Attorney-General's Reference No.35 of 2007

Attorney-General's Reference No.35 of 2007

Taking into account the seriousness of the offence, the public setting, the number of people put in fear, and the relevant authorities, a sentence below two years' imprisonment would have been inappropriate. Double jeopardy and mitigation reduce the sentence to 12 months' imprisonment.

Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Offender/respondent: Mark John Hird
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Reference / Sentence Review on Attorney General's Reference
Outcome
original sentence quashed; substituted with 12 months' imprisonment
Legal Topics
Firearms Offences, Sentencing, Unduly Lenient Sentences, Double Jeopardy
Criminal Law Firearms Offences Sentencing Unduly Lenient Sentences Double Jeopardy

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

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Mark John Hird

Offender/respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Reference / Sentence Review on Attorney General's Reference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate sentence for possession of an imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of violence?
  2. 2 Was the original sentence unduly lenient?

Ratio Decidendi

Taking into account the seriousness of the offence, the public setting, the number of people put in fear, and the relevant authorities, a sentence below two years' imprisonment would have been inappropriate. Double jeopardy and mitigation reduce the sentence to 12 months' imprisonment.

Court Disposition

original sentence quashed; substituted with 12 months' imprisonment

Orders

  • Offender to surrender at Leigh police station by midday tomorrow
  • Sentence to run from surrender