CA (Crim Div) (Rafferty LJ, Lewis J, Carr J)
19 March 2020
A sentence of three years and four months’ imprisonment imposed on a man who had pleaded guilty to conspiring to produce and supply cannabis would be reduced to a term of two years and eight months’ imprisonment, partly because of exceptional circumstances in the form of significant health issues.
CA (Crim Div) (Simon LJ, Lewis J, May J)
20 February 2020
Suspended sentences of two years’ imprisonment for a robbery committed against a vulnerable disabled man in his home had been unduly lenient. The robbery had been planned, the victim had been targeted because of his perceived vulnerability and both offenders had previous convictions including, in one offender’s case, for a very similar offence committed against a vulnerable person. Despite the offenders’ considerable personal mitigation, the appropriate sentences were three years’ immediate imprisonment.
DC (Dingemans LJ, Farbey J)
19 February 2020
It was in the public interest to bring committal proceedings against a former legal clerk who had made audio recordings of five sets of criminal proceedings in the Crown Court to assist with his note-taking, in contempt of court. The contempts were admitted, and taking into account all the relevant factors including his ill health, he was sentenced to four weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months.
DC (Leggatt LJ, May J)
5 February 2020
A 61-year-old man who had posted on his Facebook page photographs purporting to be of the convicted murderers Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, in breach of a worldwide injunction prohibiting the publication of their identity, was given a sentence of four months’ imprisonment suspended for two years.
CA (NI) (Stephens LJ, Treacy LJ, Keegan J)
22 November 2019
Although a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment for possession of prohibited weapons and possession of guns and ammunition was unduly lenient, it did not follow that the sentence had to be quashed. A judge erred in reducing the sentence to take into account the guilty plea and then reduce again to take into account the mitigation. However, it was unfair to increase the sentence which would require the offender to return to prison especially as in the instant case the Prosecution sought to advance a new case.
CA (Crim Div) (Holroyde LJ, William Davis J, Judge Lodder QC)
19 November 2019
A judge had erred when imposing a life sentence on an offender already serving an extended determinate sentence, in setting the minimum term to run from the expiry of the custodial element of the extended sentence rather than from the offender’s earliest release date from that sentence.
CA (Crim Div) (Nicola Davies LJ, Jacobs J, Judge Lodder QC)
14 November 2019
A sentence of 20 months’ detention imposed following a guilty plea to causing serious injury by dangerous driving was reduced to 14 months to reflect the young offender’s personal mitigation, including his age, inexperience, injuries and remorse. He was six weeks short of his eighteenth birthday at the time of the offence and, in reducing the sentence, the court took account of the guideline for sentencing children and young people, which referred to appropriate sentences where a significant age threshold was passed.
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) (Holroyde LJ, Julian Knowles J, Judge Dean QC)
8 October 2019
A sentence of three years and nine months’ imprisonment imposed following a guilty plea for the supply of morphine tablets was severe but not manifestly excessive in an unusual case where the supply had led to the death of the defendant’s friend. It was a serious aggravating factor that the defendant had been highly reckless in supplying a drug that he knew that in modest overdose was likely to kill, to a man who was intoxicated and unlikely to heed his warning to take no more than one tablet.
CA (Crim Div) (Singh LJ, Fraser J, Thornton J)
10 September 2019
Notwithstanding that the disclosure of private sexual photographs by posting through a victim’s letterbox and that of her close neighbours had been intended to cause distress and the judge had been entitled to impose an immediate custodial sentence, insufficient account had been taken of the offender’s health and personal circumstances and the distinction between the antecedent history of the two offenders. A sentence of eight months was manifestly excessive; it was quashed and a sentence of six months’ imprisonment was substituted.