R v Andrew Hodgetts
The sentence of 27 months was manifestly excessive because the aggravating factors did not outweigh the strong mitigation; the correct notional sentence after trial should have been 30 months, reduced by 25% for the guilty plea to 22 months. Immediate custody remained appropriate due to the seriousness and history of non-compliance.
- Parties
- Prosecutor: Rex; Appellant: Andrew Hodgetts
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 25 October 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal allowed in part
- Legal Topics
- Stalking, Sentencing, Mental Health and Sentencing, Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rex
Prosecutor
Andrew Hodgetts
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed for stalking was manifestly excessive and wrong in principle
- 2 Whether the judge erred in categorising the offence as high culpability and high harm under the sentencing guidelines
- 3 Whether the appellant's mental health should have reduced culpability or been given greater weight in mitigation
Ratio Decidendi
The sentence of 27 months was manifestly excessive because the aggravating factors did not outweigh the strong mitigation; the correct notional sentence after trial should have been 30 months, reduced by 25% for the guilty plea to 22 months. Immediate custody remained appropriate due to the seriousness and history of non-compliance.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed in part
Orders
- Sentence of 27 months on count 1 quashed and substituted with 22 months' imprisonment
- Sentence on count 2 (three months concurrent) not disturbed
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