Sentencing dangerous offenders: policy and practice in the Crown Court

Article English OPEN
Henham, R; (2001)
  • Publisher: Sweet & Maxwell/Thomson Reuters

Analysis of Crown Courts' use of protective sentencing powers under s.80(2)(b), s.85, and s.109 of 2000 Act and whether preference for s.85 reflects fundamental flaw in leaving determination of "dangerousness" to judiciary.
  • References (6)

    brackets); Manslaughter 1.2% (1.5%), Wounding or other act endangering life (which includes section 18) 12.6% (10.7%), Rape 5.5% (3.8%), (attempted rape not shown), Indecent Assault 13.4% (12.8%); Criminal Statistics, England and Wales Supplementary Tables Vol.

    2 (London: HMSO 1998) Table S2.1(A).

    Note, although initial uncertainty was expressed as to whether guilty plea discounts were applicable in section 80(2)(b) cases (D. Thomas “Viewpoint” (1994) 2 Sentencing News 12) it was held in Bowler (1994) 15 Cr.App.R.(S) 78, that the mitigating effect of factors such as a guilty plea should be reduced when a protective sentence under section 80(2)(b) is contemplated.

    See further R. Henham “Bargain Justice or Justice Denied?: Sentence Discounts and the Criminal Process” (1999) 62 M.L.R. 515, 525.

    See for example, Attorney-General's Reference No. 71 of 1998 (Anderson ) [1999] Crim.L.R. 587, CA; Buckland [2000] 1 All E.R. 907; Offen [2001] 2 All E.R. 154.

    See comments by Thomas at [1999] Crim.L.R. 242; [2000] Crim.L.R. 309. For similar reaction to mandatory minima in the U.S., see generally R. Henham “Anglo-American Approaches to Cumulative Sentencing and the Implications for UK Sentencing Policy” (1997) 36 Howard Journal 261.

  • Metrics
    views in OpenAIRE
    views in local repository
    downloads in local repository

    The information is available from the following content providers:

    FromNumber Of ViewsNumber Of Downloads
    Institutional Repository - IRUS-UK 0 165
Share - Bookmark