CASE SUMMARIES : Probation
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The following notes of judgments were prepared by the reporters of the All England Law Reports.
Probation
R v Peacock; CA (Cr Div) (Lord Taylor CJ, Potts, Sachs JJ); 18 Oct 1994.
The fact that a judge imposing a probation order had incorporated a condition, by warning the defendant not to commit any further offence during the order's currency lest he find himself back in court with consequences uncomfortable to him, did not render the order unlawful. As the object of a probation order was to prevent, inter alia, the commission of further offences, it was possible under ss 2(1)(b) and 3(1)(b) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, as substituted by ss 8 and 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, to make an additional requirement in that regard.
Nigel van der Bijl (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellant; David Wicks (CPS) for the Crown.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments