Lewis, R. v

1. LORD JUSTICE FLAUX: Having pleaded guilty in the Magistrates' Court to a variety of offences (mainly Public Order Act offences) involving abusive or threatening behaviour, this appellant was sentenced to 22 March 2019, in the Crown Court at Caernarfon by His Honour Judge Petts, to a total of 2 years and 4 months' imprisonment. One of the offences, for...

Source officielle

3 min de lecture 455 mots

1. LORD JUSTICE FLAUX: Having pleaded guilty in the Magistrates' Court to a variety of offences (mainly Public Order Act offences) involving abusive or threatening behaviour, this appellant was sentenced to 22 March 2019, in the Crown Court at Caernarfon by His Honour Judge Petts, to a total of 2 years and 4 months' imprisonment. One of the offences, for which the sentence was 2 years' imprisonment, was breach of a criminal behaviour order, contrary to section 30 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014; that order had been made by the Caernarfon Magistrates' Court on 13 October 2017 with the duration of 3 years.

2. At the sentence hearing the prosecution made an application to the judge to extend that order; the judge acceded to that application and purported to extend that order for a further period of 3 years until 2023.

3. The applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused by the single judge, save in one respect which had been identified by the Registrar, that the variation made by the judge to the criminal behaviour order was arguably unlawful as, under section 27(1) of the Anti-Social, Crime and Policing Act 2014, such an order may only be varied by the court which made it (here Caernarfon Magistrates' Court). The single judge gave limited leave in relation to this point which we will now deal with.

4. Because the appeal is limited to this point it is not necessary to set out the facts in more detail – they are summarised in the Criminal Appeal Office summary. Section 27(1) of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, provides as follows: i. "Variation or discharge of orders. (2) A criminal behaviour order may be varied or discharged by the court which made it on the application of— (a) the offender, or (b) the prosecution."

5. It is quite clear from the terms of that subsection that only the Caernarfon Magistrates' Court which made the criminal behaviour order has the power to vary it. The judge had no power or jurisdiction to do so and the prosecution made its application to the wrong court. Accordingly, that part of the judge's order on sentencing which purported to extend the criminal behaviour order must be quashed and the appeal is allowed to that extent only. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JS Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: [email protected]


Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).

A propos de cette decision

Décisions similaires

Royaume-Uni

First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) – Information Rights

Fiscal EN

Beacon Counselling Trust v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Introduction to the Appeal 1. On 23 May 2024, the Appellant submitted a request (“the Request”) to the Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) for copies of correspondence making reference to the Appellant, which had been sent to or from a named person at the Trust from 1 February 2023 to the date of the Request. 2....

Royaume-Uni

High Court (Chancery Division)

Fiscal EN

Kalaivani Jaipal Kirishani v George Major

Sir Anthony Mann : Introduction 1. This is an appeal from an order of HHJ Gerald sitting in the County Court at Central London dated 23rd December 2024 in which he dismissed two of three claims made by Ms Kirishana as claimant against her former cohabitee Mr Major. The claims were for a contribution to household and other domestic expenses,...

Royaume-Uni

High Court (Insolvency and Companies List)

Commercial EN

Joanna Rich v JDDR Capital Limited

ICC JUDGE AGNELLO KC: Introduction 1. This is the judgment in relation to an application to set aside a statutory demand against Mrs Joanna Rich (Mrs Rich) and a petition against Mr Clive Rich (Mr Rich) relating to the same debt claimed under a personal guarantee provided by them in relation to a loan granted to LawBit Limited (Lawbit). Mr...

Analyse stratégique offerte

Envoyez vos pièces. Recevez une stratégie.

Transmettez-nous les pièces de votre dossier. Maître Hassan KOHEN vous répond personnellement sous 24 heures avec une première analyse stratégique de votre situation.

  • Première analyse offerte et sans engagement
  • Réponse personnelle de l'avocat sous 24 heures
  • 100 % confidentiel, secret professionnel garanti
  • Jusqu'à 1 Go de pièces, dossiers et sous-dossiers acceptés

Cliquez ou glissez vos fichiers ici
Tous formats acceptes (PDF, Word, images, etc.)

Envoi en cours...

Vos donnees sont utilisees uniquement pour traiter votre demande. Politique de confidentialite.