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.
Sentences for robbery were unduly lenient
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal quashes sentences for robbery offences and substitutes less lenient sentences, on the grounds that: (a) there were many aggravating features in each instance and the offending conduct was undoubtedly intentional; (b) the headline sentence set by the sentencing judge in each instance was far too low and thereby constituted a considerable departure from the norm; and (c) the level of reduction permitted for mitigating factors by the sentencing judge was too great.
Offences: two counts of robbery contrary to s. 14 of the Criminal Justice Theft and Fraud Offences Act 2001
Original sentence: three years with 18 months suspended on each count
Appeal by: prosecution (statutory applications)
Outcome: sentence quashed and new sentence imposed of four years with 15 months suspended on each count
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.
