Rudi Fortson QC, Barrister, 25 Bedford Row, London; Visiting Professor of Law at Queen Mary University of London Coverage of key cases in Part A (Criminal Law) includes IIn re Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Northern Ireland) Bill in the Supreme Court and on protest and proportionality; Andrews v Chief Constable of Suffolk on attempts; Datson on mistake; and Bowskill on kidnapping R v Ahmed [2023] EWCA Crim 281: Considers the correct approach to sentencing an adult for an offence committed when as a child.

The 2023 edition has been meticulously revised to provide extensive coverage of all new legislation, case law, Sentencing Guidelines, and Criminal Procedure Rules 2020, and Practice Directions. Practical guidance on procedure and sentencing ensures the work is your essential companion through every stage of every trial

Commentary

Updated case coverage in Part F (Evidence) includes Pike on evidence of previous false complaints; Gold on CCTV evidence at trial; Andrews, Olive, Portman, Heslop on bad character; Kadir on the use of WhatsApp to receive evidence; Dirie on confessions; Ulas on identification from CCTV Where an offence is committed as a child, whatever the offender’s age at the time of conviction and sentence, the Children Guideline is relevant and must be followed unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so. The court must have regard to the maximum sentence which was available at or shortly after the time of the offending. The court must take as its starting point the sentence likely to have been imposed if the child offender had been sentenced shortly after the offence. If, in all the circumstances of the case, the child offender could not in law have been sentenced at the time of their offending to any form of custody, then no custodial sentence may be imposed. Where some form of custody was available, the court is not necessarily bound by the maximum applicable to the child offender. The court should, however, only exceed that maximum where there is good reason to do so. Edited by David Ormerod CBE, QC (Hon), Barrister, Bencher of Middle Temple, Professor of Criminal Justice, University College London, and David Perry QC, Barrister, 6KBW College Hill HH Peter Rook QC, Vice-Chair of the Parole Board of England and Wales; Formerly Senior Circuit Judge sitting at the Central Criminal Court

Valsamis Mitsilegas, Dean of the School of Law and Social Justice and Professor of European and Global Law, University of LiverpoolAdrian Keane, Barrister, Emeritus Professor of Law, The City Law School, City, University of London Peter Hungerford-Welch, Barrister; Professor of Law, City Law School, City, City, University of London Paul Jarvis, Barrister, 6KBW College Hill and Junior Prosecuting Counsel at the Central Criminal Court

B2 Non-fatal Offences against the Person B2.90 Offences against the Person Act 1861, s. 18: Assessment of Harm Richard D. Taylor, Barrister, Emeritus Professor of English Law, School of Justice, University of Central Lancashire R v Dixon [2023] EWCA Crim 280: Considers the phrase “particularly grave or life threatening injury caused” in the sentencing guidelines for causing grievous bodily harm with intent. HHJ Jonathan Cooper, Aylesbury Crown Court; Honorary Professor, Nottingham Law School, Nottingham Trent UniversityLaura C. H. Hoyano, Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Oxford; Emeritus Senior Research Fellow in Law, Wadham College; Fellow of Middle Temple; Barrister, Red Lion Chambers