Hartfield, R. v

Hartfield, R. v

The sentencing judge properly considered both aggravating and mitigating factors, including the absence of an actual victim and the offences being attempts. The starting point and credit for pleas were appropriate, and suspending the sentence was within judicial discretion. The sentence was not unduly lenient.

Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent: Christopher Hartfield
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Reference / Application for Leave to Refer Sentence as Unduly Lenient
Outcome
Leave to refer refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Sexual Offences, Attempted Offences, Unduly Lenient Sentences
Criminal Law Sentencing Sexual Offences Attempted Offences Unduly Lenient Sentences

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

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Christopher Hartfield

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Reference / Application for Leave to Refer Sentence as Unduly Lenient

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed was unduly lenient given the aggravating and mitigating factors
  2. 2 Appropriate categorisation of harm and culpability for attempted sexual offences involving a fictitious child

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge properly considered both aggravating and mitigating factors, including the absence of an actual victim and the offences being attempts. The starting point and credit for pleas were appropriate, and suspending the sentence was within judicial discretion. The sentence was not unduly lenient.

Court Disposition

Leave to refer refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • No change to the original sentence.
  • Application to refer sentence to Court of Appeal refused.