Stannard & Ors, R v

Stannard & Ors, R v

The statutory language of section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 is mandatory for qualifying post-4 April 2005 offences, regardless of the relative seriousness of earlier offences. The practice of not applying the new regime because earlier offences were more serious is unsound. Sentences must reflect the totality of criminality and the risk posed by the offender. Where jurisdiction to impose imprisonment for public protection is lacking, such orders must be quashed and replaced with determinate sentences under the appropriate regime.

Parties
Prosecution: R; Appellant: Stannard; Appellant: Andrew; Appellant: Clarkson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeals allowed in part; sentences varied where jurisdiction lacking; otherwise appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
Imprisonment for Public Protection, Dangerous Offenders, Retrospective Application of Sentencing Laws, Sexual Offences, Jurisdictional Limits in Sentencing

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Prosecution

Stannard

Appellant

Andrew

Appellant

Clarkson

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

  1. 1 Whether the sentence of imprisonment for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 applies when more serious offences were committed before 4 April 2005 and less serious after
  2. 2 Whether the courts erred in not imposing or in imposing imprisonment for public protection in the circumstances of each appellant
  3. 3 Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive or wrong in principle

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory language of section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 is mandatory for qualifying post-4 April 2005 offences, regardless of the relative seriousness of earlier offences. The practice of not applying the new regime because earlier offences were more serious is unsound. Sentences must reflect the totality of criminality and the risk posed by the offender. Where jurisdiction to impose imprisonment for public protection is lacking, such orders must be quashed and replaced with determinate sentences under the appropriate regime.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in part; sentences varied where jurisdiction lacking; otherwise appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • Stannard: Sentence not interfered with; error in principle was to his advantage.
  • Andrew: Sentence not interfered with; indeterminate sentence not imposed but sentence severe.