Edwards, R v [2009] EWCA Crim 132 (20 January 2009)
The original sentence was unduly lenient because it was based on an incorrect assessment that the victim seduced the offender and failed to reflect the seriousness of the offences. An immediate custodial sentence of twelve months' imprisonment is appropriate, with all sentences to run concurrently.
- Citation
- [2009] EWCA Crim 132
- Parties
- Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent/offender: Sharon Edwards
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 20 January 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal (attorney General's Reference) / Sentence Review Under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; sentence increased
- Legal Topics
- Unduly Lenient Sentences, Sexual Offences With a Child, Supply of Controlled Drugs, Sentencing Guidelines
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Attorney General
Applicant
Sharon Edwards
Respondent/offender
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (attorney General's Reference) / Sentence Review Under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the original sentence was unduly lenient
- 2 Whether the sentence should have been suspended
- 3 Appropriate sentence for sexual activity with a child and offering to supply a controlled drug
Ratio Decidendi
The original sentence was unduly lenient because it was based on an incorrect assessment that the victim seduced the offender and failed to reflect the seriousness of the offences. An immediate custodial sentence of twelve months' imprisonment is appropriate, with all sentences to run concurrently.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; sentence increased
Orders
- The suspended sentence is quashed.
- Twelve months' imprisonment on each count, all to run concurrently, to take effect immediately upon surrender to custody.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment