A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Criminal Solicitors London, providing the latest news and resources on Criminal Sentencing here.
Criminal Solicitors London, providing the latest news and resources on Bail, bail applications and remands in Criminal proceedings here.
Criminal Solicitors London, providing the latest information on defences to criminal prosecutions
Criminal Solicitors London, providing the latest information on mitigation and credit for guilty pleas.
There are many concepts in Criminal law and Criminal Defence. Browse here
Criminal Solicitors advise on extended sentences. Extended sentence is where the license element of a sentence is extended. In “normal” circumstances..........read on.
Criminal solicitors in London and nationwide, should be aware of the case of Dino Massivi & Jennifer Hodge  EWCA Crim 34.
The absence of sexual gratification or sexual interest in the content of the images, is not a basis for treating a distribution of indecent images offence to a possession of indecent images.
Criminal solicitors in London and nationwide, should be aware threats to kill is a specified offence for the purposes of section 226A (extended sentence for certain violent or sexual offences) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
All good Criminal Solicitors should be aware of the case of K Ritson  EWCA Crim 152 on threats to kill. The Sentencing Council provides guidance on the categories of cases for sentencing purposes, for allegations of threats to kill. Those Sentencing Council Guidelines (SCG) can be found here.
The Sentencing Council Guidelines state that one of the elements that can make this is a case with higher culpability is where the threats is accompanied with "significant violence".
In the case of Ritson, it was held that it was open to the sentencing Judge to determine that acts of violence the day before the threat was close in time to satisfy the higher culpability.
Good criminal solicitors will be aware that the concept of Dishonesty is one of the central foundations of many offences in English Law.
For over 30 years the approach to the concept of dishonesty was determined by the guidance in R v Ghosh  QB 1053 . In 2017, in the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) (trading as Cockfords Club)  UKSC 67, the Supreme Court gave the opinion that Ghosh may have been wrong and why and that in future the courts should adopt the approach taken in Ivey. In the appeal case of David Barton & Rosemary Booth  EWCA Crim 576, the Court of Appeal confirmed the position in a binding judgement that the position in Ivey was the correct approach.
In Ghosh, the test for determining dishonesty was stated to be:
“... a jury must first of all decide whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was dishonest. If it was not dishonest by those standards that is the end of the matter and the prosecution fails.
If it was dishonest by those standards then the jury must consider whether the defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest. …”
This can be summarised as a two-fold test:
The Court of Appeal rejected this in Ivey and proposed an alternative two-stage test: