A sentence of 72 months’ imprisonment for misconduct in a public office imposed on a prison officer, who had engaged in sexual and inappropriate conduct with several prisoners and had brought Class B drugs into the prison, was severe but appropriate. The prison officer had passed on information concerning the security measures being taken at the prison, which merited a severe deterrent sentence.
The Court of Appeal reduced a nine-month sentence for the breach of two freezing orders to one of six months’ imprisonment in light of the effect the contemnor’s imprisonment was having on her 13-year-old son. However, the disruption to the relationship between mother and son did not justify the suspension of the sentence.
If it was a condition of consent that Botox injections would be administered by a doctor, then that affected the question of the identity of the party administering the injections and the legal validity of the recipients’ consent. That was different to the circumstances in R. v Richardson (Diane)  Q.B. 444 and did not amount to including qualifications within the definition of “identity”.
A sentence of six months’ imprisonment imposed for contempt of court following deliberate and repeated breaches of freezing injunctions did not fall outside the range of sentences which could reasonably be regarded as appropriate. The breaches had resulted in funds which should have been available to the victims of failed investment schemes being dissipated for the contemnor’s benefit.
The court could extend the period during which an unpaid work requirement under a community order could be completed, unless and until the offender had completed the specified number of hours work or the order had been revoked, irrespective of whether the 12-month period specified in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.200(2) had ended or the end date specified in the order had passed.