R v Miele [1976]
- Reported: [1976] R.T.R. 238
- Year: 1976
- Court: Court of Appeal
FACTS:-
On 14 November 1974 at Gloucester Crown Court the appellant, an Italian, pleaded guilty to an offence of assault with intent to rob and also to carrying a firearm with intent to commit an offence. He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment on each of those counts and an order was made for the forfeiture of his shotgun and his motor car.
It was described by the courts as a wholly disgraceful assault with intent to rob a girl of 16 who was serving in a newsagent-tobacconist’s shop in Cirencester. The appellant and a man called Lewis, who was with him, went into the shop. Lewis was carrying the shotgun. The appellant himself seized the girl and she resisted the demand for money and cried out for help. For her courage she was struck across her ear and neck by the appellant but, having raised the alarm, she effected the result that the appellant and Lewis ran off, but not until after Lewis had raised the gun and pointed it at her.
The appellant was only 21 years of age. He had not previously been before the courts and this was his first conviction. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years and that sentence is right in principle and not too long.
The defendant appealed against his sentence regarding the forfeiture of the car.
HELD:-
James LJ held in his judgment that in the circumstances the order which the court made of forfeiting the car because it was in sense used in connection with the offence was a correct order. James LJ described the offence as having occurred on the spur of the moment, the car happened to be in the immediate control of the appellant and Lewis at the time and it was a matter of fact used as a means of conveying them away from the scene of the crime. They were identified by the registration number of the car they used. The car was of considerable value and belonged to the appellant.
James LJ found that to impose a burden of forfeiture on him was something like a £1600 punishment additional to the sentence of imprisonment. Forfeiting a car and punishing a young man who committed a spur of the moment offence, because he was already in debt was wrong. Therefore the justices looked at the circumstances, and concluded; the exercise of the court’s power to forfeit the car was wrong.
The appeal was allowed to the extent that the order for forfeiture of the motor car was quashed.
Related posts:
