Rudd, R v

Rudd, R v

The sentencing judge was correct to apply the Sentencing Council Guidelines, properly assessed the appellant's culpability and role, and there was no objectionable disparity with the sentences of co-defendants. The sentence imposed was within the appropriate range and reflected the totality of the offending.

Parties
Prosecutor: Regina; Appellant: Andrew John Rudd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Perverting the Course of Justice, Conspiracy to Defraud, Sentencing Guidelines, Disparity in Sentencing, Totality Principle
Criminal Law Perverting the Course of Justice Conspiracy to Defraud Sentencing Guidelines Disparity in Sentencing Totality Principle

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecutor

Andrew John Rudd

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in applying the Sentencing Council Guidelines for Fraud and Bribery and Money Laundering offences
  2. 2 Whether there was objectionable disparity between the appellant's sentence and those of co-defendants
  3. 3 Whether the starting point for the car wash offence was too high given the appellant's culpability and role

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge was correct to apply the Sentencing Council Guidelines, properly assessed the appellant's culpability and role, and there was no objectionable disparity with the sentences of co-defendants. The sentence imposed was within the appropriate range and reflected the totality of the offending.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed