Gaves, R. v

Gaves, R. v

The original sentence was unduly lenient because the judge went below the minimum range of the Sentencing Guidelines without sufficient justification, especially given the offender's abuse of trust as a prison officer and the need for deterrence. The correct approach was to start at 7 years before credit for plea,...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent: Crown; Offender: Hannah Jane Gaves
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentence Review on Reference by Attorney General
Outcome
sentence quashed and substituted
Legal Topics
Unduly Lenient Sentence, Drug Offences, Abuse of Position, Prison Officer Misconduct
Criminal Law Unduly Lenient Sentence Drug Offences Abuse of Position Prison Officer Misconduct

Source-derived case record

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

Crown

Respondent

Hannah Jane Gaves

Offender

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentence Review on Reference by Attorney General

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed was unduly lenient
  2. 2 Appropriate categorisation under Sentencing Guidelines for drug offences by prison officers
  3. 3 Mitigating and aggravating factors in sentencing

Ratio Decidendi

The original sentence was unduly lenient because the judge went below the minimum range of the Sentencing Guidelines without sufficient justification, especially given the offender's abuse of trust as a prison officer and the need for deterrence. The correct approach was to start at 7 years before credit for plea, resulting in 4 years 8 months imprisonment.

Court Disposition

sentence quashed and substituted

Orders

  • Sentence on count 1 quashed
  • Substituted sentence of 4 years 8 months imprisonment