CASE UPDATES

IPP’s

R v Smith [2009] EWCA Crim 1862 (Rix LJ, Collins J, HHJ Pert QC 01/09/2009)

When considering whether a sentence of imprisonment for public protection was the correct one the court should have due regard to the appellant’s state of health. 

The appellant (S) appealed against a sentence of imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term of six years (less 265 days spent on remand), imposed following her conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm (which she pleaded guilty to) and attempted murder (for which she was convicted following trial). S was in a relationship with the complainant (H) before he left her for another woman. S paid £400 to a ‘hard looking black man’ (X) to ‘put someone on the floor’. After X hit H with what was presumed to be a baseball bat, S poured petrol over H and attempted to ignite it (she was not successful). H suffered cuts to the head and body and a burning sensation to his skin. The pre-sentence report stated that S was a potential danger to anyone who might form a relationship with her. The judge therefore concluded that a sentence for imprisonment for public protection was appropriate as S met the criteria for dangerousness as per the 2003 Act.

HELD: Dangerousness could be placed at a lower level than might otherwise be appropriate, having regard to S’s state of health. S attended court in a wheelchair, her health having deteriorated considerably since her trial due to suffering from Multiple Sclerosis. Therefore, the appropriate sentence was one of an extended sentence rather than one of imprisonment for public protection. 12-years’ imprisonment was passed with a five year extension (minus 265 days spent on remand).

  Co-Defendant’s Basis of Plea in a trial 

R v Crutchlow [2009] EWCA Crim 1838 (Hallett J DBE, Teare J, HHJ Rook QC 27/08/2009)

An appeal was dismissed where it was argued that a judge should not have adduced evidence of the co-defendant’s basis of plea in his summing up when it had not been put before the jury during the trial. 

The appellant (C) was convicted after trial of possessing cocaine with intent to supply. His co-defendant (Y) pleaded guilty, on a basis, to being concerned in the supply of crack cocaine to another. The basis of Y’s plea was as follows: ‘…I was asked to drive a friend of my brother’s, David Nigel Crutchlow, to Gloucester. My brother asked me to do this in order to obtain some drugs. I used my vehicle to drive Crutchlow to Gloucester, he obtained some drugs. I was not involved in the purchase. I only drove the car, but I accept I had knowledge of the purpose and was to be paid by way of drugs as I am a social user.’ In summing up, the judge put this basis of plea before the jury and told the jury that ‘being concerned’ meant Y had driven the car to allow C to make the purchase. C argued that the judge should have explained that Y’s being concerned in the supply of drugs did not necessarily involve Y in any onward supply by C.

HELD: When the trial judge drew the jury’s attention to Y’s plea, put before them in the form of an admission, he should have gone no further. However, the fact that he then explained ‘being concerned’ as ‘she drove the car to enable David Crutchlow to buy some crack cocaine, and drove him back with it’ did not impact upon C’s case. It would have been clear to the jury what the issue was, what C asserted and what the evidence was upon which each side relied. There could have been no doubt whatsoever, what C’s defence was. The appeal was theref