Attorney General's Reference Nos. 12 and 13 of 2007

Attorney General's Reference Nos. 12 and 13 of 2007

Although the sentences were extremely lenient, the unique circumstances of the offence, the offenders' youth, lack of previous convictions, guilty pleas, and the time elapsed since sentencing justified the exercise of discretion not to interfere with the conditional discharges.

Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent: Moegtar Hussain; Respondent: Jamal Sulieman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Reference / Reference by Attorney General Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988
Outcome
Reference dismissed; original sentences upheld.
Legal Topics
Robbery, Sentencing, Conditional Discharge, Youth Offenders, Double Jeopardy
Criminal Law Robbery Sentencing Conditional Discharge Youth Offenders Double Jeopardy

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Moegtar Hussain

Respondent

Jamal Sulieman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Reference / Reference by Attorney General Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences of conditional discharge for robbery were unduly lenient
  2. 2 Whether the court should substitute a custodial or community sentence

Ratio Decidendi

Although the sentences were extremely lenient, the unique circumstances of the offence, the offenders' youth, lack of previous convictions, guilty pleas, and the time elapsed since sentencing justified the exercise of discretion not to interfere with the conditional discharges.

Court Disposition

Reference dismissed; original sentences upheld.

Orders

  • No interference with the sentences of conditional discharge.