The claimant sought judicial review of his sentence of six months imprisonment for assault and criminal damage. He submitted that the sentence clearly falls so far outside of the broad area of the court’s discretion that it ought to be quashed.
Held: The offence had caused real fright and persisting fears, and was related to sex. Though there were real mitigating factors, the defendant had used public social networks to trash the voictim’s reputation. Even so, the sentence, at the maximum which could be imposed was incorrect, and: ‘We consider that a sentence of 3-month would not have been out of line but we are conscious of the particularly harsh consequences that have been caused in this case as a result of this incident, really turning this man’s life upside down. In the circumstances we think that a custodial sentence, although appropriate, should be reduced to 2 months to reflect the mitigating features, the real damage to him and also the consequences of his unlawful conduct. ‘
Elias LJ, Ouseley J
[2014] EWHC 2518 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Truro Crown Court ex parte Adair Admn 12-Feb-1997
Lord Bingham LCJ said: ‘It is clearly established by earlier cases, in particular R v St Albans Crown Court ex parte Cinnamond and R v Croydon Crown Court ex parte Miller, that judicial review did not offer a backdoor means of appeal against the . .
Cited – Regina v Gatehouse CACD 2001
A court may use section 43 of the 1981 Act to justify reduction in a sentence on an application for judicial review. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.537241
