R v ART & Anor

R v ART & Anor

The sentencing judge properly applied the Overarching Guideline, considered the seriousness of the offence, the applicants' individual circumstances, and the Pre-Sentence Reports, and was entitled to conclude that only immediate detention was justified; the sentences were not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

Parties
Prosecutor: Rex; Applicant: ART; Applicant: AJB
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm, Sentencing of Children and Young People, Gang Violence, Application of Sentencing Guidelines, Youth Rehabilitation Order
Criminal Law Youth Justice Conspiracy to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm Sentencing of Children and Young People Gang Violence Application of Sentencing Guidelines Youth Rehabilitation Order

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecutor

ART

Applicant

AJB

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed on ART and AJB were manifestly excessive or wrong in principle
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge properly applied the Overarching Guideline on Sentencing Children and Young People
  3. 3 Whether sufficient consideration was given to alternatives to detention, specifically a Youth Rehabilitation Order with Intensive Supervision and Surveillance

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge properly applied the Overarching Guideline, considered the seriousness of the offence, the applicants' individual circumstances, and the Pre-Sentence Reports, and was entitled to conclude that only immediate detention was justified; the sentences were not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

Court Disposition

leave to appeal refused