a confiscation order given the serious risk of injustice to the interested party. The decision followed the 2020 conviction of Ronan Hughes (the applicant) for playing the leading role in the smuggling of illegal immigrants in an airtight container from France to Essex, which tragically killed them all. Confiscation proceedings …

This article is only available to subscribers.

Sentencing guidelines – important amendments in force

May 2024 | Crime

Changes to several sentencing guidelines came into effect on 1 April 2024 following a Sentencing Council consultation exercise last year. These apply to both Magistrates Court and Crown Court guidelines. Among the key changes are: Mitigating factors, including expanded explanations, eg replacing the existing reference to pregnancy in the ‘Sole or primary carer’ factor with …

This article is only available to subscribers.

Criminal damage – protests

April 2024 | Crime

In the context of protests, the circumstances surrounding criminal damage must have a necessary proximity to the damage for an offence to be made out. S5(2)(a) Criminal Damage Act 1971 defines when a person is to be treated as ‘having lawful excuse’ for criminal damage or destroying property. An appeal ruling followed an AG’s reference …

This article is only available to subscribers.

Sentencing – drugs; leading role

April 2024 | Crime

D appealed a concurrent sentence totalling 12.5 years for offers to supply cocaine and cannabis, and for the supply of heroin. The judge took the cocaine offences as the lead offence. On appeal, D argued that 18 years before reduction for his guilty plea was manifestly excessive on the basis that his role was significant …

This article is only available to subscribers.

Sentencing – sexual offences

April 2024 | Crime

An extended 17-year custodial term imposed on D for the attempted rape of his former partner at home was manifestly excessive. In his appeal, it was argued that the judge was wrong to place his offending into harm level 1 of the sentencing guideline, given none of the level 1 factors were ‘extreme in nature’. …

This article is only available to subscribers.