The dangerous offender provisions Flashcards
A finding by the court that the offender is ‘dangerous’, in that the offender poses ?
D poses significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission by him of further specified offences
The Sentencing Code provide measures for the sentencing of ‘dangerous offenders’. What are they?
Principal measures:
(1) Required life sentence
(2) Extended sentence
(3) Serious terrorism sentence
What’s the dangerousness test?
determination by the court that the offender is “dangerous,” meaning they pose a significant risk to the public of causing serious harm by committing further specified offences.
What sentences need not to pass the dangerousness test?
(1) ‘life sentence for the second listed offence’
- where an individual commits a second offence that is listed under the law as carrying a life sentence.
(2) the required life sentence for manslaughter of an emergency worker
(3) required custodial sentence for ‘certain offenders of particular concern’
What’s the classification of ‘specified offence’?
- Violent, sexual or terrorism offences listed in SA, Sch 18 (= all carry max sentences of 2 years imprisonment / more)
- an offence listed in Sch 19 (carrying max sentence of life imprisonment), & serious terrorism offences
What’s the offence classification of ‘serious harm’?
death or serious personal injury, whether physical or psychological
In assessing dangerousness, what must and may the court take into consideration?
(1) must take into account:
- all available info about nature & circumstances of offence
(2) may take into account:
(a) all available info on nature & circumstances of any other offences of which D has been convicted by a court anywhere in the world
(b) any info about any pattern of behaviour of which any of these offences form part, and
(c) any info it has about the offender
What’s ‘significant’ risk?
= more than a possibility – ‘noteworthy, of considerable amount or importance’
How can the court assess ‘significant’ risk?
To assess:
(1) PSR normally obtained & considered, addressing the issue
- Rarely appropriate for court to permit XX of the PSR’s author on assessment of risk
(2) Psychiatric report may be appropriate, but should be clearly directed to issue of dangerousness
(3) Details of previous convictions (even not specified), where relevant
- P should be able to describe the facts
- If doubt over accuracy of facts/circs of D’s previous convictions = may be necessary to adjourn to investigate, but might also be inferred from sentences handed down
- Each D must be considered separately
Even if D does not has any previous convictions, can they still be assessed as ‘dangerous’?
Yes
- can be a single incident
- need not to have caused harm to the public
When assessing young people dangerousness, the court should be cautious. Why?
Young people are more likely to act impulsively, to respond to sentences imposed, & to change
Where further offence foreseen is a ‘serious offence’, does it mean that commission would result in ‘serious harm’?
Not automatically
If offence foreseen is not a ‘serious offence’ is rare that there is a ‘significant risk of serious harm’
What are the key principles when assessing whether an offence foreseen may result in ‘significant risk of serious harm’?
Key principles
(1) Repeated low-level violent offending does not give rise to significant risk of serious harm in future
(2) Risk to ‘members of the public’ = a general term
- So risk can be specific to a small/particular group of individuals (e.g. prison officers), or just one potential V
- Can include non-UK citizens who would not be within UK when anticipated risk might materialise
(3) ‘Info’ not restricted to ‘evidence’ properly so-called (= doesn’t need to have been tested in adversarial judicial proceedings, or proved by criminal conviction)
When assessing ‘serious harm’. The judge must? (2)
(1) give reasons for all conclusions, referring to evidence taken into account
(2) if judge minded to reach different conclusions from reports = alert counsel so they can make representations
Will CoA interfere with (discretionary) finding of dangerousness?
Not normally
Unless:
1) Incorrect principles applied
2) judge not entitled to reach conclusion on the evidence
