4 (1) In dealing with an application under paragraph 3, the High Court must have regard to—
Definitions used in Schedule 22, paragraph 4 1
- the court
(2) In relation to such an application or reference, any reference to “the court” in section 269(2) to (5) and Schedule 21 is to be read as a reference to the High Court.
Defined in Sch.22 para.11(2) · see it in the full Act
Cases considering Schedule 22, paragraph 4 15
Pitchfork, R v
Paragraph 4 requires a fresh review which considers seriousness, the Schedule 21 principles and historic judicial recommendations. The court held that neither the recommendations nor Schedule 21 has primacy, and that the notified term is a ceiling rather than a factor setting the result (see paras [24]-[27]).
Caines, R v
Paragraph 4 supplies guidance for the transitional review but is not exhaustive. It requires seriousness, Schedule 21 principles, historic judicial recommendations and the notified term to be considered, while allowing exceptional favourable post-sentence matters to be taken into account. (see [32]-[36]; [40]; [45]) The court applied paragraph 4(i)(a) by assessing offence seriousness through the Schedule 21 framework. (see [30]-[32]; [38]) The court held that the remand-custody credit consideration did not affect the issues before it. (see [30]; [37]) The notified minimum term must be considered, but the court held that it normally operates only to prevent an increase. It may also be the base from which credit for exceptional progress is deducted. (see [34]-[36]; [48]-[50]) The court construed the reference to Schedule 21 general principles as including its statutory starting points. (see [30]-[32]) Historic recommendations of the trial judge and Lord Chief Justice remain relevant material, reflecting sentencing standards at the time. They do not turn the review into an appeal from those recommendations. (see [30]; [33]; [38]-[39])
Sharif, R v
Applies the matters which must be considered before any reduction for exceptional progress, including seriousness and the matters identified in paragraph 4. (see para [10]) Applies the requirement to consider the seriousness of the offences before deciding whether any reduction is justified. (see para [10]) Applies the requirement to consider the length of the notified term in determining whether it should be reduced. (see para [10]) Applies the requirement to consider the general sentencing principles in Schedule 21 when assessing seriousness. (see para [10]) Applies the requirement to consider the recommendations of the trial judge and Lord Chief Justice. (see para [10])
- Jackson, Re Setting of Minimum Term an Application Under Criminal Justice Act 2003
- Manning, Re Review of Minimum Term
- Kular, Re Review of Minimum Term
- Hopkins, Re Review of Minimum Term
- Butterworth, Re Review of Minimum Term
- Cadman, Re Criminal Justice Act 2003
- Middleton & Ors, R v
- X, R v
- Haq, R v
- Copeland, R. v
- Bamber, R v
- Timlinl, R. v
What each judgment says about Schedule 22, paragraph 4 is in the case-law panel in the full Act.