Smith, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 221 (20 February 2025)

Smith, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 221 (20 February 2025)

The appropriate sentence, before credit for guilty pleas, should be two years' imprisonment, at the top of the range for category 1B, not three years as imposed. The judge was entitled to refuse suspension of the sentence due to the appellant's lack of motivation and history of non-compliance.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 221
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Appellant: Adam Smith
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Burglary, Appeal Against Sentence, Application of Sentencing Guidelines, Suspension of Custodial Sentence
Criminal Law Sentencing Burglary Appeal Against Sentence Application of Sentencing Guidelines Suspension of Custodial Sentence

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Adam Smith

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed was consistent with the Sentencing Council guideline for non-domestic burglary
  2. 2 Whether the judge was correct not to suspend the custodial sentence

Ratio Decidendi

The appropriate sentence, before credit for guilty pleas, should be two years' imprisonment, at the top of the range for category 1B, not three years as imposed. The judge was entitled to refuse suspension of the sentence due to the appellant's lack of motivation and history of non-compliance.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Quash the four concurrent sentences of two years' imprisonment.
  • Substitute four concurrent sentences each of 16 months' imprisonment.