R v Ben Murphy & Anor
The sentencing judge correctly categorised the offence as Category A1 under the guidelines, properly considered the value of goods targeted, justified the disparity in sentences due to prior convictions, and the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
- Parties
- Applicant: Ben Murphy; Applicant: George Murphy-Bristow; Respondent: Rex
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 18 November 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal Sentence
- Outcome
- Applications for permission to appeal sentence refused
- Legal Topics
- Robbery, Sentencing, Appeals, Sentencing Guidelines, Aggravating Factors, Disparity of Sentence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ben Murphy
Applicant
George Murphy-Bristow
Applicant
Rex
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the offence under the sentencing guidelines
- 2 Whether the value of the targeted goods was properly considered
- 3 Whether there was unjustified disparity between sentences of co-defendants
Ratio Decidendi
The sentencing judge correctly categorised the offence as Category A1 under the guidelines, properly considered the value of goods targeted, justified the disparity in sentences due to prior convictions, and the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
Court Disposition
Applications for permission to appeal sentence refused
Orders
- Renewed applications for permission to appeal sentence refused
- Requested extensions of time refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment