CA (Crim Div) (Thirlwall LJ, Spencer J, Sir David Foskett)
11 March 2020
The absence of specific references to time and location was not an omission or defect in the definitive guideline on unlawful act manslaughter: the list of aggravating factors in the guideline was described as “non-exhaustive”. In every case, there were a number of potentially aggravating factors and it was for the judge to identify them and accord them the appropriate weight.
CA (Crim Div) (Thirlwall LJ, Cheema-Grubb J, Judge Wendy Joseph QC)
12 February 2020
Where a person imported and dealt in Class A drugs over a long period, it was inescapable that an immediate custodial sentence of some length would be imposed, regardless of whether that person was of positive good character with every expectation of good behaviour in future. A judge’s imposition of a suspended sentence in such circumstances had therefore been inappropriate.
CA (Crim Div) (Simon LJ, Jacobs J, Judge Munro QC)
19 November 2019
A sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 24 months, imposed on an offender for making threats to kill his girlfriend was unduly lenient where he had a previous conviction for domestic violence against a different woman, for which only a few days earlier he had been given a suspended sentence. The appropriate sentence was 30 months’ imprisonment.
CA (Crim Div) (Simon LJ, William Davis J, Sir Kenneth Parker)
25 October 2019
A total sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment, comprised of consecutive sentences of seven years for five offences of human trafficking and five years for four offences of supplying drugs, was appropriate for a 21-year-old offender considering his relative youth and the fact that he had no real criminal history.
CA (Crim Div) (Flaux LJ, Goose J, Julian Knowles J)
17 October 2019
Permission to appeal against sentence and convictions for manslaughter and child cruelty by the victim’s father were refused where there had been no error in the admission of bad character evidence at trial and the 10-year sentence of imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.
CA (Crim Div) (Spencer J, Edis J)
26 September 2019
A sentence of three and a half years’ imprisonment for inflicting grievous bodily harm where the victim had been in the first trimester of pregnancy was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness of the injury caused with a single punch and the context of domestic violence.
DC (Hickinbottom LJ, Butcher J)
25 July 2019
It would be extremely rare for a court considering a guilty plea to find that a case presented by the prosecution as being aggravated by sexual orientation discrimination under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.146, where that was disputed by the defence, did not require a Newton hearing because the existence of that factor would not materially affect the sentence. In any event, such a hearing was likely to be necessary because of the requirement under s.146(3)(b) to state in open court that homophobic circumstances had been present in an offence.
CA (Crim Div) (Holroyde LJ, Picken J, Judge Michael Chambers QC)
23 July 2019
A sentencing judge had erred in double-counting the aggravating factors of an offence of manslaughter by taking them into account to assess culpability and then again to increase the sentence from the starting point.
CA (Crim Div) (Sharp LJ, William Davis J, Judge Leonard QC)
16 April 2019
A total sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment suspended for 24 months imposed on an offender following his guilty pleas to criminal damage, putting a young girl and her family in fear of violence by harassment and perverting the course of public justice was unduly lenient. Both the harassment and perverting the course of justice offences were almost the most serious of their kind; they were persistent, sophisticated, had caused great harm and merited immediate custodial sentences. The court quashed the sentence and replaced it with one of four years and nine months’ imprisonment.
CA (Crim Div) (Gross LJ, Goose J, Judge Kinch QC)
11 April 2019
A total sentence of two-and-half years’ imprisonment imposed on an offender for a robbery at a convenience store whist carrying of a knife and an attempted robbery of a bookmakers was unduly lenient. The judge had significantly understated the gravity of the offending and had overstated the allowance to be made for the offender’s mitigation.