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 need for the strict care to be taken in selecting such cases, for appeal. The court should not interfere unless there was some error of principle in the sentence imposed. Where a non-custodial sentence had been imposed, the court should have available to it an up to date report on any progress made since the original sentence. The court would wish to take any such progress into account when deciding to re-sentence. In future a judge not following the sentencing guidelines should make it clear why he was doing so.
Judges:
Mr Justice Forbes The Lord Chief Justice Of England &Amp; Wales Mr Justice Bell
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Crim 1934, Times 20-Jul-2004
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Justice Act 1988 35 36
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 5 of 1989); Regina v Hill-Trevor CACD 1990
The Court of Appeal should not intervene unless it was shown that there was some error of principle in the judge’s sentence, so that public confidence would be damaged if the sentence were not altered. . .
Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 4 of 1989) CACD 1990
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 . .
Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference No. 41 of 1994; Regina v O’Boyle CACD 1995
The level of sentencing for a section 18 offence involving ‘glassing’ is ‘somewhere between two-and-a-half years’ to five years’ imprisonment, depending on the individual circumstances’. . .
Cited – Attorney General v CCE, NJK and TAG; Attorney General’s References (Nos 91, 119, 120 of 2002) CACD 21-Jan-2003
The Attorney General referred sentences of the defendants for sexual assaults short of rape.
Held: The sentencing considerations outlined in the Millberry guidelines for sentencing in rape cases should be applied also for sexual offences of a . .
Cited – Millberry, Morganian, Lackenby v Regina CACD 9-Dec-2002
The Court gave detailed guidelines on sentencing for offences of rape, following a report from the sentencing advisory panel.
Held: The court outlined the base sentences for single and multiple offences of rape, listing aggravating and . .
Cited – Regina v Smith SJ CACD 2002
. .
Cited – Regina v Reyworth CACD 2004
The court discused sentences in cases involving perverting the course of justice: ‘cases such as the present must depend on their own facts’. . .
See Also – Attorney General’s Reference Nos. 31, 45, 43, 42, 50 and 51 of 2003 CACD 24-Jun-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199240