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.
Headline sentence for aggravated burglary did not constitute error in principle
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal against the severity of sentence of ten years' imprisonment with the final three years suspended, imposed for the forcible entry into a dwelling house and terrorising of an innocent couple, on the grounds that the headline ten-year term, while possibly on the high side to a degree, was within the discretion of the sentencing judge and did not constitute an error of principle.
Criminal law – sentencing – appeal against the severity of ten years' imprisonment with the final three years suspended – aggravated burglary contrary to s. 13(1) of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 – unlawfully taking a mechanically propelled vehicle contrary to s. 112(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 – whether the sentencing judge erred in law in failing to give sufficient weight to the mitigating factors – forcibly entering a dwelling house and terrorising its occupants – headline ten year term, while possibly on the high side to a degree, was a sentence within the discretion of the learned sentencing judge and did not constitute an error of principle – appeal dismissed.
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.
