Wright, R. v

Wright, R. v

The sentence imposed on Wright was too high and did not sufficiently reflect the differences in role and culpability between him and his co-accused, particularly Vango and Williams. A starting point of 24 years was appropriate, with a full discount for the guilty plea, resulting in a substituted sentence of 16 years' imprisonment.

Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: Andrew Wright
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentence reduced
Legal Topics
Drug Offences, Sentencing, Conspiracy, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Drug Offences Sentencing Conspiracy Appeal Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 23
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

Andrew Wright

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed on Andrew Wright was manifestly excessive compared to his co-accused and his role in the conspiracy
  2. 2 Whether full credit for early guilty plea was properly given

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence imposed on Wright was too high and did not sufficiently reflect the differences in role and culpability between him and his co-accused, particularly Vango and Williams. A starting point of 24 years was appropriate, with a full discount for the guilty plea, resulting in a substituted sentence of 16 years' imprisonment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentence reduced

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Sentence of 19 years imprisonment quashed