Reynolds & Ors, R. v

Reynolds & Ors, R. v

Section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 precludes the Court of Appeal from increasing a sentence on appeal, even where the sentencing judge failed to impose a mandatory sentence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Errors can be corrected by the Crown Court under section 155 of the 2000 Act within 28 days, including rescinding and adjourning sentence. Where the criteria of dangerousness are not properly found, the Court may quash findings and substitute determinate sentences. Where extension periods exceed statutory maxima, they must be reduced. The distinction between 'specified' and 'serious' offences is critical for the correct sentence.

Parties
Prosecution: R; Appellant: MICHAEL EDWIN REYNOLDS; Appellant: ABDUL MUSISI LUBWAMA; Appellant: JOHN PAUL WEBB; Appellant: JAMES HONORE; Appellant: EDWARD SLANEY; Appellant: CRAIG MARK DOWNING; Appellant: ‘S’; Appellant: AMELIO THOMPSON
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed or dismissed in part as specified for each appellant; sentences varied where possible within statutory limits; some extension periods reduced; some findings of dangerousness quashed and determinate sentences substituted; some appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
Dangerous Offenders, Indeterminate Sentences, Extended Sentences, Appeals Against Sentence, Sexual Offences, Violent Offences, Application of Criminal Justice Act 2003, Powers of Criminal Courts (sentencing) Act 2000, Criminal Appeal Act 1968
Criminal Law Sentencing Dangerous Offenders Indeterminate Sentences Extended Sentences Appeals Against Sentence Sexual Offences Violent Offences +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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Prosecution

MICHAEL EDWIN REYNOLDS

Appellant

ABDUL MUSISI LUBWAMA

Appellant

JOHN PAUL WEBB

Appellant

JAMES HONORE

Appellant

EDWARD SLANEY

Appellant

CRAIG MARK DOWNING

Appellant

‘S’

Appellant

AMELIO THOMPSON

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Effect of sentencing errors under Chapter 5 Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal can increase sentences on appeal where the sentencing judge failed to impose a mandatory sentence
  3. 3 Application of section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 as a cap on appellate powers

Ratio Decidendi

Section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 precludes the Court of Appeal from increasing a sentence on appeal, even where the sentencing judge failed to impose a mandatory sentence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Errors can be corrected by the Crown Court under section 155 of the 2000 Act within 28 days, including rescinding and adjourning sentence. Where the criteria of dangerousness are not properly found, the Court may quash findings and substitute determinate sentences. Where extension periods exceed statutory maxima, they must be reduced. The distinction between 'specified' and 'serious' offences is critical for the correct sentence.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed or dismissed in part as specified for each appellant; sentences varied where possible within statutory limits; some extension periods reduced; some findings of dangerousness quashed and determinate sentences substituted; some appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • In Reynolds: Sexual Offences Prevention Order amended; extended sentences of 2 years substituted for no separate penalty on counts 1-5.
  • In Lubwama: Extended sentence quashed; determinate sentence of 2 years imposed on count 2; 12 months concurrent on count 1 remains.