Bias - contempt of court - mitigation - sentence length
R v Jason Martin Murray: CA (Crim Div) (Lady Justice Hallett, Mr Justice Leveson, Mr Justice Simon): 7 September 2006



The appellant (M) appealed against a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment for contempt of court.



M had been sentenced to a total of seven years' imprisonment for substantive offences of robbery, attempted robbery and having an imitation firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence.



Immediately following sentencing, M's family passed him a bag via the custody officers. The judge, fearful of what the bag may contain, instructed the custody officers to return the bag to M's family. M became aggressive and abusive towards the judge and jumped over the dock on the side that led directly towards the judge's bench. He was prevented from approaching the judge by his own counsel and the police officer in the case. The judge then dealt with this behaviour on the same day and imposed a term of imprisonment consecutive to those imposed for the substantive offences.



M submitted that his actions had been in the heat of the moment following his imprisonment for a lengthy term, having had a personal item removed from his possession that he believed he was entitled to, and which had been passed to him by the custody officers. M argued that the judge was wrong to pass sentence at the same hearing as that for the substantive offences, as she had been emotionally involved in the offence and was not able to assess the case impartially. He submitted that an independent judge ought to have passed sentence, as the sentencing judge had been the object of the threat, was plainly alarmed, and there could be a perception of bias towards M.



Held, the judge was entitled to deal with the matter then and there (R v Powell (Paul Baden) (1993) The Times, 3 June followed). However, in a case such as this, the judge ought to have taken time to reflect on the incident and look at the offence objectively (Rv Moran (Kevin John) (1985) The Times, 8 April followed). M's conduct was alarming to those who saw it and that type of behaviour should be deterred, but M believed that he was entitled to the bag owing to the actions of the custody officers. This was a single act of aggressive behaviour following M's imprisonment for a lengthy term. In deference to the principle of totality, a sentence of six months' imprisonment consecutive to the substantive offences was appropriate.



Appeal allowed.



B Conlon for the appellant; BJ Argyle for the Crown.





Minimum term - public protection - risk of reoffending

R v Majid Ali Manir: CA (Crim Div) (Lord Justice Richards, Mr Justice Collins, Mr Justice Jack): 30 August 2006



The appellant (M) appealed against his minimum term of 18 months' imprisonment for public protection following his early guilty plea to sexual assault.



M had been drinking with another man (S) in a local park and had engaged the victim (V) in conversation while sitting on a bench. S left, leaving M and V alone on the bench together. V tried to leave, but was restrained by M, who then sexually assaulted her. V believed she was going to be raped, but M desisted when local men arrived to help. M was identified the following day by S and by scientific evidence.



M submitted that, in all the circumstances, the sentence was manifestly excessive. He argued that the judge had not taken sufficient account of his early guilty plea and other mitigating features. M submitted that he had no history of sexual offending, that he had been uncharacteristically drunk at the time of the attack, and that he had undertaken an alcohol awareness course while in custody. M argued that a determinate sentence of three years' imprisonment was appropriate, that it was sufficient time to complete a sex offenders' course, and that he would be subject to licence on his release. M also contended that the judge had been wrong to find that he presented a significant risk of serious harm to the public by the commission of further specified offences under section 225(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and that the attack on V was a one-off, stand-alone offence induced by his drinking.



Held, the judge was justified in imposing a sentence of imprisonment for public protection, as there was evidence to support the finding that M represented a significant risk of serious harm to the public. The fact that V had not suffered a serious level of physical or psychiatric harm as a result of M's attack did not determine that future victims would not. M also had a previous conviction for a specified offence of robbery and, under section 229 of the Act, the court was entitled to assume that M posed a significant risk of serious harm to the public. Furthermore, M's pre-sentence report advised that M showed a high risk of recidivism, was unwilling to explore his behaviour, and used alcohol as an excuse to explain his actions. Psychiatric reports indicated that M was of sound mind, but concurred with the pre-sentence report in finding that M was highly likely to reoffend. This was a case of near rape and, in all the circumstances, the sentence was not manifestly excessive.



Appeal dismissed.



J Gibson for the appellant.