JM, R v

JM, R v

The original sentence was unduly lenient due to judicial error regarding the maximum sentence. Applying the correct staged approach, the offence warranted a custodial sentence, but exceptional circumstances justified suspension.

Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent: JM
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Reference / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
sentence quashed and substituted
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Sexual Offences, Youth Offenders, Appeal, Unduly Lenient Sentence
Criminal Law Sentencing Sexual Offences Youth Offenders Appeal Unduly Lenient 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

JM

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Reference / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the original sentence was unduly lenient
  2. 2 Proper approach to sentencing for historic sexual offences committed by a youth
  3. 3 Application of modern sentencing guidelines to historic offences

Ratio Decidendi

The original sentence was unduly lenient due to judicial error regarding the maximum sentence. Applying the correct staged approach, the offence warranted a custodial sentence, but exceptional circumstances justified suspension.

Court Disposition

sentence quashed and substituted

Orders

  • Sentence of 24 months' imprisonment suspended for 12 months
  • 12 month supervision order