R v Clarence Williams (CR 54 of 2019) [2022] TCASC 48 (24 February 2022)

Flynote

Criminal law

Case summary

In his discussion on sentencing in R v. Clement Morrison P said at para 20 of the Judgement: “It is a commonplace of modern sentencing doctrine that, in choosing the appropriate sentencing option in each case, the sentencing judge must always have in mind what Lawton LJ characterized, in his oft-quoted judgment in Rv. Sergeant, as the four ‘classical principles of sentencing’ These are retribution, deterrence, prevention and rehabilitation .’In R v. Dunkley P Harrison JA( as he then was)explained that it will be necessary for the sentencing judge in each case to apply these principles, ‘or any one or a combination of…..[them], depending on the circumstances of the particular case.’ And ultimately, taking these well established and generally accepted principles into consideration, the objective of the sentencing judge must be, as Rowe JA ( as he then was) explained in R v. Beckford, ‘[to] impose a sentence to fit the offender and at the same time fit the crime’.  [25] The following paragraph (21) of the said judgment is also instructive. Morrison P, went on to say: “But in arriving at the appropriate sentence in each case, the sentencing judge is not at large. The view that ‘[u]ltimately every sentence imposed represents a sentencing judge’s instinctive synthesis of all the various aspects involved in the punitive process’ has now given way to a recognition of a need for greater objectivity, transparency, predictability, and consistency in sentencing” [26] In applying the principles outlined above and bearing in mind that the Court has to balance a number of competing interests and objectives; and therefore to tailor the sentence to suit the offence and the offender, while maintaining a level of transparency; I now turn to the guidance provided by the UK SGC. [27]  Taking all of the above circumstances and principles into account, the sentence of the Court is 18 months’ imprisonment. Having given serious consideration, the term of imprisonment for 18 months’ is hereby suspended for 2 years. [38] - [39] In addition to the sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment suspended for 2 years, I have considered the application made by the Prosecution for a Sexual Harm Prevention Order, the arguments in support and the Defence’s written response.  I have determined firstly, that this Court has the jurisdiction to make such an order and also that in the circumstance of this case and this offender, it is necessary to do so [40].

---