Attorney General's Reference No 52 of 2004

The sentence imposed was unduly lenient given the gravity and aggravating features of the offences. A sentence of 8 or 9 years would have been appropriate, but considering double jeopardy, a total sentence of 7 years' imprisonment is substituted for the original concurrent sentences.

Parties: Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent: Offender (unnamed)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 28 October 2004
Procedural Posture: Criminal Reference / Appeal Against Sentence (attorney General's Reference Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988)
Outcome: Sentence increased on reference
Legal Topics: Sentencing, Robbery, Possession of Offensive Weapon, Handling Stolen Goods, Unduly Lenient Sentences

Criminal Law Sentencing Robbery Possession of Offensive Weapon Handling Stolen Goods 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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Offender (unnamed)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Reference / Appeal Against Sentence (attorney General's Reference Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988)

Legal Issues

1 Whether the sentence imposed for multiple robberies, handling stolen goods, and possession of offensive weapons was unduly lenient

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Sentence increased on reference

Orders

Sentences of 5, 4, and 3 years for robbery quashed and substituted with 7 years' imprisonment each, to run concurrently.
Sentences for handling and possession of offensive weapons remain unaffected.