Attorney General's Reference No. 12 OF 2006 [2006] EWCA Crim 936 (29 March 2006)

Attorney General's Reference No. 12 OF 2006 [2006] EWCA Crim 936 (29 March 2006)

An immediate custodial sentence was required at first instance for possession of nearly 5 kilograms of cannabis with intent to supply, but given the offender's completion of a significant portion of the community sentence and the principle of double jeopardy, it is not appropriate to interfere with the original sentence at this stage.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Crim 936
Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Offender/respondent: Rupert Hardy Sinclair
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (attorney General's Reference) / Hearing of Reference Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988
Outcome
Reference dismissed; original sentence upheld
Legal Topics
Unduly Lenient Sentences, Possession With Intent to Supply (drugs), Possession of Bladed Article, Sentencing Guidelines, Double Jeopardy in Sentencing
Criminal Law Unduly Lenient Sentences Possession With Intent to Supply (drugs) Possession of Bladed Article Sentencing Guidelines Double Jeopardy in Sentencing

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Rupert Hardy Sinclair

Offender/respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (attorney General's Reference) / Hearing of Reference Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed was unduly lenient
  2. 2 Appropriate sentencing for possession of a Class C drug with intent to supply
  3. 3 Effect of pre-sentence report based on inaccurate antecedents

Ratio Decidendi

An immediate custodial sentence was required at first instance for possession of nearly 5 kilograms of cannabis with intent to supply, but given the offender's completion of a significant portion of the community sentence and the principle of double jeopardy, it is not appropriate to interfere with the original sentence at this stage.

Court Disposition

Reference dismissed; original sentence upheld

Orders

  • No interference with the sentences passed below