Challenges to sentences said to be lenient. Count 1 alleged wounding with intent, contrary to Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Count 2 alleged in the alternative an offence contrary to Section 20 of the same Act, for which the offenders were sentenced to 50 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for two years.
Held: ‘The least sentence that could have been passed following a trial was one of four years’ imprisonment. We have no doubt that the sentence which the Recorder passed was unduly lenient. Additionally, it seems to us that he choose a period of imprisonment which enabled him to make the sentence suspended, an approach which was clearly wrong (see the Sentencing Guidelines Council Guideline, ‘New Sentences: Criminal Justice Act 2003’: suspended sentences, section 2, part 2, pages 20 to 26).
There was, in this case, a plea of guilty and that would have reduced the sentence to something in the region of 32 months. Allowing for double jeopardy, we take the view that the sentences which should be substituted for those passed by the Recorder are sentences of 26 months’ imprisonment for each offender. ‘
Judges:
Hooper LJ, Rafferty DBE, Owen JJ
Citations:
[2006] EWCA Crim 1501
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.243029