Attorney General's Reference No 28 of 2004

Attorney General's Reference No 28 of 2004

The original sentence was unduly lenient as it failed to reflect the gravity of the offence and public concern; a sentence of 4 years would have been appropriate but, considering double jeopardy, a sentence of 3 years' detention under section 91 is substituted.

Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent: Offender (unnamed)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Reference / Attorney General's Reference Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988; Sentence Review by Court of Appeal
Outcome
Sentence increased
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Wounding With Intent, Unduly Lenient Sentence, Double Jeopardy in Sentencing
Criminal Law Sentencing Wounding With Intent Unduly Lenient Sentence Double Jeopardy in Sentencing

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Offender (unnamed)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Reference / Attorney General's Reference Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988; Sentence Review by Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed for wounding with intent was unduly lenient
  2. 2 Appropriate sentence for a young offender with aggravating and mitigating factors

Ratio Decidendi

The original sentence was unduly lenient as it failed to reflect the gravity of the offence and public concern; a sentence of 4 years would have been appropriate but, considering double jeopardy, a sentence of 3 years' detention under section 91 is substituted.

Court Disposition

Sentence increased

Orders

  • Original sentence of 18 months detention and training order quashed
  • Substituted with 3 years' detention under section 91