AS, R. v [2018] EWCA Crim 318 (15 February 2018)

AS, R. v [2018] EWCA Crim 318 (15 February 2018)

Serious ill health or terminal illness may justify reduction in sentence only in exceptional cases where imprisonment weighs substantially more heavily on the offender than on others; fresh evidence of deterioration may be admitted but does not automatically warrant suspension or immediate release. The sentencing judge must balance personal hardship against the seriousness of the offence and public interest. In AS's case, the mitigation was sufficiently accounted for and did not justify suspension; in SM's case, the judge erred in not treating terminal illness as mitigation, and the sentence was reduced but not suspended.

Citation
[2018] EWCA Crim 318
Parties
Appellant: AS; Appellant: SM; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
AS's appeal dismissed; SM's appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Mitigation for Serious Illness, Compassionate Release, Sexual Offences, Rape
Criminal Law Sentencing Mitigation for Serious Illness Compassionate Release Sexual Offences Rape

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AS

Appellant

SM

Appellant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether serious ill health or terminal illness justifies suspension or reduction of custodial sentence
  2. 2 Whether fresh medical evidence post-sentencing can be admitted to vary sentence
  3. 3 Proper application of Bernard principles in sentencing seriously ill or elderly offenders

Ratio Decidendi

Serious ill health or terminal illness may justify reduction in sentence only in exceptional cases where imprisonment weighs substantially more heavily on the offender than on others; fresh evidence of deterioration may be admitted but does not automatically warrant suspension or immediate release. The sentencing judge must balance personal hardship against the seriousness of the offence and public interest. In AS's case, the mitigation was sufficiently accounted for and did not justify suspension; in SM's case, the judge erred in not treating terminal illness as mitigation, and the sentence was reduced but not suspended.

Court Disposition

AS's appeal dismissed; SM's appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • AS: sentence of 20 months' imprisonment upheld; sexual harm prevention order continues
  • SM: sentence of 9 years' imprisonment quashed and substituted with 5 years' imprisonment; extension of time granted; leave to appeal granted