166(3) of the Constitution. The well settled aspects of English legislative and judicial practice set out above in relation to the penalties provided for need to be distinguished from the exercise of the sentencing judge’s discretion within the maximum permitted at any time. Although a court sentencing today for an offence committed many years ago must confine itself within the maximum which was available by statute at the time of the offence, it is not required, nor should it be, to apply an outdated assessment to the gravity of the conduct.
Reliance in this behalf is placed on a number of decisions of this Court Before however we consider the legal position, let us see what exactly happened_in this connection. Nor, if the impact of the offending on the victim has been greatly increased by years of suppression in consequence of the manner of abuse, should the court ignore that fact. The sentence to which a defendant was exposed, at the time of his offence, is, by English law, a sentence up to the maximum then permitted.
The basic rule, as carefully explained by Lord Judge CJ in R v H (supra) is that the applicable NRI Legal maximum is that in force at the time of the offence, but it is NRI Legal positively wrong for a court in 2016 to attempt to evaluate the particular offence by hypothesising that it is sitting in (say) 1984. Very large numbers of crimes of persistent sexual abuse committed many years ago are now coming before the courts, principally because victims are belatedly feeling able to reveal them.
It appears that some of the NRI Legal services documents were not produced by the Corporation, and in particular documents, which would have shown the record of the Corporation with respect to its running various routes in the past, were not produced and it was contended that those documents were 338 irrelevant. As far as the second and procedural part was concerned, the appointment of the authority could be by notification as provided in the Section or by an order under the Rules of Business under Art.
So far as the documents were concerned, the authority said in its order dated February 17, 1965 that the matter would be dealt with at the time of argument. As for the witnesses, the authority refused to summon them on the ground that their evidence would be irrelevant and in any case oral testimony was not necessary to prove what the appellants desired NRI Legal services to prove. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends, relying on the same judgment of this Court, that no question of jurisdiction being involved in the revision before the High Court, the High Court could not interfere with the decision of the appellate court however wrong it might be.
The main contention on behalf NRI Legal of the appellant before us is that the High Court had no jurisdiction under s. New investigation techniques, such as DNA testing, may also identify various types of offender, by no means only sexual offenders, years after the event. New aggravating or mitigating factors will be recognised from time to time, or the weight accorded to such factors will alter. It is well recognised that the multifarious factors which fall to be considered when fixing a sentence will inevitably vary in weight as time passes.
The long term damage to victims of sexual abuse, for example, is very much better understood now than it was 30 years ago. A number were referred to in the reported argument for the plaintiff in Cotterell v Jones (1851) 11 CB 713, 719-724. It appears from the final order of the authority that they were also considered irrelevant as the authority held that no question arose of comparing the merits of the Corporation with the private operators.
It appears that an application was made by the appellants requesting the authority to summon a very large number of documents from the Corporation in order to prove inter alia that the present equipment and finances of the Corporation showed that it was not in a position to run the services and that on a comparison of the record of the Corporation with that of the various private operators it would appear that it was not in the interest of the public that the routes in question should be nationalised.
The discovery of a recent offence may not infrequently lead to the revelation that the offender has been committing similar offences for many years. Counsel cited, among other sources, Waterer v Freeman (1618) Hobart 266, Atwood v Monger (1653) Style 378, and a note by Hargrave to Coke on Littleton. Waterer v Freeman involved double execution on goods, but counsel in Cotterell v Jones relied on what he argued was a statement of general principle by Hobart CJ (who had succeeded Sir Edward Coke as Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas): Before the judgment of Holt CJ in Savile v Roberts in 1698 (discussed below), I have not detected any authority which excluded the application of the tort to a civil action, and there are nrillegalservices some indications that it was capable of applying to civil proceedings.
115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the concurrent finding of the courts below that nothing was due as arrears of rent, and in this connection reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Vora Abbas Bhai Alimahomed v. Besides this, the appellants wanted to produce a large number of witnesses in support of their contention that the schemes were not efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated. It appears therefore that no oral evidence was taken as it was con- sidered irrelevant by the authority and some of the documents which the appellants wanted the Corporation to produce were not ordered to be produced.
The last contention is that an adequate and real hearing was, not given to the appellants as required by S.