The Crown was given leave to appeal what it saw to be an unduly lenient sentence of the defendant following his becoming liable to be sentenced as a repeat offender iunder the 2003 Act. The main offence was that he had threatened his partner’s life by pointing a loaded crossbow at her. The prosecution said he should have been sentenced on the basis that the public needed protection from him.
Held: The suggstion that the court should impose a sentence for public protection had been raised only very late in the day, and this was unsatisfactory. Such a reference should not succeed unless it could be shown that the judge’s decision was one he could not properly reach. This was not such a case. The judge should have first considered the appropriate sentence for each offence on its own, before considering their combined effect. The sentence for the threat to kill should have been no longer that four years. The recorder had himself seen the effect of the offence on its victim, and his assessment was to be respected. The total sentence should ten have been rounded down to between five and a half and six years. In this case the sentence of the judge, whilst at the very bottom end, was not unduly lenient.
Judges:
Scott Baker LJ
Citations:
[2006] EWCA Crim 2722
Links:
Statutes:
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 111, Criminal Justice Act 2003 225
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Lang and Others, Regina v CACD 3-Nov-2005
In each case the defendant had commited violent or sexual offences and were caught by the new mandatory sentencing provisions, and been made subject to life imprisonment, or detention for public protection, or an extended sentence.
Held: The . .
Cited – Johnson, Regina v; Regina vHamilton; Attorney General’s Reference (No 64 of 2006) CACD 20-Oct-2006
The court provided explanation of the nature of sentences passed for public protection under the 2003 Act, and in particular whether it was correct to base the assessment on previous convictions.
Held: ‘dangerousness’ is intended to represent . .
Cited – Regina v Anderson; Attorney General’s Reference No 52 of 1996 CACD 10-Feb-1997
Application by the Attorney General for leave to appeal against unduly lenient sentence.
Held: A sentence of six years and more might be appropriate for offences in the domestic violence context, it having been argued in that case, . .
Cited – Regina v Mason CACD 1995
The defendant’s sentence of four years’ imprisonment following a plea of guilty to an offence of violence in a domestic context was upheld. . .
Cited – Regina v Hasguler CACD 2001
The defendant appealed against his sentence to three year’s imprisonment after pleading guilty to assault within a domestic context.
Held: The sentence (equivalent to four an a half years after a trial) was upheld. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 31 March 2022; Ref: scu.246073
