Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Prisoner released as judge had failed to consider appropriateness of community service
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, by way of habeas corpus proceedings, directs release of an applicant who used a bank card to withdraw money from the injured party’s account having obtained the PIN by watching the injured party use the card sometime earlier, after there was a failure to consider a community service order as an alternative to the sentence imposed, finding that the judge was obliged as a matter of law to consider whether the applicant was a person in respect of whom it may be appropriate to make a community service order as an alternative to the sentence of imprisonment deemed to be appropriate.
Criminal law – habeas corpus – Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution – inquiry into the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention – applicant used bank card to withdraw money from the injured party’s account having obtained the PIN by watching the injured party use the card sometime earlier – community service – section 3(1)(a) of the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act 1983 as substituted by s. 3 of the Criminal Justice (Community Service) (Amendment) Act 2011 – whether the judge was obliged as a matter of law to consider whether the applicant was a person in respect of whom it may be appropriate to make a community service order as an alternative to the sentence of imprisonment deemed to be appropriate – there has been a failure to consider a community service order as an alternative to the sentence imposed – validity of the warrants in this case is not dependent upon a recital concerning the application or consideration of s. 3 of the 2011 Act – applicant is not in lawfully custody – immediate release directed.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
