Knights v R. [2017] EWCA Crim 1052 (25 July 2017)

Knights v R. [2017] EWCA Crim 1052 (25 July 2017)

The appellant is not entitled to benefit from the more lenient sentencing regime introduced by the CJIA because the amendments were not retrospective and the lex mitior principle, as applied in English law, does not require anticipation of legislative changes. The imposition and continuation of IPP in the appellant's case was lawful, not discriminatory, and not disproportionate or arbitrary under the ECHR. The appeal is dismissed and leave to appeal on additional grounds is refused.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Crim 1052
Parties
Appellant: James Knights; Respondent: The Queen; Intervener: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Crown Court to Court of Appeal (criminal Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal on additional grounds refused.
Legal Topics
Imprisonment for Public Protection (ipp), Lex Mitior Principle, Article 7 ECHR, Article 14 ECHR, Article 3 ECHR, Article 5 ECHR, Sentencing, Retrospectivity, Discrimination
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Imprisonment for Public Protection (ipp) Lex Mitior Principle Article 7 ECHR Article 14 ECHR Article 3 ECHR Article 5 ECHR +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Knights

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Secretary of State for Justice

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Crown Court to Court of Appeal (criminal Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant should benefit from the more lenient sentencing regime introduced by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (CJIA) under the lex mitior principle and Article 7 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the imposition and continuation of IPP constitutes unlawful discrimination under Article 14 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the continued detention under IPP is disproportionate or arbitrary in breach of Articles 3 and/or 5 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant is not entitled to benefit from the more lenient sentencing regime introduced by the CJIA because the amendments were not retrospective and the lex mitior principle, as applied in English law, does not require anticipation of legislative changes. The imposition and continuation of IPP in the appellant's case was lawful, not discriminatory, and not disproportionate or arbitrary under the ECHR. The appeal is dismissed and leave to appeal on additional grounds is refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal on additional grounds refused.