Butler, R. v
LADY JUSTICE SIMLER: This is an application to which the provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply so that no matter may be published in any form relating to a person against whom a sexual offence has been committed if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the victim of the...
3 min de lecture · 477 mots
LADY JUSTICE SIMLER: This is an application to which the provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply so that no matter may be published in any form relating to a person against whom a sexual offence has been committed if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the victim of the offence. That prohibition continues unless waived or lifted. On 22nd December 2015 in the Crown Court at Bristol the applicant was convicted of three offences of rape, contrary to section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and sentenced to concurrent terms of 11 years' imprisonment in relation to each of those offences. He was also convicted of sexual assault, contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and a term of 2 years' imprisonment concurrent was imposed in that regard. His application for a lengthy extension of time (namely 1,365 days) and for leave to appeal against sentence has been referred directly to the full court by the Registrar. The only issue raised by the application concerns the pronouncement made in relation to credit for time served under section 240A Criminal Justice Act 2003, or rather the lack of any such pronouncement. There is now no dispute that the number of days spent by the applicant on qualifying curfew was 489, which, when halved, gives a credit period of 245 days which ought to have been credited but was not. In R v Thorsby and others [2015] EWCA Crim 1 this court dealt with the question of when it is appropriate to grant significant extensions of time in circumstances where the sentencing court failed to give appropriate credit under the Act for one-half of the time spent by an offender on qualifying curfew before sentence. In this case it appears clear that the question of credit was not raised at the sentencing hearing on the applicant's behalf so that the judge made no appropriate order. There is no suggestion that the applicant bears any responsibility for that failure. Further, it appears that he acted promptly in drawing it to the attention of his solicitors as soon as he discovered the problem. In these circumstances it appears to us to be in the interests of justice to extend time, and we do so. We will give leave to appeal. The appeal will be allowed, and we order that 245 days will count towards the appellant's sentence under section 240A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. 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]
Sources officielles : consulter la page source
Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).
Articles similaires
A propos de cette decision
Décisions similaires
Royaume-Uni
First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) – Information Rights
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)
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)
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...