Attorney General Reference No 90 & 91 of 2006

Attorney General Reference No 90 & 91 of 2006

The sentences imposed were unduly lenient. For Botchett, the violence was extreme, the offences were committed during burglaries, and his record and conduct established dangerousness. The presumption of dangerousness was not displaced; thus, imprisonment for public protection was required, with a notional determinate sentence of 10 years (reflecting a reduced discount for late plea). For Richards, his role was less culpable but still warranted a substantial sentence; 6 years' imprisonment was appropriate, reflecting the totality of his offending and a reduced discount for late plea.

Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Offender: Botchett; Offender: Richards
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Reference / Appeal Against Sentence (attorney General's Reference Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988)
Outcome
sentences increased on reference; Botchett sentenced to imprisonment for public protection with 5-year minimum term; Richards sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment
Legal Topics
Manslaughter, Burglary, Sentencing, Dangerous Offenders, Imprisonment for Public Protection
Criminal Law Manslaughter Burglary Sentencing Dangerous Offenders Imprisonment for Public Protection

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Botchett

Offender

Richards

Offender

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed for manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, theft, attempted burglary, and burglary were unduly lenient
  2. 2 Whether the offender Botchett should have been sentenced to imprisonment for public protection as a dangerous offender
  3. 3 Whether concurrent sentences were appropriate for the offences committed

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences imposed were unduly lenient. For Botchett, the violence was extreme, the offences were committed during burglaries, and his record and conduct established dangerousness. The presumption of dangerousness was not displaced; thus, imprisonment for public protection was required, with a notional determinate sentence of 10 years (reflecting a reduced discount for late plea). For Richards, his role was less culpable but still warranted a substantial sentence; 6 years' imprisonment was appropriate, reflecting the totality of his offending and a reduced discount for late plea.

Court Disposition

sentences increased on reference; Botchett sentenced to imprisonment for public protection with 5-year minimum term; Richards sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment

Orders

  • Botchett: imprisonment for public protection for manslaughter (minimum term 5 years less time served); 2 years' imprisonment with 1-day extension for grievous bodily harm; other sentences concurrent
  • Richards: 6 years' imprisonment for manslaughter; other sentences concurrent; time served to be deducted