Attorney General Reference Nos 99, 100, 101 & 102 of 2004

Attorney General Reference Nos 99, 100, 101 & 102 of 2004

The sentences, though lenient, were not unduly lenient when double jeopardy is considered; the Court declined to interfere with the sentences imposed by the trial judge.

Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent: Jules Whiteway; Respondent: Tom Connell; Respondent: James Long; Respondent: Milroy Nadarajah
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Reference / Appeal
Outcome
reference dismissed; sentences not interfered with
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Drug Offences, Conspiracy, Double Jeopardy, Unduly Lenient Sentences
Criminal Law Sentencing Drug Offences Conspiracy Double Jeopardy 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Jules Whiteway

Respondent

Tom Connell

Respondent

James Long

Respondent

Milroy Nadarajah

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Reference / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Were the sentences imposed on the respondents unduly lenient?
  2. 2 Should the Court interfere with the sentences given double jeopardy concerns?

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences, though lenient, were not unduly lenient when double jeopardy is considered; the Court declined to interfere with the sentences imposed by the trial judge.

Court Disposition

reference dismissed; sentences not interfered with