Sentencing represents the apex of the criminal process and is the most public stage of the criminal justice system. Controversial sentences attract widespread media coverage, intense public interest, and much public and political criticism. This chapter explores sentencing in the United Kingdom, and draws some conclusions with relevance to other common law jurisdictions. Sentencing has changed greatly in recent years, notably through the introduction of sentencing guidelines in England and Wales, and more recently, Scotland. However, there are still doubts about the fairness and consistency of sentencing practice, not least in the use of imprisonment. Among the key issues to be examined in this chapter are the tendency towards net-widening, the effects of race and gender, the impact of pleading guilty, the use of indeterminate sentences, the rise of mandatory sentences, and the role of the victim in the sentencing process. The chapter begins by outlining the methods by which cases come before the courts for sentencing. It then summarizes the specific sentences available to courts and examines current sentencing patterns, before turning to a more detailed exploration of sentencing guidelines, and of the key issues identified above. The chapter addresses two critical questions: What is sentencing (namely who exerts the power to punish)? Does sentencing in the UK measure up to appropriate standards of fairness and consistency?
12
Chapter
This chapter discusses the different functions in a court and how the court is composed of a tribunal of law and a tribunal of fact. In a jury trial, the judge decides matters of law and is the tribunal of law, while the jury is the ‘fact-finder’, the tribunal of fact. In a non-jury trial, the judge or magistrates perform both functions. This chapter discusses the functions of the judge in legal issues concerning evidence and, in particular, when a case is withdrawn from the jury because there is ‘no case’; judicial discretion; and admissibility of evidence illegally or unfairly obtained.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd [1998] AC 1, House of Lords. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.
Book
Maureen Spencer and John Spencer
Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. Evidence Concentrate is supported by extensive online resources to take your learning further. Written by experts, it covers all the key topics so you can approach your exams with confidence. The clear, succinct coverage enables you to quickly grasp the fundamental principles of this area of law and helps you succeed in exams. This guide has been rigorously reviewed and is endorsed by students and lecturers for level of coverage, accuracy, and exam advice. It is clear, concise, and easy to use, helping you get the most out of your revision. After an introduction, the book covers principles and key concepts; burden of proof; confessions and the defendant’s silence; improperly obtained evidence, other than confessions; character evidence; hearsay evidence; competence and compellability, special measures; identification evidence and questioning at trial; opinion evidence; public interest immunity; and privilege.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd [1998] AC 1, House of Lords. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd [1998] AC 1, House of Lords. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.
Chapter
This chapter focuses on evidence that is relevant but improperly obtained and thus may be excluded by judicial discretion. It looks at the exclusionary discretion contained within section 78 of the UK’s Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), and explains how common law and statutory exclusionary discretion may be exercised in relation to other areas of evidence, such as character evidence and hearsay evidence, other than confessions. The chapter also looks at the most common areas of exclusion, other than confession evidence, including breach or evasion of legislation such as PACE and the Codes of Practice. It also reviews when a stay of prosecution might be the appropriate procedure. Finally, it discusses the relevant principles of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that are enshrined in section 78 of PACE.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147, House of Lords. This case note deals with how the House of Lords interpreted an ouster clause, a statutory provision which seeks to prevent judicial supervision of decisions made by subordinate decision-making bodies, and considers the wider constitutional implications of the courts’ approach to ouster clauses. The document also includes supporting commentary and questions from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147, House of Lords. This case note deals with how the House of Lords interpreted an ouster clause, a statutory provision which seeks to prevent judicial supervision of decisions made by subordinate decision-making bodies, and considers the wider constitutional implications of the courts’ approach to ouster clauses. The document also includes supporting commentary and questions from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
Paul S Davies and Graham Virgo
All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter focuses on the beneficiary of a trust, and how this beneficiary possesses a variety of equitable rights arising from the trust, the nature of which will depend on the type of trust that has been created. Beneficiaries enjoy certain rights but do not have a right to inspect trust documents; however, disclosure of such documents can be ordered through the exercise of judicial discretion. In the case of a fixed trust, beneficiaries possess proprietary rights in the trust property and also a variety of personal rights. On the other hand, objects of a discretionary trust do not have any proprietary rights to trust property but have a variety of personal rights. To terminate the trust, its adult beneficiaries can unanimously agree to terminate it, but only if between them they are absolutely entitled to the beneficial interest.
Chapter
Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter looks at the classification of grounds for judicial review, illegality, ultra vires, jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional error, subjective discretion and the ultra vires doctrine, improper purpose with or without express stipulation in the empowering statute, mixed motives, relevant and irrelevant considerations with or without express stipulation in the empowering statute, lack of evidence, and unlawful failure to exercise a discretionary power by policy, estoppel based on a representation made by an official, agreement, or wrongful delegation.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997, House of Lords. This case is concerned with the scope and limits of ministerial discretion, and how, in the case of statutory powers, the courts determine this with reference to the intentions of Parliament and the objectives of the Act in question. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147, House of Lords. This case note deals with how the House of Lords interpreted an ouster clause, a statutory provision which seeks to prevent judicial supervision of decisions made by subordinate decision-making bodies, and considers the wider constitutional implications of the courts’ approach to ouster clauses. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
This chapter considers the grounds on which public decisions may be challenged before the courts. It begins with an overview of two cases—Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corpn (1948) and Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985). The importance of these two cases is their distillation of the general principles. The discussion then covers the different grounds for judicial review: illegality, relevant/irrelevant considerations, fiduciary duty, fettering of a discretion, improper purpose, bad faith, irrationality, proportionality, procedural impropriety, natural justice, legitimate expectations, the right to a fair hearing, reasons, and the rule against bias. It is noted that principles often overlap, so that a challenge to a public law decision may be based on different principles.
Chapter
This chapter considers the grounds on which public decisions may be challenged before the courts. It begins with an overview of two cases—Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corpn (1948) and Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985). The importance of these two cases is their distillation of the general principles. The discussion then covers the different grounds for judicial review: illegality, relevant/irrelevant considerations, fiduciary duty, fettering of a discretion, improper purpose, bad faith, irrationality, proportionality, procedural impropriety, natural justice, legitimate expectations, the right to a fair hearing, reasons, and the rule against bias. It is noted that principles often overlap, so that a challenge to a public law decision may be based on different principles.
Chapter
This chapter considers ‘illegality’ as a ground of judicial review. Illegality is one of the three main grounds of judicial review as outlined by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions & Others v Minister for the Civil Service. Broadly, the aim of this ground of judicial review is to ensure that public authorities act within the scope of their powers. This means that illegality is a wide ground of judicial review and is best considered as an umbrella term for a range of different ways in which a decision by a public authority can be challenged. A decision can be challenged under this ground of judicial review on the basis that the public authority lacks the power to make the decision in the first place, or if it does have the power, then the power has been exercised incorrectly.
Chapter
Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. This chapter examines ‘illegality’ as a ground for judicial review. Central to judicial review is the idea of ultra vires, which is the principle that public authorities have to act within their legal powers and that if they act or fail to act consistently with their legal powers, they will be acting unlawfully. Case law on the exercise of discretionary powers by public authorities is discussed in depth. In addition, the public-sector equality duty in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 is explained. The concept of jurisdiction and the distinction between error of law and error of fact are also included under this ground of review.
Chapter
This chapter considers ‘illegality’ as a ground of judicial review. Illegality is one of the three main grounds of judicial review as outlined by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions & Others v Minister for the Civil Service. Broadly, the aim of this ground of judicial review is to ensure that public authorities act within the scope of their powers. This means that illegality is a wide ground of judicial review and is best considered as an umbrella term for a range of different ways in which a decision by a public authority can be challenged. A decision can be challenged under this ground of judicial review on the basis that the public authority lacks the power to make the decision in the first place, or if it does have the power, then the power has been exercised incorrectly.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Padfield v
Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997, House of Lords. This case is concerned with the scope and limits of ministerial discretion, and how, in the case of statutory powers, the courts determine this with reference to the intentions of Parliament and the objectives of the Act in question. The document also includes supporting commentary and questions from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
Martin Hannibal and Lisa Mountford
This chapter considers the nature of corroborative evidence; the situations where corroborative evidence is required as a matter of law; the situations where a corroboration warning might be given as a matter of judicial discretion; and the application of the ‘Turnbull guidelines’ in cases where eye-witness identification is disputed. It also explains the rules relating to opinion evidence and to expert opinion evidence in particular.
12
