British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?
Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Schreiber, R. v [2022] EWCA Crim 1750 (09 December 2022)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2022/1750.html
Cite as: [2022] EWCA Crim 1750
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
CRIMINAL DIVISION
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE SWEETING
SIR NICHOLAS BLAKE
____________________
| REX |
||
| - v - |
||
| THOMAS SCHREIBER |
____________________
Opus 2 International Ltd.
Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers
5 New Street Square, London, EC4A 3BF
Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737
CACD.ACO@opus2.digital
THE CROWN did not appear and were not represented.
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence in a case where the applicant was convicted of murder, attempted murder and dangerous driving and received a sentence of life imprisonment for murder with a minimum term of 36 years, less 253 days spent on remand. Other orders were also made which it is unnecessary to set out now.
- We have, earlier this morning, granted the application for leave to appeal against sentence. We also grant a representation order which must, we regret, be a representation order for leading counsel alone. We are very grateful to junior counsel for his attendance and also for the attendance of solicitors representing the appellant who have attended together pro bono in order to advance his case. However, the clear practice of this court in dealing with sentence appeals is to do so by granting representation orders for one single advocate and to allow a representation order for leading counsel is, we think, as far as we can properly go.
- In R v Palmer [2017] EWCA Crim 471 and in the Practice Direction at 39A.7 the desirability of representation on behalf of the prosecution in cases involving fatalities is clearly set out.
- The prosecution decided, when contacted by the Criminal Appeal Office, that they did not wish to attend the application for leave, although they did wish to attend the hearing of the appeal if leave were granted. We have attempted to make arrangements today for prosecuting counsel to make submissions, including by CVP if possible; those enquiries have not borne fruit. It is not possible for the prosecution to be represented by counsel at the appeal if we deal with it today. We are, therefore, unable to deal with the substantive appeal.
- The particular reason for this is that the views of the families of the two victims of the offences on the indictment are of considerable importance. We have received a statement from the victim of Count 2, the appellant's mother, made quite recently in which she sets out her views of the sentence which was imposed. Whether that is actually admissible on the appeal or not we consider that it is important that the court dealing with the appeal is fully informed about the opinions of any family member who wishes to express an opinion to the court. The sensitivity of the case is significant. That is the reason why we have decided that the appeal will be heard on another day when the prosecution can be represented and when these matters can be attended to fully.
LORD JUSTICE EDIS: