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.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a sentence imposed by the Circuit Court on an individual convicted of multiple counts of theft from commercial premises. The original sentence of three and a half years' imprisonment, with six months suspended, was challenged on the grounds that the headline sentence was excessive and insufficient credit was given for time served before sentencing. The court found that, given the appellant's extensive history of theft offences, the significant number and value of items stolen, her conduct during the offences, and her offending while on bail, the sentence was proportionate. The decision to backdate the sentence to the date of the first guilty plea was held to be at the sentencing judge's discretion and not an error in principle. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were affirmed.
appeal against sentence – affirmed sentence – Circuit Court decision – theft offences – commercial premises – credit for time served – headline sentence – sentence backdating – addiction and recidivism – aggravating factors – mitigating factors – Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC) – Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud) Offences Act 2001
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.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.