Greaves, R. v [2022] EWCA Crim 1656 (06 December 2022)

Greaves, R. v [2022] EWCA Crim 1656 (06 December 2022)

The sentencing judge was entitled to sentence on the basis of possession, not distribution, as there was no evidence of intent to distribute. The sentence, though arguably lenient, was not unduly lenient and fell within the reasonable range. The decision to suspend the sentence and not impose a separate penalty for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] EWCA Crim 1656
Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent/offender: Nicholas Greaves
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Attorney General's Reference (criminal) / Application for Leave to Refer Sentence as Unduly Lenient Under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Indecent Images of Children, Voyeurism, Extreme Pornography, Suspended Sentences, Attorney General's Reference
Criminal Law Sentencing Indecent Images of Children Voyeurism Extreme Pornography Suspended Sentences Attorney General's Reference

Source-derived case record

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 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Nicholas Greaves

Respondent/offender

Procedural Posture

Attorney General's Reference (criminal) / Application for Leave to Refer Sentence as Unduly Lenient Under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed was unduly lenient
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge erred in applying the guideline for possession rather than distribution of indecent images
  3. 3 Whether the decision to suspend the sentence was appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge was entitled to sentence on the basis of possession, not distribution, as there was no evidence of intent to distribute. The sentence, though arguably lenient, was not unduly lenient and fell within the reasonable range. The decision to suspend the sentence and not impose a separate penalty for voyeurism was not an error justifying appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Leave to refer sentence as unduly lenient refused