About
A free weekly collection of criminal law links - for practitioners, law students, and anyone with an interest in the criminal justice system of England and Wales.
Curated by Sam Willis, a barrister at 5 King's Bench Walk.
News
'Sentencing Council defends changes after 'two-tier' row'
The body advising judges on criminal sentences has hit back at the justice secretary's call for it to scrap new guidance on sentencing offenders from ethnic monitories. The Sentencing Council said ministers from both major parties or their representatives had known about the plans since 2022 and did not object. It comes after Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood last week wrote to the council urging it to rethink guidance directing judges to review the lives of offenders from ethnic minority and other backgrounds before deciding on a punishment. Opposition politicians had claimed the changes amounted to a "two-tier justice" system.
Lord Justice William Davis, the chairman of the council, said that Mahmood's officials were fully briefed on the plans that had been three years in the making. He said that ministers could not "dictate" sentencing and he would have to take legal advice on Mahmood's powers over the council's work. This raises the bizarre possibility that the body advising judges on how to judge might decide to go to court for a ruling on whether the minister overseeing justice has any power to tell judges what to do.
The row was triggered after the Sentencing Council, which advises judges and magistrates on the complexities of prison terms and community punishments, issued new guidance for England and Wales on when a court should order a pre-sentence report into an offender's life. These reports do not tie the hands of judges but they often provide the court with a detailed insight into why an individual fell into crime, their risk of reoffending and the chances for rehabilitation outside of jail. The new guidelines told judges to order a pre-sentence report if the offender is from a minority background, facing the possibility of jail for the first time, a woman or pregnant. It also urged them to always consider a report in a wider range of circumstances, including where an offender has an addiction, is transgender, or has learning difficulties...
'Pre-recorded evidence has no impact on rape conviction rates, MoJ claims'
There is no evidence to suggest that pre-recorded video evidence from complainants and witnesses in sexual offence trials reduces jury conviction rates, the Ministry of Justice said yesterday. Its research contradicts an MoJ-commissioned study published last year by Professor Cheryl Thomas at University College London, which found an average of 20% fewer rape convictions in trials that used pre-recorded evidence – and conviction rates were 10% lower in trials overall. Thomas' research looked at cases over seven years to June 2023. Section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, introduced in 2016, allows eligible witnesses to pre-record their evidence in order to reduce stress and anxiety. This recording is then played at the trial.
The report published yesterday, Impact Evaluation of Pre-recorded Cross Examination for Vulnerable & Intimidated Witnesses, looked at cases between January 2019 and 2022... The researchers concluded that s.28 'does not appear to have an effect on a jury’s decision to acquit, or convict' and that 'the impact of s.28 usage was calculated very close to zero'. The three researchers are statisticians employed by the ministry, but the report states that views expressed 'are not necessarily shared by the Ministry of Justice (nor do they represent government policy)'.
Speaking to the Gazette, Thomas criticised the methodology used by the researchers in the most recent report. In all cases, regardless of whether there were multiple offences charged and a mixture of acquittals and convictions, the research considered any case to be a conviction where the jury found a defendant guilty of one offence. 'They have designed a study that excludes more then 80% of verdicts,' said Thomas. 'When juries deal with a case they almost always return multiple verdicts and the ministry is only counting one verdict in a case. For example, if there were 10 charges of rape and one conviction, the Ministry of Justice’s research doesn’t count the nine acquittals,' she said. Overall, the report is 'making a pretty big statement in saying that s.28 does not affect a jury’s willingness to convict. I don’t think their analysis is strong enough to say that'.
'Crossbow killer Kyle Clifford jailed for triple murders'
A man who killed his ex-girlfriend, her sister and her mother in a crossbow attack motivated by "self pity" has been jailed for life and told he would never be released from prison. Kyle Clifford raped his former partner Louise Hunt, 25, then used a crossbow to shoot both her and her sister Hannah, 28, having already fatally stabbed their mother, 61-year-old Carol, at the family home in Bushey, Hertfordshire, in July last year.
At Cambridge Crown Court, the judge Mr Justice Bennathan handed the 26-year-old three life sentences with three whole life orders. The women were the wife and daughters of BBC horse racing commentator John Hunt who, in his victim impact statement, described Clifford as a "psychopath" who was able to disguise himself as "an ordinary human being"...
Cases
R v Callum Ayre & Ors [2025] EWCA Crim 255
... We emphasise two features of the passages which we have cited from Jogee. First, the important questions are whether the secondary offender intentionally assisted or encouraged the principal's crime, and whether he intended to assist or encourage the principal to act with the particular intent required by the crime. Secondly, it is not necessary to prove that the secondary party encouraged or assisted the principal to commit the crime in a particular way. Taking those two points together, we respectfully agree with the court in Grant that the Supreme Court in Jogee significantly limited the circumstances in which it will be appropriate for a jury to consider whether they have departed from an agreed plan. Cases in which there is sufficient evidence for the judge properly to leave such an issue to the jury will, we anticipate, therefore be rare...
In the present case, we have no doubt that the judge was correct to reject the submissions of no case to answer. In his commendably thorough analysis he directed himself correctly in law. For the reasons which he gave, the issue of OSA did not arise. On the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the jury would be entitled to find that the accused set off in the car with a shared plan to confront the other group. The threat "you are getting it", followed seconds later by the accused getting into the car, two of them carrying weapons, and pursuing the other group, plainly pointed to such a plan. The jury would obviously be entitled to reject the suggestion on behalf of the appellants that weapons were being carried purely for self-defence. If the jury were satisfied that such a plan existed, it would then be for the jury to decide whether the parties to that plan also shared an intention to attack the other group with intent to kill, or to attack the other group with intent to cause really serious injury, or at least with a shared intention to commit an assault which all sober and reasonable people would realise carried the risk of some harm...
Is it then possible to argue that in the seconds which elapsed between the car turning into Western Link Road and driving at the pedestrians, Donald – or (if the jury so found) Tomlinson – acted in a way which relegated to history the earlier actions of the others, and destroyed "all material connection" between the earlier planned violence and the running down of the victims? It is, in our view, clear that the answer to that question must be in the negative. The joint intention to use unlawful violence against the other group was still continuing, and it was put into effect by Donald acting in a way which resulted in death...
Other
R v Kyle Clifford - Sentencing Remarks
Kyle Clifford, on 9 July last year you went to the home of your former girlfriend Louise Hunt and launched a murderous attack on her and her family. You first killed her mother Carol, who even on that day showed you nothing but kindness in the moments before you attacked her. You raped and killed Louise who had been as gentle as she could in ending her relationship with you, after your arrogance and anger proved too much for her to stand. Then you murdered Hannah Hunt, who had done nothing to harm you save supporting her little sister...
The evidence I have heard shows you to be a jealous man, soaked in self-pity; a man who holds women in utter contempt. This is no occasion to subject the family and friends of your victims to any delay or suspense. I therefore make clear at once that for each of the three murders, the sentence will be one of life imprisonment with a whole life order. That means a sentence from which you will never be released...
Crime and Policing Bill 2024-25 - House of Commons Library Research Briefing
Part 1 of the bill would introduce of a new ‘respect order’, allowing local authorities and police to impose restrictions on people who commit anti-social behaviour, and which would include a criminal sanction on breach. Other measures will amend existing powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, including removing the need for the police to issue a warning before seizing vehicles associated with anti-social behaviour...
Part 2 of the bill would introduce a new offence of possessing a knife or offensive weapon with intent, increase the maximum penalty for manufacturing, selling, hiring, or lending prohibited weapons, and give the police greater powers to seize knives from properties...
Amid reported increases in assaults against shop workers and shoplifting, part 3 of the bill would create a new offence of assaulting a retail worker. It would also amend legislation so that all shop thefts involving an alleged offence under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 would be triable either way (in a magistrates’ court or the Crown Court), regardless of the value of the goods stolen...
Part 4 of the bill would include measures aimed at protecting children and vulnerable people, including creating new offences of child criminal exploitation and ‘cuckooing’, often associated with county lines drug dealing. It would also establish new offences of spiking and encouraging or assisting serious self-harm...
Part 5 of the bill would introduce several measures aimed at tackling child sexual abuse and other sexual offending. This includes implementing two recommendations from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. It would make grooming a statutory aggravating factor when sentencing an adult for a child sex offence and create a statutory duty for certain individuals to report child sexual abuse. It would also introduce measures to tackle the creation and possession of child sexual abuse material and putting the child sex offender disclosure scheme, ‘Sarah’s law’, on a statutory footing. It would also introduce several new offences relating to the taking of intimate images and voyeurism...
Part 9 of the bill would reintroduce some of the previous government’s proposals to create new offences related to protests, such as banning face coverings, pyrotechnics, and climbing war memorials...
Part 14 of the bill would introduce measures aimed at tackling youth radicalisation, announced as the initial response to the ‘counter-extremism sprint’ established by the government following the general election. These would take the form of ‘youth diversion orders’, a counter-terrorism risk management tool available to people under 21. The police would be able to apply to the courts for an order, which could require or prohibit certain conduct, if necessary and proportionate to mitigate terrorist risk...