Crime of contempt of Parliament

Where the character of a joint criminal enterprise was such that it was foreseeable that a party to the enterprise could be subject to unusual or increased risks of harm as a consequence of the pursuit of those criminal activities, any resulting injury could properly be said to be caused by the claimant's criminal act even if it resulted from the negligent or intentional act of another party to the illegal enterprise.

There was no "closest fit" principle in deciding between the various pre-emptive orders available to control violence; provided the statutory conditions were met, it was at the judge's discretion.

Credit for a guilty plea was to reflect savings to the public purse and the avoidance of requiring complainants to give evidence and be cross-examined; it was not to be given solely for showing remorse.

A sentence of 12 years' imprisonment for rape was reduced to 10 and a half years where the sentencing judge had failed to have sufficient regard to the unusual circumstances of the offence, in particular the effect upon the offender and the complainant, his former partner, of the death of their child.

The court clarified the correct approach to sentencing for the most serious offences of conspiracy to defraud.

The applicant was refused permission to appeal against his conviction for the murder of Stephen Lawrence. The judge had correctly admitted DVD evidence of bad character under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.101(1)(d) which post-dated the fatal attack and the risks of contamination of the forensic evidence had been fully explored by the judge in his summing up.

Sentences imposed on three young offenders involved in the murder of a youth during the rush hour at a busy central London station were reduced. The minimum term in the case of one offender convicted of murder was reduced from 18 years to 16 years as although he was one of the ringleaders in planning the attack he did not have the intention to kill. Sentences of 7 years' detention in a young offender institution for the other two offenders for conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm and violent disorder respectively were substituted with sentences of five-and-a-half years due to their more limited involvement and bearing in mind their youth, good character and positive reports.

Fresh evidence that a defendant suffered from autism did not render his convictions for child sex offences unsafe because it did not bear weight on the issue at trial, namely whether certain incidents had happened

Identification evidence that had been adduced during the trial of a robbery was not too weak to support a safe conviction where the witness had been able to obtain a good look at the suspect's face, even though the quality of the street lighting had been poor. It had also been open to the judge to conclude that the suspect's previous convictions for robbery and an assault occasioning actual bodily harm ,that had occurred in similar circumstances to the instant case, could logically demonstrate a propensity to behave in the manner alleged.

A sentence of 30 months' imprisonment, imposed following a guilty plea to arson being reckless as to whether life was endangered, was not manifestly excessive for an offender who was not of good character and who had ben drinking to excess, whose principal mitigation was his suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

A minimum term of 12 years' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive for an offence of murder. The offender had not had a legitimate expectation that his tariff would be set at the level recommended by the trial judge, since the High Court had set the minimum term in accordance with the requirements of The Criminal Justice Act 2003 Sch.22.

An appeal against conviction for an offence of making indecent photographs of children was allowed as there were trial irregularities and inadequate jury directions relating to the decency of images.

A total sentence of three years' imprisonment imposed following pleas of guilty to 15 offences of fraud and two of theft was reduced to two years. The defendant had stolen from her own children, in breach of trust, over a significant period of time, but there had been no good reason to increase the sentence above the starting point of three years for offences which fell into the most serious category specified in the sentencing guidelines for thefts in breach of trust.

The fact that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, acting on police advice, had accepted that owners of properties in a sectarian interface area were entitled to "intimidation points" under its Housing Selection Scheme did not mean that the requirements for the issue of a chief constable's certificate under the separate Scheme for the Purchase of Evacuated Dwellings had been met.

It had not been open to a recorder to sentence on the basis of the victim's complaint of rape rather than on the basis of the defendant's guilty plea to sexual activity with a child family member.

A total sentence of eight' months' imprisonment following pleas of guilty to aggravated vehicle-taking and driving while over the limit was not manifestly excessive where the offender had been over two-and-a-half times over the permitted limit, had driven dangerously at speed through a red light, had placed passengers and other road users at risk, had failed to stop when indicated by the police, did not have a full driving licence and was uninsured.

A rehabilitation order of 18 months imposed on a young offender for wounding with intent was held to be unduly lenient and was replaced with an 18-month detention and training order.

In a case where the defendant alleged that a charge of wounding with intent was based on the victim's false allegations, the judge had been correct to refuse defence counsel permission to cross-examine the victim about false allegations he had allegedly made in the past against his mother; those allegations did not have "substantial probative value" in relation to a matter in issue for the purposes of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.100(1)(b).