{"id":191,"date":"2005-04-23T09:49:21","date_gmt":"2005-04-23T09:49:21","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2005-04-23T09:49:21","modified_gmt":"2005-04-23T09:49:21","slug":"r-v-goodyear-2005-ca","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/?p=191","title":{"rendered":"R v Goodyear [2005] CA"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>[Sentencing \u2013 indication on sentence following guilty plea]<\/strong> <br \/>D pleaded guilty to an offence of corruption and was sentenced to six months&#8217; imprisonment, suspended for two years, despite the judge saying to his barrister at a meeting in his chambers before the trial began that he took the view that &#8220;this is not a custody case&#8221;. <\/p>\n<p><strong>Held<\/strong>: (by a five judge court) The judge should have followed the indication he gave. Crown courts (not magistrates&#8217; courts) need no longer follow the rule in <strong><em><u>R v Turner<\/u><\/em><\/strong> (that a judge should not indicate the sentence that he might impose if D pleaded guilty). But, the indication must be sought by the defendant (7 day&#8217;s notice in writing) and then it would not amount to &#8220;improper pressure on him&#8221;.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Whole case <a href=\"http:\/\/www.bailii.org\/ew\/cases\/EWCA\/Crim\/2005\/888.html\">here<\/a><br \/><strong>Comment<\/strong>: This could mean that there will be an increase in the number of guilty pleas and effectively means that defendants will now see this as an opportunity to &#8220;plea-bargain&#8221; <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>[Sentencing \u2013 indication on sentence following guilty plea] D pleaded guilty to an offence of corruption and was sentenced to six months&#8217; imprisonment, suspended for two years, despite the judge saying to his barrister at a meeting in his chambers before the trial began that he took the view that &#8220;this is not a custody [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-191","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=191"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=191"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=191"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=191"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}