Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2006] All ER (D) 275 (Oct)
Court: Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Judge:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers CJ, Pitchford and Calvert-Smith JJ

Representation Nigel Clive (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant.
Judgment Dates: 24 October 2006

Catchwords

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.

The Case

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.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.