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 |
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal against severity of sentence for four counts of handling stolen property, on the grounds that: (a) the headline sentence nominated by the sentencing judge was an appropriate one having regard to the professional and commercial nature of the criminal conduct and to the significant harm done, both financially and in terms of causing distress, trouble and inconvenience to those from whom the vehicles were originally stolen, their insurers, and those who had unwittingly purchased the stolen vehicles; and (b) the sentencing judge gave a sufficient discount for mitigation.
Offences: four counts of handling stolen property contrary to s. 17 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001
Original sentence: eight years with final two years suspended
Appeal by: defence
Outcome: 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.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.