||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 275 (Oct)
||Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers CJ, Pitchford and Calvert-Smith JJ
||Nigel Clive (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant.
||24 October 2006
Sentence - Custodial sentence - Imprisonment for public protection - Serious harm - Sexual assault - Serious specified offence - Whether judge erring in assessment of harm - Whether imprisonment for public protection appropriate - , s 224.
Following R v Lang , if the foreseen specified offence was not serious, there would be comparatively few cases in which a risk of serious harm would properly be regarded as significant. The huge variety of offences in Sch15 to the included many which, in themselves, were not suggestive of serious harm. Repetitive violent or sexual offending at a relatively low level without serious harm did not of itself give rise to a significant risk of serious harm in the future. There might, in such cases, be some risk of future victims being more adversely affected than past victims but that, of itself, did not give rise to significant risk of serious harm. Whilst those observations in R v Lang were directed to non-serious specified offences in the statutory sense, they were relevant to circumstances such as those that had arisen in the instant where, whilst the offences were 'serious specified offences', serious harm had not resulted.
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary