Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
A Sensible Judge - At Last
This ghastly woman who buried her dog alive appealed against her sentence (from a magistrate's court) which included an 18-month ban from keeping animals.
The appeal judge (in the Crown Court ) agreed it was an incorrect sentence and made it a lifetime ban. Good for him.
https:/
The appeal judge (in the Crown Court ) agreed it was an incorrect sentence and made it a lifetime ban. Good for him.
https:/
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Canary42. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//The appeal judge (in the Crown Court ) agreed it was an incorrect sentence...//
That isn't necessarily quite correct.
When an appeal against a conviction and/or sentence handed down in the Magistrates' Court is heard in the Crown Court, the matter is heard before a Crown Court judge and two Magistrates (from a different Bench to the one where the original conviction was recorded). Whilst the judge is the sole arbiter on matters of law, each of the three have an equal say on matters of fact and on interpretation of the sentencing guidelines. This means that in this case the judge could have been overruled by the accompanying Magistrates.
That isn't necessarily quite correct.
When an appeal against a conviction and/or sentence handed down in the Magistrates' Court is heard in the Crown Court, the matter is heard before a Crown Court judge and two Magistrates (from a different Bench to the one where the original conviction was recorded). Whilst the judge is the sole arbiter on matters of law, each of the three have an equal say on matters of fact and on interpretation of the sentencing guidelines. This means that in this case the judge could have been overruled by the accompanying Magistrates.
Thank you for the clarification NJ. It raises the possibility of an intriguing scenario, where the judge has to pronounce sentencing etc which (s)he doesn't necessarily agree with (although I doubt this case falls in that category). Must be awkward on occasions though. Do they discuss it in open Court or retire to chambers ?
It's discussed in private in the retiring room (or, at the Crown Court, in the judge's own room).
There would be no embarrassment. It's comes with the job. Chairmen (or women) in Magistrates' Courts have the same problem. They may be outvoted by their two colleagues on a verdict/sentence but it's simply announced at the "court's" decision. There is never any indication whether it is a unanimous or majority decision and certainly nothing like (e.g. from the judge in this instance) "This is the decision of the court but I am against it."
There would be no embarrassment. It's comes with the job. Chairmen (or women) in Magistrates' Courts have the same problem. They may be outvoted by their two colleagues on a verdict/sentence but it's simply announced at the "court's" decision. There is never any indication whether it is a unanimous or majority decision and certainly nothing like (e.g. from the judge in this instance) "This is the decision of the court but I am against it."
1 to 8 of 8
