Attorney General's Reference Nos 31, 45, 43, 42, 50 & 51 of 2003 [2004] EWCA Crim 1934 (16 July 2004)

Attorney General's Reference Nos 31, 45, 43, 42, 50 & 51 of 2003 [2004] EWCA Crim 1934 (16 July 2004)

The Court of Appeal will only substitute a sentence if it is manifestly unduly lenient, fails to reflect aggravating factors, or is wrong in principle. Exceptional circumstances and progress since sentencing may justify retention of original sentence. Double jeopardy is considered in any substituted sentence.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Crim 1934
Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent: Thomas McInerney; Respondent: Adele McLean; Respondent: Daniel Burgess; Respondent: Anthony Cottrill (AC); Respondent: Surinder Lehal; Respondent: Bhupinder Lehal
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Attorney General's Reference (criminal) / Court of Appeal Review of Sentence
Outcome
Mixed: In three cases (McInerney, McLean, Lehal), no order was made; in two cases (Burgess, AC), original sentences were quashed and substituted with custodial sentences.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Unduly Lenient Sentences, Double Jeopardy, Perverting the Course of Justice, Sexual Offences, Robbery, Violent Offences
Criminal Law Sentencing Unduly Lenient Sentences Double Jeopardy Perverting the Course of Justice Sexual Offences Robbery Violent Offences

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Thomas McInerney

Respondent

Adele McLean

Respondent

Daniel Burgess

Respondent

Anthony Cottrill (AC)

Respondent

Surinder Lehal

Respondent

Bhupinder Lehal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Attorney General's Reference (criminal) / Court of Appeal Review of Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sentences imposed were unduly lenient and should be substituted with more severe sentences
  2. 2 Appropriate exercise of discretion under Criminal Justice Act 1988 s.36
  3. 3 Application of sentencing guidelines and exceptional circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal will only substitute a sentence if it is manifestly unduly lenient, fails to reflect aggravating factors, or is wrong in principle. Exceptional circumstances and progress since sentencing may justify retention of original sentence. Double jeopardy is considered in any substituted sentence.

Court Disposition

Mixed: In three cases (McInerney, McLean, Lehal), no order was made; in two cases (Burgess, AC), original sentences were quashed and substituted with custodial sentences.

Orders

  • No order on Attorney General's application for Thomas McInerney.
  • No order on Attorney General's application for Adele McLean.