R v Andre Byron Hewitt

R v Andre Byron Hewitt

The judge was correct in categorising the offence as 2B under the Robbery Guideline due to more than minimal force and harm. The guilty plea reduction for Hewitt was miscalculated and should have been 40.5 months, not 45 months. Mulcare's role did not warrant a lesser sentence given joint enterprise principles.

Parties
Prosecutor: Regina; Appellant: Andre Byron Hewitt; Appellant: Jovan Mulcare
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed in part for Hewitt, refused for Mulcare
Legal Topics
Robbery, Sentencing, Guilty Plea Reduction, Newton Hearing, Joint Enterprise, Disparity Argument
Criminal Law Robbery Sentencing Guilty Plea Reduction Newton Hearing Joint Enterprise Disparity Argument

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecutor

Andre Byron Hewitt

Appellant

Jovan Mulcare

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the sentencing categorisation correct under the Robbery Definitive Guideline?
  2. 2 Was the reduction for guilty plea correctly calculated?
  3. 3 Should Mulcare have received a more lenient sentence based on his role?

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was correct in categorising the offence as 2B under the Robbery Guideline due to more than minimal force and harm. The guilty plea reduction for Hewitt was miscalculated and should have been 40.5 months, not 45 months. Mulcare's role did not warrant a lesser sentence given joint enterprise principles.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part for Hewitt, refused for Mulcare

Orders

  • Hewitt's sentence substituted to 40 months 2 weeks
  • Leave to appeal refused on all other grounds