Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Published August 6, 2007
Regina v Kulah

A judge who had given an indication of the maximum sentence he had in mind on a guilty plea might find himself bound by the dangerous offender provisions to impose a sentence which was qualitatively different from the indication he had given.

Alternatively, a judge might consider himself bound by his prior indications to impose a sentence which did not accord with the mandatory statutory dangerous offender provisions.

The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division (Lord Justice Thomas, Mr Justice Keith and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones) so held in a reserved judgment on July 13, 2007 when granting an extension of time for leave to appeal against sentence and allowing in part an appeal by Mustafa Nour Kulah against a minimum prison term for public protection of 18 months less time spent in custody on remand imposed by Judge Denyer, QC, at Cardiff Crown Court on December 23, 2005, following his plea of guilty to attempted robbery.

The appellant had been previously sentenced to concurrent prison sentences of 15 months for offences of affray and criminal damage.

MR JUSTICE LLOYD JONES said difficulties were sometimes encountered in dealing with indications, as in R v Goodyear ( The Times April 20, 2005; [2005] 1 WLR 2532), where a defendant was charged with one or more offences specified within Schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

The appropriate sentence was a determinate prison sentence of three years less time spent in custody on remand.

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers