Attorney General's Reference No 82 of 2004

Attorney General's Reference No 82 of 2004

Although the sentence of 3 years was lenient and a higher sentence would have been expected, it was not so unduly lenient as to require intervention by the Court of Appeal, especially considering the offender's progress in prison and the principle of double jeopardy in resentencing.

Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent: Offender (unnamed)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Reference / Appeal Against Sentence Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988
Outcome
Reference dismissed; sentence not increased.
Legal Topics
Manslaughter, Unduly Lenient Sentence, Infanticide, Sentencing Guidelines
Criminal Law Manslaughter Unduly Lenient Sentence Infanticide Sentencing Guidelines

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

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Offender (unnamed)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Reference / Appeal Against Sentence Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence of 3 years' imprisonment for manslaughter of a child was unduly lenient
  2. 2 Appropriate sentencing range for manslaughter by a parent involving loss of temper and shaking of an infant

Ratio Decidendi

Although the sentence of 3 years was lenient and a higher sentence would have been expected, it was not so unduly lenient as to require intervention by the Court of Appeal, especially considering the offender's progress in prison and the principle of double jeopardy in resentencing.

Court Disposition

Reference dismissed; sentence not increased.