Knights v R.

Knights v R.

The appeal was dismissed because the law in force at the time of sentencing applied, the amendments to the IPP regime were not retrospective, and the Supreme Court in Docherty authoritatively rejected the lex mitior argument in this context. There was no unlawful discrimination or breach of the ECHR, and the continued detention was lawful as the appellant remained a risk to the public and had been recalled for breaches of licence.

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, Article 7 ECHR, Article 14 ECHR, Article 3 ECHR, Article 5 ECHR, Sentencing, Retrospective Application of Law
Criminal Law Human Rights Imprisonment for Public Protection (ipp) Lex Mitior Article 7 ECHR Article 14 ECHR Article 3 ECHR Article 5 ECHR +2 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 4 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
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 is entitled to benefit from the more lenient sentencing regime introduced by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 under the lex mitior principle and Article 7 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the imposition and continued enforcement of IPP constitutes unlawful differential treatment 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 appeal was dismissed because the law in force at the time of sentencing applied, the amendments to the IPP regime were not retrospective, and the Supreme Court in Docherty authoritatively rejected the lex mitior argument in this context. There was no unlawful discrimination or breach of the ECHR, and the continued detention was lawful as the appellant remained a risk to the public and had been recalled for breaches of licence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal on additional grounds refused.