Bennett, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 739 (07 June 2023)

Bennett, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 739 (07 June 2023)

The sentence of four years and one month was just and proportionate, reflecting the seriousness of the fraud and animal welfare offences, the aggravating features, and the limited mitigation. The judge's approach to mitigation and Article 8 rights was careful and reasonable. No improper disparity existed between the appellant and co-defendant. The principle of totality was not infringed.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Crim 739
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Appellant/defendant: Kelly Jean Bennett
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fraud by False Representation, Animal Welfare Offences, Sentencing, Mitigation, Article 8 ECHR, Principle of Totality
Criminal Law Animal Welfare Law Fraud by False Representation Animal Welfare Offences Sentencing Mitigation Article 8 ECHR Principle of Totality

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Kelly Jean Bennett

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether sufficient allowance was made for the impact of imprisonment on the appellant's children and personal mitigation
  3. 3 Whether there was improper disparity between the appellant's sentence and that of a co-defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence of four years and one month was just and proportionate, reflecting the seriousness of the fraud and animal welfare offences, the aggravating features, and the limited mitigation. The judge's approach to mitigation and Article 8 rights was careful and reasonable. No improper disparity existed between the appellant and co-defendant. The principle of totality was not infringed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed