The court considered the approach to be taken by an appellate court asked to review a sentence said to be unduly lenient: ‘The first thing to be observed is that it is implicit in the section that this Court may only increase sentences which it concludes were unduly lenient. It cannot, we are confident, have been the intention of Parliament to subject defendants to the risk of having their sentences increased – with all the anxiety that this naturally gives rise to – merely because in the opinion of this Court the sentence was less than this Court would have imposed. A sentence is unduly lenient, we would hold, where it falls outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate. In that connection regard must of course be had to reported cases, and in particular to the guidance given by this court from time to time in so-called guideline cases. However it must always be remembered that sentencing is an art rather than a science; that the trial judge is particularly well-placed to assess the weight to be given to various competing considerations; and that leniency is not in itself a vice. That mercy should season justice is a proposition as soundly based in law as it is in literature.’ However: ‘ . . even where it considers that the sentence was unduly lenient, this court has a discretion as to whether to exercise its powers. Without attempting an exhaustive definition of the circumstances in which this court might refuse to increase an unduly lenient sentence, we mention one obvious instance: where in the light of events since the trial it appears either that the sentence can be justified or that to increase it would be unfair to the offender or detrimental to others for whose well-being the court ought to be concerned.’
Judges:
Lord Lane LCJ
Citations:
(1990) 90 Cr App Rep 266, [1990] 1 WLR 41
Statutes:
Criminal Justice Act 1988 35 36
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals v General Medical Council and Dr Solanke Admn 30-Apr-2004
The council appealed against what it said was a lenient sentence imposed on a doctor for malpractice.
Held: It was relevant to take account of the way criminal courts dealt with appeals against lenient sentences. The test in relation to an . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference v Nos. 31, 45, 43, 42, 50 and 51 of 2003; Regina v McInerney; Regina v McLean CACD 16-Jul-2004
The court considered appeals by the Attorney-General against sentences considered to be too lenient, and in particular where a community penalty had been imposed rather than a sentence of immediate imprisonment.
Held: The Court emphasised the . .
Cited – Dr Giuseppe Ruscill, Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals v The General Medical Council and Another, The Council for the Regulation of Health Care Profesionals, The Nursing and Midwifery Council, Truscott CA 20-Oct-2004
The Council sought to refer to the High Court decisions to acquit the doctors of professional misconduct. The doctors argued that the power only existed for lenient sentences.
Held: The power to refer for undue leniency included the situation . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (Number 8 of 2004) (Dawson and Others) CANI 15-Apr-2005
Defendants had been convicted of offences involving supply of cannabis and cocaine, including the evasion of import controls and conspiracy. The sentences were appealed as too lenient.
Held: Where a prosecutor was aware that a plea of guilty . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference No 73 of 2006; Regina v Micklefield CACD 10-Oct-2006
The Attorney-General sought to refer the defendant’s sentence of a three yer community service order with supervision for five charges of gross indecency with a child as unduly lenient.
Held: The offender had abused a position of trust. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.196588