Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Activation of four years of a six-year suspended sentence for minor theft was disproportionate
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal allows appeal of the activation of four years of a six-year suspended sentence, triggered after the appellant stole a football jersey from a sports store, and reduces the period to three years of the six years with the balance suspended, on the grounds that the decision to activate four years of the suspended term was disproportionate.
Criminal law – sentencing – appeal against the activation of a suspended sentence – suspended sentence of six years' imprisonment imposed for possession of a controlled drug for the purpose of unlawful sale or supply contrary to s. 15 and s. 27 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 and handling stolen property namely a laptop and an xbox contrary to s. 17 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 – theft offence activated four of the six year suspended sentence – whether the sentencing judge erred in principle in imposing that portion of the suspended sentence that he chose to do upon the matter being re-entered pursuant to s. 99 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 – decision to activate four years of the suspended term was disproportionate – three years of the suspended term – appeal allowed.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
