A judge’ directions to the jury as to the meaning of “acts of terrorism” and other terms within the Terrorism Act 2006 s.2 had adequately protected a young offender’s ECHR art.10 rights.
A magistrates’ court had failed to adopt the correct approach when rejecting a submission of no case to answer in respect of a charge of robbery.
A total sentence of seven years and eight months’ detention was appropriate in the case of a young offender who had pleaded guilty to possessing Class B drugs, a sub-machine gun and compatible ammunition, having been pressured into holding them for a third party. Those who looked after lethal weapons for others had to expect severe sentences.
In refusing conjoined applications for permission to appeal against convictions for murder, the court considered a number of issues including the adequacy of joint enterprise directions in the light of R. v Jogee (Ameen Hassan)  UKSC 8, the procedures for trials of young defendants in the Crown Court, and the compatibility of mandatory sentences of detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure with ECHR art.3 and art.5
The court quashed a sentence of custody for life imposed in 2002 on a young offender for attempted murder. In the light of fresh psychiatric evidence, which confirmed that the offender had been suffering from a psychopathic disorder at the time of the offence, hospital and restriction orders were appropriate.