Gimbert, R v

Gimbert, R v

Although the individual sentences were proper, the Recorder erred by not increasing the sentence on the most serious charge to reflect the overall seriousness. However, in the particular circumstances, including mitigation and repayment, the overall sentence was not unduly lenient and the court declined to interfere.

Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent/offender: John David Gimbert
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Reference (unduly Lenient Sentence) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Reference dismissed; sentence not interfered with.
Legal Topics
Unduly Lenient Sentence, Abuse of Trust, Theft, Conspiracy to Defraud, Sentencing Guidelines
Criminal Law Unduly Lenient Sentence Abuse of Trust Theft Conspiracy to Defraud Sentencing Guidelines

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

John David Gimbert

Respondent/offender

Procedural Posture

Criminal Reference (unduly Lenient Sentence) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed on John David Gimbert was unduly lenient under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether the Recorder failed to properly apply the principle of totality in sentencing for multiple offences involving high culpability and a vulnerable victim

Ratio Decidendi

Although the individual sentences were proper, the Recorder erred by not increasing the sentence on the most serious charge to reflect the overall seriousness. However, in the particular circumstances, including mitigation and repayment, the overall sentence was not unduly lenient and the court declined to interfere.

Court Disposition

Reference dismissed; sentence not interfered with.