Bignell, R. v

Bignell, R. v

The total sentence imposed was manifestly excessive as it failed to properly apply the totality principle and did not adequately consider the less serious nature of the new offence and the time already spent on recall; the period to be served under section 116 should be reduced and ordered to be served before the new sentence.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Anthony Bignell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Sentence Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed in part; sentence varied
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm, Recall to Custody, Totality Principle
Criminal Law Sentencing Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm Recall to Custody 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Anthony Bignell

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Sentence Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the total sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in light of the totality principle and proper application of section 116 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

Ratio Decidendi

The total sentence imposed was manifestly excessive as it failed to properly apply the totality principle and did not adequately consider the less serious nature of the new offence and the time already spent on recall; the period to be served under section 116 should be reduced and ordered to be served before the new sentence.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part; sentence varied

Orders

  • Period of return to custody under section 116 reduced to twelve months, to be served before the twelve-month sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
  • No recovery of defence costs order.