Bishop, R v

Bishop, R v

The original sentence was unduly lenient and failed to properly apply the sentencing guidelines. The offence fell within category 3B, with aggravating and mitigating factors considered. The appropriate sentence is 21 months' imprisonment, suspended for 24 months.

Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent: Christopher Bishop
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal (attorney General's Reference Under Section 36 Criminal Justice Act 1988)
Outcome
sentence substituted
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Assault by Penetration, Domestic Violence, Leniency of Sentence
Criminal Law Sentencing Assault by Penetration Domestic Violence Leniency of Sentence

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

Christopher Bishop

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Appeal (attorney General's Reference Under Section 36 Criminal Justice Act 1988)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the sentence for assault by penetration unduly lenient?
  2. 2 Did the judge properly apply the sentencing guidelines?
  3. 3 Should the sentence be increased or substituted?

Ratio Decidendi

The original sentence was unduly lenient and failed to properly apply the sentencing guidelines. The offence fell within category 3B, with aggravating and mitigating factors considered. The appropriate sentence is 21 months' imprisonment, suspended for 24 months.

Court Disposition

sentence substituted

Orders

  • Original sentence of four months' imprisonment quashed.
  • Substituted sentence of 21 months' imprisonment, suspended for 24 months.