![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Canavan & Ors, R. v [1997] EWCA Crim 1773 (10 July 1997) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1997/1773.html Cite as: (1997) 161 JP 709, [1998] 1 All ER 42, [1997] Crim LR 766, [1998] 1 Cr App R (S) 243, [1998] 1 WLR 604, [1998] 1 Cr App Rep (S) 243, [1998] WLR 604, [1998] 1 Cr App R 79, [1998] 1 Cr App Rep 79, [1997] EWCA Crim 1773 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Buy ICLR report: [1998] 1 WLR 604]
[Help]
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London WC2 |
||
B e f o r
e :
(Lord Bingham of Cornhill)
THE VICE
PRESIDENT
(Lord Justice Rose)
and
MR JUSTICE JOWITT
____________________
![]() ![]() |
||
- ![]() ![]() |
||
DARREN ![]() | ||
PHILIP ![]() ![]() |
||
DENNIS SHAW |
____________________
Smith Bernal, 180 Fleet Street, London EC4
Telephone 0171-831 3183
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
CANAVAN
MR
REX
TEDD QC appeared on behalf of THE APPELLANT PHILIP KIDD
MR JOHN WARREN QC appeared on behalf of THE APPELLANT DENNIS SHAW
MR VICTOR
TEMPLE QC and MR SIMON LAWS appeared on behalf of THE CROWN
____________________
VERSION
OF JUDGMENT
Crown Copyright ©
Thursday 10 July 1997
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE:
"If a defendant is indicted and convicted on a count charging him with criminal conduct of a specified kind on a single specified occasion or on a single occasion within a specified period, and such conduct is said by the prosecution to berepresentative
of other criminal conduct of the same kind on other occasions not the subject of any other count in the indictment, may be court take account of such other conduct so as to increase the sentence it imposes if the defendant does not admit the commission of other offences and does not ask the court to take them into consideration when passing sentence?"
"The present case was presented and contested in such a way that the extent of the offending, although not admitted or proved byverdict,
necessarily follows from the
verdicts
![]()
reached
on the counts charged. In such a case, the Court is entitled to take into account the scale and multiplicity of offending as available information about the circumstances of the offences proved. Those offences were committed in the context of a fraud involving many
victims
and a
very
large sum of money, which in the present case should not be ignored. Provided the Court can adopt that approach, which in our
view
it can on the somewhat unusual facts of this case, the sentence of six years is appropriate."
".... the court shall not pass a custodial sentence on the offender unless it is of the opinion --
(a) that the offence, or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it, was so serious that only such a sentence can be justified for the offence; or
(b) where the offence is aviolent
or sexual offence, that only such a sentence would be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from him."
Section 2(2) provides that
"The custodial sentence shall be --
(a) for such term (not exceeding the permitted maximum) as in the opinion of the court is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it; or
(b) where the offence is aviolent
or sexual offence, for such longer term (not exceeding that maximum) as in the opinion of the court is necessary to protect the public from serious harm from the offender."
Section 31(2) provides that
".... an offence is associated with another if --
(a) the offender is convicted of it in the proceedings in which he is convicted of the other offence, or (although convicted of it in earlier proceedings) is sentenced for it at the same time as he is sentenced for that offence; or
(b) the offender admits the commission of it in the proceedings in which he is sentenced for the other offence andrequests
the court to take it into consideration in sentencing him for that offence".
In forming its opinion under subsection (2) of sections 1 or 2 a court, by section 3(3),
"(a) shall take into account all such information about the circumstances of the offence or (as the case may be) of the offence and the offence or offences associated with it, (including any aggravating or mitigating factors) as is available to it; and
(b) in the case of any such opinion as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection, may take into account any information about the offender which is before it."
".... on a day between the 1st January 1991 and the 31st December 1991 indecently assaulted ...."
We turn now to the individual appellants.
Kidd
Shaw
_________________________