Case Brief 1.docx

R v Smith (2011) UKSC 37 Promulgated on 20 July 2011 Facts This is an appeal case before the United Kingdom Supreme Court from the judgment in [2010] EWCA Crim 530, where the appellant Nicolas Smith (respondent) was sentenced on 10 October 2008 by His Honor Judge Greenwood for a total of eight offenses of robbery and eight offense of possessing a firearm at the time of committing robberies and imposed upon the appellant Smith the Imprisonment for Public Protection because according to him, there is a significant risk to the public of serious personal injury caused by the appellant’s committing further offences, and he based his conclusion from what he had heard all about the appellant, that the appellant is a career criminal with dreadful record of series of robberies, wounding and grievous bodily harm public with real firearm. The appellant Nicolas having born on 25 February 1950, has been convicted and in and out of prison majority of his adult life. The following are his recent convictions prior to what which was resulted in the sentence which is the subject of the present appeal, to wit: 1. On 21 February 1975, at the Central Criminal Court, he was sentenced to a total of ten years of imprisonment from two offences of robbery under Sec. 8 of the Theft Act of 1968, two offences of conspiracy to rob under Sec. 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act of 1977 and one offence of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, under Sec. 188 of the Offences Against Person Act of 1861; 2. On 29 September 1982, at the Central Criminal Court, he was sentenced to a total of 12 years of imprisonment for one offence of conspiracy to rob contrary to Sec. 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, one ofence of having an imitation firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence contrary to Sec. 18 of the Firearms Acts of 1968, one offence of taking a conveyance without authority contrary to Sec. 12 of the Theft Act 1968 and one offence of the criminal damage contrary to Sec. 1(1) of the Criminal Damages Act of 1971;

3. On 28 October 1994, at the Central Criminal Court, he was sentenced to a total of nine years of imprisonment for three offences of robbery under Sec. 8 of the Theft Act 1968 and three associated offences of carrying a firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence under Sec. 18 of the Firearms Act 1968. 4. On 24 January 2000, in the Crown Court at Kingdom, he was sentences to imprisonment for life for one offence of attempted robbery, under Sec. 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and one offence of having a firearm with intent under Sec. 18 of the Firearms Act of 1968. The minimum term in serving this sentence was fixed at four years. In its decision, the Court of Appeal did not submit that it was unlawful to impose a sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection on a prisoner who has already serving a life sentence. His Honor Maurice Kay LJ simply submitted that it was wrong in principle to do so. Issue The issue arising from this instant appeal was, “Can or should a judge impose a sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection on a defendant who is already serving sentence of life imprisonment under which he will not be released from prison until he can satisfy the Parole Board that he no longer poses a danger to the public? Mr. Barnes who represents the here appellant pointing what that the imposing Judge, His Honor Judge Greenwood erred by amending the word “may” to “must” in his discretion of imposition of the Imprisonment for Public Protection upon the appellant. Rule The United Kingdom Supreme Court held that there was no point in excising the power to impose a sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection and a determinate sentence should have been imposed. Application/Analysis Judge Greenwood is permitted to exercise in the imposition of Imprisonment for Public Protection upon the here appellant if proven that there is a significant risk that the public might

be engaged in and will cause serious harm to any member of the society that will be soon committed by the appellant. Appellant through the representation of Mr. Barnes struggles Judge Greenwood to factor in, when considering the question at this appeal. He contends that the fact that Mr. Smith is and will remain detained in prison for a significant period, the appellant will surely pose no risk to the public so long as he remains in custody. According to him Judge Greenwood must consider whether the appellant will pose a significant risk of causing serious harm to members of public. Conclusion The imposition of the Imprisonment for Public Protection to the herein appellant would be no use or benefit but would simply adverse procedural consequences and therefore can result to the conflict between the Parole Board’s review requirements in respect to the life imprisonment and the Imprisonment for Public Protection. The procedure will just be the same if the herein appellant would be sentence by determinate sentence of 12 years imprisonment where he will have to serve a minimum term of six years, and upon serving the minimum term he will then have to satisfy the Parole Board that he does not pose a risk to the public in order to be release out of prison. Although the judge is permitted to imposed the IPP or the Imprisonment for Public Protection pursuant to Section 225(1)(b) of the Crime Sentences Act of 1997, the result will be the same if the judge opted to impose the determinate sentence of 12 years and there is no point in exercising the power to impose to Imprisonment for Public Protection and according to the Supreme Court as a far as the good sentencing practice, a determinate sentence should be the proper penalty to be imposed upon the herein appellant Mr. Smith. Furthermore, the United Kingdom Supreme Court also said that the imposing judge should not be criticize in imposing the Imprisonment for Public Protection upon the appellant as it is at his discretion.