DOCSLIB.ORG

Stark2011.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Stark2011.Pdf This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: • This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. • A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. • This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. • The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. • When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. CULPABLE CARELESSNESS: Recklessness and Negligence in Scots and English Criminal Law By Findlay G F Stark LLB (Hons), LLM (Aberdeen) A thesis presented for the degree of PhD in Law 2011 i Contents CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ I ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................................................................... VI DECLARATION .................................................................................................. VIII ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. IX LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................... X 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 A. SCOPE ................................................................................................................ 2 (1) Responsibility, culpability and liability ......................................................... 2 (2) Culpability as insufficient concern ................................................................. 4 (3) Crimes as “public wrongs” ............................................................................. 4 (4) Blame and Punishment ................................................................................... 5 (5) Free will and determinism .............................................................................. 6 (6) Is risk-taking harmful? ................................................................................... 7 (7) Case law ......................................................................................................... 7 B. CHAPTER OVERVIEW ..................................................................................... 7 (1) Chapter two .................................................................................................... 8 (2) Chapter three .................................................................................................. 9 (3) Chapter four ................................................................................................. 11 (4) Chapter five .................................................................................................. 12 (5) Chapter six ................................................................................................... 13 (6) Chapter seven ............................................................................................... 14 C. ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO KNOWLEDGE ...................................... 15 (1) Analysis of the Scottish jurisprudence ......................................................... 15 (2) Comparison of Scots and English law ......................................................... 16 (3) Use of modern criminal law theory .............................................................. 16 (4) The practicalities of character theory ........................................................... 16 D. DEFINITIONAL MATTERS ........................................................................... 17 (1) “Subjective” and “objective” ....................................................................... 17 (2) The accused .................................................................................................. 18 2 AN “UTTER DISREGARD” FOR CLARITY: THE SCOTTISH APPROACH ............................................................................................................. 20 A. COMMENTARY .............................................................................................. 21 (1) The early writers .......................................................................................... 21 (2) Modern treatments ....................................................................................... 24 B. “GROSS” NEGLIGENCE ................................................................................ 27 C. ALLAN V PATTERSON RECKLESSNESS ....................................................... 28 ii D. QUINN V CUNNINGHAM RECKLESSNESS .................................................. 30 (1) The limits of Allan v Patterson recklessness ............................................... 31 (a) Conduct v mens rea .................................................................................. 31 (b) The court’s knowledge ............................................................................. 32 (c) Statutory offences v common law crimes ................................................ 33 (2) The test in Quinn v Cunningham ................................................................. 34 (3) Quinn v Cunningham recklessness and advertence ..................................... 35 (a) Authority and advertence? ........................................................................ 36 (b) Corporate confusion? ............................................................................... 37 (c) A “special” case? ...................................................................................... 37 (4) Quinn v Cunningham recklessness and inadvertence .................................. 38 (5) The drug supply cases: a new frontier? ........................................................ 42 (6) Summary: the law in common law offences ................................................ 44 E. JAMIESON RECKLESSNESS .......................................................................... 45 (1) The common law .......................................................................................... 45 (2) The Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 ................................................... 48 (3) Summary: the law in rape ............................................................................ 50 F. “WICKED” RECKLESSNESS ......................................................................... 51 (1) The need for intention .................................................................................. 52 (2) Is wicked recklessness advertent recklessness? ........................................... 53 (3) The law in murder ........................................................................................ 55 G. BRENNAN RECKLESSNESS .......................................................................... 56 (1) Problems with Brennan recklessness ........................................................... 56 (2) An alternative foundation ............................................................................. 60 (3) The law in voluntary intoxication cases ....................................................... 60 H. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 61 3 CALM IN THE STORM: THE ENGLISH EXPERIENCE ............................ 62 A. THE NINETEENTH AND EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURIES ................... 63 B. R V CUNNINGHAM ........................................................................................... 65 (1) Impulsive defendants ................................................................................... 67 (a) An “obvious” risk? ................................................................................... 68 (b) Closed minds ............................................................................................ 71 (2) Defendants who “could not care less” ......................................................... 73 (3) Acutely, voluntarily intoxicated defendants ................................................ 74 (4) R v Cunningham: summary .......................................................................... 76 C. R V CALDWELL; R V LAWRENCE .................................................................... 77 (1) Dissent and driving ...................................................................................... 80 (2) The extent of inadvertent recklessness ......................................................... 82 (3) Recklessness and (in)capacity ...................................................................... 85 (4) The “Caldwell lacuna” ................................................................................. 88 (5) R v Caldwell; R v Lawrence: conclusion ..................................................... 89 D. R V ADOMAKO ................................................................................................. 90 (1) Duties of care ............................................................................................... 91 (a) Establishing and extinguishing a duty ...................................................... 91 (b)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (2017) Clarifying the Law on Assisted Suicide? Ross V Lord Advocate
    Chalmers, J. (2017) Clarifying the law on assisted suicide? Ross v Lord Advocate. Edinburgh Law Review, 21(1), pp. 93-98. (doi:10.3366/elr.2017.0391) This is the author’s final accepted version. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/130144/ Deposited on: 17 October 2016 Enlighten – Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow http://eprints.gla.ac.uk This article has been accepted for publication by Edinburgh University Press in the Edinburgh Law Review, and is expected to appear in the January 2017 issue. The Review is available online at http://www.euppublishing.com/loi/elr. Clarifying the Law on Assisted Suicide? Ross v Lord Advocate Gordon Ross, who died in January 2016,1 was a retired television producer who prior to his death resided in a care home, living with diabetes, heart problems, Parkinson’s disease and peripheral neuropathy.2 In Ross v Lord Advocate, Lord Carloway outlined the dilemma which Mr Ross faced in the following terms:3 He anticipates that there will come a time when he will not wish to continue living, as he will find his infirmity and consequent dependence on others intolerable. He would require assistance to commit suicide because of his physical state. He is apprehensive that anyone who assisted him would be liable to prosecution. He considers that he may require to take action to end his life himself, sooner than he would otherwise wish to, in order to avoid living on in an undignified and distressing condition.
    [Show full text]
  • In Scots Law
    1 When the Exception is the Rule: Rationalising the ‘Medical Exception’ in Scots Law 2 I. INTRODUCTION No medical practitioner who performs a legitimate medical operation on a patient (in the course of competently carrying out the duties of their profession)1 commits a delict or a criminal offence.2 This is so in spite of the fact that to infringe the bodily integrity of another person is plainly both a crime3 and a civil wrong.4 Notwithstanding the fact that the patient may desire the operation, the ‘defence’ of consent cannot possibly justify the serious injuries intentionally inflicted in the course of an operation to effect a kidney transplant, or to amputate a limb, or even to insert a stent, since these procedures are highly invasive and effect irreversible changes to the physicality of the patient(s).5 The ‘medical exception’ has consequently and consistently been invoked by legal commentators when considering cases of invasive surgery, or procedures which involve serious wounding.6 Since consent is no defence to serious assault,7 this exception to the general rule that to inflict such is to commit a crime must be justified by means other than an appeal to the 1 ‘Proper’ medical treatment is a prerequisite: Margaret Brazier and Sara Fovargue, Transforming Wrong into Right: What is ‘Proper Medical Treatment’?, in Sara Fovargue and Alexandra Mullock, The Legitimacy of Medical Treatment: What Role for the Medical Exception, (London: Routledge, 2016), p.12 2 See, generally, Sara Fovargue and Alexandra Mullock, The Legitimacy of Medical Treatment: What Role for the Medical Exception, (London: Routledge, 2016), passim.
    [Show full text]
  • SB 15-02 Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill
    The Scottish Parliament and Scottish Parliament Infor mation C entre l ogos. SPICe Briefing Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill 08 January 2015 15/02 Kathleen Robson and Sarah Harvie-Clark The Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill seeks to legalise assisted suicide for people with terminal and life-shortening illnesses and conditions. This briefing outlines the current law in Scotland in relation to assisted dying as well as the policy background to the Bill. It also explores public opinion and the frequency of different types of assisted dying in the UK. It then goes on to detail the Bill’s provisions as well as some of the issues raised in the Health and Sport Committee’s call for written evidence. CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 ASSISTED DYING TERMINOLOGY............................................................................................................................ 5 THE CURRENT LAW ON ASSISTED SUICIDE .......................................................................................................... 8 THE CRIMINAL LAW IN SCOTLAND ...................................................................................................................... 8 An overview .........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Assisted Dying and Suicide in Other Jurisdictions
    HS/S4/15/5/A HEALTH AND SPORT COMMITTEE AGENDA 5th Meeting, 2015 (Session 4) Tuesday 17 February 2015 The Committee will meet at 9.45 am in the Robert Burns Room (CR1). 1. Decision on taking business in private: The Committee will decide whether its consideration of its approach to NHS Boards Budget Scrutiny should be taken in private at future meetings. 2. Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill: The Committee will take evidence on the Bill at Stage 1 from— Patrick Harvie MSP, member in charge of the Bill; Andrew Mylne, Head of Non-Government Bills Unit; Louise Miller, senior solicitor, Office of the Solicitor to the Scottish Parliament; Amanda Ward, adviser to Patrick Harvie. 3. Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill (in private): The Committee will consider the main themes arising from the oral evidence heard earlier in the meeting. Eugene Windsor Clerk to the Health and Sport Committee Room T3.60 The Scottish Parliament Edinburgh Tel: 0131 348 5410 Email: [email protected] HS/S4/15/5/A The papers for this meeting are as follows— Agenda Item 2 Written Submissions HS/S4/15/5/1 PRIVATE PAPER HS/S4/15/5/2 (P) PRIVATE PAPER HS/S4/15/5/3 (P) SPICe Briefing HS/S4/15/5/4 PRIVATE PAPER HS/S4/15/5/5 (P) Written Submissions HS/S4/15/5/1 James Chalmers Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill James Chalmers Regius Professor of Law at the University of Glasgow Response to Question Paper: The Position under Existing Scots Criminal Law 1. Thank you for your email of 28 January inviting me to answer several questions regarding the criminal law of Scotland in relation to assisted suicide.
    [Show full text]
  • The Structure of Assault in Scots Law: a Historical and Comparative Perspective
    Barclay, Grant (2017) The structure of assault in Scots law: a historical and comparative perspective. LL.M(R) thesis. http://theses.gla.ac.uk/8569/ Copyright and moral rights for this work are retained by the author A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge This work cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Enlighten:Theses http://theses.gla.ac.uk/ [email protected] The Structure of Assault in Scots Law: A Historical and Comparative Perspective Grant Barclay LL.B. (Hons) Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the Degree of LL.M. (by Research) School of Law College of Social Sciences University of Glasgow October 2017 Abstract This thesis reviews both the history and current comparative landscape of the law of assault with a view to determining the optimal approach to be taken by Scots law in structuring its crime of assault. There is very little in the current literature offering either kind of review, and equally there has been very little analysis of the desirability of a single offence versus other methods of structuring assault or non-fatal offences against the person generally. These issues are therefore addressed in this paper, starting with an extensive examination of the legal history surrounding breaches of physical integrity from the seventeenth century right up to the present day.
    [Show full text]
  • Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill Response to Question Paper: the Position Under Existing Scots Criminal Law 1
    Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill Response to Question Paper: The Position under Existing Scots Criminal Law 1. Thank you for your email of 28 January inviting me to answer several questions regarding the criminal law of Scotland in relation to assisted suicide. I have done so below, as fully as possible in the time available. Although this is a relatively lengthy note, the core conclusion is a simple one: the scope of the criminal law in this area cannot be stated with any degree of certainty whatsoever. Introductory comments 2. The initial difficulty with answering the questions raised by the committee is that the most fundamental issue arising in this context is unclear. Remarkably, it is not known whether or not suicide is itself a criminal offence in Scots law. This uncertainty colours the entire debate thereafter, as follows: • If suicide is itself a criminal offence in Scots law, then the criminal liability of anyone who assists in a suicide falls to be determined by applying the general principles of “art and part liability” recognised by the law – that is, the same principles which govern the liability of anyone who is alleged to have assisted in the commission of a criminal offence. The position would be similar to that in English law before the Suicide Act 1961 where, because suicide was “self-murder and therefore a felony… a person who aids, abets, counsels or procures another to commit suicide [was] guilty of murder” (Criminal Law Revision Committee: Second Report (Suicide) (Cmnd 1187: 1960) para 3). • If suicide is not a criminal offence in Scots law, then liability for assisted suicide could arise only when the person who has provided assistance can in law be said to have caused the death of another person, and to have done so with the degree of fault required for guilt of either murder or culpable homicide.
    [Show full text]
  • Appeal Court, High Court of Justiciary [2019] Hcjac 50
    APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY [2019] HCJAC 50 HCA/2019/245/XC Lord Justice General Lord Menzies Lord Brodie OPINION OF LORD CARLOWAY, the LORD JUSTICE GENERAL in APPEAL FOLLOWING THE REFERENCE BY THE SCOTTISH CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION by LISTON CRAIG PACITTI Appellant against HER MAJESTY’S ADVOCATE Respondent Appellant: Findlater; Faculty Services Limited (for George Mathers & Co, Aberdeen) Respondent: Edwards QC, AD; the Crown Agent; 9 July 2019 [1] On 17 December 2017, at the sheriff court in Dundee, the appellant pled guilty to a charge of culpable and reckless conduct between 3 July 2013 and 7 December 2014 at shops in Arbroath and Montrose by supplying multiple quantities of new psychoactive substances, 2 which he knew would cause a danger to health and, in consequence, he injured one person and endangered the lives of ten others. [2] On 27 February 2018 the appellant’s co-accused, namely Paul Brocklehurst, pled guilty at a subsequent first diet to an indictment in similar terms, but over a 2 year period, involving only one shop in Perth and supplies to ten adults and two children, with injuries to seven of the adults and one of the children. [3] On 24 April 2018 the sheriff sentenced both accused to 4 years and 6 months imprisonment, which he had reduced from a starting point of 6 years. In sentencing the accused the sheriff said that there was “nothing to choose between them” despite the different circumstances. The two accused had basically been conducting the same business in conjunction with each other, but from different shops.
    [Show full text]
  • Comment on Chapter 5 Assisted Dying and the CPS RA Duff
    In Child JJ & Duff RA (eds.) Criminal Law Reform Now: Proposals & Critiques. London: Hart Publishing, pp. 155-163. https://www.bloomsburyprofessional.com/uk/criminal-law-reform-now-9781509916771/ Comment on Chapter 5 Assisted Dying and the CPS R A Duff (J Child and R A Duff, eds, Criminal Law Reform Now, Hart 2018, 155-63) As Andrew Sanders makes depressingly clear,1 those who are considering whether to ask another for help in ending their lives, or whether to respond to such requests by providing such help, face a still uncertain, and unsatisfactory, legal position. If they provide assistance to another’s suicide, their conduct satisfies the definition of a criminal offence—an offence definition that allows no room for a defence based on, for instance, the earnestness and rationality of the request to which they respond;2 if what they do amounts to causing the requester’s death, their conduct satisfies the definition of criminal homicide.3 Someone seeking such assistance might think that the law that criminalises it violates the ‘right to respect for … private and family life’ declared in Article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): the ECHR has held that ‘the right of an individual to decide how and when to end his life … is one aspect of the right to respect for private life’,4 and English courts have accepted that the formal criminalisation of assisting suicide ‘represents an interference with’ that right.5 But the courts will not help such a person by declaring that law to be incompatible with the ECHR (or with the English Human Rights Act 1998): for Article 8(2) of the ECHR allows interference with that right if it ‘is necessary in a 1 A Sanders, ‘The CPS, Policy-Making and Assisted Dying: Towards a “Freedom” Approach’, ch 5 of this volume.
    [Show full text]
  • Prosecution Policy on the Sexual Transmission of Infection
    CROWN OFFICE AND PROCURATOR FISCAL SERVICE INTENTIONAL OR RECKLESS SEXUAL TRANSMISSION OF, OR EXPOSURE TO, INFECTION Contents: ♦ Introduction ♦ The Legal Position in Scotland ♦ Proof of Culpable and Reckless Conduct; (a) The victim has contracted the infection from the accused (b) Knowledge (c) Recklessness ♦ Medical and Scientific Considerations; Use of experts ♦ Determining whether Prosecution is in the Public Interest; Factors tending against prosecution Factors tending in favour of prosecution ♦ Process to be followed where Proceedings are Raised ♦ Legal Position in England and Wales ♦ Overview of Guidance ♦ Conclusion Introduction This guidance sets out how prosecutors should deal with cases involving an allegation of intentional or reckless sexual transmission of, or exposure to, infection which has serious, potentially life threatening consequences for the person infected. In developing this guidance, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) has consulted with the public health sector and has benefited substantially from their input and expertise. Their advice has been greatly appreciated, however, the content of this policy statement remains the responsibility of the COPFS. There have been very few prosecutions in Scotland involving intentional or reckless transmission of, or exposure to, sexually transmitted infection. Although previous prosecutions have involved HIV infection, this policy is not restricted to HIV and applies to any sexual infection which could have serious, potentially life threatening consequences for the person infected. Annex A provides details of previous prosecutions. The prosecution of Mark Deveraux in 2010, for the culpable and reckless transmission of, and exposure to, the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) attracted some concern from the public health and HIV sector due to the prosecution of charges where there was no transmission of the infection to the victim.
    [Show full text]
  • Vincent Thomas Lunny
    A SCOTTISH PERSPECTIVE ON THE DEFENCE OF INTOXICATION by VINCENT THOMAS LUNNY LL.B., University of Glasgow, 1995 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LAWS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Faculty of Law) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1997 © Vincent Thomas Lunny, 1997 in presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. l--a.cxs.tfu r>eprarffiTTeTU of L_a-W The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date 21* A*ysjc 1^?' DE-6 (2/88) 11 Abstract The relationship between alcohol and violence is one that has caused concern for centuries. Conflict between public policy issues and the application of criminal theory has meant that the debate as to how to deal with the individual who commits acts of violence while severely intoxicated is far from settled. Canada typifies the modern position with continuing disagreement between those who favour a protectionist stance which denies, in whole or in part, a defence based on intoxication and those who feel that to allow a defence is technically correct within the framework of existing criminal theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Criminal Litigation (DPLP) | University of Glasgow
    09/27/21 Advanced Criminal Litigation (DPLP) | University of Glasgow Advanced Criminal Litigation (DPLP) View Online 3. Wotherspoon v PF Glasgow 2017 HC JAC 69 (no date). 27 May 1976(c) W. Green & Son Limited (no date) Yates v HMA 1977 S.L.T. (Notes) 42. Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016 asp 22 (Scottish Act) Arrangement of Act (no date) Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016 asp 22 (Scottish Act). Allan v Patterson 1980 JC 57 (no date). Bath v HMA 1995 SCCR 323 (no date). Black v Megeary 1974 JC 43 (no date). Brown, A. L. and Wheatley, J. F. (2014) Wheatley’s Road traffic law in Scotland. Fifth edition. Haywards Heath: Bloomsbury Professional. Brown, P. et al. (2017) Wilkinson’s road traffic offences. Twenty-eighth edition. Edited by K. McCormac. London: Sweet & Maxwell/Thomson Reuters. Available at: https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.gla.ac.u k%2Fshibboleth&returnto=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com%2 FBrowse%2FHome%2FBooks%2FWilkinsonRoadTraffic%3FskipAnonymous%3Dtrue. Brown v PF Ayr 2016 SAC (crim) 32 (no date) Brown v Procurator Fiscal, Ayr. Campbell v Vannet 1998 SCCR 207 (no date) Campbell (Craig) v Vannet. Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Act 1993 (repealed) (no date). Chalmers v HMA 1954 JC 66 (no date) Chalmers (John) v HM Advocate. Chambers v DPP 2012 EWHL 2157 (no date) Chambers v DPP. Communications Act 2003 c. 21Part 2 NETWORKS, SERVICES AND THE RADIO SPECTRUM (no date) Communications Act 2003 c. 21. Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 asp 13 (Scottish Act)Part 2 CRIMINAL LAW Threatening or abusive behaviour (no date) Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 asp 13 (Scottish Act).
    [Show full text]
  • Vol6 Prelims Indexes 1..12
    JC 223 GEMMELL v HM ADVOCATE No 31 Lord Justice-Clerk (Gill), 20 December 2011 Lord Osborne, Lord Eassie, [2011] HCJAC 129 Lady Paton and Lord Wheatley James Kelly Gemmell, Appellant—Ogg (Solicitor-advocate) Paul Robertson, Appellant—Brown David Alexander Gibson, Appellant—Paterson (Solicitor-advocate), Goodfellow (Solicitor-advocate) Peter Stephen McCourt, Appellant—Brown Euan McWilliam Ross, Appellant—Shead, CM Mitchell David John Forsyth Hart, Appellant—CM Mitchell Charlene Elisabeth Ogilvie, Respondent—Keenan (Solicitor-advocate) Her Majesty’s Advocate, Respondent and Appellant—Ferguson QC, A-D Justiciary – Sentence – Discounting in respect of guilty plea – Appropriate approach to sentence discounting – Whether discounting applies to the public protection element in a sentence – Whether discounting applies to imposition of a period of disqualification or penalty points – Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (cap 46), sec 196 Section 196(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (cap 46) provides that, in determining what sentence to pass on, or disposal or order to make in relation to, an offender who has pled guilty to an offence, a court shall take into account the stage in proceedings at which intention to plead guilty was indicated and the circumstances in which the indication was given. In passing sentence on such an offender, the court shall state whether having taken account of those matters the sentence imposed is different from that which the court would otherwise have imposed and, if not, the reasons why it is not. Section 196(2) provides that where the court is passing sentence on an offender under sec 205B(2) of the Act and the offender has pled guilty to the offence for which he is being sentenced the court may after taking into account the matters mentioned in subsec (1) pass a sentence of less than seven years’ imprisonment or detention, but any such term of imprisonment or period of detention shall not be less than five years, two hundred and nineteen days.
    [Show full text]