Feve, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 286 (14 March 2024)
The sentence was unduly lenient because the seriousness of the offence required immediate imprisonment; a suspended sentence was not within the range properly open to the judge. However, due to the offender's compliance with the suspended sentence, deteriorating health, and the impact on his family, the court exercised its discretion not to increase the sentence.
- Citation
- [2024] EWCA Crim 286
- Parties
- Prosecution: Rex; Offender: Darren Stanley Feve
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 14 March 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal (attorney General's Reference Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Reference of Sentence
- Outcome
- Sentence found unduly lenient but not increased; original suspended sentence order maintained.
- Legal Topics
- Perverting the Course of Justice, Sentencing, Suspended Sentences, Unduly Lenient Sentences
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rex
Prosecution
Darren Stanley Feve
Offender
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (attorney General's Reference Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Reference of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed for perverting the course of justice was unduly lenient
- 2 Whether a suspended sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the offence
Ratio Decidendi
The sentence was unduly lenient because the seriousness of the offence required immediate imprisonment; a suspended sentence was not within the range properly open to the judge. However, due to the offender's compliance with the suspended sentence, deteriorating health, and the impact on his family, the court exercised its discretion not to increase the sentence.
Court Disposition
Sentence found unduly lenient but not increased; original suspended sentence order maintained.
Orders
- Leave to refer granted.
- Sentence of 12 months' imprisonment suspended for 12 months with 200 hours' unpaid work requirement remains in place.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment