The Practical Lawyer

A was sentenced to five years and two months in prison, having pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving under s1 RTA 1988.

A lost his appeal against sentence following his conviction for causing death by careless driving. He had been sentenced to two years in prison, and disqualified from driving for five years (and until he passes an extended retest).

This was a pre-trial appeal of a ruling at a preparatory hearing. The two appellants (A) faced charges under s17 Terrorism Act 2000 of sending money overseas, or arranging to do so, knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect it would, or might, be used for terrorism.

The Sentencing Council has issued a new definitive guideline on manslaughter which applies to all offenders aged 18 and older, who are sentenced on or after 1 November 2018, regardless of the date of the offence.

The author gives a useful update on the use of specimens, sentencing, and terrorism in light of the latest judgments from the criminal courts and other recent developments.

A thief is not necessarily a fraudster, and a fraudster is not necessarily a thief – as this recent case illustrates.

If the prosecution is discontent with the terms of a default order in confiscation proceedings, the Court of Appeal does not have jurisdiction to determine a challenge to that order.

An unduly lenient sentence was imposed by the trial judge following D’s third drugs conviction. D’s previous criminal record had significant consequences for him such that s110 Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 came into play.

New sentencing guidelines for terrorist offences, where offenders are sentenced from 27 April 2018, are now in force.

In this article, the author (who represented the appellant) considers the making of hospital orders in criminal proceedings, and the use of hybrid orders, following a Court of Appeal ruling.