Uddin, R. v [2022] EWCA Crim 751 (28 April 2022)

Uddin, R. v [2022] EWCA Crim 751 (28 April 2022)

It is lawful to suspend a minimum sentence imposed under section 315 of the Sentencing Code, but such suspension will only rarely be appropriate due to the intended punitive and deterrent effect. In this case, the original sentence was unduly lenient, but the Court exercised its discretion not to increase the sentence due to the offender's progress and circumstances since sentencing.

Citation
[2022] EWCA Crim 751
Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Offender/respondent: Faris Uddin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Attorney General's Reference (criminal) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Reference Under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
Outcome
Sentence found unduly lenient, but no increase or variation ordered; original sentence remains unaltered.
Legal Topics
Minimum Sentences, Suspended Sentences, Robbery, Bladed Articles, Young Offenders, Unduly Lenient Sentences
Criminal Law Sentencing Minimum Sentences Suspended Sentences Robbery Bladed Articles Young Offenders Unduly Lenient Sentences

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Faris Uddin

Offender/respondent

Procedural Posture

Attorney General's Reference (criminal) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Reference Under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is it lawful to suspend a minimum sentence imposed under section 315 of the Sentencing Code for a repeat offence involving a weapon or bladed article?
  2. 2 Was the sentence imposed on Faris Uddin unduly lenient?
  3. 3 Should the Court of Appeal exercise its discretion to increase the sentence?

Ratio Decidendi

It is lawful to suspend a minimum sentence imposed under section 315 of the Sentencing Code, but such suspension will only rarely be appropriate due to the intended punitive and deterrent effect. In this case, the original sentence was unduly lenient, but the Court exercised its discretion not to increase the sentence due to the offender's progress and circumstances since sentencing.

Court Disposition

Sentence found unduly lenient, but no increase or variation ordered; original sentence remains unaltered.

Orders

  • Leave to refer granted.
  • Crown Court record to be corrected to reflect detention in a young offender institution, not imprisonment, and deprivation order made under section 153 of the Sentencing Code.